Snowden is the poster child for an UnEthical Generation

reply to post by mikegrouchy


Applying your terms and definitions, Snowden emerges representing a species that is by definition, imperfect. And not just him, mind you... but another 8 billion+ who are all equally imperfect.

A poster child for the human race.

Just another opinion in a world with so many

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

His breach of trust to the government, was because they were doing things they weren't suppose to be doing. Things that are immoral and illegal.

You would defend them, over the person who brought it to light?

~Tenth

All he had was possession.
He possessed access,
technical expertise,
and comprehension.

Possession is only 9/10ths of the law.

He had no sense of propriety.
He was not the proprietor of the program
although he chose to act as though he were.

I might agree with you,
as you say "hypothetically"
if he had leaked info about drone killings inside the US.
But what did he really leak?


Mike

reply to post by mikegrouchy

He had no sense of propriety.
He was not the proprietor of the program
although he chose to act as though he were.

Clandestine and illegal operations, often treat their operatives like they are only 1 cog in a massive wheel, this is to prevent feelings of ownership, which tne lead to feelings of apathy about the outcome.

But what did he really leak?

If you have to ask the importance of leaking a global spying program which was denied for years etc..

Then, really perhaps you don't fully understand the nature of the evil that we are facing today. The information is our greatest weapon.

There is also no difference between leaking a drone strike and what he leaked. How do you think they find out where these people are, before they kill them?

Spying programs like PRISM.

~Tenth

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by mikegrouchy

 

Applying your terms and definitions, Snowden emerges representing a species that is by definition, imperfect. And not just him, mind you... but another 8 billion+ who are all equally imperfect.

A poster child for the human race.

Just [color=gold] another opinion in a world with so many

Exactly.
To borrow the Japanese phrase... "In this floating world we live in" ...
one has to be able to trust in binding agreements.

The internet itself could never have been built
without some level of dependable trust.

Trust is how we few, we happy few,
are able to rise above the chaos
and build something worth
passing on to our future
generations.


Mike

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

There is also no difference between leaking a drone strike and what he leaked. How do you think they find out where these people are, before they kill them?

Spying programs like PRISM.

~Tenth

Tenth,

I have to agree with you here.

I hope that more people take up this point
and use it as their raison d'etre when arguing
against covert surveillance programs.

The marriage of universal surveillance and drone
strikes is a horrifying thought.

But once again, that is not what Snowden did or said.
Nor was it his confessed motive.


Mike

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by Metallicus
Mike,

People aren't trying to marginalize and destroy you. They are just disagreeing with you.

You say [color=gold] Snowden betrayed trust? The trust of a corrupt government, maybe, but he was protecting the trust of the people and of the Constitution he swore to uphold. That's my opinion.

So all I have to do
is consider someone "corrupt" and
that gives me license to betray any trust?

Mike

If the corruption were associated with a fiduciary responsibility then no you cant put ideas of loyalty above all else.....and if its corrupt on that level it probably is systemic anyway. Folks act like there is some righteous foundational truth in loyalty that should be addressed at the expense of all others. In private maybe. That's not what we are talking about here.

The US government doesn't trust any of its own citizens. Snowden simply revealed that truth to the people of the world, since the government broke our trust that it would follow the Constitution. So he broke confidentiality agreements...in my view, that was a most trustworthy action. Trust in the people to deserve the truth. The government deserves no secrecy when they refuse to trust in the people.

reply to post by mikegrouchy

To borrow the Japanese phrase... "In this floating world we live in" ... one has to be able to trust in binding agreements.

The internet itself could never have been built without some level of dependable trust.

But... then again, we are all guilty of nearly every flaw. Everyone lies at least once in their lives... be it a big one or a little one. We all fail someone at some point. From there, we are a judgmental species. Even if we told only one lie in our entire life, we are still a liar. If we betrayed a trust only once, we carry that for the rest of our lives. We cannot erase ourselves and start over.

The question here is whether Mr. Snowden took this path for any reason other than trying to do the right thing in his own conscience. To reach any firm conclusion here is to rely on assumptions based on our own characters.

That any of us should endeavor to rise above those flaws, those human imperfections is indeed quite noble. Many have walked paths of this brand of devotion but, even so... all we can do, in the end, is say we tried.

Perhaps in betraying one trust, he upheld another.

reply to post by mikegrouchy


I think you're typing nonsense. No really, I do.

The only "trust" that has been breached here is the trust the people should be able to have in their elected representatives and their government.

I tried to make some sense of your post, I really did. But this seems like nothing more than a convoluted method to attack this young man, even stretching beyond reasonable intelligence to do it. What you've written really doesn't make much sense at all.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by Metallicus
Mike,

People aren't trying to marginalize and destroy you. They are just disagreeing with you.

You say [color=gold] Snowden betrayed trust? The trust of a corrupt government, maybe, but he was protecting the trust of the people and of the Constitution he swore to uphold. That's my opinion.

So all I have to do
is consider someone "corrupt" and
that gives me license to betray any trust?

Mike

If the corruption were associated with a fiduciary responsibility then no [color=gold] you cant put ideas of loyalty above all else.....and if its corrupt on that level it probably is systemic anyway. Folks act like there is some righteous foundational truth in [color=gold] loyalty that should be addressed [color=gold] at the expense of all others. In private maybe. That's not what we are talking about here.

Exactly.
This is why he receives high marks, in my mind,
for the other 9 points.

But just because someone got 9 out of 10 right,
doesn't give them a free pass on the 10th point either.

Why is it so difficult to admit he violated trust.


Mike

A hero!!!!! He's the David to the Goliath, like Michael Hastings was when he was reporting about fishy things the cia, fbi, and top brass were doing and got killed for it.

Snowden is a blueprint. 1 man who changed the world!!!!!! An inspiration who has inspired me to get off myarse and start talking to others, writing books, calling my congressmen and reps, and doing something about things that aren't right....

A global hero

Originally posted by nwdogg1982
The US government doesn't trust any of its own citizens. Snowden simply revealed that truth to the people of the world, since the government broke our trust that it would follow the Constitution. [color=gold] So he broke confidentiality agreements...in my view, that was a most trustworthy action. Trust in the people to deserve the truth. The government deserves no secrecy when they refuse to trust in the people.

I agree and
I award you one internet.

Further I salute your taking up the breaking of trust
as being both true against Snowden while also being
a counter argument against the Government's pattern of action.


Now if others will go back and review the Snowden interviews
they will see that he never denied breaking trust, even
admitted it. That trust is the last 10% of ethics,
and not something to be swept under
the rug.


Mike

It is difficult to say he violated trust because he didn't violate MY trust. He told ME the truth and was true to the Constitution. It depends on what trust you think is more important, I suppose, but he was in a no win situation if you want to stick to absolutes. If he does nothing he violates trust and if he does something he violates trust. So if you are willing to concede he violated trust either way I suppose I could agree with that position.

Originally posted by Rocker2013
reply to post by mikegrouchy

 

I think you're typing nonsense. No really, I do.

The only "trust" that has been breached here is the trust the people should be able to have in their elected representatives and their government.

I tried to make some sense of your post, I really did. But this seems like nothing more than a convoluted method to attack this young man, even stretching beyond reasonable intelligence to do it. What you've written really doesn't make much sense at all.

Almost, but no cigar.

The quote above is "getting" it, but still
is giving Snowden a hero's-free-pass
and focusing only on the perceived crime of
the other party. The trust issue remains.


Mike

Originally posted by dominicus
A hero!!!!! He's the David to the Goliath, like Michael Hastings was when he was reporting about fishy things the cia, fbi, and top brass were doing and got killed for it.

Snowden [color=gold] is a blueprint. 1 man who changed the world!!!!!! An inspiration who has inspired me to get off myarse and start talking to others, writing books, calling my congressmen and reps, and doing something about things that aren't right....

A global hero

The quote above is a blueprint
why this is an unethical generation.

A free pass for one's perceived hero's
and accusations "only" for the perceived enemy.



Mike

Originally posted by Metallicus
It is difficult to say he violated trust because he didn't violate MY trust. He told ME the truth and was true to the Constitution. It depends on what trust you think is more important, I suppose, but he was in a no win situation if you want to stick to absolutes. If he does nothing he violates trust and if he does something he violates trust. So if you are willing to concede he violated trust either way I suppose I could agree with that position.

I starred you post,
but I just wanted to comment
that he also had signed no agreements
with you not to violate your trust, but he did with others.


Mike

reply to post by mikegrouchy

Except on little thing. He may have gotten nine tenths right, but he violated the tenth point completely.
10) Trust:

actually, i think he got that right too. he knew that he could not trust his superiors to do the right thing.

let me try to explain what i mean.

he knew that if he took it to his superiors, or any one in the Government it would have been swept under the rug.
we have laws in this country, that are designed to protect whistle blowers, that is so long as you don't blow the wrong whistle.

the correct way it is suppose to be done, is take what you find and think is wrong doing, up the chain of command. thing is that most if not all of the chain, is part of the problem. he knew if he took it to them that they would bury it and he would have face retaliation, harassment, lose his job, or be found as one of the phony suicides, home invasions, killed in a mugging, died in a car crash, or any number of suspicious or unexplained death you here about. or maybe he would have been one of the many of thousands of people that just disappear.

instead he chose to become the most hated and wanted man by the U.S., one that can never come home without facing life in jail or death.

now that being said, the only thing i don't agree with what he took is how it works. there is no doubt that the U.S is under attack every day be those who want to see us fall or to steel our secrets. to take the blueprints as to how the system functions was wrong. all he should have took, is how they were spying on the citizens of the U.S. that were not involved in any such activity.

reply to post by mikegrouchy


What is ethical about secretly spying on and tracking honest Americans?

The US Government has become a monster. Carter is right. It's no longer a democracy. It hasn't been for some time.

You, your spouse and your only child are out on a boat... the weather turns ugly and your spouse and the child are washed overboard.

You have one life preserver to toss out... who do you save first?

You look at your beloved desperately trying to stay afloat.
... forsaking all others, til death do you part...

You look at your child struggling in the heavy surf, screaming for you.

One may well drown while you save the other.

*sigh*

I ran this by someone else once and their reply was...'why weren't they wearing their coast guard approved flotation devices?'

It was a great dodge

Anyway, it is an example of how sometimes we are called to turn away from one obligation in order to preserve another. In the case of Snowden, he undoubtedly faced this choice. I can't read his heart and mind to say whether he applied it to his final reasoning... but it was definitely there.

reply to post by redoubt


I'm with Snowden on this. He stood with the Constitution.