Comments on: The man without a country

By: Jody

Jody — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 17:48:06 +0000

I agree ER.

By: ER

ER — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 13:58:28 +0000

will eventually come across something questionable. I know I did. It may be evil, or perhaps just evidence of incompetence or stupidity. But who makes that call? We sign an oath and accept a responsibility when we seek access to classified information (because, after all, it is profitable for us as an employee). We agree to not give ourselves the right to decide whether the information is valid or or not, and whether its confidentiality is justified or not. It is not our call. We do not see the big picture. We are not qualified, morally or technically, to make that decision.

The distinction is comparable to the position taken by a soldier when he takes the oath to serve in the military. Soldiers do not decide whether wars are justified or not. If as a civilian, you choose not to serve, and resist conscription, or if you declare yourself a conscientious objector or pacifist, that is a morally justifiable position. But once you accept the responsibility, take the oath, accept the salt (as the Roman legionnaires did), the situation changes.

Of course, there may come a time when in all good conscience, the soldier must disobey the order, or the well-paid and comfortably employed security analyst must refuse to continue. There is a place for the refusnik, the whistleblower, for civil disobedience. Sometimes the law must be disobeyed. But when one accepts that particular mantle of self-righteousness, one also has to accept the responsibility that goes with that action.

I would be much more inclined to be charitable to Mr Snowden if he had turned himself in after he revealed his secrets. His taking shelter with other countries (and certainly the countries he chose to shelter him) suggests his motives were more self-serving than perhaps even he admits to himself.

By: ER

ER — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:32:59 +0000

Nothing Deep Throat revealed was a military or diplomatic secret, or was involved with espionage or classified data. The very term “classified” means that the information in question has been identified and specifically designated as of national importance by official, responsible authority. If Deep Throat had been caught and exposed he would have been guilty of no crime. The secrets he brought to light would not have been useful to an enemy of the US, or damaging to its friends. They were only embarrassing to the real traitor, Richard Nixon.

Whether Daniel Ellsberg was a traitor or hero is a matter for the courts and history to decide. His secrets were indeed classified, but the fact they were publicly exposed and he took his chances with the law gives him a moral authority Snowden does not have.

By: bowser

bowser — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:32:13 +0000

A traitor or patriot?

By: bowser

bowser — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 07:05:43 +0000

One should recognize that some people have consciences, know right from wrong, and believe that wrong-doing deserves public exposure. That is why the founding fathers advocated for a free press, not realizing that the badguys would eventually control the press.

Every American should be proud that people like Snowden will still honor his conscience, even if he has to see sanctuary in what the US has considered the biggest badguy in the world. Imagine! He has to seek safety in Russia. He’s not safe from this big bastion of freedom.

Unless you are a priest or attorney you are obligated to publicize illegal activities. That’s the law.

If you are a wrongdoer, he is a rat.

By: podrock

podrock — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 05:27:26 +0000

Just a man, who while doing his job, learned of illegal actions, and decided to tell others, with evidence.

I don’t have a word for that which is not rife with connotation, so I’ll not try. I just wonder, what would I have done, exposed to such information?

He is a man without a country, that was his sacrifice, and he knew it’d happen. He saw what was done to Manning. He’ll never come home a free man.