Patriot or Traitor?
By Callimachus | Related entries in DiscussEthics question of the day: Is it right to do something you know is wrong, perhaps even illegal, for the sake of a greater good?
Mary McCarthy at the CIA leaks highly classified information on a sensitive topic that compromises both the United States and some key allies. She clearly broke the law. It will make future espionage deals with foreign capitals more difficult. It has serious consequences. She certainly had political motives. All that has been well-observed and roundly condemned on the right.
But what if her object is, in part, to expose, and thus end, U.S.-sanctioned torture? What if she wanted to restore dignity to the American flag?
The United States ignores the wishes of the United Nations and overthrows a Middle Eastern tyrant that the United States is, in part, responsible for in the first place. We clearly went against the expressed wishes of our allies and the protocol of international institutions. This will make future international efforts more difficult and alienates much of the world from us. It has serious consequences. The White House certainly had its own agenda in this. All that has been well-observed and roundly condemned on the left.
But what if our object is, in part, to give a chance for freedom and democracy to a tormented nation? To end Saddam’s cruel reign? What if we wanted to restore dignity to the Iraqi people?
Do you decide based on whether you agree with the person that “A is bad, but B is worse?”
This entry was posted on Monday, April 24th, 2006 and is filed under Discuss. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 24th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
There is a larger issue that I believe leads to this type of illegal leaking. Sadly, there is a leadership vacuum such that lower level individuals feel compelled to act on their own to correct injustices or miscalculations they believe exist. Was Ms. McCarthy wrong…yes? Can her actions be looked at without a review of the system…not if our goal is to put a halt to the motivations that led to these allegedly numerous incidents?
There is an Old Italian proverb that states, “When a fish goes bad it starts with the head”. In this instance, we are witnessing a President and an administration that is sorely lacking when communicating with those in the system outside of a limited circle. I’m not even asserting they have wrong intentions or seek to deceive…they simply lack a scintilla of management savvy.
Keeping people in the dark, even if it isn’t improperly motivated, leads to suspicion and mistrust. It destroys morale and it fosters speculation and dissention. Ms. McCarthy has committed a crime…but this President and his administration have committed a larger offense…a failure to lead. Until that changes, expect more of the same.
read more observations here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
April 24th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
I don’t agree with Mary McCarthy’s actions at all, not whatsoever. I think if she had a problem with a program, she should have gone thru the available channels, not chosen to go to the media. It is my opinion that she should be prosecuted and sent to jail.
As a society we need to look at this thru the non-partisan glasses (if such a thing exists). I would find it equally repulsive if a Repub CIA operative was leaking information during a Dem administration.
This is underhanded behavior and in no way should be looked upon with any type of respect. If people make excuses for this behavior now, then when it’s done under a different administration, it’ll be excused then. It’ll be a vicious cycle.
April 24th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
So the real problem here is leadership, not torturing people?
I sure hope so for the sake of the democracy.
April 24th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
And BTW:
The fired official, Mary O. McCarthy, “categorically denies being the source of the leak,� one of McCarthy’s friends and former colleagues, Rand Beers, said Monday after speaking to McCarthy.
April 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
As an abstract ethical question, this one is pretty straight-forward: If you believe that doing what is right requires you to do something that is illegal, then you do it. And accept the consequences of having done it. That, after all, is what civil disobedience is all about.
In this case, it would have meant going first to the relevant Congressional oversight committees (whether or not they could be expected to do their jobs). And then, if the legally permitted process failed to the job, going public FOR ATTRIBUTION. Just leaking the information is an attempt to have it both ways: “I want to stop this, but I don’t want to do anything which would inconvenience myself.” As ethics, that just doesn’t cut it.
April 24th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Monica,
I think if she had a problem with a program, she should have gone thru the available channels, not chosen to go to the media.
What if she did go through those channels - and nothing changed?
For all the smears of her by right-wing bloggers, no one seems to be acknowledging the simple fact that McCarthy has intentionally risked jail. She knew what she was doing. And if she really means to effect the change she wants to see, perhaps she should go to jail, all the while continuing to argue that we should change our foreign espionage policies.
Or perhaps she’s a partisan player, and thought she could get away with it. That’s certainly possible. But to a certain extent, I think her motives are not that important here. Intentionally or not, she challenged the U.S. to more fully live up to its ideals. I think there’s value in that.
April 24th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
And by the way, the same argument can be applied to the Bush Administration’s invasion of Iraq - that their motives may not have been pure, but the end result is a challenge to more fully live up to our ideals. I think that’s a fair argument to make.
April 24th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Do you believe that Mary McCarthy had no choice but to leak because Bush is such a bad leader? That doesn’t wash with me, but that might not be what you’re saying.
I don’t know the reason as to why she wouldn’t take her grievances thru the appropriate channels at the CIA, or Justice Dept, or even Congress. From what I’ve read - no one is aware of any attempt made by her to go thru the ‘normal grievance route’ - but instead went to the media first. I don’t find this to be an honorable action, in fact - I find it deeply suspicious.
April 24th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
And what if Mary had purely selfish political motives, but the end result was the restoration of dignity and respect to the American flag? Or the reverse? Do we judge based on actions (and the resulting reprecussions) or intentions?
April 24th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Tom Strong -
To answer your question, I don’t know for sure that she hasn’t gone thru the normal process, but from what I’ve read, committee members to whom she should’ve reported her grievances were unaware of any attempt made by her to do so.
If she did try to go thru the normal process and it failed, then I would absolutely take that into consideration.
April 24th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Lets face it, the greater moral question all depends on what it is that your leaking. Since it appears that Ms. McCarthy’s leak was about a false story, and was a partisan attempt to undermine the Bush administration by a democratic loyalist, screw her. This is no watergate, and she is no deep throat.
April 24th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
Rob,
Hmmm, who do you suppose is in charge such that torture happens…would that be a “leader”? If you have an illness, it’s far better to treat the disease than to merely treat the symptoms. Maybe you can prolong life by treating the symptoms…but if you want to get well, you have to go after the source.
April 24th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
Tom Strong -
From your post above, this statement bothers me: “no one seems to be acknowledging the simple fact that McCarthy has intentionally risked jail.”
I could say that about any criminal. In what way is this a defense?
April 24th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
Daniel DiRito -
What are you talking about? Are you saying Bush is the disease and Mary McCarthy is the symptom? I can’t decipher what it is you’re trying to say.
April 24th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
The notion that this was an elaborate sting is quite possibly the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a while, even if it is true. If ’succesful’ the operation results in just the ‘embarassment’ to the U.S. that was to be avoided in the first place. (as if the whole torture thing isn’t enough reason to actually be embarassed. Breaking a few eggs and all that, right?)
Which leaves the purveyors of that particular line in a precarious position of either admitting a mistake of their own, or that those they support made a rather serious tactical mistake, if such a thing is possible.
April 24th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Honestly, I think you can agree with the WOT, agree with the War in Iraq, but roundly reject our torture policies. That’s what many Democrat and some Republican politicians believe.
Do I think Mary McCarthy, if she did this, is a traitor? No. This is an ill defined war with no end in sight, so accusation of treason are empty threats, and I don’t think the American public agrees that these acts are treason.
Do I think Mary McCarthy, if she did this, is a patriot? Yes. Because, in the end, I think her actions will help us fight the WOT, not hinder it. I think Bush’s overreaching policies are seriously hurting our credibility around the world, especially when he denies we torture and dozens have died in our “care.”
My two cents…
April 24th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
Monica,
As I initially stated, McCarthy was wrong…but she also didn’t create the environment that apparently led her to decide she needed to expose information. Look at it like any business…if it’s poorly managed, people make mistakes, do stupid things, break the law. We have leaders and bosses to steer the ship…if they do a lousy job they have some responsibility. It’s no accident that this administration seemingly has one problem after another…they aren’t good managers. It starts at the top and filters down throughout the system.
So in the end, she’s accountable…but the leadership should also be made accountable.
April 24th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
Daniel -
Thanks for making your stance clear. I hope that when something similar happens and it’s a Dem administration and Republicans are not in power, that you’ll be as understanding of the leaker and condemn the adminstration for creating the environment that caused the leaker to leak.
I agree with you that the administration has failed on many occassions, but I honestly do not see how the administration created the Mary McCarthy leak situation.
If the administration did have secret jails in European countries - I think it should be reported to the proper people and then resolved. What I disagree with is when a person decides on their own to release the information to the media without ever trying to get the situation changed using the proper channels.
Justin -
I agree, I don’t think she is a traitor, but I do think she is a criminal and worthy of prison and disdain. Essentially you believe she is a patriot because you believe the ends justify the means. I’ll be curious to see if you will apply your ends justifies the means logic to all arguements consistently.
April 24th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
My third example was going to begin with. “So if a person truly believes in his heart and mind that a fetus in the womb is a living, soul-endower human being …”
I wanted to see what people would say first, though.
It’s a trap, but I’ll join you in it. I’m essentially in favor of legal abortion.
April 24th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Like Richard Clark and Joe Wilson, Mary McCarthy has a political agenda. If this was a conservative who leaked national secrets there would be no discussion of “the Greater Good”.
You do the crime and then you do the time. I hope she is sentenced with no hope of parole or pardon to set a precedent for traitors.
Now they need to weed out the other traitors in State and the CIA who are trying to make policy. We have elected officials who in our system of government should not be undermined by government employees just because they disagree politically.
April 24th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
That’s important. If you really wish to solve the problem, not just call attention to yourself or raise hell for your enemies, you have to allow for the option of fixing it quietly. Did she attempt to do this? Did she have a possible path to do it? [It looks like we're going to have to start writing about the McCarthy story in terms of "if she" instead of "she did."]
Michael Moore says he had copies of the Abu Ghraib photos before they were publicized. He didn’t take them to the authorities; he said he was holding them to use them in his movie. To me, that’s a damning bit of evidence: He didn’t care if the torture continued for months on end, so long as he got to take down Bush.
April 24th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
This is so cool. on the web we discuss what is private and not so much. As an odd bird myself, the choices I make doing what I do, only make me think that She’s a person who can live with her choice (pay the consequence’s) or can gain. Until we can prove she’s in it for the flair, maybe she truly believes in what she did. Otherwise it’s done,
April 24th, 2006 at 10:52 pm
Bind, I must strongly disagree. While I respect your concern for authority, by the virtue of so many whistle-blowers I think we’ve reached a point of serious cause for concern. We don’t know that anything illegal has happened, but we don’t know it hasn’t either.
A serious Investigation is the centrist choice, between ignoring overwhelming cause for alarm and pushing for impeachment without enough evidence. How many leakers have to speak out before the American public will contact their representatives to demand it?
April 25th, 2006 at 5:55 am
Leakers, by definition, do not speak out. They hang in the shadows, allowing others to speak out for them. If McCarthy is Dana Priest’s source, she chose to relay a damaging without actually speaking out. Did she want to (as Juan Williams said) “beat the administration” or expose wrong-doing? She worked in the IG’s office the legal alternative within the CIA to confront government abuses. Her method here is worth scrutiny.
April 25th, 2006 at 8:58 am
I think this entire incident is being mis-read. McCarthy simply answers to a “higher power”. Sometimes conditions warrant the implementation of certain actions … you can go back and resolve them later … she knows in her heart that if you don’t fight torture overseas, you will likely be fighting it at some future date, right here .. on U.S. soil! … Now, if I were McCarthy, I would hold a town hall meeting filled with like minded folks and express in a most humble fashion the reasons that my actions were right and correct … I would acknowledge that some might disagree with my stance, and remark that it is meant to be so in a democracy .. and would reinforce that if given the choice again … I would make the same decision.
Michael Moore is not trying to take Bush down … he loves Bush … Bush has been a “Cash Cow” for Moore. Moore is not altruistic in any fasion. He is a monetary predator like his selected victims. What he does or doesn’t do has zero effect on the rest of us.
April 25th, 2006 at 9:04 am
“But what if our object is, in part, to give a chance for freedom and democracy to a tormented nation? To end Saddam’s cruel reign? What if we wanted to restore dignity to the Iraqi people?”
Hi, my name is George. I have been thinking for a long time that you need Democracy. Why? Because it will make you happy …. and we ARE going to make you happy … even if it kills you.
April 25th, 2006 at 10:46 am
Monica, you said to Justin: (BTW - this is not totally directed at you Monica, but to everyone)
“I agree, I don’t think she is a traitor, but I do think she is a criminal and worthy of prison and disdain. Essentially you believe she is a patriot because you believe the ends justify the means. I’ll be curious to see if you will apply your ends justifies the means logic to all arguements consistently.”
I’m curious to know if you think that all criminals are worthy of prison and disdain, and if you are an ardent believer in “the ends do not justify the means.” And by questioning Justin’s consistency, I’m guessing that you believe yourself to be consistent. I suppose there was a time in my life where I thought consistency was important; it’s bad to be a “flip-flopper.”
However, I now believe that on the scale of morality, it has become more clear to me that things are gray, not black and white, and therefore, sometimes the ends do justify the means. It just depends on the circumstances of that specific situation. In that same vein, I do not believe that all criminals are worthy of prison or disdain. If a man steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family, is he acting immorally? illegally? both? neither? should he go to jail? should his punishment be mitigated?
What about the disenfranchised, poor, uneducated, african-american male, who has no examples to guide him except other african-american males who commit crimes, where the most respected and well-off males he knows are drug dealers, and where the males he knows who follow the rules are destitute and living on the streets. Should he just know better anyway? What if he has a low IQ? What if he is disabled, physically or mentally? What if he has been severely abused for most of his life? What if he has NEVER had a positive role model, or even known another male who does not engage in illegal activity?
At a certain point, we can’t disregard behavior because of these “excuses,” mainly because it would endanger the rest of us. Violence cannot be allowed. The violent must be kept away from the rest of us. We also cannot allow people to run around doing damage to our property and stealing. But, should someone get a 20-year jail sentence for possessing 5 grams of marijuana and driving with a suspended license? No, but it happens. Should someone be sentenced to two consecutive 20-year sentences for criminal non-support? No, but it happens. And, should someone be labeled as a traitor for telling the world about secret prisons where torture may be occurring? Should she be thrown in jail for “outting” a corrupt system? No, but it happens.