In my article "Put This Guy In Jail" I argue that Mark Felt violated his oath of secrecty and confidentiality when he leaked important information to the Washington Post.
Several respondents have posed the "Hitler Test." What if Felt was an officer of the SS during the Third Reich and was leaking information to the Allies about the abuses going on in the Death Camps?
The answer is simple and intuitive.
If the violation of your oath will save an innocent human life then it is justified. The converse is also true. Loyalty to an oath is never a justification for the taking of an innocent human life.
Nixon was not Hitler and Watergate was not Auschwitz. Felt could have gone to the Democrat controlled Congress. They would happily have heard his story and acted to preserve the interests of the citizenry.
No, Felt wanted it both ways. He wanted revenge on Nixon and he wanted to maintain his good guy image and high position at the FBI.
The foundation of justice is the adherence to principle and the rule of law. Felt abrogated both.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
UBen, you're still missing an important aspect. Many whistleblowers are retaliated against for their acts (for a contemporary example, see the Halliburton manager who was transfered to Fallujah when he pointed out corruption). There is no reason to suffer the indignity and inevitable suffering of retaliation merely for exposing the truth. This goes above and beyond the call of duty required, despite his elevated post.
This is why I believe that he did no wrong by anonymously whistleblowing. The test in my mind is simple: Did the information deserve to be public? If the answer is yes, then it does not matter how it was disclosed, in my opinion.
Love, Aaron
Post a Comment