Privacy and the State

[Serial_Apologist]

That is the classic moral dilemma between duty and conscience. Must duty always prevail, in your view? (It wouldn't in mine, I hope.)

:ok:

[Beef Oven]

Certainly in the modern global village the word 'traitor' has a somewhat old-fashioned ring to it. I've never really liked the word. Even that 'devout Catholic', Guy Fawkes, wasn't anything like a 'traitor', in the sense of betraying his country to an enemy, though nowadays he certainly would be recognised as a 'home-grown' religious terrorist. At least in those days such people tended to pick on their religious and political enemies and not massacre third-party innocents like non-aligned atheists (if such a curious breed even dared to exist in those far-off days).

However, in the furore over the 'revelations' themselves, one of the main points about Snowden's behaviour has been largely ignored by the media. That is the subsequent betrayal of his oath of secrecy into which he entered into freely and knowingly.

There is something about such behaviour which many will find distinctly unworthy, whatever our views of secret service practices.

In short, hardly a man to be readily trusted at his word ... ?

Well, to use even more old-fashioned terminology, I believe a citizen has the right to deem the contract void when the state acts as a tyranny - in fact, I would argue that the citizen has a duty to act, it's not even a matter of conscience.

Such action must follow the harm principle, which rules, Snowdon in, and terrorists out.

Action by the individual would follow

[scottycelt]

If I freely-entered into a vow of silence ... like a priest at Confession, for example ... I would like to think that vital commitment of trust would be kept (I certainly hope so). If there is no commitment to an oath of silence that. of course, is a quite different matter. Those who feel they cannot handle such a commitment to silence shouldn't freely enter into one.

Snowden appears to have little 'conscience' or any sort of regret in betraying an important trust, which is surely a significant issue here?

[Beef Oven]

If I freely-entered into a vow of silence ... like a priest at Confession, for example ... I would like to think that vital commitment of trust would be kept (I certainly hope so). If there is no commitment to an oath of silence that. of course, is a quite different matter. Those who feel they cannot handle such a commitment to silence shouldn't freely enter into one.

Snowden appears to have little 'conscience' or any sort of regret in betraying an important trust, which is surely a significant issue here?

I beg to differ Scotty.

What ever you enter into, must be a two-way deal and is not unconditional.

When an organisation is up to no good, especially a public body, the whistle must be blown, whether it's the NHS, American 'secret service' or whatever.

[Serial_Apologist]

If I freely-entered into a vow of silence ... like a priest at Confession, for example ... I would like to think that vital commitment of trust would be kept (I certainly hope so). If there is no commitment to an oath of silence that. of course, is a quite different matter. Those who feel they cannot handle such a commitment to silence shouldn't freely enter into one.

Snowden appears to have little 'conscience' or any sort of regret in betraying an important trust, which is surely a significant issue here?

Am I not right in thinking that a priest is now required in law to report any criminal act admitted in a confessional to the authorities?

[Serial_Apologist]

I beg to differ Scotty.

What ever you enter into, must be a two-way deal and is not unconditional.

When an organisation is up to no good, especially a public body, the whistle must be blown, whether it's the NHS, American 'secret service' or whatever.

:ok:

[scottycelt]

I beg to differ Scotty.

What ever you enter into, must be a two-way deal and is not unconditional.

When an organisation is up to no good, especially a public body, the whistle must be blown, whether it's the NHS, American 'secret service' or whatever.

I'm afraid Mr Snowden's oath of allegiance was unconditional, Beefy.

What person in their right mind would join any national secret service without knowing and accepting what the very strict terms would be?

I certainly don't believe Mr Snowden is an idiot. One might therefore easily come to the uncharitable conclusion that he wormed his way into the organisation for the very purpose of breaking that oath for political reasons.

Fancy me being a bit of an old cynic, eh ... ? :oh:

[jayne lee wilson]

"If I had to choose between betraying my friend and betraying my country, I hope I would have the guts to betray my country" (E.M.Forster).

Ed Snowden and Bradley Manning "betrayed their country" seeing the ordinary citizens of the wider world as their "friends", in the name of basic political principles of freedom, privacy, freedom from oppression or invasion. They have taken on a similar role to those dissidents in totalitarian regimes who self-sacrificially risked, in many cases suffered, imprisonment and torture to uphold the basic freedom of - thought and action, the right to be an individual. Totalitarian regimes, police states - these systems attempt to subjugate a people by creating a network of mutual suspicion, by severely punishing disobedience and rewarding informers. No, we do not live in such societies - yet, but if someone grows up in this atmosphere, knowing that someone is watching you, your communications, your deeds and thoughts - then no matter how honourable the stated intention of protection or pre-emption, the individual may feel rather less inclined to dissent, to think freely and critically, to disobey the state even at the level of communication. We've already seen brutal suppression of demonstration on the streets of Britain; how could it be anything but damaging to such freedom of thought, to extend that suppression to a "Total Surveillance" of telephones and the internet - co-opting telecoms and large, global retail companies to achieve it?

Governmental attempts to control individuals - at least in a nominal democracy - will never be rapid, immediate, nor (usually) overt. It will try to creep stealthily into place. These two young men have attempted to show what is happening, and the harm it has already done.

If you insist on always "honouring a contract" we would not have had those whistleblowers who have helped, by their unrewarded bravery, to improve public health systems in Britain. And if just one "insider" could have spoken out about Hillsborough all those years ago? The difference it would have made to suffering individuals.

[Frances_iom]

Snowden appears to have little 'conscience' or any sort of regret in betraying an important trust, which is surely a significant issue here?

wasn't this decided at Nuremburg - one does not have a defence by claiming obedience to orders - I think even Newman made a relevant comment re supremacy of conscience- in ideal circumstances it would be possible to raise concerns with senior officials in the organisation - however the US has shown repeatedly over the last few years just how whistleblowers etc will be treated (eg nearly 3 years of solitary confinement pre trial for Manning).

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm afraid Mr Snowden's oath of allegiance was unconditional, Beefy.

What person in their right mind would join any national secret service without knowing and accepting what the very strict terms would be?

Most people would, because it is not so much a question of there being a "right mind" with regard to employ in the secret services - or an industry connected with defense such as I was employed in - as one of assumptions, naive though most people's can be in these matters, as mine once were...

I certainly don't believe Mr Snowden is an idiot. One might therefore easily come to the uncharitable conclusion that he wormed his way into the organisation for the very purpose of breaking that oath for political reasons.

Fancy me being a bit of an old cynic, eh ... ? :oh:

Whether or not your latter assumption transpires or not to be the case is a matter of pre-emptive conjecture, scotty.

[amateur51]

That is the classic moral dilemma between duty and conscience. Must duty always prevail, in your view? (It wouldn't in mine, I hope.)

Unlike you to tease scottycelt so, french frank :winkeye:

[scottycelt]

wasn't this decided at Nuremburg - one does not have a defence by claiming obedience to orders - I think even Newman made a relevant comment re supremacy of conscience- in ideal circumstances it would be possible to raise concerns with senior officials in the organisation - however the US has shown repeatedly over the last few years just how whistleblowers etc will be treated (eg nearly 3 years of solitary confinement pre trial for Manning).

Ah, but it works both ways. People have been executed by the State because they refused to divulge strict confidences. Now there's real bravery for you even if the particular cause in question is wrong-headed.

French frank is correct that there can be huge moral dilemmas in extreme cases and I do not wish to make light of those. However, the issues we are talking about here can hardly be equated with Nazi atrocities. We are simply talking about the alleged 'snooping' of nominally 'private' messages by the security services in order to track down and foil suspected serial killers. I would imagine that Mr Snowden had some idea of what the job entailed and agreed to take that oath of confidentiality. If he was so naive that he didn't then surely he should simply have quit and found more suitable employment, though I doubt he would have found many alternative employers who would smile benignly each time he ran to the media to expose the latest 'bad practice' at work?

[french frank]

You seem not to be at all bothered by the fact that what the government/state was doing was illegal?

[amateur51]

You seem not to be at all bothered by the fact that what the government/state was doing was illegal?

Or maybe scotty just hasn't noticed :yikes:

[Richard Barrett]

You seem not to be at all bothered by the fact that what the government/state was doing was illegal?

And in direct conflict with the US constitution, whose Article VI, clause 2 (the "supremacy clause") states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." (my emphasis)