It has been on my mind, this telling of secrets. The latest being this Snowden fella. My initial reaction being a feeling of betrayal. A betrayal of trust. A trust he agreed upon when accepting the position .He gave his word.
It is a difficult thing. On the one hand the keeping of the trust is imperative, while on the other there are moral obligations. The questions is really whether one should compromise their values to maintain integrity. Do you have that right ? Can you give your word, sign documents to that fact, and then withdraw that based upon your own evaluation ? Does the nature of the secret make a difference in all of this ? I would have to say, yes. The nature of the secret does make a difference. If this secret is having an immediate impact on someone, or a group of someones lives, then the secret should be compromised. That is if their life is in immediate jeopardy. Then I feel the moral obligation exists.
In the case of this Snowden guy I don't see that condition being met. Of course I realize I'm only looking at the surface and don't have all the details. The government wiretapping or listening to our conversations is not life threatening. When one joins the CIA and NSA wouldn't one expect to be involved in some sort of spying ? Isn't that the function of those organizations ? The collection of data or knowledge is not inherently wrong. It is only what you do with that knowledge that comes in to question. Does Mr. Snowden have information that people are being whisked away in the night based on their phone conversations or internet usage ? Is there some deep dark sinister purpose in all of this ? Or is the information collected being used to ferret out terrorists and other nut cases that wish to harm others ?
In my opinion there are very few reasons to compromise that trust. I was raised in a time when a mans word and a handshake was as binding as a written contract. You didn't take it back ! To do so was to be ostracized by society. You are untrustworthy and suspect. It would seem that principle is fading into the past. Now integrity is an option. You get to choose. I even see a certain amount of public support for this. I find it offensive. If we cannot trust one another what can we expect for the future ? Complete transparency is a false ideal. It just wouldn't work. You can't win a war or a game if the competition knows your every move beforehand.
I find this whole telling of secrets unsettling. Was he justified ? The court will have to decide that. I do believe he should be held accountable. My feeling is that if he had such a genuine concern he wouldn't have run to another country to tell his secrets. To take the moral high ground one should be willing to do just that ; stand. To accept a position of public trust and then compromise that same trust is not acceptable to me.
On a personal level I can tell you this. During my Naval career I was entrusted with a few secrets. I was granted clearance and access to secret documents. Nothing earth shattering or particularly interesting but secrets nontheless. I didn't tell those secrets and still won't tell those secrets. The secrets I do know can be found on the internet nowadays, but that is not the point. I'm not telling. I was given a trust and will not betray it. To do so would be to contribute to the erosion of a system of values. Values I cherish. Values I wish to pass to the next generation and those that follow. With trust comes responsibility. Responsibility can be a burden. Sometimes we just have to carry that burden. The giving of your word is not to be taken lightly. A man is only as good as his word !
It is a difficult thing. On the one hand the keeping of the trust is imperative, while on the other there are moral obligations. The questions is really whether one should compromise their values to maintain integrity. Do you have that right ? Can you give your word, sign documents to that fact, and then withdraw that based upon your own evaluation ? Does the nature of the secret make a difference in all of this ? I would have to say, yes. The nature of the secret does make a difference. If this secret is having an immediate impact on someone, or a group of someones lives, then the secret should be compromised. That is if their life is in immediate jeopardy. Then I feel the moral obligation exists.
In the case of this Snowden guy I don't see that condition being met. Of course I realize I'm only looking at the surface and don't have all the details. The government wiretapping or listening to our conversations is not life threatening. When one joins the CIA and NSA wouldn't one expect to be involved in some sort of spying ? Isn't that the function of those organizations ? The collection of data or knowledge is not inherently wrong. It is only what you do with that knowledge that comes in to question. Does Mr. Snowden have information that people are being whisked away in the night based on their phone conversations or internet usage ? Is there some deep dark sinister purpose in all of this ? Or is the information collected being used to ferret out terrorists and other nut cases that wish to harm others ?
In my opinion there are very few reasons to compromise that trust. I was raised in a time when a mans word and a handshake was as binding as a written contract. You didn't take it back ! To do so was to be ostracized by society. You are untrustworthy and suspect. It would seem that principle is fading into the past. Now integrity is an option. You get to choose. I even see a certain amount of public support for this. I find it offensive. If we cannot trust one another what can we expect for the future ? Complete transparency is a false ideal. It just wouldn't work. You can't win a war or a game if the competition knows your every move beforehand.
I find this whole telling of secrets unsettling. Was he justified ? The court will have to decide that. I do believe he should be held accountable. My feeling is that if he had such a genuine concern he wouldn't have run to another country to tell his secrets. To take the moral high ground one should be willing to do just that ; stand. To accept a position of public trust and then compromise that same trust is not acceptable to me.
On a personal level I can tell you this. During my Naval career I was entrusted with a few secrets. I was granted clearance and access to secret documents. Nothing earth shattering or particularly interesting but secrets nontheless. I didn't tell those secrets and still won't tell those secrets. The secrets I do know can be found on the internet nowadays, but that is not the point. I'm not telling. I was given a trust and will not betray it. To do so would be to contribute to the erosion of a system of values. Values I cherish. Values I wish to pass to the next generation and those that follow. With trust comes responsibility. Responsibility can be a burden. Sometimes we just have to carry that burden. The giving of your word is not to be taken lightly. A man is only as good as his word !
No comments:
Post a Comment