It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Snarl
We have to define what an oath is.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.
Snarl
reply to post by mOjOm
You make excellent points.
We have to define what an oath is. I use the term rather loosely ... a promise being a promise. In that regard, Snowden DID take an oath not to divulge classified information. He Did break his vow ... and look who he ran to.
One can be bound to multiple oaths simultaneously. Having served, in similar circumstances to Snowden's, I never ran into conflict. I've found the waters far cloudier in my current profession.
mOjOm
Snarl
I think when the apparatus being designed is fully implemented ... there will be no more whistleblowing. As for the Surveillance State and mythic proportion ... it's pretty safe to say that if you can imagine it being possible ... it's already being done.
What is also true, is that the average Joe need not become paranoid. The likelihood of anyone becoming a 'target' of the intelligence community is incomprehensibly small.
Yes but that is hardly the point now is it???
After all, my chances of being Raped are pretty damn small as well. In fact, I'd say they are even less then the odds that the NSA is collecting my data. Yet does that mean that I should turn a blind eye to Rape as being wrong??? Should I care nothing for those who suffer from Rape simply because I don't suffer the same as them???
For someone who speaks so much about integrity I don't seem to be finding much of it from what I am reading in your posts.
Why is one promise more sacred than the other?
mOjOm
Snarl
We have to define what an oath is.
That is a good start. Is this the oath to which you are referring???
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.
I think when the apparatus being designed is fully implemented ... there will be no more whistleblowing. As for the Surveillance State and mythic proportion ... it's pretty safe to say that if you can imagine it being possible ... it's already being done.
What is also true, is that the average Joe need not become paranoid. The likelihood of anyone becoming a 'target' of the intelligence community is incomprehensibly small.
The wider concerns are that the nature and quantity of data could be used to political ends that aren't democratic or lawful.
Wrabbit2000
reply to post by DeadSeraph
Why is one promise more sacred than the other?
I'd say one isn't superior over the other, nor does one take priority over the other. In fact, I'd say one has no connection to the other.
The fact our elected scumb....errr..politicians couldn't keep their word even if doing so served them better, hardly invalidates the other side of it. If anything, it makes it more important that we individually retain integrity, character and some basic sense of decency for it's own sake.
Another way of putting it is that, ultimately, all we have to be judged by is the value of our word and the nature of our actions.
Snarl
What is also true, is that the average Joe need not become paranoid. The likelihood of anyone becoming a 'target' of the intelligence community is incomprehensibly small.
We are kidding ourselves if we think that Obama or any other future U.S president is going to curtail surveillance. It will just continue to increase exponentially, although at a somewhat slower rate since the chef noticed that the frogs seemed to figure out they were in a pot of water (but the latter are still comfortable since it hasn't reached boiling point yet).
So what if you are sworn to uphold one oath, and you witness something that runs contrary to the other? You talk about integrity and character. If you ask one crowd, Snowden was a traitor, and if you ask another he is a national hero. Which is it? He did what he thought was right, congruent with what he thought the constitution of the U.S of A stood for. Is he lacking in character for having breached his NDA in favor of a far greater document than the one he signed?
—You are.
Snarl
I just got called a statist.
—It is.
Might be an apt definition ...
—It doesn't.
might miss the mark completely.
What this boils down to is personal integrity. No one forces a person to take an oath. People oughta be considerate of that. I remember someone once telling me a man is only as good as his word. Look at the divorce rate and you'll get …
I swear by God this sacred oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of the German Reich, supreme commander of the armed forces, and that I shall at all times be prepared, as a brave soldier, to give my life for this oath.
…they (the journalists working with him) would be at mortal risk from the United States Intelligence Community
…if they think you are the single point of failure that could stop this disclosure and make them the sole owner of this information.”