Saturday, June 15, 2013

Edward Snowden- "oath breaker" or not?

What is your opinion of Edward Snowden "breaking his oath" and spilling the beans about the NSA spying on you?

My opinion: an oath made to a criminal thug (one who violates life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) or a gang of criminal thugs can't be in any way binding.  Especially when they don't keep their oaths.

If you swore an oath in good faith, but you later discover that the guys you had sworn your oath to had broken their oaths and were requiring you to do the same, under the guise of keeping your oath to them, you are released from any obligation.

To me, an oath made to someone who breaks their part of the oath first is null and void.  You may choose to keep your end of the bargain even after they have broken it on their end, but you are not obligated to do so.

As soon as Edward Snowden discovered that those he was working for/with were oathbreakers of the most dangerous kind, he was released from any obligation his oath may have created.

Confused military tools to the contrary.

In my opinion.



  1. Any oath which requires the violation of the rights and well being of another individual -- let alone an entire country, possibly the world -- is based on deceit and fraud...of course it's worthless, hence unenforceable.

    Politicians from both sides of the aisle who are calling for Snowden's head on a platter are just powerful, but petty wannabe controllers of society. They want to sit as Platonic philosopher kings deciding how everyone should live (while exempting themselves from those same restrictive laws). A pox on all of their heads!

  2. The link below goes to a blog post I made back in 2011. It deals with the war on drugs but could just as well pertain to the subject of this article. It's about the government as a right-violating criminal organization:

    It is an addendum from my dissertation on The Myth of Inalienable Rights. Click on my name to see that.