[ExI] pussy riot case

[Ben Zaiboc]

Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:

> Army Pfc. Bradley Manning swore an oath to protect his countries
> secrets, then violated that oath. That's a little stronger expectation
> of loyalty than "some"...

Do you think an oath, once sworn, must be binding under *all circumstances*, including a change in the perceived nature of the entity the oath was sworn to?

In other words, do you think that divorce, for example, should never be allowed under any circumstances?  That there is never a moral obligation to violate an oath under any circumstances, even if you find that the oath would lead you to do evil things?

I don't know about you, but in my book, conscience trumps oaths, which are after all just verbal contracts dressed up in fancy language, usually with threats attached.  The word 'inviolate' only actually applies to the laws of physics, not of man, and people always make cost-benefit decisions about the things they do, even things like breaching solemn promises.

If Bradley Manning violated his oath, he thought it was the Right Thing To Do, at least at the time.


> "secrets that might well be more safely kept behind closed doors"

The problem (well, /a/ problem, anyway) with this concept is that someone has to do the deciding about what these secrets are.  And who decides who that is?  And who decides who /that/ is, and ...

Who are governments supposed to be the servants of, again?


Ben Zaiboc