Increasingly we live under the surveillance of police. See here for a recent article. The 1971 movie The Anderson Tapes dramatized this. But who surveils the surveillers? Who surveils illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, harmful, and/or criminal behavior among those in government? Any of us, using public sources, can do the research and intelligence work to detect such behavior, tell the world, and alert the general public, but this has its limitations, one of which is a degree of uncertainty and conjecture. Historians consult secret materials years after the actual events. That’s too late to prevent the accumulation of damage. We need to know in real time. Reporters use unnamed and unattributed sources. There are whistleblowers inside and outside of government. Assange and Manning are following an honorable tradition and performing a vital social function to diminish the secrecy. As our agents, those in government need to be surveilled by us. They have no right to privacy or secrecy except what we allow them to have because, under the agency theory of government, we have deputed them to act and they have sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution. By contrast, their surveillance of us is limited by our rights. Assange has signed no secrecy agreement with governments or corporations. Manning may have signed such an agreement. I do not know. The government brings actions in such cases, as the one brought against an ex-CIA agent for his book. This raises a moral and legal question. If one signs a secrecy agreement and then observes illegal behavior, is one duty-bound to keep silent about it? I think not. I think one can find more than ample precedent and justification in not keeping silent and, under those conditions, breaking the agreement.  That is the case with war crimes, for example. In fact, if one did not break it, there arises a question of moral culpability.

The Best of Michael S. Rozeff