On Jun 11, 2013, at 4:15 PM, Matthew Barr <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 UCMJ also very specifically offers soldiers no means of determining that an order is lawful other than it has been communicated to them by the proper chain of command. The UCMJ on this point is intentionally convoluted, because they do NOT want to give soldiers any legitimate means for disobeying an order, but they also had to work to the standard that had been set in hemp at Nuremberg. > -- 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. Again it's tricky. In our current system of laws, SCOTUS is the supreme arbiter of lawfulness, and they've steadfastly refused to limit FISA. But to everyone but SCOTUS and the MIC, FISA seems like a blatant abuse of the 4th Amendment. 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/
