General Discussion

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)

132. The issue I was specifically addressing was whether or not...

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 08:20 AM

Jun 2014

... Snowden took an oath of secrecy. If he held a security clearance greater than "Confidential," then he certainly did.

Now, in response to the claim that the oath to uphold the Constitution supersedes the oath to protect secrets, I agree that that argument can be made. However, it is a very tricky argument, and most particularly, I DO have a problem with Snowden's decision to expose intelligence operations that are perfectly legitimate, but with which he simply disagrees.

I think he crossed the line, and has expressed a willingness to continue to do so.

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