Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Having A Top Secret Clearance


JerryNumbers

  

7 members have voted

  1. 1. Is it Ok to reveal top secret information if it involved illegal activity?

    • Yes
      4
    • No
      3
    • I'm not sure
      0


Recommended Posts

  • Members

If a person has a government job & has sworn not to revel government information, classified or top secret. Yet in their day to day job they see the government doing something illegal does that canceled their promise to keep all information secret?

 

Of course those in charge that has broken the law will say they have broken their vow for they do not want the public, not anyone to know they're dealing in illegal activity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If a person has a government job & has sworn not to revel government information, classified or top secret. Yet in their day to day job they see the government doing something illegal does that canceled their promise to keep all information secret?

 

Of course those in charge that has broken the law will say they have broken their vow for they do not want the public, not anyone to know they're dealing in illegal activity.

There is a fine line between reporting illegal acts and insubordination. Even if illegal information is discovered, the person is still expected to follow the chain of command. Unfortunately, that can-and has- lead to cover ups.

 

One of the elements of the 1989 Whistle Blower Act is that the person reporting finds what he believes "reasonably evidences a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety."

 

Most agencies have an "internal affairs" in which to report such discoveries which is supposed to protect the informant and the integrity of the information. This is why it is considered insubordination if an informant goes outside of the chain of command because sometimes what he believes may be illegal, may be part of a legitimately legal schema. The problem that I think Americans are facing is that the government has become so corrupt that you can't tell what's legal or illegal anymore. A top-secret mission may contain information that to the average civillian would appear illegal, but in which the government affirms is necessary for national security. 

 

Anybody that's ever been in the military understands the chain of command even for someone that has a Level III security clearance or above. But to say that it's a mess would be an understatement.

 

I could give you examples, but then of course I'd have to......LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I'm going to say no, because I wonder whether it is always necessary to share the secret information in order to reveal the illegal acts.  This may be highly idealistic of me, however. :wink

 

Edited to add:

 

Hmmm... can I change my vote to sometimes? Putting this in an every day context, one could ask whether it's okay to break a confidence in order to provide help to a struggling teen. Generally it may be possible to let the person in authority know they are struggling without directly breaking any confidences (whether they realize that is another story!), but sometimes, especially if they are involved in illegal, immoral or dangerous activities, you just have to tell on them.  Small secrets, big secrets...   :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's a rigged game... You better not reveal the crimes of the powerful and wealthy. Consider this fictional musing:

 

Perhaps if I were a heathen billionaire megalomaniac…

 

I would partake in creating intelligence agencies that have zero transparency. Then I would payoff legislators to protect these agencies by creating laws to conceal my criminal activities. Then I would compartmentalize the majority of my loyal (well paid) agents so the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing. I would pay them as much as ten times the normal wage, because silence is very important. I would require my agents to sign documents to protect my crimes and use computers to watch their every move.

 

Then I would assist the financing of a huge propaganda machine so that the sleeping masses continue accept the satanic lie of “…yes they break the law, but it’s for the greater good…”

 

Then I’d continue carrying out all of my darkest megalomaniacal desires. If I get caught red-handed? No worries, I’m above the law. I’ll force my lackeys to invoke the traitorous “Security Act” over and over, which will classify all of my crimes as “top secret” so NOBODY can talk about them without serious consequence. If someone really gets the “goods” on me, then I’ll have resort to an assassination. After some time, I think my idea would grow to biblical proportions. The public would be too dumbed-down to apply the simple logic that could eviscerate my paper-tiger and hold me accountable.

 

Seems like a good plan to me…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

One is expected to NOT follow unlawful orders. Remember how the Nazis were not allowed to use "following orders" as an excuse at the Neuremberg trials? Same thing applies. If someone works for the government, or the military, and knows something against the law is occuring, he is responsible to report it. If the activity is well-known in the organization, or, as in the current issue, is actually olicy, it is still illegal and he should report it. If everyone is in on it, I would do as was done: report it to a media I could depend on to tell the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There is a fine line between reporting illegal acts and insubordination. Even if illegal information is discovered, the person is still expected to follow the chain of command. Unfortunately, that can-and has- lead to cover ups.

 

One of the elements of the 1989 Whistle Blower Act is that the person reporting finds what he believes "reasonably evidences a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety."

 

Most agencies have an "internal affairs" in which to report such discoveries which is supposed to protect the informant and the integrity of the information. This is why it is considered insubordination if an informant goes outside of the chain of command because sometimes what he believes may be illegal, may be part of a legitimately legal schema. The problem that I think Americans are facing is that the government has become so corrupt that you can't tell what's legal or illegal anymore. A top-secret mission may contain information that to the average civillian would appear illegal, but in which the government affirms is necessary for national security. 

 

Anybody that's ever been in the military understands the chain of command even for someone that has a Level III security clearance or above. But to say that it's a mess would be an understatement.

 

I could give you examples, but then of course I'd have to......LOL

 

Thank you but you do not have to explain chain of command, I've been in the military. I know all about it, & when something is illegal, the chain of command is generally useless, they will generally tell you to shut up & if you don't, generally you will have things placed in your records that will hold back any promotions.

 

No one has to obey orders when its illegal. See Ukulelemike's post.

 

Sadly the honest man who reports the illegal activities or refuse to obey illegal orders comes out of the losing end, & that is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm going to say no, because I wonder whether it is always necessary to share the secret information in order to reveal the illegal acts.  This may be highly idealistic of me, however. :wink

 

Edited to add:

 

Hmmm... can I change my vote to sometimes? Putting this in an every day context, one could ask whether it's okay to break a confidence in order to provide help to a struggling teen. Generally it may be possible to let the person in authority know they are struggling without directly breaking any confidences (whether they realize that is another story!), but sometimes, especially if they are involved in illegal, immoral or dangerous activities, you just have to tell on them.  Small secrets, big secrets...   :ph34r:

 

I looked, I did not see nothing that I could change so you could change your vote. And if there is a way & someone will tell me, I will attempt to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I voted yes for the simple reason that for the most part (at least, I hope so!), people who sign confidentiality agreements usually do it with full faith intact that the organization to which they are signing their loyalty is an honest one.  However, as citizens of the US, the Constitution trumps any agreement signed.  And when the Constitution is being violated (as it has been so egregiously), it should be uncovered.  As citizens of Heaven, the Bible trumps everything else - and God is not in favor of evil being covered up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Since this is where my career has been to date, I'll go ahead and chime in.  I think you need a 4th option on your poll for "It Depends."

 

Many of the above points are correct, but the missing element is what is the information and what was the source?  Is it relevant to describing and convicting the activity?  Was it intentionally or incidentally collected?  Have all avenues of resolution within the proper channels been exhausted yet?  The answer to the poll question really depends on the answers to these questions.

 

I'm not speaking for anyone's personal knowledge in this thread, but most people don't realize just how many rules, regulations, and laws are in place to prevent intelligence collection on US persons and infringement on consitutionally protected rights.  There are also entire offices and positions devoted to ensuring those laws and regulations are adhered to (Intelligence Oversight, Inspector General, JAG, etc).  In most cases, these people are in no way tied to the mission and are supposed to be unbiased overseers.  If the military chain of command breaks down in putting a stop to the activity and prosecuting violaters, there are no less than 4 other avenues to address the issue.  No one gets into the Intelligence Community without thorough training on all of this.  A cover-up would have to be so massively implemented that many people would likely be losing their jobs in the process.  If someone such as Snowden had exhausted his channels of reporting there would be enough whistleblowers on the activity to where leaking classified information to the press would be unnecessary.  If nothing else, Snowden could have gone to the company he worked for (he was a contractor) and I guarantee they would have dealt with the issue in a less frivolous manner.

 

The problem with disclosing classified information is less about the information and more about the way it was obtained.  Disclosing it can give insight into collection capabilities that are kept secret so that the country can maintain its military and technological advantage over adversaries, not to mention international political management.  Showing that we have the capability to do something can tip off an adversary to posture against it and/or use it against us.

 

There are absolutely cases in which a whistleblower needs to step forward and publicly call for the cessation of an illegal activity, but those cases should be relatively rare if the right things are done first. 

 

In further answer to the OP regarding whether observance of illegal activity negates a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), my answer is no, it does not for the reasons cited above as well as the fact that any information gathered illegally should not be disclosed to the public anyway.  In most cases there is a way to act as a whistleblower for the illegal activity without disclosing the associated information.  Unless the illegal activity itself is what is being classified for cover-up purposes, the parameters for the justified release of classified information is incredibly narrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Since this is where my career has been to date, I'll go ahead and chime in.  I think you need a 4th option on your poll for "It Depends."

 

Many of the above points are correct, but the missing element is what is the information and what was the source?  Is it relevant to describing and convicting the activity?  Was it intentionally or incidentally collected?  Have all avenues of resolution within the proper channels been exhausted yet?  The answer to the poll question really depends on the answers to these questions.

 

I'm not speaking for anyone's personal knowledge in this thread, but most people don't realize just how many rules, regulations, and laws are in place to prevent intelligence collection on US persons and infringement on consitutionally protected rights.  There are also entire offices and positions devoted to ensuring those laws and regulations are adhered to (Intelligence Oversight, Inspector General, JAG, etc).  In most cases, these people are in no way tied to the mission and are supposed to be unbiased overseers.  If the military chain of command breaks down in putting a stop to the activity and prosecuting violaters, there are no less than 4 other avenues to address the issue.  No one gets into the Intelligence Community without thorough training on all of this.  A cover-up would have to be so massively implemented that many people would likely be losing their jobs in the process.  If someone such as Snowden had exhausted his channels of reporting there would be enough whistleblowers on the activity to where leaking classified information to the press would be unnecessary.  If nothing else, Snowden could have gone to the company he worked for (he was a contractor) and I guarantee they would have dealt with the issue in a less frivolous manner.

 

The problem with disclosing classified information is less about the information and more about the way it was obtained.  Disclosing it can give insight into collection capabilities that are kept secret so that the country can maintain its military and technological advantage over adversaries, not to mention international political management.  Showing that we have the capability to do something can tip off an adversary to posture against it and/or use it against us.

 

There are absolutely cases in which a whistleblower needs to step forward and publicly call for the cessation of an illegal activity, but those cases should be relatively rare if the right things are done first. 

 

In further answer to the OP regarding whether observance of illegal activity negates a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), my answer is no, it does not for the reasons cited above as well as the fact that any information gathered illegally should not be disclosed to the public anyway.  In most cases there is a way to act as a whistleblower for the illegal activity without disclosing the associated information.  Unless the illegal activity itself is what is being classified for cover-up purposes, the parameters for the justified release of classified information is incredibly narrow.

 

No need for that, if they break the laws of this land he no longer has to honor his vow. As long as they operate within the laws of this land he should never break his vow.

 

And it seems they broke the laws of this land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No need for that, if they break the laws of this land he no longer has to honor his vow. As long as they operate within the laws of this land he should never break his vow.

 

And it seems they broke the laws of this land.

 

No disrespect but that's a rather obtuse way to look at it.  First of all, the non-disclosure agreement does not hinge on activity being legal or illegal; in fact no mention of distinction can be found in the 1-page document.  The only thing it addresses is the acknowledgement of access to information and the legal punishment for disclosing it.  Your argument about one cancelling the other out is invalid at its base.  It only works where both sides agree on something contingent upon upholding respective ends of the bargain.  However, the NDA is a one-sided document whereby the government grants an individual access to information and binds them not to disclose it under penalty of law.

 

Is the assumption that that information being accessed is supposed to be legally obtained? Sure, but the legal, or even social, contract between the individual and the government does not hinge on this.  Aside from legality, it's immature and irresponsible to frivolously disclose information based on the idea of a "broken vow" because of the 2nd and 3rd order affects that it can, and likely will, cause.  If a person truly loves their country and wants the best for it, then they should be able to see that the damage done by public disclosure of classified information far outweighs the trouble of handling it in a responsible way.

 

Do I think a person should sit on the fact that they see illegal activity and do nothing about it? Not in the least! Those responsible for breaking the law should be arrested and punished accordingly.  But why do you have to damage the security of your country and compromise innocent people in the process?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No disrespect but that's a rather obtuse way to look at it.  First of all, the non-disclosure agreement does not hinge on activity being legal or illegal; in fact no mention of distinction can be found in the 1-page document.  The only thing it addresses is the acknowledgement of access to information and the legal punishment for disclosing it.  Your argument about one cancelling the other out is invalid at its base.  It only works where both sides agree on something contingent upon upholding respective ends of the bargain.  However, the NDA is a one-sided document whereby the government grants an individual access to information and binds them not to disclose it under penalty of law.

 

Is the assumption that that information being accessed is supposed to be legally obtained? Sure, but the legal, or even social, contract between the individual and the government does not hinge on this.  Aside from legality, it's immature and irresponsible to frivolously disclose information based on the idea of a "broken vow" because of the 2nd and 3rd order affects that it can, and likely will, cause.  If a person truly loves their country and wants the best for it, then they should be able to see that the damage done by public disclosure of classified information far outweighs the trouble of handling it in a responsible way.

 

Do I think a person should sit on the fact that they see illegal activity and do nothing about it? Not in the least! Those responsible for breaking the law should be arrested and punished accordingly.  But why do you have to damage the security of your country and compromise innocent people in the process?

Which raises the point that it seems fairly obvious this individual had much more in mind than simply exposing an illegality. There were several ways he could have exposed the illegal activities in a manner that would have raised the alarm without disturbing national security.

 

The fact he chose to "leak" as he did, and then go where he did and make more information public, not to mention what's he's told his protectors behind the scenes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Which raises the point that it seems fairly obvious this individual had much more in mind than simply exposing an illegality. There were several ways he could have exposed the illegal activities in a manner that would have raised the alarm without disturbing national security.

 

The fact he chose to "leak" as he did, and then go where he did and make more information public, not to mention what's he's told his protectors behind the scenes.

 

My point exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...