http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat … story.html
This bothers me. Mr. Pincus clams:
"The person or persons who told the Associated Press about the CIA operation that infiltrated al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and Kim - or someone else - who informed Rosen about North Korea, were not whistleblowers exposing government misdeeds. They harmed national security and broke the law."
The most chilling aspect of this paragraph is "harmed national security and broke the law." There are two problems with this passage alone. The first is: what is this amorphous amorphous "national security"? There has been an increasing trend by the government to invoke "national security" to avoid providing evidence in criminal trials and lawsuits (Oh we have evidence against terrorist A, but the evidence is classified, so you can't see it, thereby obliterating the constitution), without every actual defining what "national security" means. Defining this term too broadly allows the government to hide anything. "Executive privilege" is in the same vein.
The second problem deals with the underlying assumptions of the paragraph. In order to conclude the government can have "national security secrets," one has to assume that the government is trustworthy when it claims there is evidence. Imagine you were accused of a crime, but the information the government had on you was "classified," so a jury trial wasn't possible. Would you be willing to accept that?
Furthermore, a more insidious assumption underlies Mr. Pincus' argument: the government is separate from the people it represents. It stands above and beyond the population, and thus can prevent the public from knowing certain information on "national security" grounds, in essence, a very paternalistic point of view, one not fitting of free and independent human beings.
It is true that if certain information was widespread, it could compromise clandestine operations abroad; however, that is the cost of living in a free society. The danger of shutting down debate, rather than relying on journalistic judgment on what to publish and not publish (since journalists do not publish everything they know), sets a dangerous precedent and seriously imperils the likelihood that our society can continue to remain "free."
Truly a matter of concern. The law only applies if pertinent to the topic group in power favors the application. It must be my imagination that the law used to apply to everyone in the same way.
by Ralph Schwartz 2 days ago
The President will make a national address tonight on the security crisis at the southern border. Initially the networks refused to air the speech, but soon realized it would be a terrible decision with Trump's high popularity among voters. The media will however allow Democrats who...
by Jaggedfrost 6 years ago
Is assassination an acceptable tool for government to use to prevent war or deal with its enemies?If not, how far do you feel Government should be allowed to go in order to defend its interests as it deems necessary.?
by Hxprof 2 years ago
Why is the mainstream media ignoring the wikileaks Clinton email dumps?The media is devoting little time to the wikileaks Clinton email dumps. Why is this?
by John Wilson 2 years ago
What's more important - The possible Russian hack or the exposed lies from the Democrats?We've had the opportunity to see inside the workings of the DNC and Hillary Clinton. The expose from Wikileaks shows that Clinton lied about her emails, possible bribe offerings to the FBI agents, lies about...
by Sooner28 5 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/opini … odayspaperNational Security can justify anything. What if the president was dying of cancer? If a reporter wrote a story about it then "enemies" would know the U.S. president was dying and would thus possibly in a far out way...
by PrettyPanther 2 years ago
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ … ogyny.htmlThis:"Donald Trump holds one core belief. It’s not limited government. He favored a state takeover of health care before he was against it. Nor is it economic populism. Despite many years of arguing the necessity of taxing the rich,...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|