Then again, I might of rather just kept my mouth shut and kept helping like a good little rat presuming I was already in the rat den

Though in real life, I wouldn't give those fucks the time of day to begin with.

Actually discussion... It is not really a debate for anyone I know. And from what I've read in different comments here and there?

I would take the six figures, the house in Hawaii, and the Ballerina pole dancing girlfriend and spy the fuck out of you 'dirty rat bastards'.

All your bits would belong to us.

especially considering the Bradley Manning case.

Once the US became a nation that condones torture, it would be stupid for anybody that tattles on the government to stick around.

. . . is not the same as acknowledging one has done something wrong. Sometimes, it is the law that is wrong, not the lawbreaker.

"Acknowledging that one has broken the law . . . is not the same as acknowledging one has done something wrong. Sometimes, it is the law that is wrong, not the lawbreaker."

...see if I understand what you're saying: The law that states leaking classified information is a crime is "wrong"?

And confusion and/or conflation of the two categories has, in the course of human history, led to many a wrong being perpetrated under cover of being 'legal.'

"'Wrong' is a moral judgment; 'illegal' is not "

...the law is against leaking classified information is not "moral"?

I'm beginning to understand where you're coming from.

The law is what it is. If there is proof that the law doesn't apply, then fine.

not only can the law be an ass it can be a vicious hyena. Was Plessy moral? There are so many instances of laws being immoral.

I'm baffled that this is a concept you seem unable to grasp. It's not complicated. It's been written and discussed by some of the most eminent thinkers on a deeper level, but it's pretty basic stuff.

"I believe that when information is classified for the purpose of preventing the public from knowing about misconduct conduct by the government, then any prosecution of a person for exposing such misconduct is utterly specious and lacking in any legitimacy. Perhaps you disagree, but it's not a particularly difficult concept."

Let me pose a hypothetical to you:

say someone leaked classified information that prisoners at gitmo had been used for illegal medical experimentation, would that leak still be wrong in your mind?

forget whether the person runs or not.

Let me pose a hypothetical to you:

say someone leaked classified information that prisoners at gitmo had been used for illegal medical experimentation, would that leak still be wrong in your mind?

happened? Where did prosense go?

Time to go outside and hotbox a pack of Camels.

You are conflating history with present day reality.

the person would likely qualify for whistleblower protections."

Not with this administration.

If Hillary was in office, it would be fitting justice.

That's just a guess....

Could you make a stand-alone post of it? I would be curious to see the answers?

"say someone leaked classified information that prisoners at gitmo had been used for illegal medical experimentation, would that leak still be wrong in your mind? "

Illegal medical experiments on prisoners are gravely immoral and unquestionably illegal. There is no imaginable legal justification under US law that would support illegal medical experimentation on prisoners.

On the other hand, the NSA surveillance program is widely, but not universally, considered to be legal under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), the Stored Communications Act, Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) (1994), the USA PATRIOT Act (2001), the USA PATRIOT reauthorization acts (2006), and the FISA Amendments Act (2008).

It's that sometimes the moral thing is to break the law.

Do you really believe:

To state the obvious. Among a near infinity of other examples. It is impossible for any literate person not to understand the distinction between "legal" and "ethical" or if one prefers "moral." To pretend not to raises disingenuousness to a new height - or low.

among many others in this OP/thread.

If laws are applied only to the powerless, the whistle blower, the easy target, the scapegoat, then there is no rule of law. They are merely rules applied at the whim of the rich and powerful.

If you have a system that is flawed (like ours is currently, especially with citizen's united, and many other holes in it that has it run basically on legalized and institutionalized bribery), there are many laws that I would say are questionable at minimum in their moral standing that we have currently, when those who are elected to make them are basically not serving those that elected them any more in this corrupt system, but others who are buying them off.

was it wrong, no, it was the right thing to do.

In 1939 the Soviet Union attacked Finland. This action confronted
France and Great Britain with two issues, one legal, the other political. Did
that action violate the Covenant of the League of Nations and, if it did,
what countermeasures should France and Great Britain take? The legal
question could easily be answered in the affirmative, for obviously the
Soviet Union had done what was prohibited by the Covenant. The answer
to the political question depends, first, upon the manner in which the
Russian action affected the interests· of France and Great Britain; second,
upon the existing distribution of power between France and Great Britain,
on the one hand, and the Soviet Union and other potentially hostile nations,
especially Germany, on the other; and, third, upon the influence that
the countermeasures were likely to have upon the interests of France and
Great Britain and the future distribution of power. France and Great Britain,
as the leading members of the League of Nations, saw to it that the
Soviet Union was expelled from the League, and they were prevented from
joining Finland in the war against the Soviet Union only by Sweden's
refusal to allow their troops to pass through Swedish territory on their way
to Finland. If this refusal by Sweden had not saved them, France and Great
Britain would shortly have found themselves at war with the Soviet Union
and Germany at the same time.

The policy of France and Great Britain was a classic example of legalism
in that they allowed the answer to the legal question, legitimate within its
sphere, to determine their political actions. Instead of asking both questions,
that of law and that of power, they asked only the question of law;
and the answer they received could have no bearing on the issue that their
very existence might have depended upon.

The second example illustrates the "moralistic approach" to international
politics. It concerns the international status of the Communist government
of China. The rise of that government confronted the Western
world with two issues, one moral, the other political. Were the nature and
policies of that government in accord with the moral principles of the
Western world? Should the Western world deal with such a government?
The answer to the first question could not fail to be in the negative. Yet
it did not follow with necessity that the answer to the second question
should also be in the negative. The standard of thought applied to the first
-the moral-question was simply to test the nature and the policies of the
Communist government of China by the principles of Western morality.
On the other hand, the second-the political-question had to be subjected
to the complicated test of the interests involved and the power
available on either side, and of the bearing of one or the other course of
action upon these interests and power. The application of this test could
well have led to the conclusion that it would be wiser not to deal with the
Communist government of China. To arrive at this conclusion by neglecting
this test altogether and answering the political question in terms of the
moral issue was indeed a classic example of the "moralistic approach" to
international politics.

The third case illustrates strikingly the contrast between realism and the
legalistic-moralistic approach to foreign policy. Great Britain, as one of the
guarantors of the neutrality of Belgium, went to war with Germany in
August 1914 because Germany had violated the neutrality of Belgium. The
British action could be justified either in realistic or legalistic-moralistic
terms. That is to say, one could argue realistically that for centuries it had
been axiomatic for British foreign policy to prevent the control of the Low
Countries by a hostile power. It was then not so much the violation of
Belgium's neutrality per se as the hostile intentions of the violator which
provided the rationale for British intervention. If the violator had been
another nation but Germany, Great Britain might well have refrained from
intervening. This is the position taken by Sir Edward Grey, British Foreign
Secretary during that period. Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs Hardinge
remarked to him in 1908: "If France violated Belgian neutrality in a war
against Germany, it is doubtful whether England or Russia would move
a finger to maintain Belgian neutrality, while if the neutrality of Belgium
was violated by Germany, it is probable that the converse would be the
case." Whereupon Sir Edward Grey replied: "This is to the point." Yet one
could also take the legalistic and moralistic position that the violation of
Belgium's neutrality per se, because of its legal and moral defects and
regardless of the interests at stake and of the identity of the violator,
justified British and, for that matter, American intervention.

Morgenthau, H. (1948). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace (pp. 13, 14). New York: Knopf.

"This fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between “moral” and “legal” has been at the root of immeasurable abuse and predation on the part of the political class. Accepting this fallacy results in the most slavish boot licking on the part of the citizen class."

(I see a lot of slavish boot-licking...by the Kool-Aid crowd).

I think it's sad that anyone here would be so emphatic about the letter of the law and miss the morality.

important to keep making the point over and over.

n/t

We had a war about that issue... Our founders put in place an amendment process so that we could CORRECT the laws if they were deemed inadequate or wrong... And we did have a constitution that had the 4th amendment, which arguably Snowden is saying that some of the laws he broke were to bring attention to where these laws were not only morally wrong, but wrong in terms of violating the spirit if not the letter of the law specified by the 4th amendment.

They should have stayed in Dixie and faced the consequences of their actions.

Somehow, I think not.

I took the time to go back and look at the links you've referenced. As far I can see, they only say that when Obama was against it, you were too. I can't see where it says anything about why you changed your mind.

In fact sabrina has asked you this question many times, and as far as I can see you've never answered why you changed your opinion. If you have I could very well have missed it though, so I'd certain welcome the explanation.

Is this "Duplicity"?

way back when, but now PS says:

"If it's a just law in any case, it's a just law in every applicable case.
Leaking classified information is against the law. Period."

-----------------

So, Booshcheney gets off, but we should go for Snowden's jugular for exposing the extent of these crimes?

Does not make sense.

Broken, and fighting it out in court was worth it.

The system is broken. The courts exist for the gratification of the one Percent. Try to sue a hospital that has mis-diagnosed you - the average person cannot even find a law firm to help them.

Look at all the illegal bankruptcies that totally broke the law, through use of MERS, but Obama's guy Holder said the banks are important as they are, and so he is insinuating that they are "Too Big To Fail, and So Too Big To Jail."

Sadly this is no longer a nation that respects the rule of law. It is a banana republic, with out the bananas. We have meaningless elections, in which both major candidates are from a short short list of those who look out for the One Percent.

. . . and in so far as classification has been (ab)used to cover up what has been going on, then the legitimacy of the law itself has been undermined.

I believe that when information is classified for the purpose of preventing the public from knowing about misconduct conduct by the government, then any prosecution of a person for exposing such misconduct is utterly specious and lacking in any legitimacy. Perhaps you disagree, but it's not a particularly difficult concept.

"The actions of the NSA are intrusive and terrible and should be changed. But it's illegal for the American people to know about it, so it will never be changed. Change will come, not by the efforts of a grassroots of the People, but by either magic, or the powers that be one day deciding that they no longer need it. Because if there is one thing the government loves to do is give up power.", I guess is the essential arguement. Or that they are perfectly ok with the spying and secrecy for our own good.

. . . for his leaking of classified information?

"So I gather you think Ellsberg should have gone to prison . . . . for his leaking of classified information?"

...is not Ellsberg, and I disagree with his argument about fleeing the country. From the OP link:

. . . in which the Executive branch believed it had the right to kill American citizens.

But leaving that aside, if the question of 'right' versus 'wrong' is as simple as the question of legality versus illegality, as you seem to suggest it is in this case, then you should be willing to apply the same principle to Ellsberg.

By being daft?

"Is this how you got 101K posts? By being daft?"

...let's see if you're smart enough to make it.

Enjoy your stay.

Why would I want to post that much.

really have no clue nor leg to stand on. Sad. You just don't know how you are perceived.

his life was made a living hell for years and years.

If you have sworn to uphold the constitution you are in a no win situation.

The messed up thing is when violating the constitution has no bad consequence.

In my opinion Snowden has exposed serious and fatal wrongdoing by the top officials in every branch of Government. That is larger than surveillance or lawbreaking.

If they cannot live up to their oath to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution they all need to step down.

That is how seriously I take this. In comparison, leaking classified info (especially in the face of rampant leaks when it serves the interest of all administrations) is so small.

There are something things that are so clearly wrong, no law will ever make them right.

Even you know it, that's why you are making so much noise to the contrary.

Bad laws are also laws.

Certainly one can break the law, and not be wrong if the law is immoral. Thats the whole concept of Civil Disobedience. Some people consider it a moral duty to break such laws. Sheeple just follow along and cheer for the guy with a D behind his name.

And that is what has been happening for a long time now.

Things are classified that should be known to the American people.

If the government was not ashamed of the fact that it keeps all our metadata and can easily get a subpoena for the contents of all of our communications which it stores without our permission, why did it keep that fact a secret?

We are being asked to allow the government to peer into our love letters, our coos over the phone, our conversations with our grandchildren, our calls to the doctor if the government so wishes.

But we weren't supposed to find out that the government noses into the most trivial details of our lives if it wishes to do so?

That is not democracy. That is not transparency.

I want to know the precise scope and parameters of this program and all similar programs. Is that too much to ask?

Snowden is the only person who has really brought the reality of these programs to our consciousness. Others have hinted at it. But Snowden must be thanked for raising our awareness. Now I and many others want a complete explanation so that we can petition our government to change this law.

The problem with this allegedly "legal" program is that it has been kept secret. How can you have secret laws in a democracy? How can the people weigh in or talk to their members of Congress about such a program if it is "secret"?

Please explain. Please answer my questions.

One needs to look at the secret info to determine if leaking it is both illegal and moral. That is at the heart of whistleblowing.

AFAIK that goes back to Westphalia.

information about torture, about rendition, about war crimes, about the theft or waste of government money, about this program of collecting our metadata and maybe worse -- that law, those laws are wrong. They need to be changed.

We are supposed to have government by the people, for the people and of the people.

How can our government claim to be by, for and of the people when it is operating a massive surveillance scheme of the metadata of the people?

It just makes no sense. There is a contradiction in the idea that a government by, for and of the people tracks and records the every communication of the people it supposedly represents.

This program separates the power from the people. Because the information about all our metadata takes from us the power that privacy in our communications gives us -- the political, spiritual and moral power that privacy in communications gives us and hands all that power to just a small clique of people in our government.

Please explain to me why that is OK or why you disagree with my point of view.

I'd love to hear a rational argument to the contrary.

The laws allowing an administration, the NSA, the CIA, etc. to make classify any information they want without specific limitations is simply wrong.

Like torture, etc. The problem is that clear evidence of a crime has yet to be produced. There is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence that Snowden has produced, but direct evidence isn't there yet.

The problem Snowden faces is that if he had stayed in the US and faced charges, he would have been isolated and silenced by the legal system while awaiting trial.

The executive, legislative and judicial and if they want to declare a fork or a corporation a person it becomes the law.

to pass laws. The judicial branch is just supposed to interpret the law.

The executive branch is supposed to execute the laws the legislature enacts.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/

The executive branch is supposed to lead the military. The legislature is supposed to pass laws about the operations of the military.

Our executive branch has taken on a lot more authority than I think that the executive gives it.

The executive branch has assumed, by legislative instruction, the job of determining what information is classified, secret, etc. The FISA court also decides what is to be kept secret.

Our Constitution doesn't give the president that authority. Congress can. Congress could also take that authority from the president. I would like to see Congress have more say, more control over what kinds and specifically what information is classified as secret, etc.

The executive branch is now prohibiting even members of Congress from fully informing the American people of information we need to have to keep ourselves free. That does not protect our security. It destroys our security. Because as Americans, it is basic to our Constitution that we can only be free and secure if we control our government. This excessive secrecy prevents us from controlling our own government. This excessive secrecy is used to keep us ignorant and obedient. That is especially true of the secrecy concerning the extent of this wiretapping. Snowden should not have had to tell us about this program. Congress should have been free to discuss it with us. And the President should have courageously taken it upon himself to explain the program to us before Snowden came forth.

This excessive surveillance is wrong. End the excessive secrecy.

If someone is selling drugs or violating the law or doing something that really hurts the country and the government can prove it, then surveillance is appropriate. But surveillance of this scope and magnitude is an absurd waste of money and an invasion of our privacy.

supreme court.

So did thousands of other slaves who broke the law, stole their masters property, and fled north to Canada.

He's a heroes hero.

"So did thousands of other slaves who broke the law, stole their masters property, and fled north to Canada. "

Ugh!