National Security vs. ethics and the law

[KafirChobee]

The question is: Does exposing illegal (though classified) activities of government constitute breaking the law? If the activities of an administration are in direct conflict with the constitution, congressional legislation (legislative law), or signed international agreement (say the Geneva Convention) - does someone with the knowledge of these illegalities have the right (nay, the responsability) to expose them?

Points of interest:
1. approval of torture
2. program of rendition
3. creating a false premise (s) for a war (invasion)
4. illegal wiretapping of citizens
5. illegal propaganda

Item; Mary McCarthy, a CIA veteran who served on the National Security Council under Presidents Clinton and Bush, is now under investigation by the Justice Department (Bush's rubber stamp dept. defining law as it sees fit) for releasing information concerning leaking the illegal rendition program of the CIA to the Washington Post. Is she a villian, or a hero of ethics and the actual law (of the land).

Does a person have the moral and ethical responsability to expose illegal activities sponsored by their government, or does the government have the right to break the law or redefine the law to suit them (and their activities in the name of "national security")?

[edit added: Please, no 9/11 changed everything arguements - it did not change the definition of the law. It only changed the degree to which one's fears could be manipulated.]

[Joker85]

Yes, it does.

Also, the 5 things you listed are obviously open to interpretation. People have a fondness to attatch "illegal" to everything they disagree with. A very good example is the wire taps. The JD has declared them legal (oh but hey you already insulated yourself on that one by calling them a "puppet" so in the future anything they say can be disregarded. That's convenient.) so there is really nothing else to it. Someone who disagrees with the policy of that has no right to simply declare them illegal, then leak that information to the press because they don't like that policy and think it is "illegal". I'm sorry, but they wern't elected president. But you've framed the entire question in a way as to draw only the conclusion you want.

But, regardless. If you work for the CIA you sign a legal document of non disclosure under any circumstances. So if you're asking me if I have pity for someone who tells themself "I think this person is doing something illegal, therefore I am going to do something illegal to expose that" the answer is no. If one then gets into "well it's ok to break the law because she thought it was for the greater good", then one can also make the argument "it's ok for the thing she thought illegal to have been done as well because it was for the greater good".

There are legal channels to go through in situations like this that would not violate the agreements you signed. If those channels prove unproductive then you simply accept the fact that not everyone shares your view of the law, or you break the law you claim is so important.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The question is: Does exposing illegal (though classified) activities of government constitute breaking the law?

Yes, when you sign a paper saying you will not do so.

The other points (and this one too) have been well made by Joker85.

Crazed Rabbit

[Avicenna]

It's illegal for government agencies to tap phone conversations? Personally I don't mind that if that's what it takes to catch terrorists.

[rory_20_uk]

So... you join an organisation where before you know anything you declare you can't say anything.

Where does the line get drawn? Torture? Abductions? Hell, bombing the USA to win the "moral war"? Can't tell - you signed away free will before you joined. :deal: :devil:

~:smoking:

[Ser Clegane]

Yes, when you sign a paper saying you will not do so.

Hmm ... what would be the legal basis for signing a paper that requires you to cover illegal activities?

[Joker85]

Hmm ... what would be the legal basis for signing a paper that requires you to cover illegal activities?

Actually, regardless of whether you sign or not, there are actually federal laws against releasing classified information. So if tommorow I got into the wrong website and stumbled against something that shouldn't have. If I, knowing that it was classified, release it, it would still be a crime. Whether I signed something or not.

[Ser Clegane]

So if tommorow I got into the wrong website and stumbled against something that shouldn't have. If I, knowing that it was classified, release it, it would still be a crime. Whether I signed something or not.

Even if you had stumbled across clearly illegal activities of the government?

Considering that you (not just you personally, but a lot of Americans) are proud of your right to even take up arms against your government (see "First Amendment" thread) that appears to be a bit contradictory, doesn't it?

[Redleg]

The question is: Does exposing illegal (though classified) activities of government constitute breaking the law?

In theory no - the Whistleblowers Act is designed to protect such an individual.

However what one must be willing to face in doing so, is that their understanding of the law could be incorrect, and if they are wrong then they must be willing to take responsiblity for their breaking the law, not the government.

Having stated that, there is indeed acts that can be done by the government that are clearly illegal under the laws of that nation.


If the activities of an administration are in direct conflict with the constitution, congressional legislation (legislative law), or signed international agreement (say the Geneva Convention) - does someone with the knowledge of these illegalities have the right (nay, the responsability) to expose them?

When the activities of the Presidential Office fall into conflict with the Constitution - a constitutional crisis should develop. Then its up to our Representives and Senators to do their part. And that is to call the actions of the adminstration into question. If the legislative body is unwilling to do so, then the third branch of the government is suppose to step in and determine if a violation of the constitution has occured.



Congressional Legislation - follows much of the same process as above. However in this instance the Congress can skip thier part and it can go directly to the Judicial Branch. This is where it gets even more dicey depending on how one wants the law to be interpated. (SP).

Signed international agreements - means that one can go into the international court system and attempt to find recourse. But because its international - if the individual attempts to share classified information - they do indeed open themselves up for prosecution by the government.



Points of interest:
1. approval of torture
2. program of rendition
3. creating a false premise (s) for a war (invasion)
4. illegal wiretapping of citizens
5. illegal propaganda


In thoery one would have to show the specifics in the violations of United States law to avoid prosecution. However until the specifics are shown - the government will often attempt to prosecute any individual who releases senstive information.

In reality it works different. Lives are ruined and sometimes recovered from after the case has been shown.



Item; Mary McCarthy, a CIA veteran who served on the National Security Council under Presidents Clinton and Bush, is now under investigation by the Justice Department (Bush's rubber stamp dept. defining law as it sees fit) for releasing information concerning leaking the illegal rendition program of the CIA to the Washington Post. Is she a villian, or a hero of ethics and the actual law (of the land).

If the information released by the individual shows that the CIA clearly violated United States laws - the investigation into her should be a wash. Ie it will show that the information she released was indeed within the Whistleblowers Act.



Does a person have the moral and ethical responsability to expose illegal activities sponsored by their government, or does the government have the right to break the law or redefine the law to suit them (and their activities in the name of "national security")?

To answer your question - in short the individual has the responsibility to report illegal activities first through the proper channels. After that they must act as their moral and ethicial code warrants.

In doing so - they must be willing to face the consequences of their actions if their allegation is incorrect.

[Joker85]

Even if you had stumbled across clearly illegal activities of the government?

Considering that you (not just you personally, but a lot of Americans) are proud of your right to even take up arms against your government (see "First Amendment" thread) that appears to be a bit contradictory, doesn't it?

Well, again, everyone has their own definition of what's illegal. And unfortunately most of the time it is political(ie, I don't like that, therefore it's illegal).

However, to answer your question.

If I stumbled across something that was classified but up for debate (such as, if Al-Qaida is tracked calling into the US to a citizen, is it legal to listen in) I would not release.

However, I stumbled across the fact that the FBI snatched up John Q Citizen because he was planning a protest of xyz and were giving him electroshock I would break the law and release it.

I would also accept the consiquences of breaking the law.

[Ser Clegane]

Well, again, everyone has their own definition of what's illegal.

Well - the original question of KafirChobee was:


Does exposing illegal (though classified) activities of government constitute breaking the law? If the activities of an administration are in direct conflict with the constitution, congressional legislation (legislative law), or signed international agreement (say the Geneva Convention) - does someone with the knowledge of these illegalities have the right (nay, the responsability) to expose them?

So you would agree that somebody who has knowledge about illegal activities has the right to expose them?
Of course if they aren't illegal - which would be subject to a court decision - Redleg's point would/should apply:

In doing so - they must be willing to face the consequences of their actions if their allegation is incorrect.

Personally I would even go as far as to say that if it is clear that the governement's activities are illegal it is not only your right but your duty to expose them.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Interesting question (at least once you strip away some of the "leading" commentary in the subsequent paragraphs).

The U.S. Constitution is held to be the highest law of the land. Therefore, any activity/law that has not passed review of the Supreme Court and whereof the subject deems it to be in direct contravention of the Constitution, they may be morally obligated to make it public in order to engender a legislative/judicial review. If ruled unconstitutional, I believe that any legal action against the whistle-blower/leaker should be stopped. If found constitutional, some degree of leniency toward the subject seems warranted, although not absolution.

In matters of policy information, the lives of fellow citizens and supporters etc. the secrecy laws have an important place. Unless CLEARLY linked to an issue of constitutionality as noted above, the subject should attempt to initiate an internal review using other individuals of appropriate clearance (I admit, some practical difficulties may exist with this). Otherwise, the honorable choice is to resign if you can no longer support an activity or program with which you are involved.

Ultimately, it's like the parable of Washington and the Cherry Tree -- if the truth is the most important thing, then you must be willing to accept the consequences of making the truth known.

[KafirChobee]

OK, thanks for the diversity and varying of approaches to my "slanted" question (sorry, I tend to be a phraseologist at times - don't expect it to end soon:shame: ).

Action-consequence is true. Ms. McCarthy intended to retire soon, btw - but, it may have been better had she simply come forward once the investigation into the "leak' was made known. She had, however, voiced her opinion on the illegality of rendition and gone through all the proper channels - and been told to "shut the f'-up, it wasn't her decision". According to those (whom have come forward - retired CIA personell) that know her, she is a person of high moral fiber that believes in the law taking president over questionable policy decisions. Others had quit prior ro making their disagreements with "policy" known (including during the Clinton admin.), but none have ever been threatened with being charged with treason (except in cases where they passed classified information to foreign nations). Maybe she should have quit first, but she was preparing to retire shortly ....

Personally, I find the arguement that protecting us from terrorism is more important than our freedoms a bit disconcerting (on many levels). Still, I can understand those that agree with that arguement - and their fears. What I do not comprehend is how equating fear with the actions of policy makers justifies the breaking of 50 (200+) years of established law.

Granted, the President has the power to classify and de-classify documents and information at his discretion - but, in doing so his reasoning is more often than not politicized. With-holding information that should be public knowledge because it may aid his political opponents, or exposing information (that is in the national interest to be kept secret) that justifies his policy or to attempt to embarrass political rivals. [[Bush is now known as "The Leaker-in-Chief" )you know?), coming soon to an election near you this September - running 'til Nov.]

Still, it is within the Presidential powers to do this, regardless of motive. It is not within them to break the law, regardless of motive (saving us from terrorism, rescueing us from Democrats (J/K), or to embarrass those that disagree with him or his policy or the nit-pick selection of information to be used to justify a policy - i.e. Joe Wilson). If one item of classified material is de-classifed to support an issue - then all related information must also be made public for all to draw their own conclusions on the (a) matter. Of course that is purely an idealistic attitude, and ignores the playing of politics where national security matters are concerned.

More on point; it has been said many times during the past short history of our nation that we the citizens must be dilligent in protecting our freedoms, lest we lose them. And, that those willing to sacrifice their freedoms for security - will have neither. So, imo, it is up to individuals that see something wrong and are willing to report or expose it - and are willing (as noted by others) to suffer the consequence "if" they are wrong - to be the protectors of rights and of our freedom. Where as, someone that exposes something that maybe damaging to our nation for political advantage is morally corrupt.

Until we know all the facts on any issue deemed classified for a political agenda - which may require classified information being exposed to the opposing party (without some "loyalty oath" or "pledge to silence") - an open mind, (and more importantly) trust in our political system is still a viable concept - philosophy. IMO

[Brenus]

Does exposing illegal (though classified) activities of government constitute breaking the law?” It shouldn’t but I can be mistaken. However it is illegal to follow illegal orders…

“Yes, when you sign a paper saying you will not do so.”. No, it is accepted that to sign a document under fear or pressure is NOT legal. It was done by prisoners in Communist camps, signing various documents against their own country.

[drone]

“Yes, when you sign a paper saying you will not do so.”. No, it is accepted that to sign a document under fear or pressure is NOT legal. It was done by prisoners in Communist camps, signing various documents against their own country.
Clarification here: People do not sign their security clearance forms under fear or pressure. They do this of their own free will, and in doing so relinquish some of their rights. If they do not sign, they do not get access. Plain and simple. Once you sign that form, you are bound by the laws regarding classified information.

[Rodion Romanovich]

0. Does exposing illegal (though classified) activities of government constitute breaking the law? - it's certainly not a crime to expose the truth if it's done at a time where it doesn't threaten the security. If, say, exposing the plan can't be done without exposing an exact strategic plan during a war, then it should wait, but it's the responsibility of the one exposing it. If there's only minor threats to the national security and the information can help removing a corrupt leader/party from power the next election then it's certainly good if that crime, whatever it is, is exposed.
1. approval of torture - never, it has been proved to not help getting the truth and therefore has no use, and add to that that it's both unethical and barbaric.
2. program of rendition - what does rendition mean? sorry for poor english skills ~:)
3. creating a false premise (s) for a war (invasion) - never allowed, as it doesn't protect national security to go to war with a neutral or ally if there wasn't any reason apart from one you made up. Now if there was a reason, and you made up another, it's often because the real reason was too weak. It's very difficult to think of a case where keeping the real reason hidden and making up another one would be necessary for national security.
4. illegal wiretapping of citizens - there is a borderline somewhere when the danger of dictatorship and genocide that can follow upon wiretapping is a smaller threat than the dangers from spies and terrorists can cause. But that borderline lies very far and so far in history there hasn't been any society any time where wiretapping would have had any benefits, on the contrary we've only seen examples of where controlling citizens has led to massive dictatorship and mass murder (Gestapo, Gulag etc.).
5. illegal propaganda - propaganda is about spreading lies. It doesn't help the national security to demonize some group, as it'll make them really furious and a huge danger to your national security later. It's also dangerous to spread false propaganda to make your party win on false grounds. But how can it be stopped? That's the big problem, you can't fight it very effectively...