...   
      
    ak>>> This information is just a scandalous information which tells the   
    ak>>> world about methods of CIA and other similar organizations.   
      
    ak>> ^^^   
    RW>>> NSA-------------------------   
      
   AK>>Anyway, Snowden did his best.   
      
    LL> Snowden swore a national security oath.   
    LL> Snowden violated that oath by leaking information   
    LL> to others, ovbiously without authorization from his   
    LL> superiors.  That is called treason, punishable by   
    LL> death.   
      
    No, it is not. Treason is defined in the constitution as giving   
    aid and comfort to the enemy. Since we are not in a declared   
    war, that alone would make it questionable. The supreme court   
    has ruled the intent must be to give aid and comfort to the   
    enemy. In this case, he can claim he was giving aid and comfort   
    to the American people. A great many would believe that.   
      
    LL> However, our president, being a nice guy,   
    LL> has promised the Russians, as well as the rest of   
    LL> the world, that Uncle Sam has a soft heart, and   
    LL> promised not execute the traitor.   
      
    Execution would be a mistake. That would eliminate a source for   
    information on the inner working of the security apparatus. How   
    did someone like Snowden even get access to that information?   
    Why are there so many people with so much access? What ever   
    happened to the idea of "Need to know"?   
      
    I have the same questions about Manning. Why is all the   
    information available to a low level operator? Why would someone   
    in his position need access to such a wide range? I don't see   
    how someone that low in the system would ever need it.   
      
   AK>>If we think it over,   
      
    LL> Snowden is a traitor, plain and simple.   
      
    Not under the constitution.   
      
   AK>>the logic is simple.   
      
    LL> Yes, it is.  Snowden swore an oath.  Snowden violated that   
    LL> oath. What can be more simple than that?   
      
    That is not treason. Oh, did he swear an oath? He was a private   
    contractor. Do they take an oath for that?   
      
   AK>>The state must NOT have full control of its citizens.   
      
    LL> That is not the issue.  Every state has secrets to keep.   
    LL> Those who swear a national security oath are sworn to keep   
    LL> those secrets.  Snowden swore a national security oath, and   
    LL> subsequently broke that oath.  Therefore, Snowden is a   
    LL> traitor to his country.   
      
    Your explanation is faulty. That is not the constitutional   
    definition of treason.   
      
   AK>>The state must not have power to suppress all clandestine activity.   
      
    LL> Again, that is not the issue.  Every state has secrets.  And   
    LL> some secrets must be protected.  Especially secrets   
    LL> concerning national security.  Snowden swore a national   
    LL> security oath. Snowden violated that oath.  Snowden is a   
    LL> traitor.   
      
    Your explanation is faulty. That is not the constitutional   
    definition of treason.   
      
   AK>>The state must not develop such technical instruments that make   
   AK>>clandestine activity impossible.   
      
    LL> The state has a duty and an obligation to do whatever it   
    LL> takes to protect itself and its citizens in the name of   
    LL> national security. That includes developing technical   
    LL> instruments that make clandestine activity possible.   
      
    His theory is faulty on one basis. Any state determined to   
    oppress it's people will develop such anyway.   
      
   AK>>Because it is a matter of democracy survival.   
      
    LL> It is a matter of survival, not just of democracy, but also   
    LL> of the human race.  Just think what would happen if   
    LL> terrorists had the means to develop weapons of mass   
    LL> destruction, or even nuclear bombs.  It would be not only   
    LL> bye-bye Moscow, but also bye-bye world.   
      
    There is no rational scenario where terrorists get enough nukes   
    to wipe out the human race, or even do major damage.   
      
    LL> Fortunately for us all, President Putin and President Obama   
    LL> are not mad men.  Although Republicans and Pat Buchanan   
    LL> like to think otherwise.   
      
    The Republicans are mad men. Buchanan is doubtful.   
      
    ...   
      
   AK>>Because clandestine activity is a holy cow of democracy.   
      
    LL> Two-thirds of the world does not have democracy.  Nor do   
    LL> they want to have democracy.   
      
    Yes, they do want democracy. The government doesn't want   
    democracy, but the people do. It is inherent to people that they   
    do *NOT* like being told what to do, so government need to make   
    the people afraid of an enemy to get compliance.   
      
    LL> We tried to bring democracy   
    LL> to rhem, but they rejected it.  Don't believe me?  Look at   
    LL> Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think the people in those   
    LL> places have democracy, or want democracy?   
      
    No, they don't have democracy. Yes, they do want democracy. OK,   
    a lot of them want to *BE* the dictators, but they don't want to   
    be subject to the dictators. That is the basis of democracy.   
    Most people know they will never be the dictator, so they don't   
    want anyone else to be either.   
      
    Surveys have actually been done on the subject, Muslims chose   
    democracy by a large margin.   
      
    LL> What about   
    LL> Egypt?  Once they found out what democracy was all about,   
    LL> what did they do?  They went back to what they had before!   
      
    Wrong. They turned against the government because it was   
    becomming too much like what they had before. Again, too many   
    want to be the dictator, not enough can be.   
      
    Even in Muslim countries a large portion of the population, if   
    not most, do not want a religion based government.   
      
   AK>>If some bustards came to power and they have all levers to suppress   
   AK>>any clandestine activity they will be able to do it.   
      
    ...   
      
    LL> after WWII the British took over. Did the British treat the   
    LL> Libyans any better than the Italians?  Not really.  All the   
    LL> British were really interested in was the oil under the   
    LL> sands.   
      
    That is why we can't do any good over there, it is not the   
    intention of outsiders to do any good over there.   
      
    LL> And then a brash young man decided to do something.   
    LL> Trained by the Greeks, and knowing how valuable oil was, a   
    LL> certain Colonel Moammar Qaddafi decided he wanted to be   
    LL> ruler of Libya. And the people of Libya followed him, as if   
    LL> he was the Pied Piper himself, until the Arab Spring   
    LL> arrived, and a new tribal master decided to be ruler.   
      
    And the West did not do enough to support democracy.   
      
   AK>>And resistance will fail.   
      
    LL> That's what Col. Qaddafi thought.  And he was right.  For   
    LL> decades, he was right.  But then, something went horribly   
    LL> wrong ...   
      
    Things went horribly wrong from the beginning. It was just   
    recently they went right enough for him to be overthrown.   
      
   AK>>That why the state must not be too powerful, too omnipresent.   
      
    LL> The best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship.   
    LL> With me being the dictator, of course.   
      
    You would make a good target.   
      
   AK>>That's why NSA activity to trace all phone calls must be stopped,   
   AK>>and its equipment and spy bases destroyed.   
      
    LL> Do think, even for a minute, that terrorists are going to   
    LL> play nice? Every state has the right to defend itself.   
      
    Not against it's own population.   
      
    LL> Especially from terrorists and other bad guys.  The state   
    LL> has no duty or obligation to play "nice" to terrorists and   
    LL> bad guys.  The state has no duty or obligation to abide by   
    LL> rules that terrorists and bad guys want the state to play   
    LL> by.   
      
    The state must abide by the rules the people want it to abide   
    by.   
      
    LL> Every state has spies.  Every state spies on other states,   
    LL> both on friendly and unfriendly states.  Of course, it is   
    LL> not always called "spying".  Rather, it is "collecting   
    LL> information" - regardless of the source.   
      
    True, and irrelevant.   
      
   AK>>It will, maybe, create some difficulties in catching real criminals.   
      
    LL> Why should the state tie its hands behind its back?  The   
      
    Simply because the alternative is a brutal dictatorship.   
      
    LL> state should use all resources available at its disposal in   
    LL> order to defend itself, and apprehend the bad guys.   
    LL> Remember, to its own citizens, the state is the "good guys".   
      
    Not for that two thirds of the world that does not have   
    democracy. All dictatorships are maintained by force, brutal   
    force.   
      
   AK>>But it worth it.   
      
    LL> Let's catch all the terrorists and bad guys first.   
      
    No, let's protect ourselves from the dictator wannabes first.   
    Fear of the outsider is the primary tool of the dictator.   
      
   AK>>It provide freedom and democracy more chances for survival.   
      
    LL> Allowing terrorists and bad guys to run and hide is not an   
    LL> option. As George W. Bush said, we have a War on Terror to   
    LL> fight!  You heard that?  We must make war on a verb!  En   
    LL> garde!   
      
    GW Bush was guilty of war crimes.   
      
      
      
   BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn   
      
   ... Ben Kenobi at the dinnertable: Use the FORKS, Luke!   
   --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]   
    * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)