7 ms·

Soldiers are supposed to disobey their military superiors if told to commit crimes against humanity. Breaking a law, especially when doing something obviously

by jychang 13y ago

Soldiers are supposed to disobey their military superiors if told to commit crimes against humanity. Breaking a law, especially when doing something obviously right, does not mean that you need to have charges brought against you. Say you see a dog about to drown in a creek on private property. If you ran in and saved it, the owner could charge you for trespassing. That doesn't mean they SHOULD.

lotharbot 13y ago
There are provisions built into the law for circumstances when you did "something obviously right" but are charged with a crime which was technically committed in the process of doing the right thing. "the defendant must affirmatively show (i.e., introduce some evidence) that (a) the harm he sought to avoid outweighs the danger of the prohibited conduct he is charged with; (b) he had no reasonable alternative; (c) he ceased to engage in the prohibited conduct as soon as the danger passed; and (d) he did not himself create the danger he sought to avoid." From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity , which is a specific case of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense
timr 13y ago
"Soldiers are supposed to disobey their military superiors if told to commit crimes against humanity." Well, no. A soldier isn't supposed to say "I think that command is illegal under international law, therefore I will choose not to follow it." They'll be court-martialed, and rightly so. Choosing to make that call is intentionally risky, because it's supposed to be rare. Likewise, Snowden will be prosecuted...and rightly so. He broke a bunch of laws. Maybe he did that out of a sense of righteousness, but the greater legality of his decision is not for him to decide. But even ignoring all of that, the premise of your metaphor is absurd: Snowden revealed information about legal surveillance programs that weren't acutely harming anyone, and he might have hurt national security in the process. That's a far cry from preventing "crimes against humanity". Perspective, please.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Actually, in the U.S. servicemembers are supposed to refuse to follow orders that are not lawful. You are right that such cases are (and are meant to be) exceptionally rare. The U.S. Supreme Court gives exceptionally wide latitude in what counts as a lawful order, and as far as I know no servicemember has ever been tried (much less convicted) for following a valid order (even if they thought it was illegal). But with that said I agree with your overall point that Snowden did break the law with at least some of his disclosures. If so much as one document he leaked was found to describe action that was legal (even if unethical) he would fall afoul of various U.S. laws protecting classified information. Likewise, even if he leaked information describing activities found to be illegal, he may still get in trouble for not following Congress's approved route for such leaks (I'm not sure if that would be technically criminal or administrative in nature though).
  - glurgh 13y ago
    He's in Hong Kong talking about US intelligence operations in Hong Kong. Short of the government not charging him for that specific thing (say, to avoid talking about it altogether), there's doesn't seem to be any way to avoid getting in trouble for it.
    - btilly 13y ago
      Everyone seems to be mad about that one. However I've yet to see ANYONE in the mainstream press point out that the Obama administration was recently trying to pass legislation that reduced privacy protection for Americans as a response to the Chinese doing exactly what we are doing to the Chinese. There is a high level of hypocrisy here. Call me an idealist, but my belief is that the USA as a country should take the moral high ground, even if it costs us tactically in the short run.
      - lern_too_spel 13y ago
        Obama threatened to veto CISPA if it landed on his desk without the privacy issues fixed.

by jychang 13y ago

lotharbot 13y ago

There are provisions built into the law for circumstances when you did "something obviously right" but are charged with a crime which was technically committed in the process of doing the right thing. "the defendant must affirmatively show (i.e., introduce some evidence) that (a) the harm he sought to avoid outweighs the danger of the prohibited conduct he is charged with; (b) he had no reasonable alternative; (c) he ceased to engage in the prohibited conduct as soon as the danger passed; and (d) he did not himself create the danger he sought to avoid." From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity , which is a specific case of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense

timr 13y ago

"Soldiers are supposed to disobey their military superiors if told to commit crimes against humanity." Well, no. A soldier isn't supposed to say "I think that command is illegal under international law, therefore I will choose not to follow it." They'll be court-martialed, and rightly so. Choosing to make that call is intentionally risky, because it's supposed to be rare. Likewise, Snowden will be prosecuted...and rightly so. He broke a bunch of laws. Maybe he did that out of a sense of righteousness, but the greater legality of his decision is not for him to decide. But even ignoring all of that, the premise of your metaphor is absurd: Snowden revealed information about legal surveillance programs that weren't acutely harming anyone, and he might have hurt national security in the process. That's a far cry from preventing "crimes against humanity". Perspective, please.

mpyne 13y ago
Actually, in the U.S. servicemembers are supposed to refuse to follow orders that are not lawful. You are right that such cases are (and are meant to be) exceptionally rare. The U.S. Supreme Court gives exceptionally wide latitude in what counts as a lawful order, and as far as I know no servicemember has ever been tried (much less convicted) for following a valid order (even if they thought it was illegal). But with that said I agree with your overall point that Snowden did break the law with at least some of his disclosures. If so much as one document he leaked was found to describe action that was legal (even if unethical) he would fall afoul of various U.S. laws protecting classified information. Likewise, even if he leaked information describing activities found to be illegal, he may still get in trouble for not following Congress's approved route for such leaks (I'm not sure if that would be technically criminal or administrative in nature though).
- glurgh 13y ago
  He's in Hong Kong talking about US intelligence operations in Hong Kong. Short of the government not charging him for that specific thing (say, to avoid talking about it altogether), there's doesn't seem to be any way to avoid getting in trouble for it.
  - btilly 13y ago
    Everyone seems to be mad about that one. However I've yet to see ANYONE in the mainstream press point out that the Obama administration was recently trying to pass legislation that reduced privacy protection for Americans as a response to the Chinese doing exactly what we are doing to the Chinese. There is a high level of hypocrisy here. Call me an idealist, but my belief is that the USA as a country should take the moral high ground, even if it costs us tactically in the short run.
    - lern_too_spel 13y ago
      Obama threatened to veto CISPA if it landed on his desk without the privacy issues fixed.