[url=http://meincmagazine.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=27492801#p27492801:2vqzqw7h said:
therealeffingaeiouy[/url]":2vqzqw7h]It seems the article is deciding you are a traitor if you do it for money but if you do it because you think it is right then it is not the same thing.
What if John Walker did it because he believed communism was the right way to live and imperial commercialism was going to destroy the world? If he did it because he believed it was right. Would he be less of a traitor?
To me being a traitor is in the actions not the motivations. We can always review the repercussions and punishments through whatever lens we want. However I don't think something becomes not treason and one becomes not a traitor just because you support or emphasize with their motives.
Manning and Snowden are absolute traitors who committed treason. What, if any, punishment they deserve is entirely up for discussion. But because we believe they uncovered serious wrongs does not change what they actually did.
Traitors can and have done things for justifiable reasons and causes. The United States would not exist if not for the work of a lot of traitors. However to narrow the definition of traitor and treason to seeking monetary gain is way off the mark.
A nation is more than just a Government. Sometimes it is a portion of the Government that is the traitor and the country needs to protect itself from rogue elements in the Government.
So while Snowden may be a traitor in a professional sense because he betrayed his employer, he is a patriot in a citizenship sense because he essentially sacrificed his (normal) life in service to his country, to protect the country from rogue elements in the Government who view the Constitution as an obstacle to their goals.
In a sense George Bush and the NSA are traitors for violating the Constitution, the spirit of democracy, bringing the US Armed Forces into disrepute, normalizing torture, and potentially bringing about the end of the age of democracy.
