There's a balance. Complete transparency and access to all information (ie, Julian Assange's stance) is extreme. If we gave away all of our secrets, we wouldn't have an advantage over our country's enemies.
This may be extremely naive of me, but I really hope that within my lifetime those notions ("our county", "country's enemies") well have ended. The imperialistic nationalism of Europe culminated in WW1&2, and now they mostly get along. Maybe the rest of the world can, too, in the next 50 years (without another cataclysmic war).
The national pride is still there, sure, but the circumstances that brought about two world wars are not. I just mean that (generalizing) the French don't view the Germans the same way Americans view the Middle East.
"If we gave away all of our secrets, we wouldn't have an advantage over our country's enemies."
I am not sure that's the case. If we credibly give away all our secrets then we have the advantage that we are viewed as trustworthy - popular support can mean a lot. Sort of like the theory that we developed a moral intuition because being a "good person" is sometimes the most effective way of convincing people you're a "good person".
Whether this advantage could actually be realized, and whether its magnitude is actually greater than that realized by keeping secrets, and whether the difference is important and worth the other costs, are all very much up for debate though.
Particulars don't need to be known (troop locations, battle plans, weapons capabilities/vulnerabilities, list of undercover agents in the field, specific espionage and surveillance techniques, etc), but the fact that it is happening at all should be well known and open for public comment.
Otherwise "consent of the governed" is thrown out the window.
I'm actually hoping for a lot more Wikileaks-transparency to happen in the future. Governments need to be a lot more transparent, whether they like it or not.
I'm actually much more a fan of the approach being used this time around. The wikileaks approach put all the cards on the table. Those in government responsible for any transgressions could quickly assess their position and start spinning the story. With this new whistle blowing approach, those responsible must tread far closer to the truth when explaining their actions lest they be revealed as frauds and liars by the leakers.
You've gotten Assange's position wrong. What he actually believes is that transparency should scale with power, so that the more powerful an organization is, the more transparent it should become, while privacy should be reserved for those who lack such strength.
This is in direct conflict with human nature. As people, governments, institutions, or organizations grow more powerful, they tend to have more enemies. As such, the need to protect their financial and other interests becomes key to their survival.
You think Bill Gates should be more transparent with his wealth? Do you think JP Morgan Chase be more transparent about future financial opportunities its pursuing? Do you think China should be more transparent with their economy?
Yeah, it would be great if it would happen, but it won't. Human nature is just too strong for people to willing give up their secrets. Besides, Assange's hate of the US is well documented. For him, it was more of a personal crusade, then trying to create more transparency.
I'm not arguing the merits of the position. I'm simply reiterating Assange's stated belief. Whether of not you agree has no bearing on the fact that tmandarano got it wrong.
What is a whistleblower, exactly? It should be defined before we make these sweeping statements. You could imagine whistleblower protections being abused ...
"Exactly" is too detailed of a request. Currently in the US the "exact" definition depends very much on the activity, organization, and person involved.
For purposes of this discussion, a reasonable definition might be "a person who releases information about internal activities when 1) the information concerns illegal activity of an organization, and where 2) there is a strong and reasonable belief that internal mechanisms in the organization is insufficient to address the activity.
This is an incomplete definition. For example, someone who reports to a supervisor about possible fraud case and is punished for doing so because that person's supervisor and department head are actively participating in the fraud, should have whistleblowing protection, even if that information stays entirely within the organization.
Of course these can be abused. But as with all cases of power imbalance, the lack of whistleblowing protections means that people who might report fraud or other illegal activities may decide that it's not worthwhile to risk one's job, personal safety, or threat of jail, and therefore allow the crime to continue.
Note that "concerns illegal activity" is of course the issue here.
The reference everyone uses in this discussion is the Pentagon Papers. The NYT wrote that it "demonstrated, among other things, that the Lyndon Baines Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance." Quoting from Wikipedia, "The most damaging revelations in the papers revealed that four administrations, from Truman to Johnson, had misled the public regarding their intentions."
If you believe it was appropriate to publish this classified information, then under what guidelines do you think it's appropriate to break the laws regarding the release of classified material. If you think that Daniel Ellsberg was wrong for doing so, then do we now have a mechanism in place which is able to detect and correct systemic "misleading" by a presidential administration? If so, what is it? If not, then I'll assume you think it's okay for an administration to mislead Congress and the public.
Ed Snowden is a traitor. He betrayed the trust of the government he worked for. That means he is a traitor. He committed a traitorous act against those who trusted him.
What he is not, however, is treasonous. He didn't betray his country. He did his country (and many others, including mine) a huge favour by changing his allegiance from government to country - he did the right thing. It'd be nice if those working in government never had to do that, but it'd be foolish to thing they won't, and downright wrong to think they've done a terrible thing if they do.
If you believe he committed treason then you're conflating the country with its government. They are not the same thing at all.
Is "treason" legal or moral? How do you define it? Would shooting the president by treason? What if the opinion of the shooter is that killing the president is good for the country?
In the US, it's defined by the Constitution, Article 3 Section 3. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
Quoting from http://constitution.findlaw.com/article3/annotation24.html : Thus, the Framers adopted two of the three formulations and the phraseology of the English Statute of Treason enacted in 1350, 1285 but they conspicuously omitted the phrase defining as treason the ''compass[ing] or imagin[ing] the death of our lord the King,'' 1286 under which most of the English law of ''constructive treason'' had been developed. 1287 Beyond limiting the power of Congress to define treason, 1288 the clause also prescribes limitations upon Congress' ability to make proof of the offense easy to establish 1289 and its ability to define punishment. 1290.
Thus, I don't see how shooting the president (even 'for the good of the country') leads to a treason charge.
That link also gives a summary of the few Supreme Court cases regarding treason charges. There isn't much, in part because most of the offenses you might come up with are already covered by other laws. For example, 18 USC Sec. 1751 specifically covers "Presidential and presidential staff assassination, kidnapping, and assault."
""He betrayed the trust of the government he worked for. That means he is a traitor."
Actually, no. Treason - as a formal charge - can only exists in a time of formally declared war. Even in the depth of the Cold War, we didn't charge turncoats spying for the Soviets with treason since technically, we were never at war with the USSR. Espionage, yes, treason no.
The premise of the article is false. It says, right in the first paragraph, that "[Western States] at least accept that they will be held accountable by the press and public alike." (By Western States I don't mean states west of the Mississippi river, I mean states of Western European types, description which presumably the US fits.
Alas, the US government seems to have lost that particular element. They seem to think that they will not be held accountable by the press and the public. They may be right too.
I find it most saddening and ironic that a United Kingdom journal is defending the freedom we fought to acquire from the King of England.
26 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 95.5 ms ] threadI am not sure that's the case. If we credibly give away all our secrets then we have the advantage that we are viewed as trustworthy - popular support can mean a lot. Sort of like the theory that we developed a moral intuition because being a "good person" is sometimes the most effective way of convincing people you're a "good person".
Whether this advantage could actually be realized, and whether its magnitude is actually greater than that realized by keeping secrets, and whether the difference is important and worth the other costs, are all very much up for debate though.
Particulars don't need to be known (troop locations, battle plans, weapons capabilities/vulnerabilities, list of undercover agents in the field, specific espionage and surveillance techniques, etc), but the fact that it is happening at all should be well known and open for public comment.
Otherwise "consent of the governed" is thrown out the window.
You think Bill Gates should be more transparent with his wealth? Do you think JP Morgan Chase be more transparent about future financial opportunities its pursuing? Do you think China should be more transparent with their economy?
Yeah, it would be great if it would happen, but it won't. Human nature is just too strong for people to willing give up their secrets. Besides, Assange's hate of the US is well documented. For him, it was more of a personal crusade, then trying to create more transparency.
For purposes of this discussion, a reasonable definition might be "a person who releases information about internal activities when 1) the information concerns illegal activity of an organization, and where 2) there is a strong and reasonable belief that internal mechanisms in the organization is insufficient to address the activity.
This is an incomplete definition. For example, someone who reports to a supervisor about possible fraud case and is punished for doing so because that person's supervisor and department head are actively participating in the fraud, should have whistleblowing protection, even if that information stays entirely within the organization.
Of course these can be abused. But as with all cases of power imbalance, the lack of whistleblowing protections means that people who might report fraud or other illegal activities may decide that it's not worthwhile to risk one's job, personal safety, or threat of jail, and therefore allow the crime to continue.
Note that "concerns illegal activity" is of course the issue here.
The reference everyone uses in this discussion is the Pentagon Papers. The NYT wrote that it "demonstrated, among other things, that the Lyndon Baines Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance." Quoting from Wikipedia, "The most damaging revelations in the papers revealed that four administrations, from Truman to Johnson, had misled the public regarding their intentions."
If you believe it was appropriate to publish this classified information, then under what guidelines do you think it's appropriate to break the laws regarding the release of classified material. If you think that Daniel Ellsberg was wrong for doing so, then do we now have a mechanism in place which is able to detect and correct systemic "misleading" by a presidential administration? If so, what is it? If not, then I'll assume you think it's okay for an administration to mislead Congress and the public.
What he is not, however, is treasonous. He didn't betray his country. He did his country (and many others, including mine) a huge favour by changing his allegiance from government to country - he did the right thing. It'd be nice if those working in government never had to do that, but it'd be foolish to thing they won't, and downright wrong to think they've done a terrible thing if they do.
If you believe he committed treason then you're conflating the country with its government. They are not the same thing at all.
Quoting from http://constitution.findlaw.com/article3/annotation24.html : Thus, the Framers adopted two of the three formulations and the phraseology of the English Statute of Treason enacted in 1350, 1285 but they conspicuously omitted the phrase defining as treason the ''compass[ing] or imagin[ing] the death of our lord the King,'' 1286 under which most of the English law of ''constructive treason'' had been developed. 1287 Beyond limiting the power of Congress to define treason, 1288 the clause also prescribes limitations upon Congress' ability to make proof of the offense easy to establish 1289 and its ability to define punishment. 1290.
Thus, I don't see how shooting the president (even 'for the good of the country') leads to a treason charge.
That link also gives a summary of the few Supreme Court cases regarding treason charges. There isn't much, in part because most of the offenses you might come up with are already covered by other laws. For example, 18 USC Sec. 1751 specifically covers "Presidential and presidential staff assassination, kidnapping, and assault."
Actually, no. Treason - as a formal charge - can only exists in a time of formally declared war. Even in the depth of the Cold War, we didn't charge turncoats spying for the Soviets with treason since technically, we were never at war with the USSR. Espionage, yes, treason no.
those of the house not of the public
Alas, the US government seems to have lost that particular element. They seem to think that they will not be held accountable by the press and the public. They may be right too.
I find it most saddening and ironic that a United Kingdom journal is defending the freedom we fought to acquire from the King of England.