Snowden is the poster child for an UnEthical Generation

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by dominicus
A hero!!!!! He's the David to the Goliath, like Michael Hastings was when he was reporting about fishy things the cia, fbi, and top brass were doing and got killed for it.

Snowden [color=gold] is a blueprint. 1 man who changed the world!!!!!! An inspiration who has inspired me to get off myarse and start talking to others, writing books, calling my congressmen and reps, and doing something about things that aren't right....

A global hero

The quote above is a blueprint
why this is an unethical generation.

A free pass for one's perceived hero's
and accusations "only" for the perceived enemy.

Mike

edit on 18-7-2013 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)

It's not an unethical generation because there are whistleblowers coming out against an unethical government. He's a blueprint and example for people that if you see someone doing something wrong, you should report about it, especially if whats being done is unconstitutional.

H's not "perceived" a hero ...but is One. When an Ex-President (Jimmy Carter) is coming out in support of him, along with most of the rest of the world, that's saying something.

I have a ton of friends who went into military and signed contracts/agreements, but then what they witnessed being done in the name of terrorism and being done unethically, for example regular citizens (woman children in Afghanistan, Iraq) being used as targets by snipers in training, well that will change your about things.

Who's side are you on?

Originally posted by suz62
reply to post by mikegrouchy

 

What is ethical about secretly spying on and tracking honest Americans?

The US Government has become a monster. Carter is right. It's no longer a democracy. It hasn't been for some time.

I could go along with what you are saying
except that you have skipped over the part
where it is admitted that he violated trust in a big way.


Mike

Originally posted by redoubt
You, your spouse and your only child are out on a boat... the weather turns ugly and your spouse and the child are washed overboard.

You have one life preserver to toss out... who do you save first?

You look at your beloved desperately trying to stay afloat.
... forsaking all others, til death do you part...

You look at your child struggling in the heavy surf, screaming for you.

One may well drown while you save the other.

*sigh*

I ran this by someone else once and their reply was...'why weren't they wearing their coast guard approved flotation devices?'

It was a great dodge

Anyway, it is an example of how sometimes we are called to [color=gold] turn away from one obligation in order to preserve another. [color=gold] In the case of Snowden, he undoubtedly faced this choice. I can't read his heart and mind to say whether he applied it to his final reasoning... but it was definitely there.

Star for you,
at least the admission that
he turned away from one obligation is there.


Mike

reply to post by mikegrouchy


The government violated our trust. Snowden stood with the Constitution. Government didn't.

Originally posted by suz62
reply to post by redoubt

 

I'm with Snowden on this. He stood with the Constitution.

So he is completely ethical in your assessment then?


Mike

reply to post by mikegrouchy


As I wrote, he stood with the Constitution and government did not. I'll take Snowden's ethics over the government's.

If the government doesn't like what Snowden has done they should do a better job of vetting their employees. Apparently they're looking for a few good liars.

reply to post by mikegrouchy

Star for you, at least the admission that he turned away from one obligation is there.

Indeed he did but was it to uphold another? In this case, he would have betrayed a trust if he had NOT done what he did...

PS - Thanks for the star but I think I'll take a ceegar instead

reply to post by mikegrouchy


The US government broke it's own contract with We The People by doing all sorts of illegal things. It's called the Constitution, maybe you should read it sometime.

Therefore, his NDA is null and void.

So, go ahead and ignore the actual story, which is the information he has given us, and create a distraction thread about the person who gave us this information. Shoot the messenger because you don't like his message.

Trust, what a sad word to use to make Snowden into a traitor, when it's the damned government who are traitors to We The People. They have no trust in us, therefore the illegal spying and deserve NONE from us.

You have the right to think what you do, I have the right to disagree. I doubt that twain will ever meet.

also if this were a test, getting nine out of ten correct comes out as 90%.
90% is a passing grade.

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie
also if this were a test, getting nine out of ten correct comes out as 90%.
90% is a passing grade.

It's a helluva better score than a lot of those in Washington could rate!

Originally posted by TheSpanishArcher
reply to post by mikegrouchy

 

The US government broke it's own contract with We The People by doing all sorts of illegal things. It's called the Constitution, maybe you should read it sometime.

Therefore, his NDA is null and void.

So, go ahead and ignore the actual story, which is the information he has given us, and create a distraction thread about the person who gave us this information. Shoot the messenger because you don't like his message.

Trust, what a sad word to use to make Snowden into a traitor, when it's the damned government who are traitors to We The People. They have no trust in us, therefore the illegal spying and deserve NONE from us.

You have the right to think what you do, I have the right to disagree. I doubt that twain will ever meet.

EXACTLY!!! Star for you my friend.

Wonder if OP is just trollin....

Originally posted by TheSpanishArcher
reply to post by mikegrouchy

 

The US government broke it's own contract with We The People by doing all sorts of illegal things. It's called the Constitution, maybe you should read it sometime.

Therefore, [color=gold] his NDA is null and void.

So, go ahead and ignore the actual story, which is the information he has given us, and create a distraction thread about the person who gave us this information. Shoot the messenger because you don't like his message.

Trust, what a sad word to use to make Snowden into a traitor, when it's the damned government who are traitors to We The People. They have no trust in us, therefore the illegal spying and deserve NONE from us.

You have the right to think what you do, I have the right to disagree. I doubt that twain will ever meet.

So all I have to do is accuse my perceived enemy
of illegal activity and that gives me justification
to violate any agreements signed by me?

Two wrongs make a right?

Are you actually trying to help or hurt the image of
this generations ethical behavior?


Mike

So he violated the government's trust. In his case, so what? His judgment was that people needed to know the extent of the government's violation of the public's trust.

One outweighs the other. Open your eyes.

say we were living with nazis, and the NSA was under a nazi regime, and he released some secrets and it stopped fascism and oppression and created a new society? We as a free nation have to sometimes forceably check and balance those who's minds let power run away with them.

reply to post by mikegrouchy

That trust is the last 10% of ethics, and not something to be swept under the rug.

So, while you want people to admit he broke a trust, you seem to avoid admitting that he also upheld a trust by blowing the whistle on this operation; he enlightened a nation built on the concept of liberty that their elected government was spying on them.

In my book, he gets that 10% back and a bonus to boot.

reply to post by mikegrouchy


Deja-vu? I feel like this was already posted back on page 2.

Anyway, it's obvious the man broke 'trust agreements' that he signed with the government. It's kind of impossible to deny, and like you said, even Snowden admitted to it. Trust in ethics isn't just a black or white issue though. Especially in this case, there is a huge grey area. That grey area being the government's breaking of trust of the people. Ethically, Snowden made the right decision in revealing this breaking of the trust. If he hadn't, he would have been doing something just as equally unethical...keeping a damaging secret away from the populace, and allowing a few to infringe on the rights of the many.

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by nwdogg1982

Now if others will go back and review the Snowden interviews
they will see that he never denied breaking trust, even
admitted it. That trust is the last 10% of ethics,
and not something to be swept under
the rug.

so what are we suppose to do, give the Government that 10% and trust them? haven't they broken the trust between us and them.

if he didn't speak out are we suppose to trust them to tell us what they were and are doing? or in your view can the government do no wrong, and doesn't need to be watched by people in or without and bring to light wrong doing?

Originally posted by suz62

So [color=gold] he violated the government's trust. In his case, so what? His judgment was that people needed to know the extent of the government's violation of the public's trust.

One outweighs the other. Open your eyes.

I agree.

As long as one is willing to admit he violated trust,
then yes... I'm willing to weigh one against the other.

It's when, in the mad rush to hero worship that one skips over
the 10th point in Snowden's case that I take exception.

Trust is not something to be conveniently discarded,
particularly when accusing someone else of doing the same thing.

/star for you


Mike

reply to post by mikegrouchy


I'm in his generation. And trust is one of my key principles. That goes for both individuals and law abiding corporations. When I work for a company, they can expect me to keep my mouth shut when it comes to things that can hurt the company. However, should one of those secrets be something that breaks the law, as a citizen it is my duty to speak up, to whoever will listen.

Let's not forget here, Snowden was working for people who were constantly VIOLATING American people's rights. Daily. The unethical thing to do, is to keep your mouth shut and ignore it. Not the other way around.

So in my opinion, he's gotten all ten out of ten right. I sure hope you're never in such a position where you would sit quietly by and allow people like his employers to rape the constitution.

Originally posted by Auricom
reply to post by mikegrouchy

 

I'm in his generation. And trust is one of my key principles. That goes for both individuals and law abiding corporations. When I work for a company, they can expect me to keep my mouth shut when it comes to things that can hurt the company. However, should one of those secrets be something that breaks the law, as a citizen it is my duty to speak up, to whoever will listen.

Let's not forget here, Snowden was working for people who were constantly VIOLATING American people's rights. Daily. The unethical thing to do, is to keep your mouth shut and ignore it. Not the other way around.

So in my opinion, he's gotten all ten out of ten right. I sure hope you're never in such a position where you would sit quietly by and allow people like his employers to rape the constitution.

At no point in the quote above
is it admitted that Snowden violated trust.

Only the crimes of the perceived enemy seem to matter,
and the hero-du-jour is given a free pass. Nay, celebrated even.

How can I trust your sense of what is and is not ethical?


Mike