Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The Snowden Prism (JM @ TPM)
Josh Marshall
June 11, 2013, 4:25 PM
... Im a journalist. And back when I did national security reporting I tried to get leaks. So I dont think leaks are always wrong. I think the government and journalists both have legitimate interests that point in very different directions. In fact, leaks are an absolutely critical safety valve against government wrongdoing and/or excessive secrecy. But when someone in government leaks classified information theyre breaking an oath and committing a crime. Thats a big deal. Sometimes though the importance of whats leaked justifies the act morally if not legally. That is often the case. And thats one reason that while I think the laws against disclosure should be in place I also think its imprudent for the government to try too hard to enforce them. I do not see how you cant prosecute Snowden since hes revealed himself publicly. And leaks should sometimes be investigated. But in most cases its not worth snooping on journalists to try to find the culprit. The costs outweigh the gains. Because of that, its really impossible to say leaks are good or bad in general. Its also true that people can leak information for petty or even evil reasons but the leak still serves a positive public purpose. Leaks are complicated. I think we know that. And being morally right doesnt necessarily get you off the hook for committing a crime ...
Here is I think the essential difference and where it comes back to what I referred to before - a basic difference in ones idea about the state and the larger political community. If you see the state as essentially malevolent or a bad actor then really anything you can do to put a stick in its spokes is a good thing. Same if you think the conduct of US foreign policy is fundamentally a bad thing. Then opening up its books for the world to see is a good thing simply because it exposes it or damages it. It forces change on any number of levels ...
On the other hand, if you basically identify with the country and the state, then indiscriminate leaks like this are purely destructive. Theyre attacks on something you fundamentally believe in, identify with, think is working on your behalf ...
... Snowden is doing more than triggering a debate. I think its clear hes trying to upend, damage - choose your verb - the US intelligence apparatus and policieis he opposes. The fact that what hes doing is against the law speaks for itself. I dont think anyone doubts that narrow point. But hes not just opening the thing up for debate. Hes taking it upon himself to make certain things no longer possible, or much harder to do. To me thats a betrayal. I think its easy to exaggerate how much damage these disclosures cause. But I dont buy that there are no consequences. And it goes to the point I was making in an earlier post. Who gets to decide? The totality of the officeholders whove been elected democratically - for better or worse - to make these decisions? Or Edward Snowden, some young guy Ive never heard of before who espouses a political philosophy I dont agree with and is now seeking refuge abroad for breaking the law? ...
Here is I think the essential difference and where it comes back to what I referred to before - a basic difference in ones idea about the state and the larger political community. If you see the state as essentially malevolent or a bad actor then really anything you can do to put a stick in its spokes is a good thing. Same if you think the conduct of US foreign policy is fundamentally a bad thing. Then opening up its books for the world to see is a good thing simply because it exposes it or damages it. It forces change on any number of levels ...
On the other hand, if you basically identify with the country and the state, then indiscriminate leaks like this are purely destructive. Theyre attacks on something you fundamentally believe in, identify with, think is working on your behalf ...
... Snowden is doing more than triggering a debate. I think its clear hes trying to upend, damage - choose your verb - the US intelligence apparatus and policieis he opposes. The fact that what hes doing is against the law speaks for itself. I dont think anyone doubts that narrow point. But hes not just opening the thing up for debate. Hes taking it upon himself to make certain things no longer possible, or much harder to do. To me thats a betrayal. I think its easy to exaggerate how much damage these disclosures cause. But I dont buy that there are no consequences. And it goes to the point I was making in an earlier post. Who gets to decide? The totality of the officeholders whove been elected democratically - for better or worse - to make these decisions? Or Edward Snowden, some young guy Ive never heard of before who espouses a political philosophy I dont agree with and is now seeking refuge abroad for breaking the law? ...
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/06/like_the_oj_simpson_trial.php
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
0 replies, 825 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post