Sunday, May 3, 2015

Government Power to Exercise Prior Restraint on Materials Related to National Security Saves Lives

(Question #1)
On June 5, 2013, NSA contractor Edward Snowden gave classified documents revealing the size and abilities of the US and UK surveillance programs to The Guardian, a British newspaper. While he was widely hailed as a hero, Congressman Mike Rodgers, chairman of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee said he "would charge him for murder." When asked why, he elaborated that information Snowden had taken involved protection measures for US and UK soldiers, and that "it is more likely that one of those soldiers is going to get their legs blown off or killed because of his actions."
Snowden speaks at a ceremony in Russia (source: huffpost.com)
Releasing information that will result in people's deaths is no longer whistleblowing, and when those people are soldiers who are defending your country, you become, as Congressman Rodgers would later state in an interview "nothing less than a traitor." While the US and other countries are often unable to prevent leaks such as these from occurring, the government ability to prevent this information from reaching the public through the press, and even through social networking sites, enables them to save the lives that these reports would have cost.

The Public Right to Know Does Not Outweigh People's Lives

Data source: Huffpost.co.uk
Congressman Rodgers elaborated by stating that the vast majority of the intelligence that Snowden leaked was unrelated to surveillance programs, mostly to "tactical things, military plans and operations." He put the figure at "over 95%" unrelated information. However, by leaking all of it, he compromised those plans and operations, which meant that the enemy knew about them before they could be implemented. While the media does have its responsibility to work for the public's right to know, and it did have a source that gave it information for the public, revealing this data meant several things. Most importantly, it meant that all of these plans and operations were now known to the enemy, and for all intents and purposes, were useless. All of the suicide bombers who would have been captured, all of the bombs that would have been discovered, and all of the IED factories that would have been dismantled survived for longer simply because of this leak. It also meant that instead of spending its time searching for those who want to hurt and kill Americans, the NSA was forced to spend its time patching security leaks. Once again, that resulted in missed opportunities to both help America and defeat her enemies. Finally, it damaged peoples' confidence in the American intelligence apparatus, which results in reduced morale, and generally reduced feelings of security among the American populace.
The public does have the right to know what is going on in the world. Very few people will argue that this is not the case. But to say that the government should not have the power to regulate these releases when it comes to the matter of people's lives suggests that information is more important to the viewer than the lives of those who die or are injured by these releases. At that point it is no longer a question of rights but a question of ethics, and exposing information that will lead to deaths and life threatening injuries is at the very least unethical, and should be illegal.

The Public Right to Know is Not Compromised by Prior Restraint Exercise

Source: USMM.org
The Director of the NSA, General Keith Alexander, argued that this information must be kept from the public because if the information is given to the public, it is given to "the terrorists". He cited, as an example, the breaking of the German Enigma code in World War II. The Allies broke the Enigma code early in the war, but Karl Donitz, the German Naval Commander, added in extra security measures in1942. Over the next nine months, Allied codebreakers worked tirelessly to break the code, but in the meantime, German U boats were able to sink far more ships than at any other point in the war, killing many people, and destroying goods that could have saved many lives. When that extra security measure was finally broken, that fact was kept a closely guarded secret, because had the Germans known, far more people would have lost their lives.
General Alexander stated that "If there was a way to tell the American people without telling the terrorists, we would do it." This statement encapsulates the issue perfectly. This is a situation in which the right to know comes in direct conflict with others' right to life, and the only way to resolve that is to put the right to life ahead of the right to know, because to do anything else is to tell the dead that their lives were not worth living. This kind of prioritizing does not compromise the right to know, it simply places it below the right to life.
Overall, while the public does have a right to know, the government needs to be able to limit what the media can say with respect to national security in order to save lives, and as such, should certainly have more power to exercise prior restraint with respect to items of interest to national security. While this is often unpalatable, to do otherwise is to put our desire to know ahead of others' lives, and to do so would be unethical, immoral, and hopefully illegal. The right to know if an important foundation of any democratic society, but it does not override the most important right of all, that of life.

3 comments:

  1. Overall, I thought your article was very good. You answered the first question thoroughly and provided evidence to back up your claims. I especially liked the use of the pie chart to show the relation between the documents showing surveillance programs and the documents showing related military programs and operations. You effectively cited your photo sources, and graph sources to further enhance your credibility. You did a good job keeping the post objective and refraining from speaking in first person, this made your facts and evidence more credible. Additionally, your heading and subheading were very descriptive. I already knew what you were going to talk about before reading the first line. Your embedded links gave me quick, easy access to some background info and your sources. Your anecdote about German U-boats gave an interesting perspective on the issue of citizens rights vs. national security, and added more to your argument. You were able to persuade me that your viewpoints were valid with credible sources, and effective data graphics.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your title was explanatory but also confusing. In the future I would be more descriptive and use less large words. Just reading your title I’m unsure of what the prior restraint on materials is and how this power is supposed to save lives. In addition this title is not followed by any subheadings. It is difficult to know what will be in the following article without these provided at the top. Maybe you could start with a bold subhead so I know what you will be talking about in your preliminary paragraph. Maybe you could talk in your title about the government being able to keep information private from public helps save lives in the long run. Followed by your points in your article. Beginning with how the publics right to know does not outweigh the worth of ones life. I think you could find a more explanatory preliminary image. It is explanatory but it is almost unnecessary with the information that followed. I thought it was good that you included the point about the enigma and how many lives were lost when media was releasing information. It showed that this government censorship was very necessary. I liked your point about how informing the public means informing the enemies. I think this related to our reading because we are talking about the ethics of media, which is theme throughout the book. In addition we are talking about the publics right to know versus publics need to know. This is a very important point when in comes to censoring media. Although typically the government does not censor most media this is one case where it is extremely necessary. I think it would have been good to talk about the Vietnam War and the media crisis you could shorten your two large paragraphs. I think this would be a good addition to your paper because it would show how release of all information has harmed our nation as a whole and created a divide in the past. It would support how necessary this censorship is. One article you can use is The Media, the War in Vietnam, and Political Support: A Critique of the Thesis of an Oppositional Media by Daniel C. Hallina. This article talks about the uproar that media coverage caused during the Vietnam War. It describes how this media coverage created and resistance to authority. This is just one suggestion I believe your article has a large potential for expansion. I think if more subheads and arguments were added the reader would better understand this need for government censorship.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All and all I believe your article was great my suggestions above are just ways I personally thought you could improved it.

      Delete