Saturday, March 08, 2014

The Moral Justification of Leaking Government Secrets

In a recent review, David Cole considers Snowden, Manning and Assange, and the moral justification of leaking government secrets. He considers the criteria Rahul Sagar has put forward in his recent book, "Secrets and Leaks:  The Dilemma of State Secrecy":
... Sagar argues that disclosure of secrets by private leakers is morally justified when it (1) is based on clear and convincing evidence of abuse of public authority, (2) does not pose a disproportionate threat to public safety, and (3) is as limited in scope and scale as possible.
Cole (along with Sagar) then goes along considering recent leaks under these guidelines.

I believe this entire approach is flawed. Moral justification can't rest on taking some kind of "measured approach". The recent acts by Snowden, Manning and Assange directly address what may be the most serious threat to our Democracy in our time: the erosion or our fundamental liberties. Where all other "checks and balances" from Congressional oversight to Judicial review have consistently failed us in bringing these government overreaches into check, the leaking of government secrets can fairly be viewed as a last ditch effort to curb this dangerous trend.

What's more, in the face of our current political climate, these acts are a brave self-sacrifice. While the rest of us sit back and watch the slow moving train wreck of our failing political system and throw our arms up, these are the people that are taking action. To sit by after the fact and hem and haw over how "limited in scope" the disclosures were seems to me no more than an act of cowardice.