3 ms·
What I wonder is where the line is for people who automatically defer to government authority in these situations. How bad do the transgressions have to be befo
by danenania 11y ago
What I wonder is where the line is for people who automatically defer to government authority in these situations. How bad do the transgressions have to be before a whistleblower is justified in coming forward through any means necessary? For many, spying on billions of innocent people in direct violation of the country's constitution isn't sufficient, so what would be? What if Snowden had instead revealed proof of plans to carry out genocide or stage a military coup? Would he still be a traitor? Would he still be expected to "face the music" and go to jail? Where's the line?
- irishcoffee 11y ago> "...in direct violation of the country's constitution..." I'm too lazy to try and verify this myself. You seem to have information on how to verify this. Can you point me in at least a vague general direction so I can read up more on it?
- danenania 11y agoSure, here you go: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=4th+amendment https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e...
- irishcoffee 11y agoThis didn't answer my question. > "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." What was violated here? Break it down for me.