Edward Snowden,Julian Assange,Coproral Bradley Manning:
Drawing A Line In The Sand
I recently watched an interview with someone who motivated
the youth of his day to the highest ideals in journalism,
Daniel Ellsberg.
His view is that all the whistleblowers-Bradley Manning,Edward Snowden
and Julian Assange, are one and the same and should all be
equally supported because not to do so is an abrogation of civic
duty with regard to defending the 4th Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution and that, in effect,what they are all exposing for
public scrutiny is Official wrongdoing,sanctioned at the highest
levels of government and indeed all such activities
are illegal.
I beleive the nation is divided on this issue.
The majority may well support Professor Ellsberg's
position on such issues.
The problem I have is this question:
where do we draw a line in the sand?;where is the balance between
freedom and liberty and state security?
I'd actually go further: Every country in the developed world is
competing economically-even against allies. Without a myriad of
intelligence sources its impossible to gain competitive advantages
over rivals.
Of course in the social,political and economic utopia (which
incidentally more people would like to see evolve than might be
imagined) one would not need competitive advantage because
the world would be trading using parameters where everybody
would benefit. Unfortunately until we arrive at this Nirvana
we're stuck with the next best thing!;and I don't see these
current issues as milestones on that evolutionary path.
The next argument could well be that I don't 'understand the issues'.
That branches of the military and intelligence continually lie
to Congressional Oversight Committees-with the full knowledge
and blessing of Congressmen and Congresswomen who would
prefer not to be burdened with the fine details about what's
happening at the coalface and in the bowels of the earth.
So,this argument would say, the entire system is 'broken'.
The accountability and transparency spectrums have been
totally compromised leaving (we) the people unprotected against
all wrongdoing by those in high office.
If the NSA were to be completely dismantled tomorrow, this
would only mean it's place would be taken by a more
'efficient' predator-survival of the fittest-if you believe
in the Darwinian theory of evolution.
So would coming under China or Russia's ultra secret surveillance
systems-or perhaps even Iran's or North Korea's be any
improvement? Of course I have taken the latter two as worst
examples to illustrate a point.
The retort might well be that what Americans require is honest
government and, above all, honest oversight, which is
genuinely accountable to the electorate or,at least, honest
representatives of the people.
With that in mind, I'd like to move on to my last thought
on this matter:
Who listens to planet Earth?
Be assured Russia and China monitor everything going in and out of
their vast empires-but nobody questions their lack of transparency
-perhaps
because their chains of command are so firewalled behind Iron Curtains
so as to make it impossible for intelligence whistleblowers to
ever break surface (alive) - other than through pre-arranged defections
to the West.
I believe that in the near future defectors will 'blow the cover'
on the vast spying edifices China and Russia use to monitor and
control their populations and their use of space technology
to eavesdrop the planet.
When such occurs undoubtly many respected individuals such as
Professor Ellsberg and Professor Noam Chomsky will dismiss
the revelations as irrelevant to the United States on the
grounds that it is up to the Russian or Chinese judicial
systems to deal with such wrongdoing whereas the 'wrongdoings''
committed by the U.S. Government against it's own people are
clearly criminal as they are in violation of the American
Constitution, or, to be more specific,the 4th Amendment.
I believe there is a difference in an open society between the
revelations a journalist and researcher such as Mr Julian Assange
makes and those made by dissatisfied military and intelligence
officers who find it impossible to reconcile their 'orders' with
their personal (or ethical) beliefs.
In third world countries coups are the order of the day when
military and other disaffected officers on tribal, religious,
political, ethical or just sheer greed decide they want to
take it upon themselves to determine the future direction of
the country,independent of the peoples democratically
elected representatives.
The duty of journalists and independent researchers in an open
society is the public interest-this is to whom they are ultimately
and solely accountable. Of course,historically, there always have
been times where the public's 'right to know' has been 'put on hold'
to facilitate diplomacy.
There always has and, in my opinion, always will be a
case for this.
I can think of many instances, historically, where the right of the
public for instant information is not in the national interest, even
if it is the 'scoop of the century'.
Indeed we constantly remind individuals not to blindly follow
orders they believe to be morally and ethically wrong-and the
U.S. system provides ways and means for such grievances to be taken
forward-without fear.
The problem here is that after taking government, intelligence,
military wrongdoing through the system these aggrieved individuals
expect to go back and work for the same system they have become
disillusioned with as if nothing happened-and herein lies the dilemma:
you cannot wish the broken mirror to become unbroken again.
These (now) high-profile individuals cannot now expect to 'pick-up'
their lives and careers exactly where they left off and which,
on grounds of conscience, they have decided to forsake
in the interests of the general public.
They may get a 'thanks' from the general public-who will then,
quite rightly in my view, move on to the next story or scandal
and forget about this one after a relatively short period,
the broken system having been repaired.
Unfortunately the 'eternal' gratitude of the general public will
only last until the next scandal hits the news.
One would be naive to expect a 'red carpet' to be laid out by that
same system for the returning 'prodigal' son or daughter anxious
to resume their professional career in government,armed services
or agencies.
'And why in heaven's name not!' I hear many howl in agast.
Because,in,my opinion, a line in the sand has been crossed.
It's not punishment. It is that their future careers are better
served where they will not have to confront more ethical issues
in a less than perfect official government system where, undoubtedly,
other employees in future times will face the same dilemmas of faith
and belief and decide for themselves which path of accountability
to utilise-the peoples representaives with responsibility
for oversight, or the general public.
Patrick Emek
2nd August
2.30pm
revised 12th August 2013
Drawing A Line In The Sand
I recently watched an interview with someone who motivated
the youth of his day to the highest ideals in journalism,
Daniel Ellsberg.
His view is that all the whistleblowers-Bradley Manning,Edward Snowden
and Julian Assange, are one and the same and should all be
equally supported because not to do so is an abrogation of civic
duty with regard to defending the 4th Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution and that, in effect,what they are all exposing for
public scrutiny is Official wrongdoing,sanctioned at the highest
levels of government and indeed all such activities
are illegal.
I beleive the nation is divided on this issue.
The majority may well support Professor Ellsberg's
position on such issues.
The problem I have is this question:
where do we draw a line in the sand?;where is the balance between
freedom and liberty and state security?
I'd actually go further: Every country in the developed world is
competing economically-even against allies. Without a myriad of
intelligence sources its impossible to gain competitive advantages
over rivals.
Of course in the social,political and economic utopia (which
incidentally more people would like to see evolve than might be
imagined) one would not need competitive advantage because
the world would be trading using parameters where everybody
would benefit. Unfortunately until we arrive at this Nirvana
we're stuck with the next best thing!;and I don't see these
current issues as milestones on that evolutionary path.
The next argument could well be that I don't 'understand the issues'.
That branches of the military and intelligence continually lie
to Congressional Oversight Committees-with the full knowledge
and blessing of Congressmen and Congresswomen who would
prefer not to be burdened with the fine details about what's
happening at the coalface and in the bowels of the earth.
So,this argument would say, the entire system is 'broken'.
The accountability and transparency spectrums have been
totally compromised leaving (we) the people unprotected against
all wrongdoing by those in high office.
If the NSA were to be completely dismantled tomorrow, this
would only mean it's place would be taken by a more
'efficient' predator-survival of the fittest-if you believe
in the Darwinian theory of evolution.
So would coming under China or Russia's ultra secret surveillance
systems-or perhaps even Iran's or North Korea's be any
improvement? Of course I have taken the latter two as worst
examples to illustrate a point.
The retort might well be that what Americans require is honest
government and, above all, honest oversight, which is
genuinely accountable to the electorate or,at least, honest
representatives of the people.
With that in mind, I'd like to move on to my last thought
on this matter:
Who listens to planet Earth?
Be assured Russia and China monitor everything going in and out of
their vast empires-but nobody questions their lack of transparency
-perhaps
because their chains of command are so firewalled behind Iron Curtains
so as to make it impossible for intelligence whistleblowers to
ever break surface (alive) - other than through pre-arranged defections
to the West.
I believe that in the near future defectors will 'blow the cover'
on the vast spying edifices China and Russia use to monitor and
control their populations and their use of space technology
to eavesdrop the planet.
When such occurs undoubtly many respected individuals such as
Professor Ellsberg and Professor Noam Chomsky will dismiss
the revelations as irrelevant to the United States on the
grounds that it is up to the Russian or Chinese judicial
systems to deal with such wrongdoing whereas the 'wrongdoings''
committed by the U.S. Government against it's own people are
clearly criminal as they are in violation of the American
Constitution, or, to be more specific,the 4th Amendment.
I believe there is a difference in an open society between the
revelations a journalist and researcher such as Mr Julian Assange
makes and those made by dissatisfied military and intelligence
officers who find it impossible to reconcile their 'orders' with
their personal (or ethical) beliefs.
In third world countries coups are the order of the day when
military and other disaffected officers on tribal, religious,
political, ethical or just sheer greed decide they want to
take it upon themselves to determine the future direction of
the country,independent of the peoples democratically
elected representatives.
The duty of journalists and independent researchers in an open
society is the public interest-this is to whom they are ultimately
and solely accountable. Of course,historically, there always have
been times where the public's 'right to know' has been 'put on hold'
to facilitate diplomacy.
There always has and, in my opinion, always will be a
case for this.
I can think of many instances, historically, where the right of the
public for instant information is not in the national interest, even
if it is the 'scoop of the century'.
Indeed we constantly remind individuals not to blindly follow
orders they believe to be morally and ethically wrong-and the
U.S. system provides ways and means for such grievances to be taken
forward-without fear.
The problem here is that after taking government, intelligence,
military wrongdoing through the system these aggrieved individuals
expect to go back and work for the same system they have become
disillusioned with as if nothing happened-and herein lies the dilemma:
you cannot wish the broken mirror to become unbroken again.
These (now) high-profile individuals cannot now expect to 'pick-up'
their lives and careers exactly where they left off and which,
on grounds of conscience, they have decided to forsake
in the interests of the general public.
They may get a 'thanks' from the general public-who will then,
quite rightly in my view, move on to the next story or scandal
and forget about this one after a relatively short period,
the broken system having been repaired.
Unfortunately the 'eternal' gratitude of the general public will
only last until the next scandal hits the news.
One would be naive to expect a 'red carpet' to be laid out by that
same system for the returning 'prodigal' son or daughter anxious
to resume their professional career in government,armed services
or agencies.
'And why in heaven's name not!' I hear many howl in agast.
Because,in,my opinion, a line in the sand has been crossed.
It's not punishment. It is that their future careers are better
served where they will not have to confront more ethical issues
in a less than perfect official government system where, undoubtedly,
other employees in future times will face the same dilemmas of faith
and belief and decide for themselves which path of accountability
to utilise-the peoples representaives with responsibility
for oversight, or the general public.
Patrick Emek
2nd August
2.30pm
revised 12th August 2013
