On the one hand, I served in the US military, took an oath, love my country, and value keeping my word. I have little respect for someone who went into a position of trust with intent to betray.
On the other hand, his actions brought to light questionable activity by our intelligence service.
I just don't know. It seems weird but I kinda don't care what happens to him.
The oath is to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. A lot of people seem to be confused about who the real enemies of the Constitution (particularly the Fourth Amendment) are.
Put another way: Hopefully you were taught that it is your duty not to obey an unlawful order from a superior.
I don't know where you got the idea that he began his career with an intent to leak details of the government's illegal actions. According to him, he came across the report that finally led to the decision purely by accident.
But who says legitimate whistleblowers have specific rules under which they must do it? (E.g. they must only enter into employment or servitude with zero suspicion of employer or zero intent to leak information of any wrongdoing observed? Isn't that against the very principles of whistleblowing, and even potentially legal protections under whistleblowing laws?)
His actions are only seen as a 'sin' if you already agree his whistleblowing wasn't warranted.
It's all the same incestuous group of agencies and contractors to me. He was employed by the NSA or CIA (Dell, 2009 or 2011) when he found the report and made his decision. Yeah, he changed positions (and contracting agencies) to collect additional data. He had already long since sworn his oath and received his clearance.
Sure, he likely signed a new contract with BAH. If that's where the line between ethical and unethical behavior is located, I guess my worldview needs calibration.
I see you've been downvoted. I upvoted your comment, since you posted a factual link and contributed to the discussion.
To what are you loyal? The letter of the law, or its spirit? To those in power, or to the principles governing power? To the country, or the things it stands for?
These are ancient questions, so there's plenty of sources to help you weigh your answer.
Snowden thought loyalty to certain principles outweighed loyalty to the system. Ultimately, you'll have to decide whether you see sense in that or not.
> I have little respect for someone who went into a position of trust with intent to betray.
It’s clear that he didn’t enter the intelligence field specifically to commit crimes against the US. He grew up in a government family, joined the Army before being discharged due to injury, and then entered intelligence.
Before claiming what he did was betrayal, it’s pretty important to look at the circumstances he acted under and how he disseminated the leaked documents.
Speaking of betrayal, he saw the highest ranking intelligence officials blatantly lying to Congress in oversight hearings because he knew all about the domestic spying. The whole “you can’t handle the truth” attitude that was revealed by the military brass was an absolute disgrace and has deeply damaged trust in the US government.
Snowden also placed numerous boundaries around how the information he gave to the Guardian could be published by having final approval on stories. He expressly forbade fishing expeditions and only permitted journalists to write stories that he deemed were in the public interest and not a threat to personnel or ongoing military operations. You’re welcome to review that reporting and decide for yourself if any of it was published purely with intent to damage US national security. Based on what he walked away with, if his goal was truly to undermine national security, he undoubtedly left major ammunition untouched.
When you took your oath to serve, it was to serve the United States, and not Michael Hayden, John Brennan, etc., correct? If you were in a position to see people like that lying to Congress regarding the oversight of civilians, would you not do something about it? Many before Snowden tried, like Thomas Drake, Bill Binney, etc. They followed the rules and didn’t walk out with receipts, and their lives were completely ruined because of it.
This is about the proceeds from the book, but you used it as an opportunity to say you don't care if he winds up in prison.
I do care. I don't agree with Snowden on everything he says, but I agree with what he's done: whistleblowing on something the public needed to know about, and seeking refuge from an unfair and unconstitutional trial.
All enemies, foreign and domestic. Maybe you can argue the definition of “enemy.” He believed he was witness to a system that was doing damage to the constitutional fabric of America, so those behind the system were acting against US interests, which fits the definition by my lights.
I don't think Snowden got into the military with the intent to betray. In fact, he repeatedly escalated his concerns about illegal behavior to his superiors. Only after those avenues were exhausted did he go public.
But he DID go to work for Booz Allen Hamilton with such intent, by his own public admission [1]
"My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked," he told the Post on June 12. "That is why I accepted that position about three months ago."
"My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked," he told the Post on June 12. "That is why I accepted that position about three months ago."
On the one hand, I served in the US military, took an oath, love my country, and value keeping my word. I have little respect for someone who went into a position of trust with intent to betray.
On the other hand, his actions brought to light questionable activity by our intelligence service.
I just don't know. It seems weird but I kinda don't care what happens to him.