4 ms·

I'm not the person you are replying to but: While I probably wouldn't prosecute someone for whistle-blowing on a clearly illegal program, there is a good reaso

I'm not the person you are replying to but: While I probably wouldn't prosecute someone for whistle-blowing on a clearly illegal program, there is a good reason why it shouldn't be allowed in situations were top secret information is concerned. The average government worker has no qualifications or capability to determine what is or isn't legal. People think the Iraq war was illegal. Should someone have leaked military intelligence about the invasion? People think the atomic bombings were illegal. Should someone have leaked the Manhattan project. Conservatives and liberals tend to disagree strongly with the legality of all sorts of stuff. And then you have conspiracy theorists, idealists and extremists. And if you run into a situation where someone finds something truly nasty a pardon or prosecutory discretion will fix the it. Practically, Snowden leaked a lot of stuff that is completely legal. The only significant illegal thing he leaked was teh Verizon meta-data collection for everyone. But even then some courts and judges still think it's legal.

toyg 11y ago
> The average government worker has no qualifications or capability to determine what is or isn't legal. Sorry to godwinize, but that's the Nuremberg defense in a nutshell. > Should someone have leaked military intelligence about the invasion? Chelsea Manning did just that, and a lot of people are very grateful she did. > Should someone have leaked the Manhattan project Do you think the Manhattan project succeeded only because of its secrecy? The Germans had their own parallel program, they simply lacked the practical and intellectual resources to ever complete it. The Japanese were even further back and would have likely surrendered, had they known that their cities could be vaporized in an afternoon. The project secrecy cost millions of Japanese lives. > Practically, Snowden leaked a lot of stuff that is completely legal. Like breaking American companies' own encryption channels and practicing mass-surveillance on American citizens via legal loopholes across 5-Eyes (so Brits spy on US, US spy on Brits, and then they exchange notes)? Totally legit?
- rhino369 11y ago
  Nuremberg defense didn't work because they were active participants. Someone like Snowden can merely quit their job or otherwise refuse to assist. Manning is rightfully serving 35 hard years in jail because she was butthurt about the military. She's a great a reason why it shouldn't be allowed.
  - toyg 11y ago
    The Nuremberg defense "didn't work" because it was not morally justifiable, nothing to do with being active or passive - the whole trial literally created law out of moral imperatives. I urge you to educate yourself on the German post-nazi discourse. Also, quitting your job is not an answer, evil does not stop if you ignore it.
    - rietta 11y ago
      I believe the term is "malum in se" vs "malum prohbitium". Some crimes, especially murder are so wrong and universally so that it is a worse crime than one that is just wrong because the law says so.
- BWStearns 11y ago
  >> The average government worker has no qualifications or capability to determine what is or isn't legal. >> Sorry to godwinize, but that's the Nuremberg defense in a nutshell. The reason that the Nuremberg defense isn't a valid defense is because the acts that were being committed were so clearly without question grossly unconscionable. Demanding that every member of the intelligence community constitutionally examine the project they're working on is a ridiculous demand. Most of them literally lack the mental tooling to do so. I don't mean they're stupid, I mean that they would first need to go read up on all the relevant case law and legal theory. While it would certainly be personally fulfilling for many of them and raise the level of discussion with regards to the legality of certain programs, I hardly think you can consider that a reasonable requirement. Additionally I don't think you can call most surveillance programs so ethically deranged on their face that any reasonably good but casually constructed set of ethics demands non-participation.
- lern_too_spel 11y ago
  Your 5 eyes "loophole" wasn't in Snowden's leaks, so even if it were true, and even if it were illegal, the fact that Snowden didn't leak it means he doesn't get to claim whistleblower status on that point.
baddox 11y ago
Considering that the government by definition determines what is and isn't legal, and Snowden was leaking information about government programs, don't you think it's a bit limiting to expect him to only leak "illegal" programs? Surely you recognize that it is at least conceivable for there to be legal government programs that are atrocious and ought to be made public.

toyg 11y ago

> The average government worker has no qualifications or capability to determine what is or isn't legal. Sorry to godwinize, but that's the Nuremberg defense in a nutshell. > Should someone have leaked military intelligence about the invasion? Chelsea Manning did just that, and a lot of people are very grateful she did. > Should someone have leaked the Manhattan project Do you think the Manhattan project succeeded only because of its secrecy? The Germans had their own parallel program, they simply lacked the practical and intellectual resources to ever complete it. The Japanese were even further back and would have likely surrendered, had they known that their cities could be vaporized in an afternoon. The project secrecy cost millions of Japanese lives. > Practically, Snowden leaked a lot of stuff that is completely legal. Like breaking American companies' own encryption channels and practicing mass-surveillance on American citizens via legal loopholes across 5-Eyes (so Brits spy on US, US spy on Brits, and then they exchange notes)? Totally legit?

rhino369 11y ago
Nuremberg defense didn't work because they were active participants. Someone like Snowden can merely quit their job or otherwise refuse to assist. Manning is rightfully serving 35 hard years in jail because she was butthurt about the military. She's a great a reason why it shouldn't be allowed.
- toyg 11y ago
  The Nuremberg defense "didn't work" because it was not morally justifiable, nothing to do with being active or passive - the whole trial literally created law out of moral imperatives. I urge you to educate yourself on the German post-nazi discourse. Also, quitting your job is not an answer, evil does not stop if you ignore it.
  - rietta 11y ago
    I believe the term is "malum in se" vs "malum prohbitium". Some crimes, especially murder are so wrong and universally so that it is a worse crime than one that is just wrong because the law says so.
BWStearns 11y ago
>> The average government worker has no qualifications or capability to determine what is or isn't legal. >> Sorry to godwinize, but that's the Nuremberg defense in a nutshell. The reason that the Nuremberg defense isn't a valid defense is because the acts that were being committed were so clearly without question grossly unconscionable. Demanding that every member of the intelligence community constitutionally examine the project they're working on is a ridiculous demand. Most of them literally lack the mental tooling to do so. I don't mean they're stupid, I mean that they would first need to go read up on all the relevant case law and legal theory. While it would certainly be personally fulfilling for many of them and raise the level of discussion with regards to the legality of certain programs, I hardly think you can consider that a reasonable requirement. Additionally I don't think you can call most surveillance programs so ethically deranged on their face that any reasonably good but casually constructed set of ethics demands non-participation.
lern_too_spel 11y ago
Your 5 eyes "loophole" wasn't in Snowden's leaks, so even if it were true, and even if it were illegal, the fact that Snowden didn't leak it means he doesn't get to claim whistleblower status on that point.

baddox 11y ago

Considering that the government by definition determines what is and isn't legal, and Snowden was leaking information about government programs, don't you think it's a bit limiting to expect him to only leak "illegal" programs? Surely you recognize that it is at least conceivable for there to be legal government programs that are atrocious and ought to be made public.