Edward Snowden and Thomas Drake
Both Edward Snowden and Thomas Drake’s stories paint a picture of two whistleblowers who believed in exposing the rots at the National Security Agency, not understanding the kind of trouble they involved themselves with the state. Both Thomas Drake and Edward Snowden worked at NSA during different periods but faced almost similar charges for exposing sensitive information of the security of the country to members of the public. Before Edward Snowden, the Ukraine whistleblower was Thomas Drake, who also committed almost the same offenses like the ones which Edward Snowden did (Keating, 2020). All these two gentlemen are considered whistleblowers, but their work presents a major ethical dilemma which has continued to divide the country into almost two halves (those who believe they are innocent whistleblowers and those who believed that the information which they shared with the members of the public is of greater threat to the security of the country and ought not to be shared). Although these two individuals had a right to share the information with the public, the paper discusses the consequences of their actions as whistleblowers using virtue and deontology ethics.
This above case raises a major question that existed for many that revolve around morality and the law. Morals principles are concerned with the act of doing right or wrong or the goodness or badness of a character while the law is the system rules set to govern people within a particular area. Aquinas’s theory on natural law can assist in understanding the constituting principles and practical rationality of whistleblowing. According to Aquinas, natural law is a divine providence that all the individuals must be ready to adhere to and follow. The law used to guide the moral standards and actions is non-freely results from determinate natures, and therefore, natural laws are divine intervention from God that is meant to guide the behavior and actions of individuals. God chose to bring human beings into existence beings who must act freely, but their reasoning must be within the confined of the laws.
Thomas Drake disclosed information about NSA surveillance programs and paid the price of his action. After the explosive information about the NSA programs, the government did not take the issue lightly, and everything about Thomas Drake changed because the government moved with speed to arrest him and restrain his movement for what considered to share some of the sensitive information of the security of the country (Keating, 2020). The same fate fell Edward Snowden when he revealed the extent of global surveillance programs run by the American and British spy agencies. The critics of the actions of Thomas Drake and Edward Snowden will be quick to point the number of people whose lives are put at risk when the information is shared by third parties.
The arrest and prosecution of former NSA employees who have acted as whistleblowers have raised divided opinion with their sympathizers terming the arrest as a move towards silencing whistleblowers. However, what the so-called sympathizers are forgetting is the sensitivity of the information which they reveal about NSA to the public, which includes enemies. The enemies of the country are on the lookout and are waiting to capitalize on the slightest information they get to cause major problems to the United States (Meyers, 2018). Due to the country’s foreign policy across the world, the United States remain one of the main targets of the terrorist. The US enemies are all over and can use the information to cause a major security blow to the country, especially when they depend on the information revealed by these two whistleblowers.
Although what Edward Snowden and Thomas Drake did is essentially important and accepted from an ethical perspective, different ethical theories will offer conflicting explanations of whether their action was justified or not. There are two ethical theories that can be used to explain the action of these two whistleblowers and the general impact of their actions. One of the theories is virtue ethics, which will look at the issue from the perspective of doing the right thing. (Keating, 2020) Based on the virtue ethics, Edward Snowden and Thomas Drake were innocent individuals who were doing the right thing to inform the public of the mess at NSA. Both had work experience with the company and seemed to understand everything taking place within NSA and were candidly expressing their opinion on what they believe was wrong at NSA- which an important document mandated with a responsibility to protect the country from external attack.
The deontological theory provides a good criticism of the action of these two whistleblowers. Deontology is not concern about doing the right thing or the wrong thing but is majorly concerned about the consequences of their actions. Deontological ethics system judge the actions are right or wrong based on the moral code. Since NSA possesses important information on national security concerns, then exposing them to the world was ill-advised (Mandal, Ponnambath, & Parija, 2016). The main reason why such a move is ill-advised is that when terrorists get the information, they can use it against the country, which means exposing the lives of many people at a greater risk of the terrorist attack. NSA information is kept secret and only shared among the top security organs. This is done to protect the United States and its citizens from external attackers (Meyers, 2018). If the terrorists are to get the information, then the whole country is exposed to the world, and any other person why is interested in attacking or targeting the country can do so at their will because already they would have understood the country’s weakest point. Therefore, the government was justified to take action against these two individuals. Such behavior and actions must be discouraged because of the magnitude of the action associated with the information which Edward and Thomas tried to expose.
Ethical dilemmas are hard to solve, and ethics depend on a moral framework. People make decisions based on what they believe is right and important to everyone. In some situations, the justification of action is based on the consequences of the actions. It is morally wrong to expose the lives of many people to adverse conditions to fulfill the interest of a few individuals as the case with Edward Snowden and Thomas Drake (Mandal, Ponnambath, & Parija, 2016). The behavior and action of Edward Snowden and Thomas Drake are important because they raise integrity issues. However, when compared to the number of people whose lives depend on the information. Therefore, the two whistleblowers’ actions and behavior are backward and uncalled for because such information is not the one to be discussed with members of the public.
Since both Edward Snowden and Thomas Drake went ahead to expose NSA and the activities which take place within the unit in the name of the whistleblower, the government is justified to take immediate actions to punish the two not because they did the wrong thing but leaked important and protected information to the public domain (Mandal, Ponnambath, & Parija, 2016). The information was not meant to the public due to their magnitude. Surprisingly, both Edward Snowden and Thomas Drake acted carelessly without evaluating the potential impact of their activities and the United States with its security reasons, had no option but to hold the two accountable for their actions and protect the interest of the rest of the citizen.
In conclusion, there is natural law and morality. Although they seem almost the same thing, there are sometimes when moral standards of the society must be carefully examined within the confined of the law. Before these two whistleblowers come out and share the information with the public, they need to understand that natural laws are meant to govern a country and must be adhered to by all the citizens for the laws are from God and through divine intervention, they are the best ways of guiding moral conduct. Before coming out to reveal the sensitive information about the security of the country, these two personalities should have considered the consequences of their actions and ought to have made the best decision that does not contradict the law and leads to conflict with the authorities.
References
Keating, J. (2020). “Your Entire Life Is Blown Up”: Thomas Drake on What It’s Like to Be a Government Whistleblower. Retrieved 15 March 2020, from https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/ukraine-whistleblower-thomas-drake-trump.html
Mandal, J., Ponnambath, D. K., & Parija, S. C. (2016). Utilitarian and deontological ethics in medicine. Tropical Parasitology, 6(1), 5.
Meyers, C. (2018). 8 Deontology. Communication and Media Ethics, 26, 139.