Everyone is under surveillance now, says whistleblower Edward Snowden

[JDPriestly]

69. It's what is called a "hypothetical."

It is an exercise used to determine whether a legal conclusion or judgment will apply universally to all similar situations or all situations that have a similar factor or element. That is called the rule of law.

If Manning's admitted exposure of facts deemed by the military to be "secret" is criminal, are any of the actions that Manning exposed also criminal. If the actions Manning exposed are also criminal and if Manning is justly punished for exposing them, does the principle of the rule of law require that the actions Manning exposed which were the originally criminal actions in that they happened before the actions Manning exposed need to be punished?

A hypothetical is a tool that we can use to determine whether we are being fair.

I know life is not always fair, but our legal system is supposed to be based on the rule of law and fairness to the extent possible. For that reason, it is important that we test our opinions and conclusions for fairness and for consistency in applying the rule of law.

When a person breaks an institutional or bureaucratic law in the belief that he is serving a higher purpose, and when that higher purpose is generally accepted by our society as serving the values of the society, then the person seeking to serve the higher societal purpose is likely to be viewed as a hero.

When Ellsberg blew the whistle and brought out the Pentagon Papers to be published, the government and many Americans viewed him as a traitor. He is now viewed as a hero by millions and millions of Americans. Most Americans probably don't know who he is. Some conservatives probably still think he is a traitor.

Ellsberg revealed war waste, lies and corruption.

So has Snowden. So did Manning (in addition to possible war crimes).

So we are faced with making a moral judgment. Would it have been morally better for Snowden and Manning to let sleeping dogs lie and not reveal the truth to the American people? Or are they heros because they followed their moral compasses and spoke up?

Time will tell.

You and I disagree on this. I can understand that you find my approach to be tedious and annoying. But I am seeking to judge these men not based solely on the bureaucratic, legal rights and wrongs but also on morality and on American political and social values.

In my view, Snowden and Manning served the higher purpose of promoting democracy and insuring an informed voting public with their revelations. That is why I trust them in general and think they did the right thing.

Just explaining. You don't have to agree. And what is more, you don't have to admit that you agree with me here on DU.

I do not hold grudges or harbor hard feelings. I am simply trying my best to understand right and wrong, legal right and wrong and then moral right and wrong.