Marcus -
As someone who has almost" been there, I agree... and THIS is the
challenge, such a disclosure *could* be an over-reaction based on
naivette. The point of "above my pay grade" is a sticky one, however
and it gets stickier the more experience you have. While you may hit
one glass ceiling of pay grade or another, you don't necessarily quit
gaining perspective.
There have been things I discovered myself which deserved not to be
secrets... it was somewhat obvious to me when I was young and naive and
it became even more obvious over the course of a lifetime/career... but
they were small and somewhat ideosyncratic and the import of them did
not justify the breaking of my sworn trust and the implications (not
only to myself) that went with it. And, as you point out, there was
always the doubt that if I was at a higher "pay grade" I would
understand why these things were being done and support them myself?
But with each such discovery, I lost a bit of naivete and trust of my
government and it's representatives one small bit at a time.
But had I discovered, for example, that someone within the apparatus of
our government and it's huge machine of employees, programs,
contractors, etc. was acting against the interests of the people of, by,
and for which said government was created and maintained, it might have
been different. Or if something fundamentally inhumane was being
executed in the name of my government/nation/people.
Everyone has different sensitivities and limits for moral outrage and
one person's offense might be nothing more than anothers' minor
irritation. Putting mascara in puppies eyes to make sure it isn't "too
toxic" to put "near" women's eyes seems a bit off to me, but probably
not enough to lead me to betray a national trust. Leaving men with
syphilis to suffer the course of it's infection whilst pretending to
treat it is a bit harder to look away from. Starting a war in the
middle east based on made up evidence (say... the existence of WMD in
Iraq) has an even higher profile (if only because of the magnitude of
the potential suffering) on my moral radar.
I have, for example, been in a position to know (almost directly) that
the highest levels of our executive branch set domestic policy around
the threat of bioterrorism that contradicted very well thought through,
sound advice solicited from and developed by DOE labs... that was a
shock but not a surprise. I think their policies were patently based
on political rather than practical considerations. But as you say, this
is "above my pay grade" and who am I to say that it isn't better to
pretend to have a better solution to a threat than you in fact possibly
(by any stretch of reality) could?
I'm sure that when the scientists recruited to work on the Manhattan
project discovered that they were being asked to help build a 'super
bomb' that could annihilate entire cities with a single delivery that
many quailed at the implications. But they were working in the context
of the second worldwide war in the century where fleets of bombers using
conventional and incendiary weapons were leveling entire cities
already. While doing the same with a single Bomb was clearly a big
leap in quantity and ease of destruction, it was not a "new thing"
(wholesale destruction of entire cities). Had it been a program to
develop a virus which selectively killed only Asians (or more to the
times, Semitcs), I think many if not all would have refused and some
might have even chosen to "tell on us".
In the case of Snowden, we don't know yet what all he has compromised
but I don't think any lives are being threatened directly because of his
disclosures. Similar with the Manning material. In the Snowden case,
all I've seen so far is "some" evidence that what we suspected and
feared was true about the NSA surviellance is true. Admittedly the
news has spun and twisted and conflated things in ways that make it a
little hard to tell exactly what is what. In both cases, the
information was put in the hands of existing journalists with a
motivation to help avoid causing direct harm to our interests.
Something of a neutral party with some level of responsibility. Nobody
"blurted out" secrets to the world, they put it through a process which
has some chance of mitigating truly harsh real-world consequences.
As I understand it (and I'm not in a position to know any of this for
sure, so it is laced with speculation and opinion as I think *most*
people's position is as well), the key point is that the NSA has been
collecting data on US Citizens in a manner which is outside of their
charter and the existing rules about "spying on US Citizens" and due
process. To the extent that this is what it is about, even if Snowden
is guilty of treason or similar for the disclosures he made, the result
is a public awareness of fundamental wrongdoing in our intelligence
apparatus. I would say that if this is the case he is making a
significant sacrifice... which might or might not warrant forgiving him
his trespass but trespass or not, the cat is out of the bag and we need
to deal with it, no matter how we deal with the person who loosened the
strings.
We may personally choose to say "this is a necessary evil" but I don't
think in a democratic and representative government such as the one our
forefathers created and we continue to maintain that such a decision
gets to be made in private, by those in power, without engaging the
public in a debate (and vote) over whether this level of "slippage" in a
fundamental right to privacy and due process is acceptable. The
outrage we are seeing now suggests that it is not.
Autocrats and hawks and right wingnuts seem to think that the ends can
justify the means, if torturing everyone swept up as suspects after 9/11
yielded a single actionable bit of intelligence then the damage to our
public image and more importantly our collective soul from torturing at
all and especially innocents was justified? Similarly those who think
that the material exposed by Manning and Snowden, if found worthy of
exposure (ends) justifies the manner in which they were exposed?
So I think there are two distinct issues. How should Snowden (or
Manning) be treated for what they have done; AND now that the cat is
out of the bag, how do we followup and handle the implications of what
we have discovered as a result? There is a reason for holding
law-enforcement accountable for proper procedure and dismissing
improperly obtained evidence, but that does not apply to public
disclosure and this type of situation. No matter how wrong Manning or
Snowden might be for what they have done by some measure, what they have
exposed still holds the same weight.
Manning and Snowden *patently* broke the letter of the law through
breaking their agreements to protect the secrets. The question is
whether we are glad they did, if we are, what implications does that
have on how they are subsequently treated, and how do we change our laws
(and policies, procedures, etc.) so that possibly this is less commonly
necessary? And what do we do about what we have learned? Burn the
energy of our righteous indignation lynching the messengers?
I say not.
- Steve
On 6/13/13 1:10 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
Few care to think that dangerous or unjust events are an unavoidable
part of life.
Yes we do seem to like to ignore that as much as possible. I found
holding a security clearance to increase the likelihood that I would
find myself participating in dangerous and/or unjust activities.
I was trying to look at from Snowden's perspective. He had some
awareness of how his action was dangerous to him. But did he think
through how dangerous it was for the country and his colleagues? Did
he recognize the extent of his own ignorance and consequences of
`acting out of his pay scale'? What kind of activities did he
_expect_ his company would be tasked with by the NSA? What would
have been `reasonable' activities for BAH to be doing in his mind? It
seems to me he opt-ed in, and apparently had not thought-through how
his life might be after opting in; he was just naive. It's like
someone that signs up for a marathon and says at the 5 mile mark "This
is really hard!"
Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
