Not in the sense that I mean. They were agents of the enemy whether they “meant” to be or not. Calling them “traitors” definitely implies intent. I’m very comfortable with calling Snowden a traitor, by the way. And if I was President, then I would not agonize over ordering his death extrajudicially.
In my opinion, the leak was very much criminal and this guy should be tried as such. I don’t see many people disputing that, not even MTG. What I do see is people creating a straw man to avoid the information that was revealed. Once documents are leaked, people are going to discuss the content. The WaPo is going to air the details, etc, etc. Pundits are going to opine, regardless of how the information was brought forth. So it feels like certain ones want to talk about how much of a criminal this dude is, which I don’t believe is in legitimate dispute, so as to avoid the content matter which the leak revealed. In fact, the criminal charges only confirm the authenticity of the material leaked.
I’ll play devil’s advocate. The “crime” is introducing American fighting personnel to the conflict without specific Congressional authorization.
Is that a crime though? Biden, as Commander in Chief, has certain powers he can exercise without Congressional approval. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be heavily scrutinized, but a crime?
Of course it’s not a crime, and obviously our support of Ukraine is WITH congress approval. I don’t think any of that is surprising, the issue is one of detail. That the clown revealed some actual figures. Im
We’re just talking about what the accused might argue, not what would pass the smell test with most people. Manning and Snowden’s arguments for being “whistleblowers” were equally ludicrous.
Much of that Congressional approval is overt and specified in legislation. The introduction of special forces is neither … but that doesn’t mean Congress has not been lawfully informed or even that it gave private consent. The public does not need to everything. That is precisely why we have laws governing classified materials, which is the heart of the matter.
he had a security clearance? Airman Accused of Leak Has History of Racist and Violent Remarks, Filing Says
So this lovely human specimen couldn't pass a background check to get a gun but he did to receive top secret clearances with our government. Isn't that swell.
They suspended his guard command and news said he took more than they thought. Complete lack of safeguards
Well, he was “violent” in the same sense that people on this website who talk about football are football players. Any type of official misconduct involving violence would definitely (ok, who knows?) have prevented him from getting a TS. I remain confused, though, along with others on here, how his security investigation did not produce enough red flags to keep him out of intelligence work at least.
"Moreover, as discussed above, the Defendant had multiple weapons just feet from his bed. A search of the Defendant’s primary and secondary residences—that of his mother and father—also revealed the existence of a virtual arsenal of weapons, including bolt-action rifles, rifles, AR- and AK-style weapons, and a bazooka." A bazooka!? I didn't even know people could have those.
Well, they can’t. A bazooka is an obsolete weapon from the WW2 era. I’ll withhold judgement, since so much is unusual about this guy, but I highly doubt the bazooka was serviceable. Anyone can own a demilitarized weapon as a keepsake. I’d also be very curious if he had any munitions for it, since they are no longer being manufactured and any still in existence probably would not function safely.
He meets my definition of "violent", though I take your point. So many who speak similarly never move to action. But the repetitive content, other acts, etc., make me conclude a dangerous propensity. May be insufficient legally for action, but enough for me to so opine
He has basically the same sort of red flags you see in many mass shooters, that in hindsight people blame the authorities “how did they miss this”. In reality there isn’t much they can do about a punk kid spouting off online, even about acts of violence. It should be disqualifying for a lot of things (gun ownership, military service), but unless someone rats him out or it goes viral it probably isn’t coming to anyone’s attention in his chain of command and it isn’t creating a criminal history for him to fail a background check. How he maintained a *top secret* security clearance is another matter. Maybe these posts happened *after* he passed his clearance? It’s easier to understand how that fell through the cracks. But even with his clearance, obviously it was too easy for him to steal/compile documents he had no business accessing.
The reality is that 99% of the content is considered ancient information. The assessments can be fluid and fast is what my reading leads me to believe. Information ages very fast. Discussing that snapshot just leads to more questions that lead to means and methods. Have a closed hearing if the info indicates any criminal wrongdoing. If not, close the door and fix this vhit so it doesn't have the chance to happen.
