Whistle-blowing refers to the act of disclosing secret information within a private or public organization that is deemed illegal, immoral, illicit, unsafe, or fraudulent.
One of the big questions for our society is how much power should the intelligence community have, and how can we make sure they use that power responsibly. The intelligence community includes organizations that gather secret information to protect us, but sometimes they might misuse their power. There have been cases of abuse at places like Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, and the use of surveillance technology and torture for information has raised concerns.
The tricky part is that the intelligence community needs to keep some things secret to do their job, but this secrecy can also hide bad actions. Sometimes, information about these actions only comes out when it’s leaked by someone or when there’s a big investigation. The problem is that we need to trust the intelligence community to keep us safe, but when they’re too secretive, it’s hard to know if they’re doing the right thing.
One way to keep an eye on the intelligence community is by having people from the inside blow the whistle on any bad stuff they see. Whistleblowing means when someone on the inside speaks up about things that are wrong. This can help bring out the truth and make sure the intelligence community is held accountable for their actions.
But it’s not always easy. There’s a balance between keeping some things secret and making sure the intelligence community behaves well. Some people think whistleblowers should be allowed to speak out when they see something really wrong, even if it’s secret. They believe it’s their duty to tell the public about it. Others think there should be limits on when whistleblowing is allowed, because too much information being revealed could also be a problem.
In this article, the author is going to talk about this balance and how whistleblowing can help make sure the intelligence community does the right thing. They’ll use examples like Edward Snowden, who leaked secret information, and a report about the CIA’s actions, to show when whistleblowing might be a good thing and when it might not be. This way, they want to create a fair and practical way to watch over the intelligence community.
The limits of the system
Intelligence work is all about discovering secret information that others want to keep hidden. It’s like a game between those who hide things and those who uncover them. To do this effectively, intelligence methods and information are kept secret. But too much secrecy can lead to unfair actions.
To prevent abuses of power, democratic systems are used to keep an eye on intelligence activities. This involves elected officials who are allowed to know some secrets to make sure everything is going well. However, this can create problems, as these oversight officials themselves aren’t being watched. This lack of transparency can lead to bad decisions.
Too much secrecy within intelligence groups can also cause problems. It can make them isolated from outside influence, which can lead to harmful actions being seen as normal. This is concerning because intelligence agencies have special powers that can affect people’s rights.
The current oversight methods may not always work well. Surveillance requests, for example, only require permission from courts in certain cases, leaving other activities unchecked. Also, there’s a power imbalance where the state has more information than those asking for oversight. This means the focus is on the wrong side – the state holds the power, while those requesting oversight have none.
Existing oversight mechanisms might not be strong enough to prevent issues. The executive (government) and intelligence agencies have merged so much that they can’t effectively oversee each other. The legislative branch (lawmakers) can pass laws to regulate intelligence, but it’s not always able to scrutinize actions in real time. The courts might be unwilling to challenge national security issues, and secrecy in some courts limits proper discussion.
There are some internal avenues within the intelligence community for addressing issues. For instance, there are panels that review classified documents and bodies that investigate. However, these internal mechanisms might not be enough to handle serious problems or might be influenced by politics.
While the US is an example of a dominant intelligence oversight system, other countries have different approaches. The article suggests that whistleblowing – when insiders expose wrongdoing – can be a crucial way to ensure accountability. Whistleblowing can help reveal harmful activities, but it can come at a cost for those who speak up.
To improve oversight, the article proposes a new ethical framework for whistleblowing. This framework would outline when insiders should release information if they see something wrong. It aims to balance the harm that whistleblowing can cause with the need for transparency and accountability. The framework includes criteria to guide the decision, like having a good reason to blow the whistle and considering potential backlash.
A whistleblower’s right and obligation
The proposed ethical framework provides guidelines for potential whistleblowers. It includes several factors: the main reason justifying the need to blow the whistle, the authority of the whistleblower to go against their organization’s authority, proportional considerations for deciding when to blow the whistle, the appropriate audience for releasing information, and the limits of the whistleblower’s obligation.
Reason to Act: The core reason for whistleblowing is to prevent harm to others, acting in defense of the community. In intelligence, if the actions of the intelligence community directly undermine their duty to protect the community, whistleblowing is even more justified.
Authority to Act: Whistleblowers can act as their own authority when their organization’s actions contradict their duty to protect the community. They have special knowledge and access to information, which empowers them to act in the interest of the community.
Proportional Considerations: Whistleblowing should be proportionate to the harm caused and the benefits gained. The potential harm from the intelligence activity, as well as the potential harm to the whistleblower themselves, are weighed against the benefits of revealing the information.
Appropriate Audience: Whistleblowers should carefully choose who they reveal the information to. Internal channels, external oversight mechanisms, or the public can be considered, depending on the situation. However, revealing information publicly should be done responsibly to avoid jeopardizing ongoing operations.
Limits of Obligation: Whistleblowers are relieved of the obligation to act if the personal costs or risks are too high, but they still have the right to blow the whistle. The level of responsibility, potential backlash, and the harm being caused all influence the degree of obligation.
The framework emphasizes that whistleblowers should act with the intention of preventing harm and protecting the community, but they should also consider the potential consequences and ensure responsible disclosure of information.
Edward Snowden and the NSA
In 2013, Edward Snowden, who worked for the national security agency (NSA), took classified documents from the US government. He shared these documents with The Guardian newspaper, revealing the NSA’s surveillance methods, including the PRISM network that collected data from major Internet companies. The legality of these operations was unclear, and Snowden’s actions raised questions about the harm caused and the best way to address it.
The surveillance involved collecting vast amounts of data from people’s online activities, which raised concerns about privacy and autonomy. The information collected was highly personal, resembling the content of private conversations. This invasion of privacy caused harm even if not directly felt by individuals.
Whistleblowing, or revealing this information, was debated. Critics argued that it could harm national security and intelligence methods. However, others believed the harm caused by the surveillance outweighed the potential harm of revealing it. The NSA claimed its operations were lawful, but the legality was disputed.
Ultimately, Snowden’s actions were justified due to the significant harm caused by the surveillance programs. The widespread violation of privacy warranted bringing the issue to public attention, initiating a wider debate on the role of surveillance in society.
Failing the obligation: Where was the torture, Snowden?
Comparing it, recent revelations about the CIA’s use of torture help us understand what happens when nobody speaks out against wrongdoing. We’ll explore whether there was a duty to expose this, who should have done it, and the consequences for those who didn’t act. In terms of whether the harm caused by the CIA’s torture was justified, we’ll argue that it wasn’t.
Torture inflicts severe physical and mental harm, destroying a person’s independence and responses. This harm is so great that even if some argue it produces useful information, the long-term and broader negative effects make its use unacceptable. The systematic torture described in the SSCI Report is clearly unjustified.
Given the extreme harm and organized nature of the torture, immediate action was necessary to stop it. Whistleblowing, or revealing the truth, would have been a powerful way to do this. The existing political investigation was slow, allowing harm to continue. The internal reporting mechanisms were ineffective since they were part of the problem. Whistleblowing to the public would have drawn attention and ended the program faster.
As for who should have blown the whistle, those directly involved in the torture had an obligation, as they caused harm. Additionally, the CIA leadership, despite their distance from the acts, were responsible for fostering the torture culture and should have spoken out. Even political leaders had some responsibility, either by knowing or not investigating enough.
In conclusion, Snowden’s case highlighted the need for better oversight of intelligence activities. Whistleblowing should be used when harm caused by intelligence can’t be justified, and it’s the best solution. However, widespread whistleblowing isn’t always beneficial, so it’s crucial to balance the benefits and harms and consider different forms of whistleblowing based on the situation.
