[jeremyflores]

The comparison between Drake and Cheney should be based on the metric of credibility to speak on these matters. Drake has military experience and has put his career and freedom on the line for public disclosure. Cheney actively avoided putting himself in harm's way, then sent people to their deaths, directly profited from it, and will continue to profit off any future militaristic endeavors the US pursues.

Cheney is defending the need for state secrets but has a proven record of benefitting from intelligence that has been obscured from the general public. Motive is extremely important here.

[davidhollander]

> sent people to their deaths, directly profited from it, and will continue to profit off any future militaristic endeavors the US pursues.

This would remain a valid example of moral hazard even if Cheney had been drafted and experienced combat in Vietnam. The draft was one of the reasons the Vietnam War was so unpopular, avoiding it could be construed as an act of civil disobedience. It's not an essential part of the argument.

[aaronbrethorst]

> then sent people to their deaths

On several occasions. He was the Secretary of Defense for the first Gulf War, and VP when both Afghanistan and the second Gulf War started up.

[dfc]

So you are some sort of neo-aristotelian except instead of property ownership you think the credibility of people's opinions is based on years in uniform? Does Ellsberg get partial credit for being a policy analyst at DoD?

[jeremyflores]

Please re-read my comments. It has nothing to do with military service or the number of years served. I'm making a general point about each individual's credibility and motivations for speaking out on PRISM. Drake gains nothing from his outspokenness, Cheney stands to profit quite a bit.