Entry 1551, on 2013-07-15 at 21:30:31 (Rating 4, News)
In a recent press conference in Russia Edward Snowden (the American whistleblower who leaked information about American spying activities and has been running from authorities since) told the world that he has done nothing wrong. And yet officials from the US, and a lot of the world's governments, have refused to help him because they believe he has. So has he or has he not done anything wrong?
The problem with this question is that it has an implied initial assumption: that there is an absolute right or wrong. In reality right and wrong always depend on the person's perspective and the exact details of the situation under consideration. So both Snowden and the US authorities pursuing him have no real justification in saying they are right.
Maybe the US has some technical legal entitlement to hold Snowden to account for his actions. And maybe Snowden can reasonably claim to have taken the most moral action according to what the majority of people would see as being the right thing in the circumstances. So they are both right and both wrong... according to how you interpret the facts and what you priorities might be.
Often it is assumed that breaking a law (as Snowden has allegedly done) automatically makes the person wrong, and in most cases this is true. Most laws are reasonable and genuinely designed to try to make society safer, but just assuming that what is legal is also right is a dangerous thing. Laws are ultimately created by politicians and few people have high regard for them, so why should we have high regard for the laws they create?
I'm not saying that we can ignore laws and still claim that have done the right thing, because as I said, most laws are fair. But every situation is different and I think there are situations where it is OK to break almost any law, even laws involving serious actions like murder and treason. And I think Snowden has done the right thing by (allegedly) breaking a law. And according to polls, the majority of people agree.
So if anyone makes a claim involving right or wrong, instead of just accepting the claim at face value we should look at the justification for that claim. And even if someone has broken a law we should never assume what they have done is wrong because there is always the question about whether the law itself is right.
Of course, there is a danger that unscrupulous people could use my cynicism about laws as an excuse to break them, simply for their own benefit. I don't want anarchy, but I don't want excessive state control through laws (either designed for that purpose or manipulated by those in power) either. I guess every example should be looked at on a case by case basis.
In the case of Snowden I think he really has done nothing wrong from my perspective (and, as I said above, the majority of people agree) but from the perspective of those in power who he has embarrassed, he of course has done wrong. But they're wrong (according to me). As I said, it's all relative!
This isn't just breaking the speed limit or trespassing. Snowden was deemed to be trustworthy enough to be given access to some of the country's secrets, swore that he would keep them secret, and then absconded with the info. Based on what he's said, he intended to steal the data when he took the job. So he knowingly took an oath he was planning to break. In my mind, that's prime facia "wrong".
He then took the data, not to a neutral country, but to part of China (often a competitor if not outright foe of the country) and then to Russia (more foe than anything else). And from what he's described recently, he has some very serious secrets that could get a lot of people killed, both agents in the field and leave the country open to attack. He says he's making sure that he's not releasing anything "dangerous", but doesn't have the expertise to know, and by saying so publicly he's told every spy in the world "come get all the secrets here". (That's assuming he's getting protection from China, Russia, and Venezuela without any of those secrets being acquired from him.)
I considered him a hero when it was just about Prism, and just posting from Hong Kong. He'd been shocked by what he learned and made it public. Since then, we've learned it was all premeditated, far greater than the domestic surveillance, and he's been going from one enemy of our country to another. That's not the mark of a hero.
And he's been put in the same category as Mandella, Ghandi, Rosa Parks, and so forth. Here's the difference. They stood their ground, took what came, and the results are part of what changed the world. Part of civil disobedience is subjecting yourself to the legal punishment involved, to make the case in court that you were answering a higher principle. Snowden isn't doing that.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2013-07-16 at 08:46:49:
I disagree, and I think if you thought about it you would too. Taking an oath sort of assumes the person you are taking the oath for is playing by the rules and I think there will always be a situation where a reasonable person could ignore that oath. Many people think the situation Snowden found himself in is sufficiently bad that he did the right thing, whatever oaths, etc might be involved.
If he had gone to a country more friendly with the US he wouldn't have been there long would he? He would have immediately been sent back because of the American authorities demands, so again he did the right thing.
If you are standing up against someone with hugely greater power than you then you can't really do it in the open where they can stop you at any time. I think he is a hero for even considering taking on the "system" like he has. The US has a history of silencing its critics.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. - Edward Abbey
Comment 3 by GadgetDon on 2013-07-16 at 11:43:20:
I have thought about it.
First, I consider oaths very important, and taking an oath knowing you're going to break is a bad action. If you aren't good for your word, and particularly your word to your country, how can you be trusted with anything?
Second, it's not "the situation Snowden found himself in" - he took the job planning to steal the secrets. It's one thing to be so shocked with what you've found that you feel you have to take action, it's another to take a position of trust planning on violating that trust.
Third, if Snowden had gone to, say, Sweden to make his announcements, he might have been extradited. But as a civilian (and a civilian of some note), he'd have had his right to a public trial by a jury of his peers and make his case for what he did. The fact that he doesn't think a jury of his peers would support it tells me, he knows what he did at a minimum would be considered wrong by others.
Again, in the original narrative, IT worker stumbles upon details of domestic spying on a massive scale and is so shocked he has to make it public - I considered him a hero. But every new revelation has changed my mind. And his most recent revelation, that he has the NSA blueprint, which would presumably include methods and assets which anyone wishing the USA ill would find highly valuable (and yes, there are those who would wish the USA ill in a violent fashion), put his actions irrevocably in the "evil" category. Stupid and cowardly also may fit, but yes, I'm going to call it evil. Unless you start from the position that it's good that bad things happen to the USA and the people who live there.
Comment 4 by OJB on 2013-07-16 at 13:44:57:
I can't see why breaking an oath should have any particular significance. If you needed to make an oath in order to find out what malicious activity an organisation is involved in then I think it's OK to break it in order to reveal that activity to the public.
Given the history of public trials in the US, who would trust the legal system? Also, he might have technically broken a law while still taking the moral action. The legal system is interested in what's legal, not what's moral. How can you trust the legal system when the law itself is wrong?
As far as I know he hasn't released any information which would be genuinely damaging to the people of his county, just stuff which is embarrassing to the politicians. I can't see what's wrong with that: they shouldn't be doing things that the people who elected them would disagree with.
Comment 5 by GadgetDon on 2013-07-16 at 14:03:40:
If you consider the breaking of an oath to be of no particular significance, we'll never agree. And he didn't "technically break a law". Certain people are entrusted with secrets that, if revealed, can get people killed. Snowden is one of them. And while the secrets he's released publicly may not fall into that category, his descriptions of other data he has taken with him would fall into that category - and even if he's not revealing it in exchange for protection, he's moved them from their places of protection into a place far easier to get.
Comment 6 by OJB on 2013-07-16 at 15:41:57:
I think we would agree that oaths shouldn't be broken without good reason. The point I wanted to make was why that aspect of the story should be particularly important. And the question is, of course, did the situation make breaking the oath, and his other actions, justifiable?
Many people think it did, whether it broke a law or not, and that group would include me and the majority of people in the US (according to a recent survey). So clearly Americans think that the facts being made public outweighs any other possible consequences.
I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear that I also support many (but not all) actions of activist groups, such as Anonymous and Wikileaks. I just think we need some balance of power. The government, military, corporations, etc have too much and people like Snowden, Assange, etc, are the only way we can try to control them.
Comment 7 by Jim on 2013-07-17 at 23:15:52:
You seem to be confused about whether you want anarchy or not. You don't want anarchy but you think it's OK to break any law. Does this make sense to you?
Comment 8 by OJB on 2013-07-18 at 09:38:24:
I do want laws and I know that in most cases they work OK. But I don't want laws to get in the way of doing what's right. I also think laws tend to favour the rich and powerful against the majority. I agree there's no good way to establish when breaking a law is OK. That is the weakness in my ideas on this subject - I need to work on that aspect!
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE