Is Snowden a traitor or a public servant?

[tlay]

My opinion is that this man took an oath to his country, the same oath that many of us in the military took. How do you think our military would work if an officer ordered a private to do something and for whatever reason he decided that he didn't like it and went and complained to the press? Then takes off for China. We have to obey orders no matter if we like them or not.

 

[BearBio]

My opinion is that this man took an oath to his country, the same oath that many of us in the military took. How do you think our military would work if an officer ordered a private to do something and for whatever reason he decided that he didn't like it and went and complained to the press? Then takes off for China. We have to obey orders no matter if we like them or not.

Ever hear of the Nuremberg Trials?

"Befehl ist befehl, Ja?"

 

[venomballistics]

My opinion is that this man took an oath to his country, the same oath that many of us in the military took. How do you think our military would work if an officer ordered a private to do something and for whatever reason he decided that he didn't like it and went and complained to the press? Then takes off for China. We have to obey orders no matter if we like them or not.

What if that order is to execute an armed assault on some quiet street in hometown USA?

What the NSA did was in violation of the 4th amendment. it doesn't really matter to what effect the action comes to.
Its not all that different from a law enforcement agency raiding every home in a town for the purpose of cataloging the possessions of each individual.
no good can come from such things.
Im hard pressed to think of a way the mass sigint grab can be used for the greater good. Also, if this has been a common practice. Boston, Newtown, Aurora, the DC sniper, as well as other high profile acts of stupidity prove the ineffectual nature of the practice. The ends cannot be used to justify the means unless those ends are one sweetheart of a deal.

 

[PALADIN85020]

We have to obey orders no matter if we like them or not.

It seems we've heard that statement a lot before - I think it was after WWII in in a place called Nuremberg.

Like many of you here, I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. It appears to me that Snowden put that oath above agreeing that he would, like a robot, follow orders that fly in the face of the Constitution.

If, while I was in the service, my CO said that I could not report a rape because it was "sensitive" and "classified" in the "interest of national security," I'd have a real problem with that. As I get older, I feel more allegiance to a moral code than an unConstitutional one imposed on me by a government I can't trust to uphold the same oath I took. I am very much aware that "classification" is often imposed just to cover someone's rear end. Right now, as we speak, service members overseas are being ordered NOT to look at news reports on recent scandals, in the interest of national security. Plain and simple, that is pure Bravo Sierra. It's inconceivable to me that an order like that would go out to people placing themselves in harm's way in the service of their country. The same country they were taught to believe was moral, and which has a Constitution that protects their rights.

If someone told me to obey an unConstitutional order, then I would have a problem. It's not whether or not I liked the order (I've obeyed many an order I thought was stupid and which I did not like), but whether or not it was in accordance with my oath to protect the Constitution.

Google "Oathkeepers" and it may help some to understand what is going on in this country a little better. Call me an out-of-date old curmudgeon, but people of my age remember what it was like to live in the land of the free. We'll still stand and fight to preserve the founding principles that our ancestors fought and died for. They did not sacrifice to have this country fundamentally transformed into a nanny state with an all-powerful and out-of-control central government.

John - OUT

 

[BearBio]

I was in the Army during My Lai.

 

[Mike7.62]

The NSA is discharging it's responsibilities as prescribed by the US Congress. How that information is used is the only legal question that pertains. Snowden broke the law and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.
OBTW Ask the former Soviet Union what it thinks of the NSA.

Just because it is "prescribed" by Congress doesn't make it either Constitutional or right. The "law" as you describe it has been used by charlatans and dictators for millennia to enhance their power. The Nazi's used the law to kill six million Jews and a few million other "undesirables"; that doesn't make it right-but it was lawful.

The problem is that almost everything that the NSA and other black ops groups do is hidden behind the veil of "national security" and never sees the light of day, and if it does, then the representatives who are questioning the activities are routinely lied to. All OK under he umbrella of "national security". That may seem acceptable on its face, but allows massive abuse, some of which we're now becoming aware.

And yes, I'm sure that the former USSR and the present day Russia and China despise the NSA and wish that they had something as effective, but only when they see how efficient the surveillance of their own population can be. The dilemma of any organization such as the NSA is that yes, it is effective, and initially aimed at foreign enemies, but the potential for abuse that it has against its own internal population is high, and we're learning how high through sources such as Binney and Snowden. I personally would rather do without the effectiveness of the NSA if it means giving up my rights under the Constitution and living in a police state.

 

[finesse_r]

I am not going to say if he was right or wrong releasing the information he did. Going to look at it from a different angle... Seems a lot of the "Whistle Blowers" today are releasing classified information based on their perception of what is right or wrong, oath to secrecy or classified status be dammed. Now, what if a person, who has access to, say a deadly virus recipe, decides to release it to the public, because he believes it for the good of the world, putting all nations on an even playing field. As long as he truly believes that, is it OK? Do we only honor classified status, and secerecy oaths as long as they meet our personal beliefs? A lot of classified material is really not that big of a deal, or that harmful. But some of it really is dangerous, and can cause a lot of harm. How far do we let an individual go in deciding what is what, based on their personal beliefs and agendas? Larry

Because we are still pretending and some of us are still trying to have a democratic republican type of government, rather than a totalitarian state. For the same reason we allow all people to vote and elect leaders. Because we trust our citizens. Because when we blindly trust our government we are asking to become slaves. Also for the same reason we allow individual citizens to conceal carry a firearm.

However, If someone does as you suggest it is certainly harmful if they release the actual formula for the virus. That is very different from releasing the fact that such a virus exists. IMHO, the fact that such viruses are being manufactured by our government is information about which that the public should be aware. Whereas the actual formula is something no one should ever have. Being a whistle blower requires courage and the ability to discriminate among things that are necessary to our freedom and things that are not, among things that are criminal and things that are not, and to know the difference between a deadly formula and the general knowledge that such a formula has been developed in violation of treaties and without the consent of the governed.

No one is suggesting that we provide cart blanch immunity to people that expose secrets. In fact the secret has to be a vile and a serious criminal action before anyone should ever consider releasing it. But the current overuse of the top secret stamp to hide criminal actions is putting our freedom in far more peril than is any terrorist group that ever existed, or any real whistle blower.

I would venture 95 % of the information that is classified as top secret is so classified to protect government agents and employees, and not to protect the citizens of the USA, or at the very least is no longer a secret to our enemies.

As to your scenario about the virus a similar event took place when the Rosenberg's supplied the USSR with the secrets to the atomic bomb. Their actions was tried in open court and they were justly executed for treason. It was believed they were spies and their motives were not altruistic, which is what I still believe about the actions of the Rosenbergs. They were operating with a support gang or cell that managed to escape prosecution. But it was clear their intent was to provide vital technical information to the Soviet Union at a time that allowed for rapid expansion of nuclear weapons. Any argument that their actions were for some world good were totally spurious.

In the situation under discussion, the information released only harmed certain high level government employees and elected officials and in no way undermined US security. In fact it strengthen our security by reminding officials they could not always get away with criminal actions by hiding their acts under a "top security" rubber stamp.

If we fail to use our own individual judgment in all situations, then we fail to be free men and we deserve the enslavement that will quickly follow our abdication of exercising that freedom.

Freedom is never free and I don't mean by this the cost is war, because the greatest danger to freedom is always, and I mean always, from a strong central government. The cost of freedom is individual and/or group vigilance and action by our citizenry, and it always has been.

 

[Mike7.62]

My opinion is that this man took an oath to his country, the same oath that many of us in the military took. How do you think our military would work if an officer ordered a private to do something and for whatever reason he decided that he didn't like it and went and complained to the press? Then takes off for China. We have to obey orders no matter if we like them or not.

No, actually you don't. There are things such as lawful orders and those that are not. Your duty is to obey the former, and refuse to obey the latter. When an order clearly contravenes the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Agreement, or the US Constitution it is clearly unlawful. If there is confusion over what is or isn't lawful, usually your conscience is a good guide.

 

[Mike7.62]

You sir, have hit the nail squarely on the head. And with your military and police service, it carries more weight than if someone like me said it. Tyrannical governments always use "public security or safely" to justify their acts.
I ask this to those who say "I don't have anything to hide". What would be your reaction if you came home and the police/government where going through your house, your home videos, pictures, documents, everything, no warrant, no probable cause and gave you the explanation of "national security" or "just because we can". And on top all that, they are copying all of it. Folks, that is what they are doing.
That little thing called the Constitution that many of you swore to uphold and protect has a amendment in it that specifically says they (the government) cannot do that without probable cause.

Yes, the old, "if you aren't doing anything wrong or illegal, then you don't have to worry" argument. The problem is that you don't get to determine what is right or legal, and the activity that you thought was legal yesterday, may be illegal tomorrow, and in most cases you won't know it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, or so I'm told, so it puts you into jeopardy regardless of knowledge, or lack thereof.

 

[wbraswell]

Some of the viewpoints of our members, inadvertantly affirm the importance of our 2nd Amendment, and the need to keep who is armed anonymous as possible. IMHO, of course.

 

[finesse_r]

I Have To Disagree Totally

My opinion is that this man took an oath to his country, the same oath that many of us in the military took. How do you think our military would work if an officer ordered a private to do something and for whatever reason he decided that he didn't like it and went and complained to the press? Then takes off for China. We have to obey orders no matter if we like them or not.

I disagree totally, for we not only do not have to obey all orders, as there are some orders we should openly disobey. In this case the man was ordered to remain silent about criminal actions that threatened the US constitution and freedom in this nation. Such orders violated a much higher authority than any order is capable of conveying, his prior oath and orders to defend the US constitution. Any man that follows such an order is in my opinion the real traitor. Remember all involved, including those that gave the orders, were first sworn under oath to protect the US Constitution, not to violate it or to endanger it.

Every few years a sampling military personnel are given questionnaires to determine if they would fire on US citizens if so ordered. Each year more and more indicate that they would. Fortunately a majority of them still would refuse to execute such orders. God help us all when the military has enough new immigrants in the military who don't understand what it takes to remain free, that a majority agree that they will blindly and obediently follow such illegal orders.

Since you think soldiers should follow all orders, do you think they should follow an order to set babies on fire; an order to rape women; an order to massacre civilians; an order to torture prisoners; an order to commit treason. How many men went to jail and were put on trial for following such orders in Viet Nam or other combat areas.

Clearly there are limits to any man's responsibility to follow orders in the military. Other wise the Nuremberg Trials were a gigantic farce. The only question is where the line is, not whether or not such a line exists.

 

[BearBio]

Unfortunately, too many are like Jake Spoon "I didn't see no line"

 

[midkansmithfan]

Mike7.62,
Comparing the US Congress to the Nazi parliament seems a bit strange to me.
National Security is neither a veil nor an umbrella but a solid wall against enemies foreign AND domestic.
Yes, I'm sure the former Soviet Union, present day Russia and China
despise the NSA but not out of jealousy.

 

[arjay]

Mike7.62,
Comparing the US Congress to the Nazi parliament seems a bit strange to me.
National Security is neither a veil nor an umbrella but a solid wall against enemies foreign AND domestic.
Yes, I'm sure the former Soviet Union, present day Russia and China
despise the NSA but not out of jealousy.

And who determines who the domestic enemies are?

 

[Comrad]

The land of the free and the home of the brave, well at least we are still the home of the brave.

 

[BlueOvalBandit]

Those who give up freedoms for temporary safety, deserve neither.

Spoken by one of the greatest Americans to ever walk the earth (well its close enough for you history nuts).

No, actually you don't. There are things such as lawful orders and those that are not. Your duty is to obey the former, and refuse to obey the latter. When an order clearly contravenes the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Agreement, or the US Constitution it is clearly unlawful. If there is confusion over what is or isn't lawful, usually your conscience is a good guide.

Mike nailed it, when it hits the fan history has already established following orders isn't justification, unless there's a good coverup.


As I recall the oath went like this

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.


Art. 92 states your committing a crime if you disobey a lawful order. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't essentially cause often times that line is blurry or non existent.

I don't know what was leaked so I can't say whether he did the right thing, but its a scary world when people say I don't mind trading freedom for a peace of mind regarding security.

 

[midkansmithfan]

arjay,
They do, by their actions.

 

[arjay]

That's silly.We have a government that appears to be gathering intelligence in huge quantities,looking for a needle in a haystack.This is how a police state operates.It appears that we have headed down a very slippery slope.One thing I've noticed in this thread is that those who are appalled by this seem to be older members who have a closer memory and were affected by nazi germany,the ussr,etc.We've been around awhile.We know how evil those in power can be.

 

[chicagoslim]

Swonden, pointed out the security camera, but he didn't reveal the pictures.

The government was created to protect our rights and freedoms. Today, we are only allowed rights, if we have a large lobbying organization, supporting them. Without the NRA, we would no longer have any gun ownership rights. As it is they tell us what, where and how, we are allowed to exercise those rights.

 

[midkansmithfan]

arjay,
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, so I guess I'm agreeing with you to an extent.
It's not the law but our behavior that determines whether or not we are criminals.

 

[dswancutt]

Mike7.62,
Comparing the US Congress to the Nazi parliament seems a bit strange to me.
National Security is neither a veil nor an umbrella but a solid wall against enemies foreign AND domestic.
Yes, I'm sure the former Soviet Union, present day Russia and China
despise the NSA but not out of jealousy.

So basically your saying we should become just like our enemies to protect us from our enemies. Throw the constitution, the one document that makes different from everyone else out the window, to protect the state. The rights of the state becomes more important than the rights of the people. What good is your wall when it smothers us?

 

[arjay]

Exactly! And right now it looks like our government (don't they all?) believes they are above it.

 

[S&W45Colt]

Just because it is "prescribed" by Congress doesn't make it either Constitutional or right. The "law" as you describe it has been used by charlatans and dictators for millennia to enhance their power. The Nazi's used the law to kill six million Jews and a few million other "undesirables"; that doesn't make it right-but it was lawful.

The problem is that almost everything that the NSA and other black ops groups do is hidden behind the veil of "national security" and never sees the light of day, and if it does, then the representatives who are questioning the activities are routinely lied to. All OK under he umbrella of "national security". That may seem acceptable on its face, but allows massive abuse, some of which we're now becoming aware.

And yes, I'm sure that the former USSR and the present day Russia and China despise the NSA and wish that they had something as effective, but only when they see how efficient the surveillance of their own population can be. The dilemma of any organization such as the NSA is that yes, it is effective, and initially aimed at foreign enemies, but the potential for abuse that it has against its own internal population is high, and we're learning how high through sources such as Binney and Snowden. I personally would rather do without the effectiveness of the NSA if it means giving up my rights under the Constitution and living in a police state.

Excellent point. I can think of a highly efficient and effective organization who most agree was the most effective organization man for man in WW2, the SS. Anyone for recreating it here? Raise your hand high.

 

[black1970]

Careful guys-all of your posts are being recorded and stored for future use by your government. Big brother is listening.

 

[Grayfox]

You know what the really sad part is?
Right now its big news, many people have their panties in a bunch and lots of whoopin' and hollarin'.
But in a few weeks, maybe a couple of months at most, this will all fade away. The media will find a new crisis to go on and on about, the "average" citizen will be watching American Idol and .gov will go right back to what they were doing as if nothing ever happened.
Even sadder, come next election the very same people who allowed this to happen in the first place will most likely be re-elected.
And that is the real danger.

 

[PALADIN85020]

Excellent point. I can think of a highly efficient and effective organization who most agree was the most effective organization man for man in WW2, the SS. Anyone for recreating it here? Raise your hand high.

This reminds me of a story. I seems that a young man was talking with his grandfather, and complained that his life was humdrum.

His grandfather chided him, and told him "When I was your age, I went to Paris with my friends, took over the Follies Begere, drank everyone under the table, got on the stage and had our way with every girl in the chorus line!"

The young man decided he'd try to do the same. About a month later, he came back to his grandfather; his face was bloody, he had bruises all over him, his arms were broken and he had cuff marks on his wrists. "Grandpa, I decided to go to Paris with some of my friends and we tried to do what you did. It sure didn't work out the way we planned. Just who, exactly, were your friends at the time?"

His grandfather replied: "The SS."

John

 

[mstuhr]

Good point

Bout sums it up.... what if he took his Oath seriously?

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]

We will never know WHAT he was privvy to that made him think this was the correct course of action, we will only know what our elected officials tell us he did.... Just like the civil war, the victor writes the history, for right or wrong. I couldn't sleep if I monday morning quarterbacked this with the thought that the signers of our Declaration of Independence were also traitors (per the crown).....

Good point.
He may be subject to more than one oath.
I'd like to see this incident spilled out in a public court for all of America to see.
Bad thing is, The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." don't seem to pop up in court much anymore.
Thanks
Mike

 

[the ringo kid]

To me on this one-there is a fine line between traitor and hero. Its a fine line and I can barely "see" as it is. I may be wrong but-what Manning did ive been told-has indeed led to the deaths of Americans--what Snowden did-so far as far as i know it--has not cost the lives of anyone. Therefore-that's one reason why I think there is a fine line.

 

[venomballistics]

To me on this one-there is a fine line between traitor and hero. Its a fine line and I can barely "see" as it is. I may be wrong but-what Manning did ive been told-has indeed led to the deaths of Americans--what Snowden did-so far as far as i know it--has not cost the lives of anyone. Therefore-that's one reason why I think there is a fine line.

ultimately, that fine line is defined by who's left to do the measuring.
History is written by the winner

 

[the ringo kid]

ultimately, that fine line is defined by who's left to do the measuring.
History is written by the winner

Good point.