Item — HN Reader

The most concerning part of this article are the comments which to me feel like they have been paid for.

Take this for example:

'Snidely70448 Snowden STOLE 3 NSA computers with top secret classified government documents in violation of his employment agreement with Booz Allen, theft alone is a basic crime and when the theft involves top secret government documents it’s in violation of the Espionage Act. Flight to avoid prosecution is also a crime in this country. These laws weren’t written yesterday just for Mr. Snowden. The U.S. is seeking Edward Snowden to answer to those charges. Plain and simple. He isn’t being singled out or vilified. You claim that NSA is violating the 4th Amendment (Congress and the Patriot Act disagree with you), yet you ignore that Snowden violated basic laws of the land.'

7 comments

Specifically, these type of comments may be originating from such programs as Operation Earnest Voice:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-oper...

It's dangerous to begin assuming that everyone you disagree with is disingenuous. It's a sign of too much time spent talking to people who think like you do.

That seems like a pretty sane comment. Is there something factual in it with which you disagree, or are you simply surprised at the existence of opinions other than your own?

I don't buy into the shill argument, I actually think it is dangerous to write off an opinion that seems to be shared with around half the US population. Instead of dismissing the argument I think supporters of his actions need to argue and reason the case clearly.

That said the problem with the comments are:

* Violation of an employment agreement are not federal crimes * Theft of classified documents is not a violation of the Espionage Act. The reason why the espionage act is from 1917 is because government lawyers love the broad language in it. They haven't needed to update it because it can be applied so broadly, but the language of the law states that there needs to be an intent to aid the enemy or to prevent the US Military from carrying out operations.

The other red flag that indicated that Snowden hasn't violated 'basic laws' is that the USA is resorting to diplomatic pressure rather than an INTERPOL notice. You can't use INTERPOL for political charges but you can use it for more classic charges like theft.

There is a good reason why the 4th amendment was written, it was a lesson learned form British colonialism where independence oriented towns and villages were surrounded and houses were searched indiscriminately to shake out sympathizers opposed to the crown.

There is absolutely no way for anyone to report the illegal activity of the NSA without committing any crime or breaking any laws. The law of the land is so severely in favor of NSA protecting its ass, is that the only way to reveal it is to absolutely destroy your life from a legal point of view.

So to concentrate on the legality of the whistleblower's activity, instead of concentrating on the NSA's activity seems a little suspect.

Comments like that are scary because it's seems to be the opinion of a majority of Americans, and it betrays a morality that's stuck on stage 4 of Kohlbergs stages of moral development[0]. When you derive your ethics from whatever the government says is the law, you can end up excusing a lot of bad shit.

In contrast Snowden seems to be at stage 6, and his actions seem way saner than that comment.

[0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_m...

> These laws weren’t written yesterday just for Mr. Snowden.

... sounds eerily like something you'd hear Carney or some other spokesman say at a press briefing. It's the familiar paternalistic tone that does it.

That comment isn't well worded, but I've made similar ones.

It's a counterpoint to people saying that Snowden is being 'persecuted' and that the USA is now a place that freedom loving people flee from.

Whilst I agree with the view that we should not have mass surveillance and it would be horrifying if someone were persecuted for expressing that view, that is not why the US is chasing him.

He is being chased for intentionally stealing classified documents. Can you name a government that wouldn't pursue someone who did this?

I think this can be explained by Stockholm Syndrome, sadly. "Hang the petty thieves, appoint the big ones to high office", and then keep attacking the messengers who try to inform you of the degraded situation you're in.

If had a penny for every time that happens when blindly accepted authority is criticized in any way, I could simply buy the NSA and DARPA, and start implementing some of Bill Hicks' ideas, like shooting food at starving people.

> You claim that NSA is violating the 4th Amendment (Congress and the Patriot Act disagree with you), yet you ignore that Snowden violated basic laws of the land.

Isn't the 4th amendment a pretty basic law of the land, in the Bill of Rights along with free speech, trial by jury and the other nuisances?

I would take it one step further and say that the charges against Snowden are not laws of the land, they are simplistic, maybe even mechanistic laws with no real moral authority while the bill of rights is the supreme law of the land with significant moral basis.