Domestic spying ‘inconsistent with the values of this country’(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Domestic spying ‘inconsistent with the values of this country’
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/01/former-obama-official-domestic-spying-inconsistent-with-the-values-of-this-country/
16 comments
As someone who has clearly had an S/TS, (and who may want to have one again in the future) it would probably be (at least) irresponsible of Mr. Finan to condone the discloser of S/TS material by somebody with a clearance.
I do not think that there is any insurmountable contradiction in perceiving the act of leaking classified information as a serious breach of both professional ethics; organizational trust and national duty; whilst also appreciating the opportunity for debate that arises as a consequence of the leak.
Rhetorical flourishes and occasional emotive rants aside, we are basically all friends, and friends tell each other when they are doing something bone-headed. Even if similar bone-headed stuff is normally kept quiet for very very good reasons indeed.
Rhetorical flourishes and occasional emotive rants aside, we are basically all friends, and friends tell each other when they are doing something bone-headed. Even if similar bone-headed stuff is normally kept quiet for very very good reasons indeed.
> national duty
It's difficult to "appreciat[e] the opportunity for debate" without also acknowledging that there is a legitimate argument to be made that secret mass surveillance is wrong, in which case a legitimate argument can also be made that one's national duty to disclose a program of mass surveillance trumps any professional duty to respect its secrecy.
Indeed, any reasonable legal framework for state secrets will include the notion than an overwhelming public interest should overrule the expectation of privacy. See, for example, the Canadian Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), which includes an obligation to disclose private information to the public if there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is an overriding public interest in disclosing it.
Again, the problem with Edward Snowden's disclosures is not that he breached some ethic or etiquette, but rather that such programs as he disclosed should never have existed in secret in the first place.
It's difficult to "appreciat[e] the opportunity for debate" without also acknowledging that there is a legitimate argument to be made that secret mass surveillance is wrong, in which case a legitimate argument can also be made that one's national duty to disclose a program of mass surveillance trumps any professional duty to respect its secrecy.
Indeed, any reasonable legal framework for state secrets will include the notion than an overwhelming public interest should overrule the expectation of privacy. See, for example, the Canadian Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), which includes an obligation to disclose private information to the public if there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is an overriding public interest in disclosing it.
Again, the problem with Edward Snowden's disclosures is not that he breached some ethic or etiquette, but rather that such programs as he disclosed should never have existed in secret in the first place.
Vae Victis.
Surveillance is power, and the powerful get to make the laws; and get to decide what is considered moral and what is not. If absolute loyalty to the state apparatus is to trump individual judgement and professionalism, then that is the way that it will be.
As they sow, so they shall reap, however, and we will get exactly the sort of society that was asked for: Craven and irresponsible.
Of course there will be tears in the end. There always are.
Surveillance is power, and the powerful get to make the laws; and get to decide what is considered moral and what is not. If absolute loyalty to the state apparatus is to trump individual judgement and professionalism, then that is the way that it will be.
As they sow, so they shall reap, however, and we will get exactly the sort of society that was asked for: Craven and irresponsible.
Of course there will be tears in the end. There always are.
I'm not sure about "irresponsible," unless you mean in the sense that he might impact his own future earnings and jeopardize his kids' college education etc.
On the other hand, if he honestly felt that Snowden did the right thing but is saying the opposite in order to keep his job intact, you could say there's a different kind of "irresponsible" going on.
Hypothetical: Should prospective S/TS clearance recipients be asked if they would reveal classified information if they thought that NOT revealing it would undermine the Constitution? It would be similar to asking a prospective soldier whether he or she would obey an order from the Commander in Chief that clearly violated the Constitution (e.g. "assassinate the Speaker of the House").
Such questions just aren't asked; but that's the question Snowden asked and resoundingly answered.
On the other hand, if he honestly felt that Snowden did the right thing but is saying the opposite in order to keep his job intact, you could say there's a different kind of "irresponsible" going on.
Hypothetical: Should prospective S/TS clearance recipients be asked if they would reveal classified information if they thought that NOT revealing it would undermine the Constitution? It would be similar to asking a prospective soldier whether he or she would obey an order from the Commander in Chief that clearly violated the Constitution (e.g. "assassinate the Speaker of the House").
Such questions just aren't asked; but that's the question Snowden asked and resoundingly answered.
There's something fundamentally wrong with a system in which you are required by protocol to maintain the affectation of hypocrisy in order to avoid being punished for making sense.
Progress is necessarily contingent upon hypocrisy.
It is the lie that conventionally accompanies hypocrisy that boils the blood.
When untruth is supplanted by humility; hypocrisy dissolves into displaced aspiration, wherein tremendous potential for good may be found.
It is the lie that conventionally accompanies hypocrisy that boils the blood.
When untruth is supplanted by humility; hypocrisy dissolves into displaced aspiration, wherein tremendous potential for good may be found.
> Progress is necessarily contingent upon hypocrisy.
I'm more inclined to the notion that progress is contingent on noticing and reducing hypocrisy. Ethical principles established in one domain tend to cross over to others over time, and long-unquestioned practices come under the scrutiny of the new ethical perspective.
I'm more inclined to the notion that progress is contingent on noticing and reducing hypocrisy. Ethical principles established in one domain tend to cross over to others over time, and long-unquestioned practices come under the scrutiny of the new ethical perspective.
The main contradiction you are referring to has it's core at this phrase: "Breaking that commitment was wrong."
People who are inside the system are so invested in the viewpoint that they and their people are always right no matter what, that they don't really stop to take the time and actually think about these issues from a more objective point of view.
The argument would be that everyone inside knows that the IG's are not doing their job properly, continuously prosecute those who bring information to them, and therefore have undermined the official mechanism to address these issues.
As a former military guy who finally, to use the cliched term, "woke up", I do think there is conversation to be had about the duty of contractors in their agreements. So while I feel that the largest swath of the American Military is criminally negligent and in dereliction of duty by not addresses these constitutional issues as required by oath, I wonder what process the civilian contractors go through and if they swear any sort of oath other than the legal one regarding classified information? Regardless, in the military, it is the defense of the constitution that is mission number one, and I personally feel Snowden has done more on that front than just about any general or politician has done in years.
Having left the beltway about 2 years ago, I feel like everyone is either too scared to rock the boat and get fired or otherwise prosecuted, or they think they can ride the wave to the top and are simply opportunistic. They are saving themselves and their families now not realizing they are creating more destruction for their children and grandchildren.
People who are inside the system are so invested in the viewpoint that they and their people are always right no matter what, that they don't really stop to take the time and actually think about these issues from a more objective point of view.
The argument would be that everyone inside knows that the IG's are not doing their job properly, continuously prosecute those who bring information to them, and therefore have undermined the official mechanism to address these issues.
As a former military guy who finally, to use the cliched term, "woke up", I do think there is conversation to be had about the duty of contractors in their agreements. So while I feel that the largest swath of the American Military is criminally negligent and in dereliction of duty by not addresses these constitutional issues as required by oath, I wonder what process the civilian contractors go through and if they swear any sort of oath other than the legal one regarding classified information? Regardless, in the military, it is the defense of the constitution that is mission number one, and I personally feel Snowden has done more on that front than just about any general or politician has done in years.
Having left the beltway about 2 years ago, I feel like everyone is either too scared to rock the boat and get fired or otherwise prosecuted, or they think they can ride the wave to the top and are simply opportunistic. They are saving themselves and their families now not realizing they are creating more destruction for their children and grandchildren.
Any 'values' that apply only to a certain nationality aren't worth much anyway.
How does stating that one country has certain values imply that no other country has those values?
I think what stygianguest meant was that values worthy of respect are not specific in their applicability according to the nationality of the agent.
For example, if a Russian spy in the NSA revealed some documents, or if a US spy in Pakistan revealed documents, the author's value judgment against Snowden would not apply, because it is specific to a home-country actor breaking rules of the home country.
For example, if a Russian spy in the NSA revealed some documents, or if a US spy in Pakistan revealed documents, the author's value judgment against Snowden would not apply, because it is specific to a home-country actor breaking rules of the home country.
[deleted](2)
Anyone else seeing the contradiction here?