Most factually incorrect article ... ever?
 

To the best of my knowledge, the US has never executed anyone for treason under Federal law other than the Lincoln assassins. John Brown was convicted of breaking a state-level treason law. The Rosenbergs were done for violations of the 1917 Espionage Acts, and not for treason.

How does a halfway respected newspaper like the Philly Inquirer publish such pap?

Treason charges for Snowden would be rare, challenging

It's a very hard charge to prove which is probably why it is rarely used.

Snowden is more of a national hero. seemingly, at this point. He exposed unconstitutional spying on Americans

In my opinion, he's a hero and NOT a hero.

Yes he did expose potentially unconstitutional spying (assuming it was not approved by the FISA court, in which case, we are going after the wrong people.)

HOWEVER, did you know that while in Hong Kong at his press conference, he also talked about US government operations against hackers in China and various Pacific Rim countries?

Since this has nothing to do with unconstitutional spying on Americans, it's also revealing classified information that has nothing to do with freedoms guaranteed to US citizems by the constitution.

In fact, it's espionage, against the Defense Security Act of 1950, which is a public law.

had not head of the second incident, if that is the case, that's a no no...

Yeah, I hadn't heard that either.

I'm kind of split down the middle on this.

This kind of thing needs a public debate so the citizens can go in, eyes-wide, if they choose.

When one takes a solemn oath then STFU. If you violate the oath for the good of the nation, be a man and do it at home. Don't run away and make accusations. Judgement: Useful pissant.

You do know that they are all in the entertainment business now, right?

Accuracy is not important and is not respected by your favorite average American. What is important is selling newspapers..........and sensationalism is what will always do it.

Furthermore, there are no repercussions for inaccuracy, but there are repercussions if you delay a story to do some additional fact checking.

He also took an oath to the government to uphold the Constitution when he joined the military. He probably signed an NDA with the contractor. Which trumps which?

Meeting the journalists in HK may have been necessary out of expediency.

[QUOTE=spdrun;3160263]
How does a halfway respected newspaper like the Philly Inquirer publish such pap?

I recall an article in the New York Times concerning an assassination attempt on Reagan stating that most students at Texas Tech openly carried handguns. I was there two years and never saw one, probably because was a crime to do so.

^ its an op-Ed piece not journalistic reporting.

Aren't the two synonymous?

Your obl to the military ends on separation.

If one gets sworn into the classified realm that's different and separate from military. A military person may or may not have a clearance. Having a clearance does not mean one was in the military.

The nondisclosure portion is made very clear and lasts one's lifetime unless released, in writing, from a controlling authority.

Personally, I think that *all* Americans should be required to swear or affirm to uphold the Constitution at age 18 or upon naturalization. Refuse to do so? You're given a one-way ticket to the country of your choice and a boot to the arse -- it would be considered a renunciation of citizenship. Conspiracy to violate the Bill of Rights, same deal. Passport burned in front of your face, and a one-way ticket to a country that you deserve more.

Anyway, sometimes breaking the law (or an NDA) is the right thing to do. Example: if you signed an NDA working for an chemical company, and they're engaged in illegal dumping, would it be the right thing to rat to the media?

I hate oaths. I must be becoming Quaker. I do not recite the 'Pledge of Allegiance", though I stand respectfully as others recite it. I don't sing the national anthem, same deal.

Forcing people to oaths and allegiances, either through law or custom, does not mean one believes the words of the oath. Thus, they have no meaning other than a point of law for external forces to use as they wish.

Interestingly, I am deeply patriotic and love my country. I have served honorably in the armed forces and other things. This is internal, my beliefs, my reasons. Not due to oaths or contracts or social pressure, which mostly are meaningless to me.

And broke the law doing it. He is a traitor on the one hand, and I won't call him a hero, but I will say that he did Americans a favor on the other.