Edward Snowden broke the law by releasing classified information. This isn't under debate; it's something everyone with a security clearance knows. It's written in plain English on the documents you have to sign when you get a security clearance, and it's part of the culture. The law is there for a good reason, and secrecy has an important role in military defense.
But before the Justice Department prosecutes Snowden, there are some other investigations that ought to happen.
We need to determine whether these National Security Agency programs are themselves legal. The administration has successfully barred anyone from bringing a lawsuit challenging these laws, on the grounds of national secrecy. Now that we know those arguments are without merit, it's time for those court challenges.
It's clear that some of the NSA programs exposed by Snowden violate the Constitution and others violate existing laws. Other people have an opposite view. The courts need to decide.
We need to determine whether classifying these programs is legal. Keeping things secret from the people is a very dangerous practice in a democracy, and the government is permitted to do so only under very specific circumstances. Reading the documents leaked so far, I don't see anything that needs to be kept secret. The argument that exposing these documents helps the terrorists doesn't even pass the laugh test; there's nothing here that changes anything any potential terrorist would do or not do. But in any case, now that the documents are public, the courts need to rule on the legality of their secrecy.
And we need to determine how we treat whistleblowers in this country. We have whistleblower protection laws that apply in some cases, particularly when exposing fraud, and other illegal behavior. NSA officials have repeatedly lied about the existence, and details, of these programs to Congress.
Only after all of these legal issues have been resolved should any prosecution of Snowden move forward. Because only then will we know the full extent of what he did, and how much of it is justified.
I believe that history will hail Snowden as a hero -- his whistleblowing exposed a surveillance state and a secrecy machine run amok. I'm less optimistic of how the present day will treat him, and hope that the debate right now is less about the man and more about the government he exposed.
This essay was originally published on the "New York Times" Room for Debate blog
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfor
It's part of a series of essays on the topic.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfor
There's a big discussion of this on Reddit.
http://www.reddit.com/r/techno
** *** ***** ******* *********** *************
Another thing that must be investigated, and taken into regard, apart from the needed secrecy in military defense, is the question, and the principle, of is a oath of secrecy valid when and if the matter that is reported on and about is illegal, unlawful, constituting a (war-) crime, and the question also must be answered if the oath on keeping something secret is not void and invalid when it concerns matters that concern international treaties!
ReplyDeleteAnd in my opinion no oath of secrecy can not be upheld when that oath forces the oath-taker to keep secret when it concerns, when he or she has knowledge of criminal activities, illegal practices, and or matters that are in conflict with international treaties that are signed and acknowledge by the USA!
(international treaties preceed national laws!)
No one should be forced to keep secret matters that are factually illegal against the law, and that in fact are countering other valid laws, such as laws on and about privacy protection, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, and freedom of religion!
If someone has knowledge of practices and or activities that are against any of the Constitution and subsequent laws and regulations, and that person is forced to keep those practices and or activities secret due to a signature under a document of secrecy that is person guilty of the crimes!
And no one should, can be forced to incriminate himself! Or make himself guilty of crimes that others commit or orders him to commit!
A soldier is even ordered to disobey an order from his CO when that order forces him to commit a (war-)crime, or any action that would constitute a crime against humanity!
Besides, and apart form the above mentioned considerations, the question arises... what kind of country, or administration is it that forces its employees to spy on their fellow-countrymen?
Is such an administration still to be considered as democratic?
Is such an administration to be considered rightfully governing the interests of the population?
Is such an administration rightfully safe-guarding the safety of the people of that nation?
In my opinion... clearly not!
When a country, an administration is spying on its citizens, such an administration is untrustworthy, has become untrustworthy, and has lost its credibility, and its honorability!
Then an administration has lowered itself to the level of being the opponents of the People, as was the case with the administration of adolf hitler (germany pre-ww2), of east-germany (stasi), of josef stalin (russia), of mao (china), north-korea, cambodia, iran, , syria, israel, and a number of other dictatorially ruled countries!
One would never ever expect from the United States of America to have an administration that would have a program that would allow, and enforce spying on both its own citizens as of foreign citziens, of whom a number are to be considered allies to the USA!
In my opinion the USA has lost its credibility, its honorability, and even its legality!
My opinion!