55 votes

Daniel Ellsberg: Snowden didn't take an "oath of secrecy." He swore "to support and defend the Constitution of the U.S...

...against all enemies, foreign and domestic. "He did not swear to support and defend or obey the President, or to keep secrets."

On Secrecy, Oaths, and Edward Snowden
Freedom of the Press Foundation | January 8, 2014
By Daniel Ellsberg - Follow @DanielEllsberg

These two pieces, the first by Marcy Wheeler, in part commenting on the second by Amy Davidson in the New Yorker (along with Snowden himself, in his interview with Bart Gellman) are the first I've seen making a point I've been making for years: contrary to the frequent assertions in the last week (including by Fred Kaplan) that Snowden is particularly reprehensible because he "broke his OATH of secrecy," neither Snowden nor anyone else broke such a secrecy "oath."

Such an oath doesn't exist (look up "oath" on the web). Rather he—and I—broke an agreement (known as Standard Form 312) which was a condition of employment. It provides for civil or administrative penalties (e.g., losing a clearance or a job) for disclosing classified information: serious enough to keep nearly everyone quiet about...anything classified, no matter how illegal or dangerous.

The reason this matters is that Snowden, as he said to Gellman and as I've repeatedly said, did take a real "oath," just one oath, the same oath that every official in the government and every Congressperson takes as an oath of office. He and they "swore" ("or affirmed") "to support and defend the Constitution of the U.S., against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Finish reading at The Freedom of the Press Foundation



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
sharkhearted's picture

BRAVO!

~

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Thanks for Posting This

...it's certainly a way to keep our "perspectives" in check.

It's certainly a ray of light upon an otherwise muddled-media-propaganda-campaign.

I was incredulous to find myself standing with Eleanor Clift of the Daily Beast when she expressed the widespread support within the populace for Mr. Snowden.....SHOCKING!

See @ 15min mark:

http://youtu.be/5_wu0H2LW0Q

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

The Diamond Dog did not realize

That a security clearance trumps The Constitution.

Thankfully, neither did Snowden.

The Diamond Dog is a real cool cat. | Reporting on the world from an altitude of 420.

Yeah I know

But the executive orders and patriot acts trump the constitution and why Ron Paul's campaign was RESTORE THE REPUBLIC. Snowden knew and that's why he should be charged for the crime he knows he committeed, if if you didn't know or think it was a crime.

WHAT?!? Granger said...

"...executive orders and patriot acts trump the constitution."

And then you go on to agree that Snowden should be charged.

I can only say that I believe Granger has a radically different view of liberty than most others here on the DailyPaul.

Anyone who thinks Snowden should be arrested and charged is no friend of liberty in my opinion.

He took the fall to bring this all to light and this is your opinion of what should happen to him???

This kind of thinking would make you the RNC/GOP, NEO-CON, war-monger's best friend.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Well yeah

While you run around screaming "CORRUPTION!!!!" and wondering why you don't see any JUSTICE.. if you woke up to what the facts are rather than what you think they should be (and I agree what they should be.. that's why I'm in the GOP) but what they are is not what you think they are.. and you're not in the GOP.. so scream all you like. wave that sign. Wonder why they don't care..

What is liberty? CVould you tell me.. because it seems many here are screaming for LIBERTY, but whan I ask, "What does that look like?" They just can't say. Let me guess.. Liberty is Syria. That's what you want?

Well yeah

While you run around screaming "CORRUPTION!!!!" and wondering why you don't see any JUSTICE.. if you woke up to what the facts are rather than what you think they should be (and I agree what they should be.. that's why I'm in the GOP) but what they are is not what you think they are.. and you're not in the GOP.. so scream all you like. wave that sign. Wonder why they don't care..

What is liberty? CVould you tell me.. because it seems many here are screaming for LIBERTY, but whan I ask, "What does that look like?" They just can't say. Let me guess.. Liberty is Syria. That's what you want?

Since when do

executive orders and Patriot Acts (or other acts) trump the Constitution?

Marbury vs. Madison - All laws (rules and practices) repugnant to the Constitution are in and of themselves null and void!!

O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond
BAN ELECTRONIC VOTING!!

Michael Nystrom's picture

Patriot Act trumps the Constitution?

Executive orders trump the Constitution?

What are you thinking, Granger?

He's the man.

I'm thinking

That there was nothing constitutional about executive orders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

There is nothing constitutional about the Patriot acts
http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html

I'm thinking that is why Ron Paul's campaign motto was, "Restore the Republic" (to constitutional government- get rid of these executive orders and the patriot Acts that are effectively destroying our Bill of Rights).

I'm thinking that's why Bush told the truth when he said, "The constitutition is just a peice of paper".

I'm thinking, that's why I'm not reading by-laws that place the constitution/Bill of Rights as the supreme law.

I'm thinking that's why the CIA Worldbook of facts lists the USA as a "Democratic leaning Republic" and not a "Constitutional Republic".

I'm thinking that the government lists constitutionalists as "extremists and radicals" because the oaths we take are symbolic, but no one is ever arrested for not upholding the constitution.

I'm thinking the UN Charter supercedes the US Constitution
http://www.usasurvival.org/ck91702a.shtml

And I was thinking, that was what was so important about the Ron Paul rEVOLution and why I got on board, because I hoped America was going to wake up that we have, "lost our way", and only we the people can restore the constitution.

I'm thinking that judges can rule, "This is not constitutional", and nothing changes, because it was not the constitution that established the executive orders and Patriot Acts.

I'm thinking this is why Snowden and GG didn't tell me anything I didn't suspect for over a decade. Even here on DP how many posts were there: Don't use ebay, facebook, google, on and on all about being tracked. I'm thinking snowden and GG are just another MSM soap opera

This is snowden: Several sources have alleged that Snowden, under the pseudonym "TheTrueHOOHA", authored hundreds of posts on technology news provider Ars Technica's chat rooms.[43][44][45] The poster discussed a variety of political topics. In a January 2009 entry, TheTrueHOOHA exhibited strong support for the United States' security state apparatus and said he believed leakers of classified information "should be shot in the balls".[46]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden

Are you being sarcastic? Or

Are you being sarcastic?

Or do you really think that just because a bureaucrat or legislature writes something saying you can't do something that makes it a 'crime'?

Snowden upheld his oath by telling the truth. It's debatable that he broke a law in doing so. But assuming there is a law against telling the truth, do you really think that makes telling the truth a 'crime'?

Put another way: Have you really conceded your morality, which is your very humanity, to the state?

Most of us have not. If the state makes a law that says slavery is legal (the draft) or theft is legal (taxes) they are still crimes. If the state says honesty is illegal that doesn't make it a crime.

In fact except for the remnants of common law, almost everything illegal is not a crime. Almost everything legal is a crime. We engage in legal criminal behavior all the time, which is a big part of why society is so morally depraved. People forget and confuse morality with legality.

So no, Snowden would be abetting a crime if he turned himself over to people who he knows will commit a crime if he does so.

Putting your head in the mouth of a tiger isn't 'honorable'. It's stupid at best and immoral if people depend on you.

Giving himself over to an even more dangerous and predatory beast called the US government is no different.

I like that...

Very nice. She is trying to fix the system from within me thinks. Attempting to play by the rules in place (if that's possible at this point) until such a time when a light can be shone upon a new perspective. That basically nothing is a crime until there is bodily harm or property damage. That we don't need currency if we give to others that which we don't need.