None — it is a hypothetical question for establishing principles; namely: does a confidentiality agreement (e.g. classified operations
) extend to patently illegal actions? How about very questionable actions?
As a practical/real example (since you seem to have trouble with theory) consider Fast & Furious — the operation was trafficking firearms to Mexico, sometimes using known felons, in violation of treaty and arming the cartels (and providing legal protection to those to whom the arms were given), all of which is likely the clearest case of treason in a hundred years.
Would slapping a 'classified' stamp on the operation oblige all agents with knowledge thereof to remain silent? Or do they have a moral and/or legal obligation to act against its implementation even if it means violating the 'classified' status thereof?
If the BATF agents had[/have] an obligation to expose such illegal activities, then did not Snowden have such obligation to expose the illegal activities he witnessed?
First off I don’t believe anything this administration says, don’t accuse me of carrying their water!
You seem to be under the impression that Snowden was not telling our adversaries anything they could use against our nation. What evidence do you have of this? If he was not helping them then why first Red China then Russia? Would Putin waste his time with this guy if he wasn’t giving up “useful” info?
Why did he run to the Red Chinese first? Why not England? Canada? Columbia? Why did he only turn up in countries that are hostile to us? And why was he treated well in those countries?
Do you believe everything Putin says?