2 ms·

"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

by 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 timr 13y ago

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.