General Discussion

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)

79. Very interesting the manner in which quotation marks are used in the image.

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:40 AM

Jun 2014

Any link to anything reputable where Ellsberg actually said this? Doesn't seem like something he would say without much more elaboration. It can be read as both true and false.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

146 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Snowden didn't take an "oath of secrecy" [View all] Scuba Jun 2014 OP

Thank you Daniel Ellsberg SamKnause Jun 2014 #1

Daniel Ellsberg doesn't know what he's talking about. Or he's lying. pnwmom Jun 2014 #48

It is a non-disclosure agreement and if you violate it you are subject to criminal prosecution. MADem Jun 2014 #105

Thanks for the link. Anyone who reads that can see that Snowden pnwmom Jun 2014 #107

Ellsberg was outta the game well before the Walker spy scandal. Life changed for all of us after MADem Jun 2014 #109

Not in my company GP6971 Jun 2014 #127

Did you read the document? It is a SF 312. MADem Jun 2014 #130

Not quite true... Adrahil Jun 2014 #2

Yeah, what would Ellsburg know compared to an anonymous blog poster? Scuba Jun 2014 #3

"Personal Attestations Upon the Granting of Security Access" joshcryer Jun 2014 #4

isn't that for DoD employees/contractors with top secret clearance/ grasswire Jun 2014 #14

It's for all who have Top Secret clearance. joshcryer Jun 2014 #19

If Snowden didn't have that level of clearance he couldn't have gotten past an NSA guardhouse jmowreader Jun 2014 #47

If he had Top Secret clearance then he could've gone through whistleblower channels. joshcryer Jun 2014 #122

His job was to service computers that held Top Secret information jmowreader Jun 2014 #125

It's not clear what his clearance was. joshcryer Jun 2014 #128

I have an Army Signals Intelligence MOS jmowreader Jun 2014 #129

Your thinking is wrong. jeff47 Jun 2014 #137

Then he definitely said an oath. joshcryer Jun 2014 #138

Those channels are available for any level of classification jeff47 Jun 2014 #136

Right, but the material he accessed was TS. joshcryer Jun 2014 #139

Actually, if he only had a secret he would be required to say something jeff47 Jun 2014 #140

Strawman alert - ""he didn't SPEAK an oath" - This is not directed at you, but the words karynnj Jun 2014 #80

As I posted in Post #5 NavyDem Jun 2014 #23

Surely the oath to uphold the Constitution supersedes the oath to keep the President's JDPriestly Jun 2014 #28

Of course it does. These attempts to distract are always amusing. The oath to defend and protect the sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #32

Interesting that you try to assume what I think on the matter. NavyDem Jun 2014 #41

Do you know how that works in the law when the person signing it does not? JDPriestly Jun 2014 #45

I'll try to answer the questions that I can, but some I do not know the full ins and outs. NavyDem Jun 2014 #53

The agreement is between the contractor and the government jeff47 Jun 2014 #75

Thanks. Interesting. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #114

The government offers lots in compensation jeff47 Jun 2014 #118

You assume that Snowden is being compensated by the Russian government. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #119

Again, compensation is not only cash. jeff47 Jun 2014 #120

So, compensation for what? JDPriestly Jun 2014 #131

For leaking classified information. jeff47 Jun 2014 #133

What's Greenwald and company waiting for? JDPriestly Jun 2014 #134

Again, liking what he did doesn't change the law. jeff47 Jun 2014 #135

He knows the programs because he used them. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #145

Then he'd know exactly what documents to leak. jeff47 Jun 2014 #146

Yes it does. NavyDem Jun 2014 #42

BUT that is NOT the same as Top Secret Clearance.... VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #82

Yes, but it's not a license to expose any secret you want. Adrahil Jun 2014 #112

What do you consider to be the argument at hand? JDPriestly Jun 2014 #115

The issue I was specifically addressing was whether or not... Adrahil Jun 2014 #132

Adrihil is right. Zavulon Jun 2014 #6

People right here on this blog have taken the exact same pledge he had to to get his clearance.... VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #10

So what? People sign pledges with Corporations all the time, but when they witness that Corp sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #33

+infinity newfie11 Jun 2014 #63

This message was self-deleted by its author karynnj Jun 2014 #20

Was Snowden lying then when he said he was a spy? pnwmom Jun 2014 #49

He didn't say explicitly that he was a spy;he said explicitly that the NSA gave him "spy training." ancianita Jun 2014 #73

It doesn't matter. He couldn't have worked in his capacity without security clearance. pnwmom Jun 2014 #84

How are they the same, though? I don't even see the legal liability levels as the same. ancianita Jun 2014 #90

Oh, it will never be resolved at DU. randome Jun 2014 #91

You need to sign a non-disclosure agreement to work at McDonald's. baldguy Jun 2014 #65

The 60s were a long time ago treestar Jun 2014 #69

Indeed. What would a Rand Corporation employee know about secrets? nt msanthrope Jun 2014 #78

He actually played a role in changing how secrets were kept. MADem Jun 2014 #110

Personally I always felt my oath to defend and protect the Constitution overrode secrecy hobbit709 Jun 2014 #9

It's really an open-ended kind of commitment. Igel Jun 2014 #12

On the other hand if you're a Secret Service agent and you come in to information Uncle Joe Jun 2014 #29

This isn't the point. The point is that Ellsburg's statement about pnwmom Jun 2014 #50

If that's the case then posts #35 and #39 apply Uncle Joe Jun 2014 #54

I agree with post 35. pnwmom Jun 2014 #58

And if you are a Secret Service Agent or even just a Contractor working for one of Bush's old sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #37

Nope. He signed an employment agreement (the same on Ellsberg signed), as did you. Luminous Animal Jun 2014 #31

Correct Peregrine Jun 2014 #83

Standard Form 312 NavyDem Jun 2014 #5

OK, so the SF-312 is an agreement to keep information secret. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #46

It's a legal document NavyDem Jun 2014 #56

Thanks. I suspect that the complications I have mentioned JDPriestly Jun 2014 #59

You're probably right. NavyDem Jun 2014 #60

It is almost unheard of for any contract COLGATE4 Jun 2014 #66

K&R'd. snot Jun 2014 #7

the same as the POTUS oath grasswire Jun 2014 #8

No not the same.... VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #11

from The Progressive, quoting Gellman at WaPo grasswire Jun 2014 #16

Hilarious. OilemFirchen Jun 2014 #22

Nope. Snowden was not a federal employee. jeff47 Jun 2014 #26

What does that have to do with anything? When private contractors pnwmom Jun 2014 #52

It means grasswire's post is wrong. jeff47 Jun 2014 #67

Yes, I made that clear elsewhere. People with security clearances sign secrecy oaths -- pnwmom Jun 2014 #87

Maybe its just me quakerboy Jun 2014 #141

It's just you. Signing one of these agreements means that you are agreeing pnwmom Jun 2014 #142

Which is still not an Oath quakerboy Jun 2014 #143

An oath is a solemn vow. A vow is a promise or pledge. Signing this agreement is a solemn promise pnwmom Jun 2014 #144

If he worked as a Contractor on a govt job.....OH Yes he did.....he has to take that pledge to GET VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #81

I know that Snowden worked for the government, the CIA at some point. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #40

His employer was Booz Allen Hamilton NavyDem Jun 2014 #43

So qualifying to sign the form is a pre-condition of the employment. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #57

Yes. It is a pre-condition for employment. NavyDem Jun 2014 #61

Not quite. jeff47 Jun 2014 #72

What makes it more binding than the marriage vows? JDPriestly Jun 2014 #30

So you think that people should just remain silent when they witness crimes in action? sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #38

Why would you draw that conclusion? What the poster thinks (actually knows) pnwmom Jun 2014 #55

He didn't sign an 'oath'. He signed a standard corporate agreement which in no way obligates anyone sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #96

Wrong. I'm not referring to any "corporate agreement" he signed with his employer. pnwmom Jun 2014 #99

Crime does not fall under that agreement. sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #121

Nothing is excluded from that agreement, even things Snowden believes are crimes. pnwmom Jun 2014 #123

The US Constitution trumps any such 'agreement, but so does human decency. I'm amazed you are sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #124

It isn't a crime against the Constitution to do international spying. pnwmom Jun 2014 #126

Since when do IT contractors take an oath to defend the constitution? phleshdef Jun 2014 #13

It's called a Non-Disclosure Agreement AnnieBW Jun 2014 #15

And be reviewed after employment, is this on the internet, nope. Thinkingabout Jun 2014 #17

and any penalty is civil. grasswire Jun 2014 #21

Yes, because most spies don't sign an SF-312. jeff47 Jun 2014 #25

Because why would the government enforce a private employer's employment JDPriestly Jun 2014 #34

Ellsberg was a government employee. Snowden was not. jeff47 Jun 2014 #68

and maybe more...the paper I signed when leaving also had travel restrictions HereSince1628 Jun 2014 #64

The oath to protect and defend the Constitution... backscatter712 Jun 2014 #18

Okay, so... jberryhill Jun 2014 #27

So then a jury would have to decide whether Snowden "only engaged in the JDPriestly Jun 2014 #36

Unlikely jberryhill Jun 2014 #77

The Constitution is the measure of legality in this situation. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #98

Um.... jberryhill Jun 2014 #100

I am asking a number of questions. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #113

That's enough for a semester course jberryhill Jun 2014 #116

Excellent post! JDPriestly Jun 2014 #117

"Wait till names are named." randome Jun 2014 #102

Sooner or later, names will be named. And then we find out what criteria are used for JDPriestly Jun 2014 #111

Nope. jeff47 Jun 2014 #24

If that's the case, Uncle Joe Jun 2014 #35

I agree. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #39

It isn't a promise made to the employer. jeff47 Jun 2014 #70

He signed a secrecy agreement to get access to the materials covered by his pnwmom Jun 2014 #51

And did not recite anything about the Constitution. jeff47 Jun 2014 #71

Yes, that's ANOTHER problem with the OP. pnwmom Jun 2014 #86

Ellsberg's been out of the loop for a few years, so I forgive him jmowreader Jun 2014 #44

K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations! Enthusiast Jun 2014 #62

Except for the whole "not being true" problem. jeff47 Jun 2014 #74

+ a whole bunch. Bobbie Jo Jun 2014 #76

"We shouldn't let things like facts ruin a righteous Facebook graphic." Enthusiast Jun 2014 #88

You're welcome Bobbie Jo Jun 2014 #92

Very interesting the manner in which quotation marks are used in the image. NCTraveler Jun 2014 #79

It's taken from an article he wrote. DesMoinesDem Jun 2014 #89

Thank you very much for that. NCTraveler Jun 2014 #94

How can that be? Everyone who is anyone says he did. Autumn Jun 2014 #85

That may well be true. However, the MineralMan Jun 2014 #93

Quote from the article in question. NCTraveler Jun 2014 #95

This is false on it's face, he signed a NDA... regards uponit7771 Jun 2014 #97

He signed a non-disclosure agreement. MADem Jun 2014 #101

Looking over the document, it is very similar to one I signed MineralMan Jun 2014 #103

He definitely violated the law and left himself open to criminal charges--and he can't claim he MADem Jun 2014 #104

Yes. There is no way he did not know about the potential MineralMan Jun 2014 #106

I signed that form--or a version of it--every time I changed duty assignments. MADem Jun 2014 #108