Edward Snowden is a man without honor.

[MineralMan]

As my father told me, "If a man does not honor his word, he honors nothing." He is now 88, and in failing health. When he was 19, almost 20, he became one of the youngest B-17 first pilots ever. To my knowledge, he never, as an adult, did not keep to his word.

Anyone who works with the NSA, in any capacity, singns many statements, under oath, promising not to divulge classified information to unauthorized persons. Snowden did not honor those commitments. He is without honor. I do not, and woulld not trust him in anything.

I worked at thhe NSA in the 1960s, at about the same age that my father flew B-17s. I singned many papers similar to what Snowden signed. Over 40 years later, I amstill bound by those. I gave my word and my oath.

That is my opinion. Yours might differ.

[WilliamPitt]

1. There are a lot of DUers on the same email list.

[MineralMan]

4. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Please explain.

[WilliamPitt]

22. LOL

[MineralMan]

25. Sorry. I still don't have any idea.

But, never mind...

[WilliamPitt]

28. No, of course you don't.

But your continued protestations of ignorance conveniently kick your thread.

Coincidence?

[leftynyc]

146. I have no idea either

perhaps you can explain what you mean rather than posting moronic smilies?

[Katashi_itto]

94. Thus speaks the ex-freeper

[baldguy]

112. But the Ron Paul fan is A-OK?

[morningfog]

131. I missed the ROn Paul fan.

[silvershadow]

61. Discussion aside, I *love the clip! ROTFLOL nt

[chimpymustgo]

173. Didn't get the email, but if Snowden has no honor, what about our GOVERNMENT - and an oath called

the Constitution?

Snowden has guts and principles - and yes, HONOR. Unlike our authoritarian government - and it's servile, ball-licking lackies.

[sibelian]

8. You are so not kidding.

Soon there will nothing in the Universe that isn't Edward Snowden.... he will develope an event horizon and reality itself will collapse into him...

[Vinnie From Indy]

52. "develop an event horizon"

Comedy gold!
LOL!
Cheers!

[babylonsister]

42. ??

Why disparage someone's opinion-because it's not your own?

[Cha]

70. Because it isn't his own. nm

[Whisp]

174. I don't think he has one on anything.

Just depends which is more popular, that's the side he is on.

You kind of notice these things after a while.

[backscatter712]

118. or on the same payroll... n/t

[Harmony Blue]

2. Honor means nothing

when an oath is taken amongst thieves.

[Puzzledtraveller]

3. :(

[LittleBlue]

5. If we never had oathbreakers

We'd still be subjects of Britain.

So yeah, mine differs.

[CanonRay]

164. Hear, hear

[TransitJohn]

10. I was gonna say..

[MineralMan]

14. ...nt

[BlueCaliDem]

44. It appears telling an Obama supporter to

"Fuck off" is just fine and dandy with the Infiltraitors here and they allow that post to stand - twice - but calling out a Freeper is against their sensitive constitution??

What has DU come to . . .

[RC]

106. It would seem to me the infiltrators would be those that are fine with the secret, wholesale spying.

Kinda un-american, don't you think?

[Octafish]

7. So what's that make the traitors who spy on America?

What's that make the traitors who lied America into illegal, immoral, unnecessary and disastrous wars -- again and again and again?

[JEB]

66. Excellent questions.

And I see no answers forthcoming or even acknowledgment of your questions' legitimate concerns.

[YOHABLO]

103. THANK YOU !!

[pscot]

9. What does that make the Pres

whose oath requires him to uphold the Constitution?

[Harmony Blue]

19. Good point

don't forget about any elected official or in the President's cabinet. Or any citizen of the U.S.

[Gregorian]

11. Yeah, and so is Daniel Ellsberg.

If only Nixon could have had a bit more time to do his "work".

[Hissyspit]

26. Secret plans should remain secret!

Um, or something.

[scarletwoman]

12. Our government is without honor. Honorable people oppose it.

[dkf]

13. What about our leaders oaths to protect the constitution?

Snowden seems the most honorable to me.

[RC]

107. +100

[avebury]

15. If his oath included a promise to uphold and protect the Constitution then he

would be obligated to become a whistle blower if he finds out that he is working amongst a group of people involved in illegal/immoral activity that is contrary to the best interest of the American people. All that is required for evil to triumph is for men to do nothing. There have been several people for many years who tried to work within the system to report wrong doing and it is plain to see that that their lives were trashed and nothing was done about the wrong doers. I don't for the life of me see why people say that he should have worked within the system because the system is broken. I don't blame him for running as we now live in a country where torture, rendition, and spying on our citizens has become accepted. The country that exists today is not the country the my Dad and his brothers fought for during WWII. We are becoming the type of country that we stood up against in the past.

[Cooley Hurd]

16. Your father is a great man who should be rightfully revered for his service...

...but Snowden put his ass and LIFE on the line for us to continue to have that right.

Aside, I had the glorious opportunity to ride in a B-17 last summer. My video of the experience:

Share with your Dad if he's into it.

[sibelian]

17. You "singed" many papers?

Dearie me. I hope the NSA forgave you.

[MineralMan]

21. I am posting on a Kindle Fire.

Typo, sorry. Signed, but you knew that...

[jmowreader]

24. He ran the incinerator

There's a duty roster...one day a month you have to run the incinerator, another day a month you have to guard the roofer...

[Logical]

18. Under your logic, ANY whistle-blower who promised secrecy and later, for the good of the many,

told those secrets, would violate your made-up code.

Weak logic.

[Aerows]

36. Anyone that tells the truth

and exposes wrong doing is obviously a person harboring too many boxes in their garage and fails at petting a neighbor's dog.

[Logical]

74. So true here lately. Attack the messenger. n-t

[snot]

20. No doubt German soldiers running concentration camps took had taken oaths.

[bahrbearian]

23. Mineral Man is a Freeper without Honor.

Gee ,can I play too.

[MineralMan]

27. ...nt

[bahrbearian]

29. NT to the Freeper

[L0oniX]

48. Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It's true. MM was an avid participant in FreeRepublic

for years. Perhaps a decade.

[Pharaoh]

58. well ther you have it.....

[madinmaryland]

35. Chuckle!

This post survived an alert 5-1.

[bahrbearian]

38. Hee Hee, Freepers NT

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

64. how interesting... that explains quite a lot (or is that top secret)

well played

[idwiyo]

120. Have a look at post #6 for more info.

No, it's not a secret but the are quite a number of people who would love it to be.

[rhett o rick]

30. Ah yes. The authoritarian code. The law trumps morality. nm

How about all the Congress-criters that took an oath to uphold the Constitution? DiFi for example. How about Clapper lying to Congress. Some think the laws only apply to the 99%. I hope you dont agree.

It appears that our government is spying on Americans in violation of the Constitution and all you care about is Snowden. Even if you are successful in lynching him, the problem wont go away. Too many American are willing to fight for freedom and liberty.

[think]

31. What does that make a spy agency that ignores it's country's own constitution & laws?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/justice-department-electronic-frontier-foundation-fisa-court-opinion

[Pholus]

32. Yes, we must ALL follow orders!

Your father's generation was much wiser about these things than we appear to be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders#The_.22Nuremberg_Defense.22

[Aerows]

33. Too many boxes in his garage

and he failed to pet the neighbor's dog. He is completely without honor.

[former9thward]

34. Since you worked for the NSA in the 60s how many Vietnamese did you help kill?

Or does your oath prevent you from telling us that?

[MineralMan]

37. Nothing I did there had anything to do

with Viet Nam.

[bahrbearian]

41. But did Nixon give you a Medal?

[MineralMan]

43. No.

I gave him a cup of coffee once, though. That was my duty that day.

[bahrbearian]

45. Duty ,does that mean on your Knees.

[MineralMan]

47. Nope. It means that I was an orderly one day.

I had the clearances needed, and was the lowest ranking person.

[randome]

57. Real classy.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[jaysunb]

63. I'd like to know what the fuck you mean by that remark.

I've tried to stay out of this stupid troll driven conversation, but I will not let you or any of the others get away w/ this kind of shit.

I think you should self delete and apologize to MM and all Vietnam veterans on this board.

[former9thward]

68. You have got to be kidding.

The Vietnam war was a war of aggression against the Vietnamese people. I helped block induction centers and did other things to try and stop the war machine. I have a number of friends and acquaintances who are Vietnam war vets and NONE of them are proud of what they did there.

[jaysunb]

71. No I'm not kidding

I doubt any of us are/were "proud" of our service there, but I won't stand for that kind of kick in the nuts of ANY Vet.
I'm glad you did what you did, but that doesn't give you or the asshole that ask that question the right to disparage those of us fought in that or any American war.

Don't bother to reply...I'm going for a walk to try and calm down.

[former9thward]

81. Most people who fought in Vietnam were drafted. They had no choice.

No one who worked for the NSA was drafted for anything. I don't mean to start a Vietnam war battle on DU. I shutter to think of what the posts on DU would have been like if it existed during Vietnam since during part of that war a Democratic president was in charge. I actually joined the air force in later years (no war). I run Project Salute for my state's bar association in which lawyers and law students help vets (many from the Vietnam era) get their disability benefits from the VA. I have not changed my views of the Vietnam war since I was a young teenager and I suspect I never will.

[Recursion]

143. Only 1/3 of Vietnam-era veterans, and less than a quarter of Vietnam veterans, were drafted

You seem, in this thread, to have swallowed several myths whole.

[former9thward]

168. All the people who went to Vietnam that I knew were drafted and I knew a lot.

So no myth with me. I don't live in fantasy worlds. Welcome to them.

[ConcernedCanuk]

125. I lived in San Diego with 2 Vietnam Vets in 1979

.
.
.

One refused to speak of the experience entirely

the other only spoke to me once about his experience there

It was a horrific story, and he told me afterwards,

"Don't ever ask me again about what we did in Vietnam".

I get it.

CC

[steve2470]

39. my view is a bit different than yours

1- Under "normal circumstances", yes, of course he should have upheld his oaths.

2- By disobeying his oaths, he has benefited the country long-term by forcing the public to confront the secrecy debate but destroyed his own life, to the point where he may be captured, arrested, tried, convicted and even put to death. He will never be able to rest, knowing the CIA is after him, perhaps. The chance of getting a Presidential pardon is slim to none. Sizable numbers of the American public will always hate him. If he's lucky, he may eventually come to be regarded as Ellsberg-like, but Ellsberg did not flee the country to Hong Kong, Russia and possibly Cuba, Venezuela and Ecuador.

3- He should have pursued the same path Thomas Drake did. Drake did it perfectly, yet Drake's life has been destroyed to a large extent. Last time I read, he has been reduced to working at an Apple store for survival. Hopefully Drake is much happier now than he was years ago burdened with what he knew.

4- I'm not thrilled that he didn't stop at talking solely about the USA and ventured into talking about Great Britain and China.

In a perverse and non-traditional way, he has had honor. He has sacrificed himself for the greater good of the country. I'm not sure I would have done the same. I'm not sure I would have even gone Drake's route, because even that was extremely difficult.

YMMV.

signed, loyal Democrat since 1976

[RiverLover]

104. Very well said. n/t

[steve2470]

105. thank you ! nt

[RKP5637]

40. I respect you, but I can not agree with my country when wrong. n/t

[MineralMan]

46. There are ways to disagree.

All require standing up, sticking around, and directing that disagreement appropriately. It can be highly uncomfortable, I understand.

[dkf]

122. The previous NSA whistleblowers didn't get anywhere by going through the legal channels.

There's no point... It was futile.

[MineralMan]

161. And some of them released the information to the public.

They then stayed around to face the consequences of that action. Can you see the difference? Daniel Ellsberg, for example is still an activist. Sgt. Manning is currently on trial for his release.

Snowden has fled the interview.

[dkf]

165. What is he? Jesus? Ready to be tortured for this damned country?

He did enough. These people who created and perpetuated the surveillance are the ones who should be worried about going to jail but instead they scream "off with his head". If he is ever treated like Bradkey Manning I will never ever get over it.

Honestly I have never been so mad at politicians ever. EVER. They have perverted what this country means. Screw them.

[progressoid]

133. Wait. So now you're saying if had stuck around it would have been OK?

[pasto76]

49. bullshit

you signed a letter, so anything illegal you know cant be spoken of. bullshit.


this is the same vein as "I was following orders". We all have a DUTY NOT TO OBEY UNLAWFUL ORDERS. I will not lie steal nor cheat. Or tolerate those who do.

your version of 'honor' is pretty weird.

[randome]

53. Greenwald admitted to talking with Snowden before his latest gig at the NSA.

It's likely that Snowden's resume was forged. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023058698

The company that vetted Snowden recently had someone plead guilty to forging resumes (not Snowden's).

Snowden was in training, at the NSA for only 4 weeks and yet he says he "saw things". He didn't have time to be disillusioned.

All these things together imply a concerted effort to steal as much as possible and then try to make as much of it as they could.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[GoneFishin]

56. That's interesting. Have any sources?

[randome]

59. Links.

Snowden & Greenwald communicated in February.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/edward-snowden-nsa-leaker-glenn-greenwald-barton-gellman-92505.html

Doubts about Snowden's resume. And a theory (only a theory) that he really only worked there for about 4 weeks.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023058698

Snowden's access to documents during a training stint.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/06/alexander-snowden-got-calltracking-order-during-training-166524.html

I don't think we know what's really behind all this yet.

Whether Snowden actually worked at the NSA for 4 weeks or 3 months, he was not an analyst, he was a systems administrator. So when he says he "saw things", why didn't he explain what he meant by that? He wasn't in a position to "see things" so I don't trust him.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[quakerboy]

76. That does not make the prism spying debacle any better.

Think about it. You have a system that can spy on literally anyone with a phone or a computer. The "protection" is that they promise not to use it unless they get a warrant first.

And they hire a guy with a fake resume and give him clearance and access to the system?

How long til Fox realizes they can jimmy up a resume and send their next James O'Keefe in to get recordings of private calls on whoever they want?

[randome]

86. Yeah, good point. The privatization bullshit needs to stop.

But there is no law that prevents anything. You can still murder someone if you want. The best we can do is fill the gaps with rules and regulations to make it less likely for the laws to be abused.

It's the Internet Age. Anyone with a computer can hack into anyone else's computer if they're determined enough. All we have to protect us are laws and the regulations that follow them.

What I would like to know is what kind of approvals at the NSA are needed before data is accessed. Is it sufficient to have, say, three people sign off before a data extract is made? If not, what other kind of safeguards can be added? That's the kind of conversation we need to have, too.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[pnwmom]

96. I wonder if Wikileaks was involved with this from the beginning. n/t

[randome]

157. Nothing to indicate that but it's interesting speculation.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[rug]

50. Put my opinion down as one that differs.

Exponentially.

BTW, my father drove a truck in WWII, not a bomber, but he had an excellent nose for bullshit.

[GoneFishin]

51. Your father is absolutely right. Keeping your word is paramount. But like a contract that is

altered without your knowledge after you have signed it, an oath given under false pretenses loses it's legal and/or moral standing.

Your father is absolutely right. But I disagree that this is the same.

I doubt that Ed Snowden took an oath to violate the U.S. Constitution, violate the 4th amendment, and generally spy on all US citizens, and then send those citizens the bill for hundreds of billions of dollars for the privilege of having their privacy invaded.

[Vinnie From Indy]

55. "I gave my word and my oath."

The question is to whom or to what you gave this oath to.

The NSA? the President?

[DonCoquixote]

60. frankly, I do not care

Asa matter of fact, the idea he worked for the NSA precludes the idea of him being all that honorable...you might as well as a butcher why he/she smells like meat. While I have been an Obama cheerleader,and frankly, am still very glad I voted for Obama, this NSA crap is not redeemable by standard.

[cantbeserious]

62. We Will Have To Agree To Disagree - The Death Of The 4th Amendment Is Very Important To Many

eom

[WillyT]

65. And Washington D.C., And Wall Street, Are Filled With HUNDREDS Of The Same, At The HIGHEST Levels...

So what's your point?

[Bluenorthwest]

67. You, Mineral Man, lied to my face about your history of posting anti gay crap all over the

right wing internet. So clearly your father is not much of an expert on honor nor honesty, for he raised a very mendacious son.
This is among the most intellectually dishonest things i have ever read in my life. So self serving it might as well be a photo of you pleasuring yourself.

[idwiyo]

114. +1

[Cha]

69. But, he ran off to China and helped them out and now he's

gone to Russia and being cheered for that. Surely, that counts for some honor? No?

go China Go Russia.. bad USA

[East Coast Pirate]

72. The Kardashians are withour honor as well.

[Daemonaquila]

73. By your definition, the SS were men of honor.

So were the Staasi. And the KGB. And so many more murderers and thugs who kept their word while slaughtering and imprisoning countless innocents.

A true patriot knows when to fight his government for the sake of his country and its citizens. Assange, Ellsberg, Mannung, and Snowden are true patriots. The rest is noise and nonsense.

[Octafish]

117. + Democracy

Trying to end wars for profit; trying to restore rule of law, where no one, including a corporation, is above it.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Octafish/157

NAZI moneymaking HBS 801.

[JDPriestly]

75. Actually, it's the elected officials of the Bush and Obama administrations

that have no honor. They promised to uphold the Constitution, but all they do is make excuses to be able to do whatever they want whether it violates the Constitution or not. And this surveillance program which is so broad in its scope and so secret violates the Constitution in many ways -- in many ways that obliterate the very foundation of our government.

It isn't just a matter of the violations of our personal rights. This surveillance program permits the executive to spy on the metadata and the lives of members of the other branches -- the legislative and the judicial branches. That violates the separation of powers concept which is the basis of our Constitution and the structure of our government. That is not a violation that can be glossed over with the excuse that we have found a few terrorists. That violation presages the end of the independence of the legislative and judiciary branches. They are, as long as this program is in place, subservient to the executive branch. This program makes our president into a caesar, more powerful than an ordinary king. Stalin must be laughing in his grave.

[DefenseLawyer]

77. I forgive you for whatever horrible things you did for the NSA in the 60's.

Last edited Sun Jun 23, 2013, 11:16 PM - Edit history (1)

But I really don't think a loyal NSA man is in much of a position to judge the "honor" of anyone.

[Politicub]

78. +1 - and a traitor to his country

His word is worth nothing. And to top it all off, he is a coward.

He makes me sick.

[Apophis]

79. That's the best you've got? "He signed many statements..."

So? If I worked for the govt., signed statements yadda yadda, and saw they were committing atrocities against its own citizens, I'd come out with the info to the public.

It's not about what you consider honor. It's about doing the right thing.

[randome]

83. Snowden was a systems administrator, not an intelligence analyst.

He said he "saw things" but he won't say what he saw and he wasn't in a position to see anything.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[NealK]

99. So, if he didn't see a thing...

What's the big fuss about?

[randome]

155. Are you asking why the Administration wants to stop him giving secrets away?

I would think that's self-evident.

As for me, I think he's an idiot. I don't really care about what little he's divulged so far, I just think he's another flawed 'hero' that too many are willing to cheer on.

Snowden thought he would be hailed as the new Messiah and now that people are questioning his background, especially that forged resume, he's on the run.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[morningfog]

80. Honor? Who gives a rat's ass about honor?

I care far more what is done by our government and in our name than someone's "honor". Especially when I didn't even know the guys name two months ago.

[madrchsod]

82. yes he is.

[Blue_Roses]

84. I agree and respect one who can honor their oath

no matter what the consequences--when the circumstances involve what is best for the freedom and security of the US.

However, in this case, Snowden had many options BEFORE he took it upon himself to blab and betray us. He is no hero. He is an opportunist who is making some serious mistakes that are going to come back and bite him in the ass.

This whole thing stinks to high heavens.

[GoneFishin]

116. That's a talking point myth that has been debunked by prior leakers who tried those "options" and

got squat for their efforts.

[Blue_Roses]

138. that makes no sense

"a talking point myth...."

So going to another country--that is known for spying too--and blabbing their own country security info is now the "right" thing to do? Bullshit.

[NoOneMan]

85. I never met him so I couldn't really know much about him personally

But I do know I'm not a big fan of intrusive government spying on its citizens. Thats what we really should be talking about.

[Douglas Carpenter]

87. I see your point - if we have to choose between living under a surveillance state with no discussion

about it and the public blissfully unaware - but with members of the clandestine services who have honor and keep their oaths or living in an open and free society that is not dominated by a surveillance state but where members of the clandestine services who violate their oaths - I suppose it is better to live under a secretive government and an all encompassing surveillance state than living in an open and free society where members of the clandestine services violate their oaths. I think that is your point?

[galileoreloaded]

88. Those days of honor are behind us. Nt

[Puzzledtraveller]

89. you make an important distinction

[Puzzledtraveller]

90. He needed a "code red" Gitmo style

Where's Keifer Sutherland? "Private Santiago is dead because he had no honor!"

[DefenseLawyer]

92. You want mineral man on that wall!!

You need mineral man on that wall!!!!

[matt819]

91. I'm sure there are quite a lot of DUers bound by these same commitments

I'm one of them as well, and, twenty years out, I've honored that commitment.

Here's the challenge. You're back in the NSA, back in the 1960s. Or in the 1980s during Reagans' war on waste, fraud, and mismanagement. Waste and mismanagement are irritants, of course, and damn near inevitable in any large bureaucracy. But there you are, a GS-9, and you discover fraud. Oh, I don't know. Let's say you discovered that your organization is, in direct violation of US law, recording the phone calls of, say, every American. They're storing this info on reels and reels of tape in a warehouse in, for argument's sake, Utah. You ask a few questions and learn that this fraud goes all the way to the top, or at least it's above GS-13, which to a GS-9 is really up there. But everywhere you turn, because you're one persistent GS-9, you find out that it really does go to the highest levels. These are the pre-contractor days. Everywhere you turn are fellow federal employees, fellow bureaucrats. And you're a good little bureaucrat because some day you want to be a GS-13, or maybe higher.

But this is wrong, dammit. People's telephone calls should be private. Sure, airplanes are being hijacked, and the Marines in Beirut were killed in a bombing, but there are limits.

But everywhere you turn you're shut down. And as far as you know, nothing's changed.

What about that commitment then? What would I have done? I don't know. And, frankly, I'm grateful I never had to confront this.

[MineralMan]

151. I was an E-4 in the USAF.

I worked in the building, had the clearances, but was not an employee of the NSA. When offered a job, I declined.

[MNBrewer]

93. I do have a different opinion

Keeping your oath to do something odious is hardly honorable.

[mhatrw]

95. Thus the American Revolution was a war without honor.

It is not honorable to condone tyranny.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men put honor before duty.

[bobclark86]

97. I'll leave you with this:

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"
-Believed to be Edward Burke

Oh, and this:

"The claim, 'I was only following orders' has been used to justify too many tragedies in our history."
-Star Trek

[Ford_Prefect]

98. If the NSA were turning into the Stasi in your day would you have had the balls to stand up to them?

Had you seen it going on, would you have recognized it, and maybe known what to do?

I don't think of Snowden as a Hero. Pointless debates about his "Honor" only muddy the real issue: He saw what was going on and realized it was wrong, and had an inside view of just what the NSA and its cohorts would do to him or anyone else they deemed an enemy.

Ask Sibel Edmonds what its like to discover whats going on inside the shadow world and try to tell congress about it. The only reason she is still above ground is that Congress actually spoke to her.

[RoccoR5955]

100. So keep one's word no matter what.

Even if it goes against the Constitution.
Yeah, right. I am pretty sure that it is illegal to follow an illegal order.
At any rate I disagree. Snowden is a man of GREAT honor.
He has the balls to speak truth to power, where some other sheep who are members of the "go along, get along gang" just let it pass.

You know that Howard Zinn flew B-17s. He was a bombardier. He came out after bombing a town that didn't have to be bombed, toward the end of the war. They were using something new, called napalm.

People who hide behind their oaths when the government does deplorable things are nothing but lackeys for the man, and lily-livered snots!

[HiPointDem]

101. it does

[Union Scribe]

102. If there was only a way to get this to him.

He'd feel so bad reading it. Like, "Damn, that guy just served me. I'm turning myself in!"

[sulphurdunn]

108. You are correct in all save one point.

Like you, your father and me, Snowden's allegiance was not to the NSA or any other federal agency or department but to the Constitution. The only oath he took (if private contractors even take one) was to support, protect and defend it from all enemies foreign and domestic. Whether or not the NSA is a domestic enemy of the 4th Amendment is arguable, but the fact is that Snowden violated a security agreement he signed as a condition of employment, the breach of which contained a legal penalty he needs to face unless the NSA was violating the Constitution, in which case he was bound by oath to blow the whistle. He did not, however, break an oath of allegiance. I don't think you can call him an oath breaker unless it can be shown that the NSA was in compliance with its mission statement and constitutional responsibilities, anymore than the government can legally charge him with espionage unless the leak was for his personal benefit and that of a foreign power.

That is my opinion.

[primavera]

109. Absolutely? In every circumstance?

As some have already posted in this thread, certain (hopefully) rare circumstances would seem to dictate breaking one's word, or, at the very least, mitigate having done so. I'm sincerely curious to hear your opinion, MineralMan, on this topic. Of course, keeping one's word is always desirable, but what if doing so conflicts with another oath and/or visceral commitment? Say I've taken a nondisclosure oath, but have also taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and I become privy to information that I sincerely believe cannot be kept under wraps without violating my oath to protect and defend the Constitution? If two oaths conflict, which oath counts more? Alternatively, it seems to me that an oath is, from a certain point of view, a form of contract. A person takes an oath predicated upon a certain understanding of the conditions under which the oath is offered. If I take an oath of obedience, it may be with the explicit or implied understanding that persons with authority over me will not abuse their authority and give me commands that are illegal. It's a well established principle of law that the "just following orders" defense is not a valid defense. So, if a superior orders me to torture and murder some civilian, am I an oath breaker if I refuse to comply? Has not the superior, in essence, breached our contract by ordering me to do something illegal? Doesn't that make the "contract" null and void? Again, I agree that an oath is a thing to not be discounted lightly, but, on the flip side, I don't think it is the sole, ultimate, absolute imperative, against which everything else is insignificant. To view it uncritically as an inviolable absolute I think does not reflect honor. Honor requires doing the right thing, even when doing so is painful or entails difficult moral choices. And in very rare circumstances, doing the right thing may conceivably require setting aside one oath in order to honor a different one.

[Coccydynia]

110. Interesting reasoning.

That philosophy makes "Good Germans" honorable and President Obama a man with no honor.

[Kablooie]

111. Honor is a value from the past. It has little currency in today's world.

Look at the Wall Street scam artists.
Look at our politicians.
Look at our corporate overlords.

They hold honor only within very narrow, self interested enclaves.
Real honor is totally lacking.
It's disappearing fast from society and may not be a worthwhile criticism anymore.

[sulphurdunn]

113. Yea, trying to be honorable

has always been a pain in the ass, but some people just can't help themselves.

[nolabels]

119. Unless you are independently wealthy you will eventually go hungry without it

Pretty sure most employers wouldn't hire you if they thought you were a liar and a cheat with plans for their business to do such.

Currently i don't see what Snowden has done so far as dishonorable to the US. The government was erected to serve the population. To that end, scheming against the population is a contradiction into it's existence.

[backscatter712]

115. Doesn't the oath include the phrase

"to protect the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic"?

Right now, I'd classify the NSA as a domestic enemy of the Constitution and the people of the United States.

Which means that Snowden's one of the few actually upholding his oath.

[GoneOffShore]

121. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Edward Snowden is a hero, in the truest sense of the word.

[railsback]

123. No honor in running to Ecuador

which has cracked down on the opposition - limiting private media to 1/3 the broadcast licenses and harassing journalists. I mean, Geezuz, if you're all about 'freedom', you don't run to a country cracking down on it. Oh, they can also remove judges they don't like and insert the ones they want. Sounds like a utopia for someone like Snowden.

[marble falls]

124. I would rather he'd have honored his oath and if he had information with an overwhelming need....

to be released in violation of his agreements that he would stay here and get his charges against the government heard under oath and on the record. While I agree his disclosures about government intrusions into our privacy alone need a thorough public hearing with him making his accusations and his own defense against the charges he faces, the rest of it - from character assassination to virtual beatification of Snowden - and the drip drip drip release of "secrets" which seem almost tawdry and blackmail like are troubling.

There is no doubt there are two issues here:1. Snowden's obligation to his employer and 2. the federal government's intrusion into private lives without due process and seemingly unconstitutionally - and doing it with private contractors.

They aren't equal issues and I think the Fed's problems trumps the Snowden circus. He may well be no-account but the privacy issue needs to be at least discussed publicly. I don't believe in shooting the messenger and I don't believe in shooting the message because the messenger is a less than a savory person, either.

[MineralMan]

153. Exactly. If he felt that what he knew was so important

that it had to be shared, then the honorable thing is to share it and face any consequences of that action.

[marble falls]

160. Not an unreasonable position, I don't understand why some of us here don't get it.

[TransitJohn]

126. Lulz.

Yeah, this government is sooooooo honorable.

[Bonobo]

127. Honor= Selflessly doing the right thing no matter what it costs you.

Lack of honor = Selfishly hiding behind an oath and allowing oneself to become a part of a mechanism of abuse.

Cowardice = pretending that you are doing the above out of a sense of honor.

[railsback]

128. If that were true

He would have surrendered.

[Deep13]

130. Why?

Why does doing the right thing effectively create a duty of suicide?

[railsback]

136. If he were 'selflessly' doing the right thing

he'd have no reason to run.

[Deep13]

149. Of course he has reason to run.

The right thing in this case happens to be highly illegal. Do not confuse moral or ethical with legal. Challenging power in any form is done at great personal rick. Our Christian society values martyrdom and lionizes those who have sacrificed everything to principle. Still Jesus Christ and even the mortal MLK are pretty tough acts to follow and there is no reason to think Snowden agrees with martyrdom as an ideal. Besides, were he silenced like Manning was, the message would likely die with him.

[railsback]

166. Self preservation

is NOT sacrifice.

[Bonobo]

132. That's not true.

Why would that be required?

You have not thought this out.

[railsback]

135. Self sacrifice

Running is selfish, as in self preservation.

[Bonobo]

140. Leaving one's country, one's family, one's lover, one's life...

With little hope of seeing them again IS self-sacrifice.

You haven't thought this one out.

[railsback]

144. Wow. That's some insight into Snowden's personality.

I assume you base that solely on what you think would be a sacrifice… but you're not Snowden. Having been forced to grow up in a crazy ass commune with my psycho mom, where there was a never ending revolving door of characters from all spectrums coming in and out, I saw a good deal of them toss their family and friends under the bus without hesitation. Sacrifice is a relative term when it comes to relationships.. and/or a way of life. To some, it matters. To others, it doesn't.

Actual sacrifice would be like throwing yourself on a grenade without any thought of self preservation. Snowden ran.. and now he's attempting to land in a country who's ranked near the bottom of allowing freedom of the press. So much for 'sacrifice'.

[marble falls]

162. Self sacrifice or running out? Running away is clouding the real issue: government invasion of

privacy. His charges would have more resonance if he were here to make them rather than redirecting attention to his escape circus.

[Deep13]

129. So what?

A person can be without honor and still provide accurate information. This isn't about Snowden. It's about the right to tell the truth.

Frankly, I think revealing truth about the govt's systematic abuse of the 4th Amendment, something POTUS has vowed to uphold, is far more important and a far greater duty than upholding his personal sense of honor. If he stood on his oath, he would have been taking the easy way out for himself and effectively betraying his county. Instead, he chose to sacrifice himself for the greater good. That took real courage, which is far more honorable than your superficial definition.

[Maven]

134. And you are a man without shame.

[idwiyo]

163. !

[HipChick]

137. Snowden is an arsehole.

He could have protested in other ways, but he's a dick...and not a smart one at that..

[delrem]

139. Dick Cheney.

Dick Cheney. A man that I never expected to address.

Now, this is DU so I don't suppose Dick Cheney is personally trolling this board. So when I read nonsense that could well be written by Dick Cheney because it expresses the same extremely limited and barbaric viewpoint, I suppose someone else wrote it. Hopefully not for chump change.

That sucks because I think it'd be grand to get Dick Cheney in my (and our) sights one on one. The first question I'd ask is why his focus on US law w.r.t. whisteblowers fails to account for any of the many well proven exceptions that put an universal morality/ethics before the details.

Even if Snowden is wrong according as Cheney's reading of the law, Snowden admits his action and explains his justification in terms of such an universal law.

[Zorra]

141. This place is getting scary weird; the Nazi-like moral disconnects are truly frightening.

Blind faith in government in the face of corruption is totally asinine.

[Savannahmann]

142. Fair argument, as far as it goes.

But what about conflicting responsibilities? If you are privy to a secret, a reprehensible action, even if you have given your word to remain silent, aren't you bound by a higher duty?

There are several ways to look at this. You and others seem to believe that the highest duty is to country, no matter what the government has done, or is doing. The philosophy behind that breaks down to loyalty to nation above all. It is expressed by one of two phrases. My country is always right, which is juvenile. My country right or wrong which is asinine.

The principles of morally right and wrong are not new. They go back to the Greeks, but are best explored by St. Augustine who taught us that an unjust law is no law.

That was the principle behind the Nuremburg trials. The defense that the participants were merely following orders was rejected, and with good reason. The immoral orders should have been resisted even under penalty of death. So the question is this. Has the wheel turned? Are we now the authoritarian state that demands loyalty and obedience above all other concerns?

Snowden may have committed a crime, but what was the higher crime? Is it worse to break your word, or violate the privacy and spy on your own citizens? A nation that asks for the people to sacrifice their lives in service should be worthy of that sacrifice.

[MineralMan]

156. If Snowden had information he believed had to be shared,

there are many routes for doing that. All involve sharing the information and standing up to the responsibility of sharing it. Ellsberg is a good example, and there are many others, as well. Sgt. Manning also did not flee the country to expose what he decided to expose. Taking Top Secret information outside of the country and giving it to foreigners is not how it is done.

[Scuba]

145. I don't care about Snowden. It's not about him. It's about the spying!

[Dorian Gray]

147. So if you found something

unethical or immoral while you worked there, you would be comfortable keeping your mouth shut?

The good of society is more important than signing a non-disclosure form.

[MineralMan]

158. I did not discover such information. I declined a job

offer with the NSA when my USAF enlistment ran out, and left. Had I discovered information I felt that had to be released, I would have begun with the accepted ways to reveal that information outside of normal channels. Even in the late 1960s, the options existed for reporting such things, including taking the report to any Congress member.

I would not have left the country and given that information to the media and to foreign governments. I left because I did not like the work that was potentially being done by that agency. It was not a line of work I would have been comfortable with.

Edward Snowden had very limited access, which is why what he has presented to the public are little more than briefing documents used to educate new NSA employees and contract employees to the agency. I saw similar documents when I began working there while in the USAF, but on different subjects at the time.

[leftynyc]

148. While he has leaked some

very useful information on what the NSA is up to and may be responsible for us finally trashing that odious patriot act, I agree he is a man without honor - honorable people who are making a case for governments staying transparent do not run to China/Russia/Cuba.

I've seen many people here accuse you of being an anti-gay freeper. Do you wish to explain what they are talking about?

[MineralMan]

159. I'm not going to rehash that stuff.

I was banned by Free Republic in 2006 as an "anti-freeper." I posted there for four years in a failed attempt to argue against right-wing nonsense, particularly anti-science nonsense. There's something in my journal about the the other issue. You're welcome to read that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

150. And MineralMan is an HonorableMan (nt)

[The Link]

152. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3078371

[Democracyinkind]

154. Luckily Stauffenberg disagreed about this conception of honor.

Some people might want to incorporate their personal morality into their conception of what honor means; others see the essence of honor in blindly obeying every promise you ever made.

Historically speaking, the first group may cause some damage to imperial ambitions, while the second group ultimately ends up filling ditches with corpses. Therefore, it's not a hard choice to make, even if you - like me - can't say that you'd categorically follow one of these conceptions. Honor can be one of the most dangerous delusions available. If you're not willing to accept either versions of the concept of honor, you might just want to discard the whole notion. It's not as if much is lost (but that's just my opinion). This whole perspective seems very antiquated to me (Born 1983).

[kmart2]

167. And the concept of honor was very strong in the Old South

The South had an obsession with honor and rank and deference.

The thinking was binary.

Black freedom was unthinkable, because it would mean white disgrace.

[silvershadow]

170. Welcome to DU!

[Hydra]

169. Wow, way to tar yourself

And to think I didn't think the DU firefighters could dig themselves deeper.

As pointed out, Sibel Edmonds and Bradly Manning were both effectively silenced, one for going through the established channels and the other for still being within easy reach when he got the info out.

Our ultimate duty and honor and lawful requirement is the Constitution, until it gets repealed. Until then, your suggestion that he had an obligation to his lesser agreements is laughable.

Every evil gov't in history has needed people like you to reinforce their rules and their policies, under the name of "Honor," "Duty" and "respect" to PEOPLE (who don't deserve it), not the ideals.

[Festivito]

171. When Constitution and secondary oath conflict, WHICH GETS YOUR HONOR?

Please proceed.

[MineralMan]

172. That's simple. If that conflict arose, which it did not

for me, I would take my concerns through the channels legally available to me. Those extend clear to Congress, through members. Without disclosing classified information illegally, I would make my case clearly and thoroughly, in an attempt to start an investigation. Those channels are clearly defined and are available to anyone in the intelligence community, even to a lowly USAF E-4, like I was.

If those channels were exhausted in my efforts, I would make carefully-selected classified material public that demonstrated the problem but that did not cause any dangerous disclosure of information that could harm the country. I would do it openly, publicly, and would be available to anyone, including the authorities. If the case went to court, I'd testify to what I knew.

Questions of constitutionality are complex, as we see constantly in Supreme Court decisions. I'm no legal scholar, by any means, so I'm not comfortable making statements that something is constitutional or not. That's a call for our judicial system, as described in the Constitution itself. We have a system that is described in that document. I honor that system, and that means the entire system, not just the parts I'm comfortable with. When it comes to Constitutional questions, I'm going with the Constitutional method for deciding them. No other method is valid, in my opinion.

[idwiyo]

176. Clearly a case of "do as I say, not as I do".

[idwiyo]

175. Username + topic of this OP = Comedy Central! Thank you for the laugh.