a thorny question

[waltersgirl]

you are a member of an intelligence service, vetted for classified access. you have sworn an oath of secrecy in order to receive your job and said classified access. if you disagree with something that your government is doing, are you protected by free speech if you publicly release classified documents of current intelligence operations?

edited to add a caveat rule for the discussion.....if you know the basis of my question, keep it to yourself. this conversation is to be absent governments and discussed from a strictly philosophical point of view.

[NYPinTA]

Nope.

[JrMissToughChick]

NO

[KellEy.. "red"]

i don't believe you're protected by free speech in that case.. that's a matter of national security.. to release that information to 3rd parties is considered espionage... at least, that's what i've always been taught... otherwise, why give access to classified information if there's the possibility of a leak?

[waltersgirl]

here's an interesting perspective on the question.

Whether a law is just or not is a different question than whether the institution of law and its procedures in general is just. If I felt compelled by my conscience to violate a law, I would not argue that I should not be punished. This is what it means to be an adult.

[JrMissToughChick]

Waltersgirl, are you a spy or is this a hypothetical question?

[generic_screenname]

So if you know something bad is going to happen, you just have to sit there and let it happen? I hate people.

[kechara420]

You swore an oath not to reveal anything you found out.

People going into that line of work aren't naive. Governments--ALL governments--quietly do things that would not be considered "appropriate" by many of their citizens. There's always dirty work, and it has to get done somehow. That's just a fact of life.

On the other hand, if you've uncovered something truly horrible--on a scale, for example, with Hitler's treatment of Jews--I can understand feeling morally obligated to bring it to light. YOur choices in such a case would be two: Either find a way to expose said goings-on without using the classified information, or break your oath and face the penalties.

[JrMissToughChick]

It's not people it's the system

[NebariNookiee]

I've found that "I was only following orders" is a rather lousy excuse. You have to ask yourself: is it important enough for you to be willing to compromise your convictions and what you believe to be right by keeping your mouth shut? And are you willing to accept the consequences of your actions when the time comes?

No rule or law should force anyone to compromise their convictions – regardless of the consequences.

[NYPinTA]

Originally posted by generic_screenname
So if you know something bad is going to happen, you just have to sit there and let it happen? I hate people.

Well, no you don't have to let it happen. If it is bad enough you say something despite what it might cost you.

[recklesshumor]

Not protected. All constitutional rights are subject to what is called "strict scrutiny" - basically meaning they can be restricted when there is an overwhelming public interest, such as national security.

That's very nutshell, but you get the idea.

[samati75]

Yup. And you signed/swore and thereby giving up your specific rights in this instance. I mean, go ahead and tell the public, but you will be prosecuted. Thats what would/does happen IRL.

[kechara420]

Originally posted by waltersgirl
here's an interesting perspective on the question. Very well-put.

[VBKatLou]

I agree with recklesshumor. At least that's how it works on the X-Files.

Of course, you could always be like the original Deep Throat and release info secretly. That's probably what I would do.

[KellEy.. "red"]

you accept the consequences going in as to the information you're going to have access to... therefore, you have to willing to accept the consequences if you leak said information... i think that if you take the risk of being exposed to information that would bother you, you should think long and hard before signing that contract and taking that oath...

[NebariNookiee]

Originally posted by KellEy.. "red"
i think that if you take the risk of being exposed to information that would bother you, you should think long and hard before signing that contract and taking that oath...

Well said!

[generic_screenname]

Take the damn consequences!!! You're a human being first and an American second. And if you find out that the government is involved in activities that puts the nation severly at risk, then I can't think of anything more patriotic than to expose those in power who are destrying the country you love. Suffer the consequences. No question about it.

[NebariNookiee]

Originally posted by generic_screenname
Take the damn consequences!!! You're a human being first and an American second. And if you find out that the government is involved in activities that puts the nation severly at risk, then I can't think of anything more patriotic than to expose those in power who are destrying the country you love. Suffer the consequences. No question about it.
YOU GO G_S!!!! I'll drink to that!:beer:

[NYPinTA]

I'll second that! :aok:

[DRD2001]

"I was following orders." wasn't enough to justify the My Lai massacre. It wasn't enough to justify top Nazi actions. If the government is truely engaged in illegal acts, I hope someone would have the courage and conviction to step up and go public.

I think g_s said it best.

[waltersgirl]

You're a human being first and an American second

no governments. this discussion is wholly without any nationality.

samati summed it up well.

the question isn't whether someone is morally justified by following their conscience in this circumstance. the question is whether someone has any protection under a free speech defense.

kelleyred also nails another point...if you're worried about your moral conscience, why would you join an intelligence agency and legally give away your right to choose a decision of moral conscience?

there's another aspect to the question and no one's touched on it yet.

Waltersgirl, are you a spy or is this a hypothetical question?

were i a spy, i would be violating my oath of secrecy if i told you. ;) the question for the purpose of this discussion is strictly hypothetical.

[waltersgirl]

If the government is truely engaged in illegal acts, I hope someone would have the courage and conviction to step up and go public.

yes, however, that's not the question.

"I was following orders." wasn't enough to justify the My Lai massacre. It wasn't enough to justify top Nazi actions.

also true, but neither action was a covert intelligence operation being planned. i'm not talking about atrocities here, i'm talking specifically about prior knowledge of covert activity being leaked by a member of anyone's "community".

[NebariNookiee]

the question is whether someone has any protection under a free speech defense.
Simple answer -- no.

[DRD2001]

i'm not talking about atrocities here, i'm talking specifically about prior knowledge of covert activity being leaked by a member of anyone's "community".

Nope. They will most likely be banned, barred, persecuted and prosecuted, then thrown in a cell by the government who committed the illegal acts to begin with.

Edited to add.
Due to the harsh consequences of the "revealing information" action, I think most people will assume that the revealer is telling the truth. Why else risk so much. Even if he says the gov't is controlled by talking dogs, people will still assume he is telling the truth because he has so much to lose and so little to gain. Just an opinion

[NebariNookiee]

Just out of curiosity -- what prompted this discussion anyway? Was it all that stuff about the CIA probing for a leak or is there something else we should know?

Hmmmmmmmmm…..

[talyn3]

So if waltersgirl suddenly stops posting, should we be worried??

[DentArthurDent]

Hypothetically you give up free speech and the whole enchilada when you get classified. In theory although the holding of information is specific to the job, the fact in any western country is that you are not only under much more scrutiny, but you must also not do anything that CAN BE SEEN AS VIOLATING TRUST. A person with T/S Clearence at Sandia Labs prolly wouldn't get involved in a PETA demonstration for example, regardless if they believed in it. They might be monitored, their bosses might find out, and then they could find themselves jobless. And that would be somebody that is not actively involved in intelligence. People actively involved are in far deeper, one would think they KNOW that they have no LEGAL recourse. If they have a moral obligation is another issue, that would have to be weighed in their own minds...

This is a great question... at once very cut and dried, and yet also difficult in terms of what goes on in real life, versus the principle of law...

AFD

[DentArthurDent]

Originally posted by talyn3
So if waltersgirl suddenly stops posting, should we be worried??

yeah, cause she'll have to hunt US all down... :rollin:

[NebariNookiee]

Originally posted by DentArthurDent
yeah, cause she'll have to hunt US all down... :rollin: Yeah -- I knew I should have stayed the hell out of this thread!:smokin: -- Snoggins!

[LiLOrion]

Originally posted by waltersgirl
you are a member of an intelligence service, vetted for classified access. you have sworn an oath of secrecy in order to receive your job and said classified access. if you disagree with something that your government is doing, are you protected by free speech if you publicly release classified documents of current intelligence operations?


First it depends on why you are disagreeing with the something that your "community" is doing. Is it a matter of them breaking the law or just something that in your gut you dont feel is right?

If its breaking the law, a case could probably be made protecting your right to "leak" the information.

If its just you "not feeling right" about their covert actions, then no, I dont think you would be protected under the freedom of speech act.



Not to bring religion into this but I didnt watch that Cold Case ep where apparently a priest had heard the confession of a murder, but the confession was protected by law and even though the priest was privy to information that would have brought the murder to justice, he didnt have to tell the police.

Now is this priest just "hiding" behind the law protecting the rights of confession, or should he be allowed to talk without getting in trouble for it? Granted murders might not go to confession anymore if this were to happen though. :)

[stellar]

This is not a free speech issue. If an order is illegal, or conflicts with the understanding of legitimate obligations, then the person is not obligated to carry our that order. However, that person cannot distribute information that is classified. Even if it that information is illegal. The person would have to weigh prison against the importance of an action that would result in prison.

E.g., if a person is in the intelligence service, and is given classified information that the Secretary of Defense likes to wear pink frilly undergarments for his daily briefings... given that information for the purposes of his orders which are to shop-lift from Victoria's' Secret for the Secretary. Shop-lifting is a crime and therefore an illegal order. He can refuse to shoplift but can't say that the Secretary of Defense likes to wear a chiffon bra and matching panties. Because he is entrusted with that information by the government for which he is employed and with whom he has an agreement.

[NebariNookiee]

The Secretary of Defense likes to wear pink frilly undergarments you say??? :smokin:

[stellar]

Chiffon, in particullar... and pink.

[DRD2001]

Funny, I would have pegged him for a purple satin kind of guy.

[Judith]

Originally posted by LiLOrion



Not to bring religion into this but I didnt watch that Cold Case ep where apparently a priest had heard the confession of a murder, but the confession was protected by law and even though the priest was privy to information that would have brought the murder to justice, he didnt have to tell the police.

Now is this priest just "hiding" behind the law protecting the rights of confession, or should he be allowed to talk without getting in trouble for it? Granted murders might not go to confession anymore if this were to happen though. :)

Actually, I thought if someone confessed to a federal crime,a priest is bound by law to turn them in.

[stellar]

They are. Priests can be tried for being an accomplice if they withhold information. Priest/parishoner confidentiality is not a constitutionally protected right. Lawyer/client is.

[NYPinTA]

I was under the impression that priests can't tell, no matter what.

Edit: I don't think that priests are taking into account the constitutionality of keeping their mouths shut where a confession is concerned. They don't tell because the church tells them not too.

[chri-baby]

legally you are bound by the law not to reveal that which you have sworn to keepp confidential. however morally you are bound to act in accordance with you concience. so the question which is the primary imperative the moral or the legal?
that very much depends on the person. I would follow my concience come what may!
"let right be done though the heavens fall"

[KellEy.. "red"]

E.g., if a person is in the intelligence service, and is given classified information that the Secretary of Defense likes to wear pink frilly undergarments for his daily briefings... given that information for the purposes of his orders which are to shop-lift from Victoria's' Secret for the Secretary. Shop-lifting is a crime and therefore an illegal order. He can refuse to shoplift but can't say that the Secretary of Defense likes to wear a chiffon bra and matching panties. Because he is entrusted with that information by the government for which he is employed and with whom he has an agreement.


:spew:
CONGRATULATIONS STELLAR!!! with that one paragraph, you've just been inducted into the FMD You Ain't Right Club...

now excuse me while i try and remove the image of donald rumsfield in chiffon underwear out of my brain with this brillo pad...

[LiLOrion]

Originally posted by Judith_Shakespeare
Actually, I thought if someone confessed to a federal crime,a priest is bound by law to turn them in.

I have no idea. I just kept seeing the trailers for that Cold Case episode. One of the guys on the show said that the priest was not obliged to reveal the information cause he was protected by law. I dont think the crime was federal though. Actually I have no idea what the heck was going on cause I dont watch that show. I was just wondering. :D

[ShawnaTums]

i was just about to say exactly what stellar just said (minus the pink underwear) which he said so much better! the reason things are classified sometimes is to save people's lives - so telling that an illegal action is going on could kill the person or persons who are relying on the fact that no one else knows what they are up to............one of my closest friends is in intelligence - and i know i can't ask him what he did at work that day.......because even letting something small slip could be dangerous..........issues are classified not because they are illegal - but to keep our people safe - who are out in dangerous places making US SAFE........

sorry - my little rant about people not understand the military.......

[NebariNookiee]

the reason things are classified sometimes is to save people's lives
What about a damned / damned situation – no matter which way you decide, people will die? And what if the reason it’s kept secret is because it’s illegal as Hell and the big wigs just don’t want to get busted? What then?

And what about if no one will die from the revelation, but the information could bring down a major foreign power, or your own government? What then?

Hypothetically of course:aok:

[stellar]

Originally posted by KellEy.. "red"
:spew:
CONGRATULATIONS STELLAR!!! with that one paragraph, you've just been inducted into the FMD You Ain't Right Club...

now excuse me while i try and remove the image of donald rumsfield in chiffon underwear out of my brain with this brillo pad...

Thanks!!! My first real club!!! I'll wear it proudly.

And about Rumsfeld, just remember - you can't gouge out your mind's eye. ;)

[DRD2001]

I think everyone understands that some info is classified to save lives. Some isn't. I don't know if the Tuskegee syphilis study was classified, but lets pretend it was. Revealing that info would have only save lives. Now, revealing info saying Rumsfeld wears a pink tu-tu is gratuitous and unnecessary and is none of our business.

[Shipscat]

*Should* they be protected? I don't know. But in a free society, granted that the secret is so important that the revelation of it is for public good, and not more harm than good (endangering lives in the military, for example) then I think what *would* happen is that public opinion would try not only the person who leaked the information but also the government or agency trying to keep it under wraps.

Therefore, like a slander case, truth is your best defence. You'd better be darn good and sure that you're right.

Now, as far as the issue goes, I think you do have to follow your own conscience. I don't think it's possible to sign that away. I don't know what's being referred to here, and it's hard to imagine a circumstance where it's necessary to break that sort of oath, but I suppose it's possible. People brought up some examples here.

[Shipscat]

Oh, and let's not forget the doctrine of clean hands. The law really wants you to have your hands clean when you go around accusing people of crimes..it would make it hard to make a treason charge stick if whatever portion of the government is breaking their own laws.

[Lord Loser]

While most of these are good points, I think they are irrelevant to the question. The question doesn't speak of illegal orders, merely that you disagree with your governments actions, and if so does free speech guarantee your right to release classified documents. In a legal sense no. Once the contract was signed, you knowingly and willfully waived your right to free speech in all things concerning (both explicitly and implicitly) your job. If this employee was to see a document regarding the location of, and in fact the existence of Moya during his daily job, but the government chose to keep the fact supressed, even though he believed that the world should know of extra-terrestrial life, he would be contractually bound not to release the information. If he released the info, he would face prosecution for his actions. If he publicly stated that "I don't agree with my governments actions." This would be protected by free speech, for he has not revealed any classified information, nor specified which government action.

As to the second point about leaving nations out of the debate, it cannot be done. There is only one nation in the world that protects/guarantees free speech and that is America. There really are no free speech guarantees outside of our borders. One cannot engage in a strictly philosophical discussion of the question, because the moral foundation of "free speech" must be granted, or accepted, in order for the discussion to begin.

Third EYe will be able to give us a great deal of insight into this question as he has already stated that he has experience in these things.

[BlackThorn]

Originally posted by Lord Loser
While most of these are good points, I think they are irrelevant to the question. The question doesn't speak of illegal orders, merely that you disagree with your governments actions, and if so does free speech guarantee your right to release classified documents. In a legal sense no. Once the contract was signed, you knowingly and willfully waived your right to free speech in all things concerning (both explicitly and implicitly) your job. If this employee was to see a document regarding the location of, and in fact the existence of Moya during his daily job, but the government chose to keep the fact supressed, even though he believed that the world should know of extra-terrestrial life, he would be contractually bound not to release the information. If he released the info, he would face prosecution for his actions. If he publicly stated that "I don't agree with my governments actions." This would be protected by free speech, for he has not revealed any classified information, nor specified which government action.

Whoa, it appears that, for once, I agree with LL on something. :D Exactly. You sign the contract, you give up your rights, you need to abide by it. If you don't like the idea of giving up your rights, then don't sign the contract and get into a line of work where that is mandatory.

[waltersgirl]

So if waltersgirl suddenly stops posting, should we be worried??

only if you have something to hide. :spin:

As to the second point about leaving nations out of the debate, it cannot be done. There is only one nation in the world that protects/guarantees free speech and that is America.


actually, what brought about the question is a case not in the US. free speech was simply the catalyst for the discussion. i wanted to see a couple of things. one, could a discussion not descend into a flame war...A+ all. :D

two, would someone come around to the underlying issue behind the question....can democracies have intelligence communities.

You sign the contract, you give up your rights, you need to abide by it. If you don't like the idea of giving up your rights, then don't sign the contract and get into a line of work where that is mandatory.


the other crucial point. how can you claim a moral dilemma when you willingly chose to be a spook?

[DRD2001]

Originally posted by waltersgirl
the other crucial point. how can you claim a moral dilemma when you willingly chose to be a spook? But your question did not say the person was a "spook". A lot of people take oaths of confidentiality and security because they have access to restricted material. This could include an accountant, secretary or even a janitor.

Originally posted by waltersgirl
two, would someone come around to the underlying issue behind the question....can democracies have intelligence communities. I don't see why not. Intelligence is gathered to help safeguard a country. To keep it informed of currents and trends of dissent. To keep track of criminals who pose a threat. It is a form of security.

[stellar]

So we were so much fodder for your little experiment? Your avatar suits you to a tee.

How delectably eeevil.

[waltersgirl]

But your question did not say the person was a "spook".

my original question, first sentence.
you are a member of an intelligence service, vetted for classified access.

my apologies for assuming that you'd get it. i should have been more specific.

stellar,

shhhhhhhhhh. don't tell.


lemme use a literally fictional construct to give this some perspective.

this is the world created in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. a conference is being held on Bajor. it involves whether the Dominion is actually a threat to the Gamma Quadant or not. the Dominion will be present to plead their innocence.

the Federation has planned to gather intelligence recordings on all aspects of the conference. they have an arrangement with Bajoran and Klingon intelligence to help facilitate their covert op.

the Federation wants to conduct the surveillance so that they can better determine if the Dominion is planning a covert war or not. they agree to share the intel with both intelligence services.

you are a member of either Bajoran
or Klingon intelligence, it doesn't matter which. you have the op intel and you decide to broadcast the information on a public sub-space channel because you don't want your government to go to war in the event one happens. you don't have a moral problem with the covert op. your problem is what you think your government is going to do with the Federation's intel once they have it...ie, support the Federation's decision to prep for war.

[Judith]

Originally posted by waltersgirl




the other crucial point. how can you claim a moral dilemma when you willingly chose to be a spook?

You tell us. Popular opinion on this thread seems to be that you're a spook.:lol

[ranger1]

wg, the problem in your analogy lies in the fact that you, as an intelligence operative of the Klingon empire, do not have the authority to legislate imperial policy. i.e., it is not your place to unilaterally decide irrevokable choices for a group of people (your Klingon brethren). this is true regardless of whether you agree with what MIGHT be done once the intel is gathered - or the op is accomplished.

there are other ways to accomplish a protest that do not fall outside the bounds of your personal authoritative action. and as someone else said here, in all things, stand up - within your legal footing - for what you believe in! this would include all things, up to and including extreme action such as a coupe d'etat.

there are people no longer in the intelligence service who're still bound by gag-orders. why? for the simple reason that it's not within their authority to make certain information public, regardless how they feel about it. individuals are not legislative bodies, unless you're a king or an autocrat of some sort.

[waltersgirl]

wg, the problem in your analogy lies in the fact that you, as an intelligence operative of the Klingon empire, do not have the authority to legislate imperial policy. i.e., it is not your place to unilaterally decide irrevokable choices for a group of people (your Klingon brethren). this is true regardless of whether you agree with what MIGHT be done once the intel is gathered - or the op is accomplished.



YES! that is EXACTLY the point. which then changes the "defense" of following one's conscience doesn't it?

[KellEy.. "red"]

i think it's a catch 22 position you put yourself into... you KNOW that you could potentially be going to war, but it isn't guaranteed.. you also know that, irregardless, you don't agree with the path your country seems to be going down.. therefore, you have to weigh those consequences... keep your mouth shut, nothing happens, everyone remains oblivious as to how close things are to the breaking point of war... open your mouth, nothing happens, you can expect a visit from 2 big guys named bruno and juice who have an affinity for baseball bats and kneecaps... open your mouth, we go to war, well... then what? no matter what you do, you're screwed... i think it all goes back to asking yourself from the get-go if it's worth sacrificing your own moral conscience and feelings to the "good of the country"..

(it's probable this doesn't make much sense as the cough medication i'm on is makin me realllllll loopy!!)

[Antrobus]

now excuse me while i try and remove the image of donald rumsfield in chiffon underwear out of my brain with this brillo pad...

Hey, just put it right up there with your images of J. Edgar!


I think that one's moral conscience plays into this a great deal. If one is going to go into the "spook" arena, they best be the kind of person for who allegiance and duty take precedent over ANYTHING else.

If one has doubts that they can do that, then they should avoid putting themselves in that situation.

Back to the basic question about being covered by free speech, I would have to say "no", since a contract/oath has been established which I would assume addresses such issues as security breaches.

The other option is to leak it and let the chips fall where they may.

I work in a hospital and we're confronted with contradicting policies quite frequently. For instance, we're told that ALL patient information and such is strictly confidential and anyone found compromising that can be fired on the spot. However, it's a Federal (I believe ) crime if one suspects child or spousal abuse of a patient and doesn't report it to the authorities. There are channels that are followed within the system that handle that though, but it does leave one feeling that reporting suspected abuse compromises the confidentiality rule. I guess one has to figure out if "it's for the greater good" and worth the personal consequences.

These kind of situations are dicey!

[Scarran Raptor]

personally, I wouldn't go public with it, I'd do what I could within the system to change/stop it but first I'd make a few fail-safes to ensure that when I get taken down, whoever I'm against is going with me

[Darth Buddha]

Deep Throat of Watergate fame demonstrated a pretty effective tact... leak a few crumbs to a good investigative reporter and see what happens.

Another good tact would be to leak to various Senator's. If it is serious enough, and if you choose the right Senator, they'll break ranks and out it.

[waltersgirl]

yet, as an individual do you have the right to impose your personal political agenda on national policy?

[stellar]

Only if that agenda reflects the will of the people who you represent.

The initial question was is there constitutional protection. Many, including myself, said no. I still favor this position, but can you give up a constitutionally provided for right by signing it away? Is it a legal contract if the provision of the contract defies the constitution? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. Would speaking on matters of state secrets be paramount to yelling FIRE in a crowded theater?

[Selena]

Originally posted by waltersgirl
you are a member of an intelligence service, vetted for classified access. you have sworn an oath of secrecy in order to receive your job and said classified access. if you disagree with something that your government is doing, are you protected by free speech if you publicly release classified documents of current intelligence operations?

edited to add a caveat rule for the discussion.....if you know the basis of my question, keep it to yourself. this conversation is to be absent governments and discussed from a strictly philosophical point of view.

I would say no! You swore (an oath) to keep information confidential. Unless there was a clause in the oath that you swore/signed giving you the right to release information if it proved to be something you disagreed with, you would not have a leg to stand on.
That is why it is important to think of these types of situations BEFORE you take an oath or sign anything that limits your free speech in any way.

Now if the information that you are endeavoring to keep confidential relates to a crime, I would hazard a guess that it becomes a very difficult situation indeed and you would need to seek legal advice if your direct supervisor was unable to advise you.

[Antrobus]

yet, as an individual do you have the right to impose your personal political agenda on national policy?

As an individual, I don't think so. But I'd say that you possibly have the right to recruit like minded people to your agenda so that your agenda is no longer "personal" but has a wider base. That would take the focus off from the individual and put it on a collective group.