Carte Blanche?

Sometimes we do a thing in order to find out the reason for it.  Sometimes our actions are questions not answers.
            John Le Carre, A Perfect Spy 

Over the last few days, it has been revealed that the National Security Administration was monitoring German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone (as well as Americans’ phone and internet purchasing activities).  The NSA explained away its action by saying one, everyone does it and two, it was not collecting specific details.  While some Americans are outraged, Germans are more appropriately angry and Ms. Merkel, who was raised in the surveillance state of East Germany, understands all too well the implications.  From the American point of view however, the cries of injustice ring a little hollow.  The idea of government espionage and the protesting Americans’ accusations have technological, societal and moral components and implications.

First, the issue of U.S. government espionage is a product of technological advancements that Americans have increasingly demanded.  Over the last couple of decades, we have required from technology greater power and access to our normal lives and previously considered private domains.  We incessantly and without thinking give our information over at the drop of a hat so that credit card companies and grocery stores can monitor our purchasing and food consumption habits.  Yet, we are outraged by our government’s ability and willingness to use technology to monitor the behavior of foreign leaders (or us) – be they friendly or not.  We demand our lives be open books for our own benefit and feign shock and dismay that others are also benefiting.

Second, this is a societal issue.  We demand that our government know everything.  When the September 11^th attacks happened, some called for answers and wondered why our government did not know.  When Americans are killed overseas, we want to know when the chain of command broke down, why and what the government plans to do about it.  As a society, we are constantly amping up our expectations of government and then wonder why they are listening to or recording everything.  We cannot have both concepts.  We have, over the decades, created a myth that a government can and should be capable of all matter of things and there is a price for that knowledge. 

Lastly, there is a moral implication to the American outrage.  Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and others of that ilk have used various methods not dissimilar to our government to hack into and dispense information in such a way as to compromise the United States and, at least initially, get away with it.  Some American protestors hail them as “heroes.”  It would seem, at the least, there is a certain moral relativism that makes the charges as it relates to the government’s actions.  It’s legitimate to question the morality of the U.S. government and its efforts to monitor as much as possible but what are Americans doing to encourage this behavior?  By our acceptance of one, do we not accept the other?  Those who point to the actions of the government leading to the response are suggesting that the end justifies the means.  Such arguments are on shaky moral ground.   

It is not surprising that our intelligence efforts are so pervasive.  I don’t prescribe to the attitude that “those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear.”  That argument is ambiguous and diverting.  The answer lies with Abraham Lincoln.  When he describes a government “of the people, by the people, for the people,” he is not speaking of just the liberties we enjoy as citizens of this democracy.  He is also speaking to the responsibilities of American citizens.  We are not casual observers of the things that transpire in our government and in our society.  We allow it and in doing so, bad things happen.  I do believe that our government should have secrets in order for it to do its job and espionage is essential.  It’s also evident that our expectations and demands of government are not realistic.  A traditional liberal approach requires a paternalistic government.  I think that is dangerous and it might be what we have.

The Effect of Weakness

I have learned to hate all traitors, and there is no disease that I spit on more than treachery.
            Aeschylus

Edward Snowden was not a member of the National Security Agency but a contractor who worked in intelligence.  As he was a contractor of the NSA, Mr. Snowden was put through a screening process and was notified that the information he work with would be of a secret nature and therefore, any release of said information would be in violation of the law.  No doubt, as a condition of his employment, he took a vow or pledge to uphold the security of the United States and abide by the NSA’s rules and regulations regarding secret information.  Then, like Daniel Ellsberg and the release of the Pentagon Papers, Mr. Snowden came to the conclusion that his interests superceded that of the United States and the exercise of his “conscience” outweighed the dangers in which he placed other Americans throughout the world.   

Since the Second World War, there has been an emphasis on the importance and right of members of any government to not follow orders which contradict their moral beliefs or their sense of right and wrong.  Edward Snowden, upon entering the National Security Agency was shocked, shocked to find spying going on and in rather hypocritical righteous anger, took it upon himself to release secret documents that not only embarrassed and put at risk the goals and objectives of the United States but also put in danger the men and women tasked with carrying out those directives.  I claim hypocrisy because here is a man who willingly entered a service known and created for the purpose of collecting intelligence, among other things.   

Given the stated purpose of the NSA, Mr. Snowden’s claims of a conscientious drive to unveil the actions of the United States rings hollow.  There are two possibilities at play here.  One, Mr. Snowden was not aware of the nature of espionage and of the core objectives of the NSA.  This seems rather strange that one would go through all the rigmarole of passing through background checks and applications and the like without any real understanding of what he was signing up to do.  The second possibility is that his intention was more heinous – that he went through the laborious process and worked his way into a delicate and sensitive area of intelligence for the sole purpose of revealing it.  In short, he is either one of the more naïve people formally of the U.S. government or a spy of the worst character.   

There are many who are shocked by the Mr. Snowden’s activities and stance, as well as the actions of Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange and Army Private First Class Bradley Manning.  People are even more dismayed at their attitude, ranging from blasé to defiant, about their actions.  Famed author C.S. Lewis once said, “We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.”  This is an example of what happens when we culturally dismiss the notions and ideas that created our country.  Some commentators have suggested we are the Rome of 200 CE.  At times, it seems we stand at a precipice.  What was valued is no longer and our country seems to be more directionless than ever.   

However, I honestly believe that is an illusion.  I believe that the majority of Americans out there still value honor, valor, loyalty and patriotism.  However, as a society, we have allowed certain elements to creep in and fester.  Mr. Snowden needs to be held accountable for his actions.  How this will be done, I’m not sure.  He is playing a “catch me if you can” game and the Russians, a bit secretly, and the Chinese, more blatantly, are reveling in our inability to get at him and the embarrassment he is causing.  His father is announcing that demands need to be made before his son could comfortably surrender to American authorities.  I hope the Obama administration does not allow a potential traitor and his father to dictate terms.  This man is charged with one of the worst crimes that can be committed in espionage and putting at risk the lives of Americans serving abroad.  He needs to be treated as such.