What a stupid question! Snowden, of course, signed and oath and then broke his word.
Not. The New Yorker's Amy Davidson has the facts (in case they still matter):
In a piece for Slate titled “Why Snowden Won’t (And Shouldn’t) Get Clemency,” Fred Kaplan mentions my suggestion, in a piece for the site, that Jimmy Carter’s pardoning of Vietnam draft dodgers offers “a useful parallel” when thinking of the legal situation of Edward Snowden. Kaplan writes:
This suggestion is mind-boggling on several levels. Among other things, Snowden signed an oath, as a condition of his employment as an NSA contractor, not to disclose classified information, and knew the penalties for violating the oath. The young men who evaded the draft, either by fleeing to Canada or serving jail terms, did so in order to avoid taking an oath to fight a war that they opposed—a war that was over, and widely reviled, by the time that Carter pardoned them.
There are no such extenuating circumstances favoring forgiveness of Snowden.
But did he sign such an oath?
He says that he did not, and that does not appear to have been contradicted. Snowden told the Washington Post’s Barton Gellman that the document he signed, as what Kaplan calls “a condition of his employment,” was Standard Form 312, a contract in which the signatory says he will “accept” the terms, rather than swearing to them. By signing it, Snowden agreed that he was aware that there were federal laws against disclosing classified information. But the penalties for violating agreement alone are civil. ...Davidson,NewYorker
Civil, not criminal. He broke laws, not an oath. That really limits what the US government can to do him. Legally. Not that they're above illegality.
But wait. He did sign an oath as well. The oath, well, you know: to support and defend the Constitution. Like, defend the Constitution from lyin' stealin' criminals... like NSA. And that Constitution isn't about disclosing classified information. Plenty of us would cheer on anyone who challenges government illegality. And so we cheer Snowden on.
As Davidson suggests, there are the courageous and there are the cowards who fear and detest the truly courageous like Snowden -- who stood up alone.
There are a lot of people in the government, and public, who are simply dismayed by Snowden’s actions, and by everything about him, down to his glasses and haircut. The oath he swore was supposed to be humbling, and he is presumptuous. The discussions about him become choked with rage—even as the conversation he alone started and made possible becomes ever louder and clearer. ...Davidson,NewYorker
In other discussions, I've noticed there are military who resent Snowden. They stayed within the line; he didn't. Are they having some sort of crisis of conscience, remembering how often they thought they should have stood up and protested... but didn't?
Just askin'.
There are better and worser ways, after all, of defending the Constitution. Stuff like using white phosphorous in Fallujah or shelling war reporters isn't really among the better defenses for the America and the Constitution we sing celebrate on the 4th of July. We like the idea of freedom... but ...
But we get nervous when freedom so often means having to stand alone as Snowden has done. That's asking more than many of are, it seems, capable of undertaking for our country. These are the "patriots" who would be delighted to see Snowden punished. Sorry, but I think they're exhibiting the very essence of cowardice.
