3 ms·
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
by 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 agoJust 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.