It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NSA Leaker is 'Traitor', says Boehner

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 09:10 PM
Boehner, what can you say? A real class act!

He is calling who a traitor? And he is not?

Wonder who wrote his interview.

I wonder if he read from some ones teleprompter.

By the way, he is getting ready to pass the illegal immigration bill also. No more illegal immigration people!!!

I wonder if he really sleeps well, along with all the mainstream media and washington trash. These people are sick, on many levels.

I call it "The family values Tour" revisited! This current tour doesn't rock AT ALL!

They all maybe sleeping well now, I very much doubt it, hence the reason that they are all drugged, smoked and boozed up, (remember, they don't drug test our political leaders)

but their eternal life is going to be, lets just say, a little less than stellar!

posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
John Boehner needs a lesson in law and the difference between a statement of fact and silly hyperbole.

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(Source: Cornel University Law School

Treason isn't some vague notion. It's not what we say it is or what we'd like it to be. Treason is defined, like no other crime in the United States, right in the US Constitution itself......and Boehner is a blithering idiot who also needs shown the door in the next election he's up in. Republican or not. He's a fool with ignorant statements like that, as if he knew what he was talking about.

Death or $10k fine and five years? Man there's a lot of latitude in there LOL

I can think of quite a few members of Congress and the Office of the President that more closely fit the definition of treason.

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 01:28 AM

Originally posted by WonderBoi
IMHO, 'traitors' are those that work in D.C. and call themselves 'politicians'.

Damn straight, and the rest of the world knows this. Expect little support from ANY other country, don't expect ANY other country to think it is ethical what the U.S. is doing.

Europe is pissed off, more pissed than Putin even.

The only ones who think it is ethical are the ones who have to to avoid getting captured by Homeland Security and / or deal with the cognitive dissidence this whole thing causes by making up ways to justify it.
edit on 12-6-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 03:05 AM
So, I guess anyone who calls out our "mighty leaders", for their illegal activities, will now be considered "traitors", as well as: "terrorists"?
The next generation doesn't stand a chance! Let me apologize to them, now, for our generation's lack of FIGHT and the inability to stand for what's RIGHT!

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 04:32 AM

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Treason isn't some vague notion. It's not what we say it is or what we'd like it to be.

Oh, I don't know, I suspect you could make a case that Snowden gave aid to our enemies by revealing a technical capability. That's explicitly covered in a number of USCs as well, what was it, 794? (peeks)

Yep, they can execute him under 794 without a trial by jury.

It's one of those little things they drill into you as you are read onto a TS project. To wit:

Behold: 18 USC 794

Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power (as defined in section 101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) of an individual acting as an agent of the United States and consequently in the death of that individual, or directly concerned nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy.

Now, having had the security officers of any number of installations do the death by slides (794 has got its own special ppt presentation) on this one with me, let me point out the salient bits of this paragraph.

First bar: If you have reason to believe that this info COULD be used either against the US OR for a foreign state, friend or not, then this qualifies. It's hard to see how Snowden could claim ignorance of this. As the SOs say, this # is only secret BECAUSE in the opinion of the US it will injure the US's interests to reveal, otherwise we'd have published it.

I might point out your 'belief' in this regard is covered by the reading of the document. You are informed it will. There's no dodging the belief bullet here with rhetoric in court. You affirm you understand this in writing, btw.

Thus, by having affirmed his understanding of it, he's in there.

Next bar: communicates...information relating to the national defense, shall be imprisoned for life or punished by death

Well, he communicated it alright. And it does relate to the national defense, or they could surely make a case for it.

Next bar: the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury, or if there is no jury, the court...

Note well. The implication here is that a federal court judge can and will sentence your nappy ass behind closed doors. If you are a civilian and they cannot empanel a jury of jurists with sufficiently high clearances to hear the case (and often they cannot) you will be tried by a special judge in closed court. There are legal firms that specialize in defending TS cases, so you can get a TS/SCI clearance lawyer, but you will likely not find a jury any time soon.

Final bar: to get death you have to expose an agent who is then killed, or one of a number of pretty damned wide categories, and in his case I think you could argue that he exposed some method of defense against large scale attack, or communications intelligence, or defense strategy.

So either way, technically I suppose you could call him a traitor. Legally, you've always got 794 to bash contractor's heads with. It's the nuclear weapon of retaliation against unauthorized exposure, and they really mean it. That's why I find it hard to take people like Corso or Greer's bunch seriously.

Oh, and of course, there's the conspiracy adder in 794, if you discuss your little plan with the wifey or the kids or the neighbor and then you DO it, you've killed them too. If they want to go that far.
edit on 12-6-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 05:09 AM

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Originally posted by neo96

Total victory could have been acheived in less than a week, but for some inexplicable reason the US never entered Afghanistan with that in mind.

Afghanistan is all about the opium, we'll never leave and we will always be given some reason to stay, but it's really all about the opium...

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 06:20 AM
reply to post by Bedlam

Spoken like a brainwashed soldier. Luckily, some of us have moved beyond the 'law and order' stage of moral development.

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 10:34 AM
reply to post by Bedlam

I figured someone with T.S. clearance or a background of it would pop in for an opinion. lol... ATS is that kinda place, isn't it?

Seriously... You're right about the fact Snowden has broken laws. No question there. He knew it and he's openly said he knows it, which is part of why I respect him thus far. He's made no attempt to whitewash what he's done, only explain why and use personal judgment in the how's of it so that damage to individuals is prevented or minimized to the fullest extent possible.

I don't agree with Treason as defined. The reason is simply that the way I'm reading it, intent matters. Intent, while not the sole element, IS an element of consideration. For example... There were defectors in Vietnam. It's a very seldom discussed aspect of the Vietnam war and for obvious reasons. I came across that dark side of the war quite by accident in reading the accounts of a "hunter" operating in the final stages of the war to tie off those loose ends before the U.S. left entirely. I was surprised actually..but low and behold, there were a couple.

Those defectors gave up information that cost lives. I doubt anyone can much question it. However, so did the POW's. They also gave up critical information that cost lives. Intent. One did so by choice, with intent to aid and assist the enemy. The other did so to make the blinding pain and agony stop when they reached the point they could no longer endure, as all men captured eventually did. Are they both Traitors? Well, by a strict reading of the law and without context of intent? Yes. They were ALL Traitors and without distinction. Of course, we give full weight to that context in recognizing the POW's were no such thing ....and therein lay the prism (no pun intended) I see Snowden through.

You know, the hell of it is, you raise a point he cannot get around, don't you? Who did he meet with in Hong Kong? The 794 and other regs on this make no distinction between Enemy or Foreign Ally, do they? (Jonathan Pollard comes to mind). He met with members of The Guardian, a London ..British.. based paper.

In the world of legal technicalities and where a period or comma on a sentence can have real differences for meaning, that is a big distinction, isn't it?

Well... You will notice I've never said Snowden wasn't guilty of crimes or that he shouldn't be charged for what he's done. I've just suggested Congress show some class for a change and grant him Witness immunity, then invite him for the few days it will take to testify to everything of interest .... and everything related to every violation he's committed, under that coverage.

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 10:42 AM

Originally posted by fomalhaut
reply to post by Bedlam

Spoken like a brainwashed soldier. Luckily, some of us have moved beyond the 'law and order' stage of moral development.

What has he said that is "Brainwashed"? He was merely putting the information out there. Apparently you have never held a clearance level job, or probably even took your job seriously.

As long as it felt right to you, it was ok. Do I have that right?

I'm still on the fence about how I feel about Snowden, but he did admit to breaking laws. That much we know, in his own words.

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 10:52 AM
Snowden didn't release ANYTHING that was a surprise to anyone.

What about that computer you are using right now with a Sandy Bridge Chipset and Intel vPro processor in it?

The Sandy Bridge Chipset was designed by Israel, it has an operating system running within it and has some VERY neat capabilities. Back in the day Windows 98 or 95 when they came out with their new "Media Player" they included 2 free music videos on the install CD to show off their new media player.

Get those 2 files and try playing them on your new Windows 7 computer. Won't play will they? The Sandy Bridge chipset before running music/video/games first must connect to a server to see if you legally bought the software. New copyrighting tool. They'll ONLY let you play things now if they can verify you recently bought it.

The new Intel processors with vPRO.....holy cow batman......another complete stand alone operating system running inside the CPU. She can take your wireless card and connect to the internet using OUT OF BAND wireless communications to bypass firewalls....without you even knowing it's doing it! Even if you have the computer turned OFF....she can still run and use the onboard wireless and connect. What are they using this new techology for? They can remotely kill PC's by switching the motherboards off at the BIOS. Put things on peoples computers....whole host of secret things they can now do.

This Snowden guy didn't say CRAP that was a surprise.

If he came out and said these new LED flatscreens also had UV LED's they secretly kicked on to give people face cancer they wanted quiet....I might have raised an eyebrow. Otherwise he ain't said squat that's a surprise.

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 10:56 AM
John Boehner is a "traitor." He and the rest of congress + the president have turned their backs on the rule of law, the presumption of innocence, the right of the accused to face their accuser and a raft of other principals, in place for hundreds of years, that define western culture and western justice.

He should resign; he and his ilk are an embarrassment to the concepts of democracy and just governance.

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 11:05 AM
I haven't caught up on the other posts yet but in the other thread I said the following and it is still accurate.

Snowden is a hero for releasing the information but he is also a criminal for breaking the law. I am not sure I would classify him as a traitor in the sense that given direct information to one of the known enemies of the state is.

If I would have released the compartmentalized information i dealt with during my time in the defense industry I would have been arrested for a very long time. That information was not on the magnitude of what was recently released but the key thing is it doesn't matter. When you get your Secret clearance it's very clear what\when\with whom\where you can go with information. When you go above that level it becomes even more clear and it clearly states that an unauthorized release of that information is a federal crime.

I think the best solution here would be that he is found guilty of breaking the law and given immunity for what he did. It's a no win situation.

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 11:49 AM
Since when is exposing a crime by our government a crime? Because they said so? This mans 4th amendment right and everyone else's was broken and he had every right to try and correct this.

The US is getting in the bad habit of doing illegal things and cloaking it in secrecy by claiming it is top secret. This is too much abused power and can result in even more tyranny.

I have mentioned this on this forum in multiple posts. This surveillance program was found unconstitutional by the Justice department. But the finding was made top secret.

My opinion is why whine unless you have a solution. I think we need rules that govern what can and can't be considered top secret. Removing anything that concerns our constitutional rights would be a good start.

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 12:00 PM

Originally posted by elouina
Since when is exposing a crime by our government a crime? Because they said so? This mans 4th amendment right and everyone else's was broken and he had every right to try and correct this.

Exposing a crime is not a crime and is why he should be considered a hero if you believe PRISM was illegal. However when you go through the process to get Secret or above clearance it is very clearly stated that unauthorized disclosure of information is a federal offense and that fact doesn't change any, what he did was illegal.

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 12:03 PM
reply to post by elouina

I think the main point is that it's not a crime in intent, it is a crime by statute. It's not really debatable on that point, as Snowden himself says so clearly in his advanced planning and careful handling of this whole thing. By the laws of the land...he's a criminal.

The issue is that intent does, in my mind, mitigate that. It mitigates it enough to look for ways to get him completely clear of charges through immunity. That doesn't change the reality of the situation though.

It's more than a minor distinction, IMO. If Snowden is seen as a Hero (as I'd tend to agree at this point) but also seen as literally NOT having broken laws? The next Snowden may not be as interested in the morals and the propriety of what they do. They could do irreparable and very deep harm to our nation by a 'oh, who cares....Snowden did it' attitude. That should scare us all while the world does contain enemies who would die for the chance to kill us.

I applaud what he's done..and I want to see a mechanism used to see he isn't actually throwing his life away for it afterall. It's a dangerous path to suggest the ends negate the wrong within the means tho. Just my thoughts.
edit on 12-6-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 12:06 PM
I was just wondering.
Do you suppose this is what King George thought about that bunch in the colonies who had served him against the French just a few years ago?
No! I am not equating anybody to George Washington, or anyone else, I am just trying to point out how we each have a set of prenciple which we follow.

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Bedlam

Next bar: communicates...information relating to the national defense, shall be imprisoned for life or punished by death

Well, he communicated it alright. And it does relate to the national defense, or they could surely make a case for it.

Communicated what ? Absolutely no information whatsover. He only exposed the level of surveillance NOT INFORMATION that can used by anyone anywhere on this planet. Unless you are going to argue that nobody knew you could tap phones or intercept emails ......sheesh

Final bar: to get death you have to expose an agent who is then killed, or one of a number of pretty damned wide categories, and in his case I think you could argue that he exposed some method of defense against large scale attack, or communications intelligence, or defense strategy.

Expose a method of defense....oh really . Hey look the US can tap emails. Oh my god what a weapon! TheTaliban are so fearful of having their emails tapped. Deaths from email tapping : date!

He is a whsitleblower and the US government have been caught behaving as BADLY as China, Russia, North Korea etc What a lovely club to be a member of .

US citizens have everything to be ashamed of.

FYI : anybody with two braincells (excludes most politicians in positions of power) can work out how to communicate secretly.

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 01:10 PM

Originally posted by WonderBoi
Here is the full transcript of the interview

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Speaker, thank you for doin' this. Let's talk first about these-- revelations about the National Security Agency. Edward Snowden has come forward, said he brought the documents into the public eye. His supporters say he's-- a whistle-blowing patriot. His critics say he's betrayed the country, broken the law. Where do you stand?

JOHN BOEHNER: He's a traitor. The president outlined last week that these were important national security programs to help keep Americans safe, and give us tools-- to fight the terrorist threat th-- that we face. The president also outlined that there are appropriate safeguards in place-- to make sure that-- there's-- there's no-- snooping, if you will-- on Americans-- here at home. But-- the disclosure of this information-- puts Americans at risk. It shows-- our adversaries what our capabilities are. And-- it's a giant violation of the law.
Are these politicians so scared, they feel the need to keep us 'safe'? I'd feel safer knowing these types of politicians weren't in office any more. Am i a 'traitor', too???

The traitor is Boehner and the rest of the filth that voted to continue on with spying on the american public, and the other things that they have done to bring America towards the road to collapsing in on itself.

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 02:40 PM
It's the people lying to us who are the traitors, not the ones telling the truth.

I have to wonder if this was all being debated in the Congressional Congress back in about 1776, how it would go. What would Jefferson, Washington, Adams and Franklin have had to say? Revere and Hamilton?

Good God, you could run the country now on the energy created from them spinning in their graves.

PS: Has anyone forgotten that Dick 'heartless' Cheney or his good buddy Scooter Libby exposed Valerie Plame to get back at her husband, and several overseas spies were exposed as a result? IIRC, several may have been killed because of this.

And Scooter was pardoned and Dick is still running around free and being fawned over by an obsequious media. So how come Cheney and Scooter didn't get life in jail?

edit on 12-6-2013 by signalfire because: addendum

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 03:17 PM
Shortly you're gonna start finding out some more about Snowden and his story...maybe it's not as cut and dried as it looked at first glance. Maybe he's not quite so heroic in intent. Maybe he really wasn't *quite* in training for SF. Maybe there's a reason he picked HK. Maybe he's snowjobbing in interviews to make himself look like Robin Hood of Data.

Which story is real, that's what you're going to have to ask yourselves. Are you going to believe Snowden because he's your V for Vendetta hero, exposing evil, even though he might be less than truthful? Are you going to believe the MSM? Or the gubmint's story? His former workmates? It's going to get confusing shortly.
edit on 12-6-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in