Originally Posted by paulambry .
If I took an oath to protect the sovereign welfare of the state of Beepers, I would honour it. Even if the state of Beepers had flaws. I would honour my oath.
If I wanted to fix the flaws in the State of Beepers, I would get elected - or take some office of reform - and prosecute my cause, my goal, my philosophy.
The coward is the dobber. The noble man is the one who faces his accusers on his accuser's terms and makes his case. Be a Socrates. Be truly brave and face the Senate. Defy the gods with honour, even if it means your demise. Be "better off dead"...
....
Having knowingly agreed to live under the city's laws, he implicitly subjected himself to the possibility of being accused of crimes by its citizens and judged guilty by its jury. To do otherwise would have caused him to break his "social contract" with the state, and so harm the state, an unprincipled act."
I'll try again soberer. Since I brought Assange up, I'll clarify.
When Bradley Manning and Wikileaks released the tapes of the military purposefully killing innocent civilians and reporters, I applauded the leaking. If you're gonna use my taxes to raise an army and send it to invade other countries, you damn well better abide by the rules of engagement. You're killing people in my, our names. The blood is on all of our hands. And that **** is exactly what makes our countries reputations suffer globally and keeps us having to raise bigger armies to 'defend' ourselves. The triggerhappy nature of US troops was a big issue in Vietnam too. My dad was there and he and many commentators will tell you the attitude of the locals towards ANZAC troops was markedly different to their attitude to US troops precisely because the ANZACs did their best to target Viet Cong and not to kill the villagers. I will not defend a military's right to hide it's own lawbreaking and murder and then prosecute the leaker.
Now when Manning and Assange went a step further and released classified cables etc, I do think they overstepped the mark, that there is a case to answer, that it could materially aid the enemy, and was potentially treasonous.
But this NSA contractor Snowden is another matter entirely. He WAS part of the system, knowingly involved in the US gov't breaking it's own laws on a major scale, and he simply exposed the truth. He didn't release secret data that could materially help an enemy. He simply exposed documented proof of the flagrant abuses of govt surveillance that are outside it's legal remit.
If a govt is going to secretly break it's own laws, the honourable citizen is the one who dares to hold them to account. That IS democracy in action.
There is in fact something of the honour of Socrates about his decision:
Quotes below from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance
In a note accompanying the first set of documents he provided, he wrote: "I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions," but "I will be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant."
Despite his determination to be publicly unveiled, he repeatedly insisted that he wants to avoid the media spotlight. "I don't want public attention because I don't want the story to be about me. I want it to be about what the US government is doing."
He does not fear the consequences of going public, he said, only that doing so will distract attention from the issues raised by his disclosures. "I know the media likes to personalise political debates, and I know the government will demonise me."
Despite these fears, he remained hopeful his outing will not divert attention from the substance of his disclosures. "I really want the focus to be on these documents and the debate which I hope this will trigger among citizens around the globe about what kind of world we want to live in." He added: "My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them."
Having watched the
Obama administration prosecute whistleblowers at a historically unprecedented rate, he fully expects the US government to attempt to use all its weight to punish him. "I am not afraid," he said calmly, "because this is the choice I've made."
He predicts the government will launch an investigation and "say I have broken the Espionage Act and helped our enemies, but that can be used against anyone who points out how massive and invasive the system has become".
The only time he became emotional during the many hours of interviews was when he pondered the impact his choices would have on his family, many of whom work for the US government. "The only thing I fear is the harmful effects on my family, who I won't be able to help any more. That's what keeps me up at night," he said, his eyes welling up with tears.