On Jun 11, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Shrdlu <[email protected]> wrote: > > There are a lot of questions that most people seem not to be asking. > *I* do not think he's a hero, nor a whistle blower. I find him, on the > face of it, contemptible. He took an oath. I do not believe he went in > innocent, and he broke his word. I'm taking a currently unpopular view, > and I know that. I think he belongs in Leavenworth. Even if he turns out > to be a pawn, he belongs in Leavenworth.
So. SERIOUS question. When the German soldiers took an oath to obey their orders. Should they have? I'm not saying that what the US government is doing rises to the level of genocide, but I'm saying that "taking an oath" is, I'm sorry, inadequate defense. Oaths and morals sometimes come into conflict. The oath doesn't always win simply by virtue of "being an oath". Sometimes the moral imperative is higher. Sometimes the moral good is stronger than the value of the oath. D _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
