On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:11 PM, Derek Balling <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
I raised this question elsewhere, but since we've just brought the German's up: I don't know what oath's Snowden has taken. I do know that the UCMJ has a bit that only requires soldiers to obey "lawful commands" & "lawful orders". The excerpt of the UCMJ exists to deny the "only taking orders" defense. And I'm OK w/ that. Other agencies don't have B-2 bombers, or tanks, or artillery. Thankfully. -- As for Snowden: FISA court orders, backed by congressional acts, and executive orders - doesn't scream illegal to me. It may be, it may not be. *I* think the FISA Judges & SCOTUS should have been stopping these actions. That's what they are there for. Matthew _______________________________________________ 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/
