Whistleblowers are heroes.

[Seth]

Traitors normally do not post their intelligence on the internet for all to see.

A traitor normally has material gain in mind. Meaning he/she will sell the data to an agency with an agenda.

Nonsense. Traitors always have ideological objectives in mind. Jules Rosenberg didn't make a dime giving secrets to the Soviets. Neither did Snowden. Neither did most of the other traitors who have betrayed the United States.

[Seth]

A 'traitor' probably has their own survival in mind first.

If I was a traitor, I'd seed my 'intelligence' in plainsight around teh interwebz and have numerous 'dead man' switches in place to coallate it and release it in the event that the undesirable occured. It would be pretty spiffing easy even if the traitor was under surveillance.

After that > Profit!

Profit and pretty fucked.. not much more to do after that. No one will ever let you near sensitive information again. Even sympathizers. Snowden is a living martyr.

Perhaps. What he should be is a dead martyr.

[Blind groper]

Snowden revealed a lot of corruption in American politics and in the military. He caused a lot of VIP's a lot of embarassment. So he is a traitor?

[Seth]

Snowden revealed a lot of corruption in American politics and in the military. He caused a lot of VIP's a lot of embarassment. So he is a traitor?

Yes. He also revealed a lot of classified information that was NOT evidence of corruption but that was essential national security information, like the identities of covert agents and those who had assisted our intelligence efforts that factually resulted in some of those individuals being killed by our enemies. That's absolutely "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" which is the very definition of treason.

Had he only stolen and released information proving corruption by some government official to the proper authorities under the Whistleblower Act, then he would not be facing execution now.

But he didn't, he stole innumerable documents in bulk and then released them in a way calculated to transmit them to our enemies, and that's treason.

[Jason]

It's treason to rebel against a viciously corrupt system of government? Fuck me.

Hang the founding fathers! One lantern or two?

What have you got inside that head of yours Seth? Do you even think? Having readi a lot of your repetitive rhetoric for 5 years makes me wonder.

[Seth]

It's treason to rebel against a viciously corrupt system of government? Fuck me.

History is written by the victors. The rule of rebellion is you'd better be right and you'd better win, otherwise you're traitors and terrorists.

Hang the founding fathers! One lantern or two?

What have you got inside that head of yours Seth? Do you even think? Having readi a lot of your repetitive rhetoric for 5 years makes me wonder.

Brains. Something I have reason to believe you don't.

[Jason]

Brains you might have, but it seems to me that they've atrophied and you're stuck in some kind of myopic intellectual stasis.

[JimC]

Individual humans, from time to time, will decide to work against the interests of their tribe, whether that be a nation, a company or any other clearly defined social entity they belong to.

If you want to use the word "treason" in its broadest possible application, then these folks are all traitors. However, the motivation of the individual, and the ethical position of the group they are "betraying" is the key. A member of a violent criminal group that turns informer could be regarded as a traitor, and their motivations may be venal (reduced sentence and/or financial reward), but if that is treachery, then it is a form that most civilised societies would encourage.

Modern day whistleblowers may have mixed motives, but one must carefully examine the value to humanity that their release of secrets brings, versus the harmful consequences to the group. If the harmful consequences are to people or organisations that are judged to be unethical in their actions, then the actions of the whistleblower may represent a greater good. However, such a judgement would be on a case by case basis...

[Jason]

Yes, but how are people to judge the ethical position of the "traitor's" group without such 'traitors'? Seems like a bit of necessary catch-22 to me. Not that I envy Snowden. I hope he likes Siberia. I found it invigorating, in a brutal spiteful way.

I've never been to Siberia, but I've heard a lot about it.

[Seth]

Brains you might have, but it seems to me that they've atrophied and you're stuck in some kind of myopic intellectual stasis.

It just appears that way to you from the bottom of the tiny crevice you inhabit.

[Seth]

Individual humans, from time to time, will decide to work against the interests of their tribe, whether that be a nation, a company or any other clearly defined social entity they belong to.

If you want to use the word "treason" in its broadest possible application, then these folks are all traitors. However, the motivation of the individual, and the ethical position of the group they are "betraying" is the key. A member of a violent criminal group that turns informer could be regarded as a traitor, and their motivations may be venal (reduced sentence and/or financial reward), but if that is treachery, then it is a form that most civilised societies would encourage.

Modern day whistleblowers may have mixed motives, but one must carefully examine the value to humanity that their release of secrets brings, versus the harmful consequences to the group. If the harmful consequences are to people or organisations that are judged to be unethical in their actions, then the actions of the whistleblower may represent a greater good. However, such a judgement would be on a case by case basis...

As I said, history is written by the victors. Anyway, you're right and a large part of such judgments has to do with not just the motive, but the method, means and consequences. The best of intentions does not automatically excuse either intended or unintended consequences, and the method and means must comport with the gravity of the intentions and consequences. That's the important thing that Assange, Snowden and Manning either forgot or decided to ignore completely, which is what makes their actions traitorous rather than admirable. Revealing the extent of NSA snooping is indeed for the greater good because the government has IMHO no legitimate reason to not tell its citizens that they are being watched in particular ways. It is incumbent on the government to do exactly the opposite and be completely open about WHAT they are watching while not necessarily revealing HOW they are doing so. As citizens we have a right to know that the NSA is scanning our email and online activities because that gives us the opportunity to make rational decisions about how we participate in such activities, whether we are concerned with this surveillance at all, or whether as a nation we object to it and therefore can act to revoke that authority that the government is exercising and choose to take the risks associated with doing so that may result.

In WWII, amateur radio operators were flatly forbidden to use their radios because of the perfectly rational and in fact actual concern that Nazi spies would be able to pass vital war information via the airwaves undetected among the mass of innocent amateur radio traffic. The government made the rule and people agreed with the need and obeyed it.

If the NSA wants to be completely open about what they are scanning and tell us exactly why and how that information may be used, then we get to decide if we want to authorize them to continue. What pisses most people off is the notion that the NSA, on the orders of the administration, is doing these things without telling us simply because they can and because they think they know better than we do what sort of privacy we citizens need or desire. One solution that would remove many of my concerns would be a law, or better yet a constitutional amendment saying that no information gained through the use of such surveillance technology can be used as evidence against any citizen of the United States unless that person is actively engaged in felonious terrorist activities in collusion with foreign terrorists, and that no such evidence shall be released or revealed in any way whatsoever to local law enforcement but can only be used by specific federal anti-terrorist forces. This would relieve some of the fear that domestic surveillance would be turned against the average citizen by making the power and technology of the federal government available to local police for state or local law enforcement purposes.

[Jason]

Brains you might have, but it seems to me that they've atrophied and you're stuck in some kind of myopic intellectual stasis.

It just appears that way to you from the bottom of the tiny crevice you inhabit.

Whatever.

[Seth]

Brains you might have, but it seems to me that they've atrophied and you're stuck in some kind of myopic intellectual stasis.

It just appears that way to you from the bottom of the tiny crevice you inhabit.

Whatever.

Yup, whatever. We wouldn't have to go through this if you would control yourself and avoid the insults.

[Blind groper]

Re traitors

This is an entirely relative and individual definition. From the viewpoint of patriots for Britain, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and all their ilk were traitors. If caught by the redcoats, they would have been put up in front of a firing squad as traitors. On the other hand, Benedict Arnold was a patriot. A fine human being.

It is all in your personal definiton.

[JimC]

Re traitors

This is an entirely relative and individual definition. From the viewpoint of patriots for Britain, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and all their ilk were traitors. If caught by the redcoats, they would have been put up in front of a firing squad as traitors. On the other hand, Benedict Arnold was a patriot. A fine human being.

It is all in your personal definiton.

Some judgements can be made, however...

There is a significant ethical difference between those who betray their group/nation for financial gain, vs those who do so on some matter of principle, whether that may appear misguided or not.