4 ms·

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) excep

by 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.
    - btilly 13y ago
      Yes, once it was clear in polling that the bill was a political nonstarter nation-wide, Obama took that position. At the same time, as http://rt.com/usa/epic-foia-internet-surveillance-350/ http://rt.com/usa/epic-foia-internet-surveillance-350/ among others pointed out at that point, his administration was already violating privacy in all the ways that his rhetoric would say were bad. Of course that was before the NSA revelations revealed the true extent of the spying going on.
timr 13y ago
"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)." Yes, exactly. And of course, there have been many examples of soldiers who were court-martialed for disobeying orders. The risk of disobeying is on the soldier -- they're taking their life in their hands when they make the decision to cross a superior. It's not as if the military says: "oh, you thought that order was illegal? We won't court-martial you, then." The parent comment was totally specious, because Snowden is being treated exactly the way any soldier would be treated for a similar behavior. We don't just automatically pardon people for breaking laws because they broke laws with patriotic intent.
- bobwaycott 13y ago
  Snowden is not, nor ought he be treated like or held to the standard of being, a soldier.
  - XorNot 13y ago
    He signed the relevant NDAs and was granted Top Secret clearance. He's being held to the standard of anyone else who does that without enjoying some type of exceptional legal protection.
    - bobwaycott 13y ago
      That is not the same thing as the comment to which I responded. Moreover, this isn't a simple matter of violating NDAs and TS clearance by mentioning classified information to some random persons. The situation is more profound and nuanced. He violated the NDAs and TS clearance to call the People's attention to unconstitutional programs that violate our rights and laws as a whistleblower. There is "some type of exceptional legal protection" to be evaluated there.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Just for the flipside though, he did this to call attention to unconstitutional programs in his opinion. There is a reason we don't generally allow individuals to each individually determine what the Constitution does or does not mean. There is a famous example in the military of an Army major (doctor) who refused to deploy to Afghanistan because he claimed it was unconstitutional. You might think he was referring to the war, but instead he was referring to his Commander-in-Chief himself (Pres. Obama), who this major personally felt was a Muslim Kenyan who somehow managed to finagle himself into the Presidency. It's hardly conclusive that what Snowden has revealed so far is even likely unconstitutional. It seems the most you can say is that the NSA is simply not being very nice at all to the rest of the world, but the Supreme Court decisions up to this point (including recent ones relating to Guantanamo's prison) have generally treated the rest of the world as not worthy of any but the most basic Constitutional protections.

by mpyne 13y ago

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.
  - btilly 13y ago
    Yes, once it was clear in polling that the bill was a political nonstarter nation-wide, Obama took that position. At the same time, as http://rt.com/usa/epic-foia-internet-surveillance-350/ http://rt.com/usa/epic-foia-internet-surveillance-350/ among others pointed out at that point, his administration was already violating privacy in all the ways that his rhetoric would say were bad. Of course that was before the NSA revelations revealed the true extent of the spying going on.

timr 13y ago

"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)." Yes, exactly. And of course, there have been many examples of soldiers who were court-martialed for disobeying orders. The risk of disobeying is on the soldier -- they're taking their life in their hands when they make the decision to cross a superior. It's not as if the military says: "oh, you thought that order was illegal? We won't court-martial you, then." The parent comment was totally specious, because Snowden is being treated exactly the way any soldier would be treated for a similar behavior. We don't just automatically pardon people for breaking laws because they broke laws with patriotic intent.

bobwaycott 13y ago
Snowden is not, nor ought he be treated like or held to the standard of being, a soldier.
- XorNot 13y ago
  He signed the relevant NDAs and was granted Top Secret clearance. He's being held to the standard of anyone else who does that without enjoying some type of exceptional legal protection.
  - bobwaycott 13y ago
    That is not the same thing as the comment to which I responded. Moreover, this isn't a simple matter of violating NDAs and TS clearance by mentioning classified information to some random persons. The situation is more profound and nuanced. He violated the NDAs and TS clearance to call the People's attention to unconstitutional programs that violate our rights and laws as a whistleblower. There is "some type of exceptional legal protection" to be evaluated there.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Just for the flipside though, he did this to call attention to unconstitutional programs in his opinion. There is a reason we don't generally allow individuals to each individually determine what the Constitution does or does not mean. There is a famous example in the military of an Army major (doctor) who refused to deploy to Afghanistan because he claimed it was unconstitutional. You might think he was referring to the war, but instead he was referring to his Commander-in-Chief himself (Pres. Obama), who this major personally felt was a Muslim Kenyan who somehow managed to finagle himself into the Presidency. It's hardly conclusive that what Snowden has revealed so far is even likely unconstitutional. It seems the most you can say is that the NSA is simply not being very nice at all to the rest of the world, but the Supreme Court decisions up to this point (including recent ones relating to Guantanamo's prison) have generally treated the rest of the world as not worthy of any but the most basic Constitutional protections.