Hacker News Reader

Comment by PixelPusher | Hacker News Reader

No way, I don't vote for traitors. All his US supporters are a bunch of Benedict Arnolds.

BTW, just voted for Miley. She definitely made my year.

I never understand why USAians refer to Benedict Arnold as a "traitor". It's a really stupid word to bandy about in a civil war. The country was governed by Britain. Everyone who fought against the government was, by definition, a traitor. Using a word with such a definite negative connotation in such a complex environment is either disingenuous or obtuse.

For similar reasons, using the word "traitor" is also stupid in the case of Snowden. Against whom / what was he a traitor? - The government? A branch of the government? The constitution? The people?

I wouldn't call Snowden a traitor, but I think the term is perfectly apt for Benedict Arnold. He was a general in one army who defected to the opposing army. That's pretty much the definition of traitor. That doesn't deny your point that all the rebelling colonials were traitors to the British.

From an objective point of view, you're right - I still don't like the term (or the use-case, rather)...

You say that like it's a bad thing.

    Traitor (noun)

    a person who betrays someone or something, such as a friend, cause, or principle.

Damn right he's a traitor, but only a traitor to the US government. To millions of people (like me) he's a hero.

And where were people like you several years ago when the laws were signed that allow the government to tap into network lines?

A hero and their army are useless when they're late to the war.

I don't honor traitors, but go ahead and worship him all you want.

I was protesting then, too. They didn't listen. I'm still protesting, but now a lot more people are aware of what's going on.

And, I'd like to point out: Not everything the NSA has been doing is legal, even according to the terrifyingly broad laws put in place during the panic after 9/11.

If you're going to wave around the "T" word...the traitors are in our government. They're the ones who would give up liberty for the illusion of safety. Also, Benedict Arnold is a silly comparison to make; read your history a bit more closely and think it through. Snowden may not be a hero in your eyes; I disagree, but I can't tell you how to feel about it. But, to compare him to Arnold doesn't even make sense.

In the Netherlands. Being non-US, like 97% of the world, I am not allowed to vote on all those US-policies that shape my life.

Where was I? School

I can completely understand your position if you are an American. And I'm sure you can understand us foreigners trying to show our appreciation for a man who uncovered this extensive evil intrusion into our lives.

Don't speak for all foreigners. I'm from Russia and I loathe Snowden who basically became a propaganda prop for Putin.

Well, this is an interesting issue. I tend to stick to the viewpoint that if a disgusting person does something worthwhile, and gets praised for it, that praise is earned. A good deed doesn't become a bad deed just because it's done by a bad person.

Bottom line, he's a traitor. Beyond that, most of the laws that helped start this were set into effect years ago. Where were the people crying then?

Most people complain about having their privacy taken away when using free online services. All I see are a bunch of ignorant loud mouths who got angry too late.

It's arguably true that he betrayed the NSA to the people. The big questions here are: Why is the NSA at odds with the American people; and who, ultimately, deserves your loyalty?

If the government doesn't represent the people anymore, does it still deserve the loyalty of the people? A lot of people would say no.

Yeah because how dare any citizen question it's government, right?

Are you serious? You can question everything you want as an ordinary citizen. The moment you sign a contract, specially for the military, you agree to keep your word.

So, right, how dare the government hold someone to their word? You're basically advocating lying and not honoring your promises.

BTW - I basically make a living honoring promises and contracts, otherwise we wouldn't have customers ;)

> You're basically advocating lying and not honoring your promises.

Yes, obviously. There are situations where you ought to lie. The typical example: "Are there any Jews in your basement?"

Decency is more than keeping to the words, sometimes it even requires you break them to keep the spirit of promise. We generally give promises contingent on implied good behaviour from the other parties. When others break their promises the stack built on that mutual honour collapses.

And I'm fine living in the world where that's the way people treat promises, I massively prefer it to the world where people can be tricked into promising something and then have to keep to it when it turns out to be abhorrent.

>> The moment you sign a contract, specially for the military, you agree to keep your word.

It's actually possible to lie or break a promise.

Sometimes the ethics to do so are stronger than the ethics to not do so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banality_of_evil

Yes, if you make two promises, and it later turns out that they were mutually exclusive, I advocate following the laws of physics and breaking one of them.

If you think he chose to break the wrong one, then that might be a valid point, but you seem to be implying that if you were in that position you'd keep both o_O

Says a guy who sells ads for a living ;)

How far does this go for you? If, let's say, you witness wrongdoing performed by your employer, would you go along because, well, you promised to do a good job when you interviewed?

Well, the moment you become part of the state (government), you agree to FOLLOW the constitution. The question here is not who broke "promises", but who acted against the constitution.

re: free services, a) they massively monitor and soak up data from the internet backbone. b) in addition to going through the ludicrous "proper channels" (secret courts and letters - arguably not compatible with democracy) they forcibly break in to said services to get more data - if you think they don't do this for paid and supposedly secure services you're delusional. But you don't. You just don't care.

re: getting angry too late. Yes that is typically how it works. Not every person can be fully informed on every complex issue. At some point however a line was crossed on this issue and it became part of the public consciousness. To say these people don't deserve their privacy because they were too late to the party is disingenuous, unrealistic and frankly a really disturbing approach to take.

"You don't deserve your health because you weren't protesting when they _started_ to secretly dump chemicals in the waters - oh now that it's common knowlege you're pissed off? You got angry too late, you ignorant loudmouth."

re: traitor. He's a traitor to the U.S. military. Treason is not a global binary thing. You can be a traitor to one person and a hero to another. In this case he has done far more good than harm to most people on this planet. You are at once short-sighted and narrow-minded for refusing to look beyond this fact.

How does him being a traitor or not affect whether or not his actions influenced the world? The vote isn't for nicest person in world or person I'd most like to have a beer with.

I honestly cannot tell if you are trolling, but I will bite.

Free online services do not have a monopoly on force. The government does. My choice to use Google means that they will know more about me, but the Google SWAT team cannot kick down my door in the middle of the night and drag me to a black site for an indeterminate length of time because I said something that Larry Page did not like.

the traitors are those who wipe their a with the constitution and then clame they are patriots.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com