Edward Snowden, the hero.

This is an email follow-up on a conversation I had with a friend on the morality of Edward Snowden’s publishing of what appears to me to be illegal actions of our government. Louis Brossard

On 6/28/2013 8:18 AM, Louis Brossard wrote:

Joe Darby was the man who exposed the torture at Abu Ghraib. He did everything he could to keep his identity secret. He is still afraid of some kind of retribution for that act although he is not sorry for doing it.

Because he tried to remain anonymous to protect himself would you put him in the same category as Edward Snowden? Would you call him a coward also? Snowden did not remain anonymous but he did try to protect himself. I consider him a hero just as I do Joe Darby.

Prosecute those who break the requirement of secrecy unless what they are exposing is a far more serious breaking of the law by the government. It was right to expose Aub Ghraib. It is also right to expose the breaking of the law (FISA Amendments Act of 2008) by the government, a law that had already been much diminished under Bush from what it was when originally passed by the Congress.

“At a March 2013 hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was asked, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” (emphasis added)  Clapper responded, “No, sir.” Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) was surprised by the answer to his question, which had been provided to Clapper in advance of the hearings, and sought clarification: “It does not?” Wyden asked. Clapper added: “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect—but not wittingly.” - See more at: http://verdict.justia.com/2013/06/28/will-director-of-national-intelligence-james-clapper-be-prosecuted-for-lying-to-congress-regarding-the-nsas-surveillance#sthash.P1VvLMuu.dpuf

One man can lie to Congress with impunity. Another can tell the truth to the American people and be charged with treason. My idea of justice is far more naive than that.

BTW, I think it is highly ironic that Donald Rumsfeld outed Joe Darby and then praised him for the disclosure, the very tortur of which he was one of the main instigators. Obama condemns Snowden although he promised to have one of the most transparent administrations ever.

Friend Friday, June 28, 2013 12:14 PM
Hi Lou,

Several recent "whistleblower" incidents in government agencies have highlighted the fact that we haven't got a consensus in this country about what constitutes valuable warnings from insiders about allegedly unethical and even illegal practices, and what constitutes dangerous exposure of legitimate government secret operations that are protecting our country.  I certainly don't pretend to know more about this than anyone else, particularly those who presumably have access to much more information than I have.  But I will say that if someone agrees to carry out a job and adhere to certain non-disclosure rules as a condition of employment, and later makes his own analysis that something is more important than his pledge of secrecy, he is, de facto, subject to prosecution.  I am very troubled by the argument that every individual worker should have the freedom to make their own assessment of what should and what should not be revealed.  To adopt that reasoning, there would be no purpose in having all these Confidential/Secret/Top Secret classifications in the first place, and governments would be unable to maintain any secrets, which would render them unable to engage in any form of delicate diplomacy, or to have any military secrets, which I'm sure you would recognize would be unworkable.  At the same time, I do understand that our existing classification system is out of control and that there are many things classified for the wrong reasons or for no reason at all.  We absolutely should be trying to reform that system.  And we do need real oversight.  By the courts or by Congress, but definitely oversight is vitally necessary.  That said, I don't think that any lone "whistleblower" who makes available highly classified material to the general public, based solely on his own judgment of what's important to be revealed should be viewed as a hero.  I think such people should be investigated without ideological bias and in most cases prosecuted, and if convicted, subjected to appropriate punishment.  In the case of Bradley Manning, he seems to be a very misguided young man, and probably deserves some punishment, but certainly not threatened with the death penalty, and absolutely NOT tortured while in confinement.  In the case of Edward Snowden, it remains to be proved what damage his revelations may have caused our country, and I acknowledge that his revelations uncovered the depth of PRISM and other very questionable surveillance practices, but again, he broke his oaths (which he could have refused to take, and gone on to some other employment), so I think he should be investigated and if convicted, subjected to appropriate punishment.  If it is done without ideological bias and within our system of justice, I believe it will not dampen the inclinations of other whistleblowers who want to make facts known, but within some kind of framework, NOT to make them known to everyone including our enemies, JUST BASED ON ONE PERSON'S ASSESSMENT.  That makes no sense to me.  We need to develop such a framework.  We have some of the elements, such as chain-of-command, internal but independent ombudsmen, Congressional oversight committees, etc.  I would agree that such channels are not currently working well, but that's the place to focus on change, I believe; not making these independent individuals into "heroes", even if what they reveal seems to be scandalous.  That's my position.

On 6/28/2013 12:51 PM, Louis Brossard wrote:

He did not break his oath until the government broke theirs. You would have Ellsberg punished for telling his fellow citizens of the illegal actions of the government. He was only saved from punishment because the government was caught once again lying and cheating in his trial. He was saved by a technicality. Darby was saved by the pusillanimous actions of Rumsfeld trying to save his own reputation.

Under what circumstance would you consider a whistleblower justified since they all break some rule, oath or law. Otherwise there is no reason to whistle blow. And, by the way, we do have a whistleblower protection law that works for everyone except the government. I think when the government breaks its own laws it forfeits its right to secrecy.

Finally, if Snowden does release the additional damaging information that he did not originally release and now has threatened to do, where government employees are put in danger individually, I will change my opinion. So far he has made a good faith effort to protect individuals.

Friend Friday, June 28, 2013 01:20 PM
 

So your argument is "my keeping my promise is dependent on your keeping your promise"?  I've never thought that was the way it goes, and I don't believe there's any legal precedent for that line of reasoning.  The two are separate actions and both are surely wrong.  At least, I think so.

I suppose, to be consistent, I'd have to agree that Ellsberg deserved some form of punishment, although if I were the judge, it would not be a harsh punishment.  I think there needs to be something to deter some people from making casual or not-well-considered breaches of security.  If there's no penalty, what's the purpose of security rules?  In considering the appropriate punishment, I would expect that the nature of the government practice, as well as the consequences of revealing it would be the major factors.

What I'm arguing against is making it perfectly OK for absolutely ANYONE who has signed an agreement to keep classified documents secret to USE THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL JUDGMENT as to what should be kept secret and what should not.  In any specific case, they may be right or they may be wrong, but it is a VERY DANGEROUS MESSAGE TO SEND to the hundreds of thousands of people with security clearances, that EVERY ONE OF THEM can aspire to becoming a "hero" by violating their secrecy agreements.  It is likely that SOME OF THEM WILL MAKE VERY POOR JUDGMENTS that will lead to damaging results.

What I'm arguing FOR is the development of a framework within our system of government for whistleblowers to channel their information in some process that insures that truly unethical or illegal practices can be either ended or revealed to the public, but NOT ON THE BASIS OF A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL'S JUDGMENT.  What that framework should look like I cannot say.  The present system is clearly not effective.  Whistleblowers can be ignored by official channels or even retaliated against.  People can lie to Congress.  It's a big problem.  But I don't think the solution is to canonize those who take it upon themselves to be the judge of important matters like national security.  I don't want individuals whose names I don't even know to pass their judgment on these matters.  It's bad enough that we have to trust at least some politicians to make such decisions!

On 6/29/2013 6:57 AM, Louis Brossard wrote:

You are totally right of course. I do not believe that breaking one law is justification to break another. I realize that is what I said as I reread it but I do not support or believe that is a just, moral or even rational to follow such a principle. I do believe that it is right and moral to break a law to correct the more serious breach of law and justice. I guess that is what the whistleblower law does, give the person the right to break an oath, promise or law without being punished for informing the world of the illegal actions of the powerful.

I agree that there is a problem when each person can chose what laws to obey and which not to obey. But there is a bigger problem when a person must get permission from the offending party or their ally. Look at what happens to our lady airmen at the Air Force Academy and throughout the services.

No, I think that each instance of whistleblowing must be adjudged on its own merits. It is not practical for every instance to be addressed by a committee or some other group. But in the case of Snowden he did exactly what you wish he would do, he gave the information to one of the most creditable newspapers in the world, The Guardian, and gave them very strict instructions to vet the content and make sure that no individual would be exposed. He took every precaution that he could imagine to insure that only the illegal action of the United States Government be exposed. Just read the transcript of Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian reporter (blogger).

I guess the real problem here is finding what is the action that is the most good for the most people; unfortunately that means the most people in the United States, not all people. That would be far too Christian of an idea for this “Christian” nation. And yes, there need to be consequences for breaking any law. Do you think Obama will be put on trial, or Bush, or Chaney for the laws they broke? Should we find George Washington guilty of breaking the British law under which he was serving when he joined in the rebellion?

Our government leaders broke a law, FISA, even after they had diminished the law to allow them more leeway. They broke the covenant they made with their citizens, a transparent and honest government. If you wish that the guilty be punished I suggest that we start with the most serious crimes first. That is not Edward Snowden or Bradley Manning. Then you can find those two guilty, as they have already admitted, and fine each one dollar.

On 6/29/2013 7:52 AM, Louis Brossard wrote:

Friend, just a quick reminder on whistleblowers. Obama campaigned in 2008 supporting whistleblowers, even praising them. He was going to have an open administration. His administration has prosecuted more “leaks” than any other administration in the history of the United States by a very wide margin. While he didn’t take an oath of honesty on his campaign I think he did make a covenant with us. He has not kept his promise. Yet Obama is eager to punish others who don’t keep their promise by exposing his own dishonesty and illegal actions. I think that is wrong and shameful. Is that just the corrupting influence of the power he now holds or were we just wrong and he has always been that way?

Friend

Yep, Obama is not exactly the guy he presented to us during his campaigns.  But that's hardly novel for a politician, I'm sorry to say.  I certainly don't pretend to know what drives him, but I do think that being in that position of awesome power and surrounded by so many strong personalities and pressures is, in itself, corrupting.  Another way to look at it is that we shouldn't assume that if WE had access to all the information the Prez has, we might not come to different conclusions, ourselves.  But on the other hand (as we inevitably say), Obama is an experienced and successful politician, and a very skilled one.  Who knows what you or I might do differently if we were in such a position and had all the knowledge and all the power and were subject to all the pressures that he has?  I guess we can never know the answers to those questions.  It's not like there's a handbook that says this is the way to run the most influential nation in the world, just like there's no handbook that says this is the way to run your life.  Of course there are some universal rules that I think we would all agree on, but those are usually not the problem--it's the complicated decisions that have no good outcomes, no matter what you do, that nobody else can make for the leader--those are the tough ones.

Friend Saturday, June 29, 2013 05:02 PM

I just think that I don't have all the facts yet about Snowden's actions and related matters, to judge him as a hero or a traitor.  I noted that this is exactly what his own father said to a reporter a day or two ago.  I think this is one of those situations that will take some time to clarify--maybe years.  It's easy to consider the extremes and either condemn him or praise him, but there's a huge middle ground where it's not clear, and that's all I can see at this point.  Sure, if he uncovered a plot within the CIA to explode a bomb in the White House or round up all the illegal aliens and send them to gas chambers, it would be easy to classify him as a hero for exposing it.  Or if he released the identities of our spies in foreign countries, exposing them to being tortured and killed by foreign governments, it would be easy to classify him as a traitor.  But it appears to me that he--and he, alone--decided that these surveillance programs were illegal and contrary to constitutional guarantees--an assessment that may be true, but also may not be--it's not difficult to find people who are convinced that such surveillance has become necessary in today's world, whether you or I agree with their convictions.  That is my overwhelming objection to his actions--even if his revelations turn out to be much more valuable than any sort of harm that may have been caused by them being made public, I don't want such a decision being made by one junior analyst who works for a large government contractor.

I agree that the existing channels for whistleblowing are grossly inadequate and need a far better framework.  I said that before.  But that's where I think the effort needs to be focused.  I don't see that as a justification for treating his breaking of his commitments lightly.  If commitments mean nothing, our entire system of societal trust vaporizes.  Thus, he's no hero in my mind.  Neither is Manning, and if you pinned me down, I'd probably have to say that neither was Ellsberg, even though I thought he was, at the time.  I don't think we gain anything by lionizing anyone who willingly accepts the constraints of secrecy, then later violates them, for any reason short of averting a total disaster, anyway.  What should he have done?  I don't know, maybe found a sympathetic member of Congress and conferred with him or her.  But I don't want the editors of The Guardian or the New York Times, and certainly not some individual contractor employee, making those kinds of crucial decisions about critical government actions, good or bad, legal or illegal, constitutional or not, IN THEIR OPINION.  I never approved their having that kind of power.

On 6/30/2013 7:16 AM, Louis Brossard wrote:

Well, one person does not make the decision what to publish in either the Guardian or the NYT. The editor or the editorial board is the minimum. In a case this momentous I’m sure the top level of each paper was directly involved, even if they wish to remain hidden. You can’t get a better oversight than that in my mind. Snowden did just exactly what you are requesting he do. He didn’t give this information to Amy Goodman, although I for one would trust her reporting, maybe more than the NYT. After all, the Times supported the nonsense justification for the Iraq war. Democracy Now did not buy that purposeful misinformation and reported that it was all politically inspired hooey.

I don’t for one second believe I could function as the president. I have neither the brain horsepower, the leadership, the personality, nor the wish to work that hard. But I do want the person who takes that position to be honest. The big lies that all have committed are for their own benefit, not to protect the country. Johnson on Viet Nam, Nixon on Watergate, Reagan on Contra, Clinton on Lewinsky, Bush on Iraq and surveillance and now Obama on wire taping without a warrant and the Iraq war to name just those that come to mind immediately. I do not buy the subterfuge that they know secrets they can’t tell us that justify their ignoring the Constitution and their own promises.

I guess we have explained our positions adequately. I feel like I am beating a dead horse now. I offer you the last word. We really are on the same side. We both agree there is need for some secret action by the government. We both agree that power is the great corrupter. We both know that enormous ego is required to run for the position of president. And I think we are both disappointed that humans aren’t better than we are. We are haggling about the details. I just think it is very wrong to send a person to prison for a very long time for exposing the dishonesty of our leaders.  

Friend Sunday, June 30, 2013 01:46 PM
 

Hi Lou,

You're right about several things: we've both had the opportunity to express our positions; we are basically in agreement about the essential issues; and we both are discouraged by the inability of so-called civilized people to act responsibly.  My thanks for ceding the last word to me (but of course, it doesn't really have to be the last word).  I will just point out that simply the number of people who make such decisions isn't important to me, it's the issue of allowing any random person or small group of persons to make such decisions, rather than at least having people whom we have placed in their positions with the understanding that they would be the ones who will make them.  I had some say in who was elected President, and indirectly I had some say in who was appointed as the head of the CIA, FBI, etc., and I had some say in who at least my senators and representative are.  I did not have any say (nor did anyone else) in determining who the editors of the Guardian and the NYT are, much less in allowing Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden to have access to Top Secret documents.  In other words, what I find objectionable is that the ONLY accountability that exists is those individuals' secrecy oaths, and those were broken.  OK, those are my final words on the topic.