Where is the line between right and wrong? We talk all the time about doing the “right thing,” but it's sometimes difficult to know what that is. If I steal money from a rich corporate executive, I have done wrongi and should be punished. If I give that money to the poor, keeping none for myself, I have still committed a crime, however righteous I may feel about it. And if those who are given the money are aware of its origin and use it anyway, they, too, have behaved criminally. We may see fit to lessen the penalty for those who needed the money and used it despite its origin; what they did, however, was against the law. We may view Robin Hood as acting nobly, but what he did was illegal. Even if it was it was moral, it was contrary to the law and merited punishment.
There is less moral ambiguity when the thief is a “professional” who specializes in stealing goods from elderly women, and selling them to a fence. We have no sympathy for either the thief or the fence. But the principle is the same: one individual commits a crime and others knowingly benefit from it. All are aware of the risks of their criminal behavior and are willing to take them in view of the benefits they hope to see from their actions.
If, however, a public employee steals government secrets and turns it over to the press, many view him as a hero and praise the media for exercising their first amendment rights. That's the situation we face now.
That is the case with Edward Snowden and his disclosures of a government surveillance program. He did so, according to his statement attempting to justify his action, "to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them."ii His disclosures were similar to those of Daniel Ellsberg and Private Bradley Manning. Both revealed classified documents for what they considered the good of the American People. And, from my perspective, both committed serious crimes. The case against Ellsberg for espionage ended in a mistrial,iii while litigation against Manning is still underway.
I am not competent to determine if the programs they revealed were justified. I believe that the three made righteous attempts to publicize what they considered unwarranted actions by the American government, and they may have been right, but I believe that they acted as vigilantes and put their own views ahead of the needs of their country. And for that I view severe punishment as being appropriate.iv
This is an age when many people consider that too much attention is paid to the lawbreaker and too little to the victim. We, the American People, are the victim. There is no denying that politicians make mistakes – sometimes bad ones. Both Presidents Lincoln and Grant signed orders suspending habeas corbus, numerous presidents have issued executive orders that they wished to be kept secret for a variety of reasons,v President Obama has authorized attacks on individuals and groups because of a belief that it was for our country's good.vi And it is common practice for members of our government to benefit personally from their positions. So, however reprehensible, it is sometimes beneficial to those who err to try to prevent others from learning about them by classifying their crimes, as well as their errors, as secret.
Indignation and a feeling of virtue, however, do not justify general disclosure of classified material. They may provide grounds for further investigation by those charged with the reponsibility for doing so, but they are not grounds for an individual taking the law into his own hands. If it does not already exist, a non-political panel, with the aid of experts when needed, should be the body to whom concerns about governmental misfeasance and malfeasance should be directed secretly, especially when the evidence is documented by classified material. Implications, justifications, and ramifictions may require extensive evaluation and may make it clear that secrecy is warranted.vii It is unlikely that Ellsberg considered the effects on Viet Nam POWs before his action; it is hard to believe that Private Manning read the hundreds of thousands of documents that he transferred to WikiLeaks, or determined whether anyone named in them might be put at risk, or how his disclosures would affect foreign policy; and it doesn't seem likely that Edward Snowden was aware of all the details of the PRISM programviii or what, if any, its achievements were.
One of the justifications for protests and vigilantism is that America must be a land of justice and we cannot commit the crimes of those we oppose. It's a noble view, but even if true,ix it's not consistently followed. Our rule books – the ones designed to embody and ensure our proper and virtuous actions – are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We are solicitous when anyone declares there has been a violation of the Constitution – whether or not there is substance to the claim. So the New York Times, the Washington Post, and various other organs are quick to point out the contents of the First Amendment, and to demand the “right” to publish anything they have, irrespective of how it was obtained.x But they are adamant about not publishing material that might offend minority groups.xi They may claim sensitivity or fear of violence as the reason, but they don't look to the Constitution for justification of publication.
Additionally, when they are prohibited from publishing the names of rape victims or children accused of crimes, they are silent concerning their “rights.” While I support the absence of the names, it is hard to ignore what appears to be selective indignation by the media.
And it is similarly hard to ignore the fact that in the zeal to protect their rights under one of the amendments to the Constitution, they pay no heed to what is in that document's body. According to the preamble, we are committed to protecting “the common defense” of our country and our people – our main concerns when we wrote the Declaration of Independence and rejected George III.
It's hard to know what's right or wrong. But it's clear that such a decision, when make on the basis of indignation rather than investigation, is a hazardous one. And it's often erroneous.
i However others may feel about the way he got the money, or about capitalism in general.
ii The press he chose were England's Guardian, a reliably anti-American organ, and the Washington Post, known, among other things, for its exposé of the Watergate scandal and for printing parts of the Pentagon Papers.
iii It is informative, though not a surprise, that Ellsberg chose to present, in the Guardian, a long, and profusely complimentary, appraisal of Snowden's actions.
iv The best remedy for dealing with a law of which you disapprove is to work to change it, not to violate it. The only time for civil disobedience is when such attempts have failed. Your violation should only be to the lowest degree possible to achieve the goal of publicizing your beliefs and getting others to work toward your goal. And then you should be prepared to accept the penalty for violation of the law.
v Not just in the United States, but around the world. Our leaders are human, just like us. They make mistakes and commit crimes.
vi And notwithstanding his vow, when campaigning for the presidency, that he would bring “transparency” to the government, he has become involved in many secret projects aimed at protecting America and its security procedures.
vii It is revealing of the mindset of many of our citizens that while they consider personal privacy (especially in the bedroom) to be Constitutionally protected (there is no mention of privacy in the Constitution) but the applaud violations of national privacy (secrecy and security). And they abhor “violations” of their rights (as in the case of reviewing telephone records) while denying the government the right (actually it's a Constitutionally-mandated responsibility) to take the steps necessary to prevent acts of terror or, as it is stated in the Declaration of Independence which it echoes, to “provide for the common defense.”
viii The collection of telephone records in an attempt to investigate terrorists. I don't know what the term stands for (I can't find any explication of what appears to be another governmental acronym) but it it's a surveillance program that has existed for about six years as an indirect offshoot of the Patriot Act.
ix And in the world of Realpolitik many would contend that it's not always possible.
x All's fair in selling papers. “Legal” and “illegal” are irrelevant concepts.
xi A good example is the refusal to publish Danish cartoons that Muslims found offensive and that were responsible for riots and the killing of innocent people.
