Edward Snowden is a twenty-nine year old American citizen who has worked as a CIA technician. He revealed to the Guardian newspaper details of a secret American security operation codenamed PRISM in which telephone conversations and emails are intercepted. According to his testimony, private communications between American citizens and between residents of overseas countries are intercepted and subjected to random searches to locate " key " words or phrases which might cause security concern. Should a citizen later come under security suspicion, it is possible to recall every conversation, financial transaction and job history in that persons past life. Until Snowden made this revelation, this project was carefully hidden from the American public.
Snowden is a whistleblower. In the course of his duties he became aware of events taking place with which he did not agree. He says he revealed this information because he " Didn't want to live in a society which does these things ". He now joins the ranks of two other people who are hailed by some as hero's - and by others as traitors.
Bradley Manning is facing trial and possible execution for releasing secret government documents. Julian Assange - to who the documents were passed - is holed up in London, protected by a friendly diplomatic embassy. Snowden is in Hong Kong and it remains to be seen whether attempts will be made to have him deported back to United States soil.
This entire Manning/Assange/Snowden issue directs the spotlight on several key questions. Is it legal for a government agency to eavesdrop on private communications without first obtaining a warrant from a judge ? If a citizen detects an instance where the government has acted illegally, is that citizen required to bring that breach to the notice of law enforcement ?
There is a notion held by many people that in some circumstances governments are above the law. They can and do implement emergency measures - which can later be sanctioned by passing laws. This is a grey area that lacks any sort of legal definition.
It is a legal definition that if a person becomes aware of a major crime - and remains silent, that person may be held accountable as an " accessory after the fact ".
It seems that no law exists to remove the state from the obligation to abide by it's own laws. Bradley Manning claims that the event that impelled him to release documents was a viewing of an event in which American soldiers laughed and cheered as they machine gunned to death a bunch of journalists mistaken for terrorists. This crime was known to the military - and no attempt was made to bring the perpetrators to justice.
There are obviously matters that are best not made widely known in the relationships between countries and most people will agree that governments have a need for a degree of secrecy. This brings into conflict the moral obligations that some citizens consider more compelling than their civic obligations to keep the secrets of the state.
This clash of principles can only widen. The relentless march of technology will deliver more weapons of war and more opportunities to explore options that were impossible in an earlier age. At the same time, the people who will direct that technology face bewildering choices. To remain silent against their better judgement - or to speak openly and risk the wrath of their country - and the end of their life as they knew it !
That fate hangs like the sword of Damocles over the head of Edward Snowden.
He made his moral decision - and now he must pay the price. What is certain is that in the years ahead there will be more people like Bradley Manning, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden who will decide to make their governments accountable.
The sixty four dollar question - is whether this will result in a new era of openness, or whether it will drive the machinations of government into an ever deeper web of secrecy !
No comments:
Post a Comment