[GreenTiger]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

stratos stratos:

If one takes an Oath not reveal things and signs the appropriate non disclosure documents.

In the US the oath that everyone takes is to defend and protect the Constitution. In this case I'd say Snowden is actually fulfilling that oath given that the NSA is doing things far beyond the scope of what they're allowed to do under the law.

So do you think Snowden did the right thing? To me it seems like he violated a lot of laws.

[stratos]

Thing is not everyone takes the oath that Bart is speaking of. Here is the issue at many work places you sign a non discloser agreement. This basicly says anything you hear, see, or learn about stays at the work site. You will not talk about not reveal what you have learned. Then you have the whistle blower laws that protect people who come forth and say "look what so and so company/gov. agency is doing. This is wrong and violates laws" What side Snowden falls on I'm not sure yet. I am leaning towards the whistleblower side of things.

In the case of manning he is not protected by the whistle blower laws and thus lands squar in the middle of treason. Violation of his oath, policy and a shit load of documents he signed.

[Lemmy]

The problem with non-disclosure oaths is they're signed before the knowledge is learned. It's kind of like when someone says "I'll tell you something but promise not to laugh" or "Promise not to get mad at me". How can you promise not to get mad before you learn what might make you mad? You can't expect someone to abide by an oath that's made while the person demanding the oath is withholding information. It violates the condition of genuine consent, which is necessary for any contract to be a legally binding one.

[stratos]

And thus the whistle blower laws to help protect people from having the non discloser used aginst them. Then there are some jobs that one goes into not knowing the full spectrum of what will be learned yet by the understood parts of the job it is expected that said person will find out very sensitive things. In these cases the non discloser is upheld.

It gest a bit confussing. I always go look if you are going to work for the CIA a reasonable assumption is that they will become privy to very sensitve and secret things. Thus you can not run off saying ohhh I seen this I heard that. Yet a person going to work for Joe's pizza shop does not have the same reasonable assumption that he will find out gov. secrets. So if he does and goes telling he is covered by whistle blower laws.

[Lemmy]

Yeah, it's kind of a moving target. Each case needs to be evaluated on its own merits. You could extend this line of thought to military desertion. Most people here on CKA believe that deserters should be shot, but I think it's more complicated than that. Disillusionment that comes when an employer fails to live up to the standards of human decency should be a valid reason to void an oath.

[stratos]

Lemmy, are not the vast ammounts of desertions done so to avoid combat. Not out of some disillusionment of the Gov. or the Army? Isn't it more along the lines of OMG you mean I will really have to fight in the war thats not what I thought I would have to do when I joined the Military.

[Lemmy]

stratos stratos:

Lemmy, are not the vast amounts of desertions done so to avoid combat. Not out of some disillusionment of the Gov. or the Army? Isn't it more along the lines of OMG you mean I will really have to fight in the war that's not what I thought I would have to do when I joined the Military.

I don't know the percentages. I do know that most of the recent US military deserters who have sought asylum in Canada did so after having served in Iraq, not before. But I think we need to evaluate each of those incidents on a case-by-case basis, just like with cases of whistle-blowing. I think many deserters (though, again, I don't know the percentages) are people who have witnessed or participated in atrocities that they honestly believe are illegal/immoral and refuse to repeat them.

[BartSimpson]

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

stratos stratos:

If one takes an Oath not reveal things and signs the appropriate non disclosure documents.

In the US the oath that everyone takes is to defend and protect the Constitution. In this case I'd say Snowden is actually fulfilling that oath given that the NSA is doing things far beyond the scope of what they're allowed to do under the law.

So do you think Snowden did the right thing? To me it seems like he violated a lot of laws.

The Constitution trumps any mere laws that conflict with it.

[DrCaleb]

BRAH BRAH:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Jughead Jughead:

I'll bet he's on the run. Staying at the hotel would most certainly involve capture by Hong Kong officials, and eventual extradition to the U.S.

There will be no extradition, because there will never be any warrant. Despite being distasteful to some, he didn't do anything illegal.

Since when did telling people what their government is up to become so wrong?/

What he did was for his own ego and 15 minutes of fame, he's a piece of shit traitor and god help him if his actions don't lead to tragic consequences, of course none of that will matter because the Chinese probably have him.

$1:

Snowden said that he admires both Ellsberg and Manning, but argues that there is one important distinction between himself and the army private, whose trial coincidentally began the week Snowden's leaks began to make news.

"I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest," he said. "There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is."

He purposely chose, he said, to give the documents to journalists whose judgment he trusted about what should be public and what should remain concealed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju ... rveillance

[raydan]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

$1:

He purposely chose, he said, to give the documents to journalists whose judgment he trusted about what should be public and what should remain concealed.

Trusted journalists!

[stratos]

$1:

I don't know the percentages. I do know that most of the recent US military deserters who have sought asylum in Canada did so after having served in Iraq, not before. But I think we need to evaluate each of those incidents on a case-by-case basis, just like with cases of whistle-blowing. I think many deserters (though, again, I don't know the percentages) are people who have witnessed or participated in atrocities that they honestly believe are illegal/immoral and refuse to repeat them.

Okay I don't any issue with that. Case by Case makes far more sense then a sweeping brush be it one way or the other.

[BartSimpson]

raydan raydan:

Trusted journalists!

I imagine that there are some as it is statistically improbable that there are not any such creatures.

[BartSimpson]

FOX News has a pretty decent essay on this topic:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/06/ ... picks=true

[saturn_656]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/ ... stleblower

Live Q&A with Mr. Snowden.

[BartSimpson]

The Atlantic published an article today confirming a lot of what Snowden has had to say:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ms/276964/