Privacy and the State

[scottycelt]

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

It remains to be seen whether there was any great degree of 'illegality' involved here.

However, as we all know the law is never absolute. I don't know whether those who drive police, ambulance and fire vehicles have a special dispensation to drive on the wrong side of the road in an emergency but it's certainly not a particularly unusual sight in my area.

Furthermore, I assume that they don't take a strict oath of allegiance never to do so!

[french frank]

However, as we all know the law is never absolute.

Mr Snowden's oath of allegiance was unconditional

:erm: Some rather categorical pronouncements here, scotty. My law isn't absolute, so I can wriggle out of it. However, your oath was unconditional: no ifs, no buts, no wriggling.

[french frank]

An ex-CIA man discusses the 'oath of secrecy'.

"Maybe you'll disagree. That's fine; there are competing interests in all cases of whistle blowing, and reasonable people might balance those interests in different ways. But arguing as though a contractual obligation to maintain secrecy trumps all other values, including actual sworn oaths to protect and defend the Constitution, just makes you look like an authoritarian."

[scottycelt]

:erm: Some rather categorical pronouncements here, scotty. My law isn't absolute, so I can wriggle out of it. However, your oath was unconditional: no ifs, no buts, no wriggling.

There is a difference ... at least to me.

We occasionally hear the rather silly phrase ... 'the law is there to be broken'. Though on hearing it does sound absurdly silly we know that in exceptional circumstances the breaking of a particular law may be justified. So in that sense it is conditional, though such exceptional circumstances are normally extremely rare.

Taking a solemn oath never to disclose a confidentiality and then going on to break that confidentiality is a clear breach of trust. I don't know about you, ff, but personally I would never go near the Secret Services and take such an oath if I genuinely didn't know what I was letting myself in for by making that solemn and binding promise. Give me a steady, mundane job in the computing industry any day!

Therefore I stand by my original point. If you really had to chose someone to trust in telling the truth or sharing a secret would you head straight for Mr Snowden?

[teamsaint]

Just to compare, rather than on a legal level, the state, governments, political parties break the trust that the people place in them on a pretty regular basis.

[scottycelt]

An ex-CIA man discusses the 'oath of secrecy'.

"Maybe you'll disagree. That's fine; there are competing interests in all cases of whistle blowing, and reasonable people might balance those interests in different ways. But arguing as though a contractual obligation to maintain secrecy trumps all other values, including actual sworn oaths to protect and defend the Constitution, just makes you look like an authoritarian."

Well he/she may 'look like' that to some but I certainly do disagree! Better looking like an 'authoritarian' to some than coming across to others as an amoralist? An oath is a moral as well as a contractual obligation.

If we are to decide unilaterally where and when we can 'wriggle out' of such a commitment it surely renders the whole solemn oath principle utterly meaningless.

I take it Mr Eisler would include a court of law where we are equally solemnly bound on a matter of trust.. ?

[Richard Barrett]

An ex-CIA man discusses the 'oath of secrecy'.

This is really worth reading, to expose some of the nonsense being talked on this thread for what it is. Even in the very first paragraph:

I was in the CIA, and I can tell you there was no secrecy "oath," just a contract. The oath was to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I have quoted the US Constitution twice: once to show that it's regarded in the USA (though perhaps not by some of its presidents) as the supreme legal authority; and once to show that its Fourth Amendment embodies a right to privacy which is being flagrantly disregarded by current NSA policy. I'm not saying that the Constitution is perfect or that it necessarily reflects the realities of the 21st century, but it is the supreme law that people like Snowden swear allegiance to, and Snowden would seem to be taking this oath very seriously indeed, risking his life to uphold it.

[french frank]

Taking a solemn oath never to disclose a confidentiality and then going on to break that confidentiality is a clear breach of trust.

Did you read the article, scotty? It claims there is no 'oath of secrecy'. Do you 'know' better?

Oh, and:

"The United States does not have any Official Secrets Act, although the Espionage Act of 1917 has similar components. Much of the Espionage Act remains in force, although some has been struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional because of the First Amendment (See United States v. The Progressive, Brandenburg v. Ohio, New York Times Co. v. United States)."


[Btw, a proposal I shall be putting to people soon is to start a separate Politics & Current Affairs forum. One controversial idea will be to disable smilies on that forum.]

[scottycelt]

Did you read the article, scotty? It claims there is no 'oath of secrecy'. Do you 'know' better?

Oh, and:

"The United States does not have any Official Secrets Act, although the Espionage Act of 1917 has similar components. Much of the Espionage Act remains in force, although some has been struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional because of the First Amendment (See United States v. The Progressive, Brandenburg v. Ohio, New York Times Co. v. United States)."


[Btw, a proposal I shall be putting to people soon is to start a separate Politics & Current Affairs forum. One controversial idea will be to disable smilies on that forum.]

Some more 'nonsense' coming up ... :smiley:

Call it what you like ... if you actually swallow the contradictory line that members of the CIA and other secret services are not actually sworn to secrecy well so be it. That is not the view of other ex-CIA officers who may otherwise share political views with many members here.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0314-08.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0314-08.htm

<CIA Director David Petraeus hailed the conviction as a victory for necessary secrecy.

"Oaths do matter, and there are indeed consequences for those who believe they are above the laws that protect our fellow officers," Petraeus said in a statement he said was aimed at CIA employees.>

<Leaking classified national defense information is illegal, and CIA officers take a secrecy oath when they join>

Do you know better, ff ... ? :devil:

[french frank]

The two links are to the same article? I don't see any reference to Petraeus (who as CIA director, erm... might have a particular view, and only speaks of 'necessary secrecy' in your quote). I don't see that any CIA personnel mention the oath of secrecy in that article - merely the writer (a Mr Lumpkin).

Ironically the group of CIA men featured are advocating the release of information, accusing Bush of manipulating evidence.

"McGovern, who now works in an inner-city outreach ministry in Washington, said of his group's request, "It goes against the whole ethic of secrecy and going through channels, and going to the (Inspector General). It takes a courageous person to get by all that, and say, 'I've got a higher duty.'"

[scottycelt]

The two links are to the same article? I don't see any reference to Petraeus (who as CIA director, erm... might have a particular view, and only speaks of 'necessary secrecy' in your quote). I don't see that any CIA personnel mention the oath of secrecy in that article - merely the writer (a Mr Lumpkin).

Ironically the group of CIA men featured are advocating the release of information, accusing Bush of manipulating evidence.

"McGovern, who now works in an inner-city outreach ministry in Washington, said of his group's request, "It goes against the whole ethic of secrecy and going through channels, and going to the (Inspector General). It takes a courageous person to get by all that, and say, 'I've got a higher duty.'"

Apologies, ff ... duplicate link .... okay, here's Petraeus again. He does mention 'oaths'. He should 'know' shouldn't he? . Or is it only Mr Eisler who has the necessary knowledge?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/23/us-usa-cia-plea-idUSBRE89M0YO20121023

And if you require an alleged quote by an ex-CIA officer ...

http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=85886

I don't really share McGovern's rather one-sided and somewhat self-centred view of 'duty' and 'courage'!

[Richard Barrett]

It's really very simple. Where there's a conflict between one's responsibilities to the CIA and to the US constitution, the latter has to be regarded as the higher authority. The CIA itself is bound to operate within that constitution; where it does not, any undertaking made to it is surely to be regarded as having been obtained under false pretences. And that's really all I want to say on the subject now.

[french frank]

I don't really share McGovern's rather one-sided and somewhat self-centred view of 'duty' and 'courage'!

I think that is key to the difference of opinion.

But , really, a prosecution was being brought against a CIA officer who revealed the identity of another agent (it's not made clear why this was done, but on the face of it, it doesn't look like whistle blowing). As head of the CIA, Petraeus is just as much 'one-sided' in his view, but in any case, he does not say that the oath was an 'oath of secrecy' rather than an oath to uphold the constitution - as has already been said here several times - Eisler's point exactly.

A husband and wife who were in the CIA are speaking of their exciting adventures in the service to a student audience, and say they can't reveal many things because of their 'secrecy oath'. That is the version you prefer. I have other things to do now, so will opt out.

[scottycelt]

And that's all I really have to say on the matter as well ... many thanks. :ok:

[Beef Oven]

It's really very simple. Where there's a conflict between one's responsibilities to the CIA and to the US constitution, the latter has to be regarded as the higher authority. The CIA itself is bound to operate within that constitution; where it does not, any undertaking made to it is surely to be regarded as having been obtained under false pretences. And that's really all I want to say on the subject now.

This argument supports the gun lobby.