Moral question

[Gabrielle]

Big Brother knows whats best for us. Who are we, the little people, to get in their way?

[Child of Flame]

I'LL BLOW THE WHISTLE EVEN IF THERE'S NOTHING TO BLOW IT ABOUT!!!

[Gabrielle]

I'm quite sure you are very good at blowing.

[Child of Flame]

Well you should be after last night.

[Cantousent]

My list wasn't all inclusive, my Wookiee friend, but I cited torture as a special case, did I not? That means, torture, use of violence against non-combatants (once again, I don't feel the need to insult your intelligence or mine by writing twenty paragraphs describing a non-combatant in this thread), and breaking my laws. Torture is not good. That's probably why I would not be in a position to blow the whistle.

 

Not only that, but Iraq is not part of the United States, but there are folks serving time for engaging in torture there. Apparently, someone in the UCMJ thought it was against the law.

[PhantomJedi]

In order of what I would try first if I felt it was really wrong:

 

A. Extort the rich, high ranking government officials for my own gain.

B. If not mysteriously killed do to plan A then I would go to the press with the story/ take the official hostage and make them confess on national television.

C. What Would Jesus Do? Set all responsible parties on fire and send them to hell.

Edited January 1, 2006 by PhantomJedi

[Nartwak]

I guess I would go with "Yes, but only if they broke the law." but without details I think the question is to some extent meaningless. The specifics of the incident are really the entire crux of the problem and many situations would change my answer.

[CoM_Solaufein]

I mind own business. If it doesn't affect me why intervene?

[Walsingham]

We had a case quite recently where a worker at GCHQ ratted out the fact that we were (OMG) eavesdropping on our European allies. I'm really not clear what she thought should be done differently. Nor why she felt that this heinous crime permitted her to ignore her own legal obligation NOT TO TELL ANYONE.

[LoneWolf16]

I guess I would go with "Yes, but only if they broke the law." but without details I think the question is to some extent meaningless. The specifics of the incident are really the entire crux of the problem and many situations would change my answer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Best answer I've seen, and I agree. Though I still picked the first one, since I'm on some kind of moral high horse and like to consider myself an ethical person.

[Tigranes]

On a personal level, of course, something going against my morals and general ethis would qualify as a no-no. I don't know what I would do if it concerned the governance of a country, and if I ever was offered a job in one (heh, right) I wouldn't take it until I knew. Can I impose my own morals and ethics upon the arena of rulership?

[Gabrielle]

wahts morals?//

[Meshugger]

On a personal level, of course, something going against my morals and general ethis would qualify as a no-no. I don't know what I would do if it concerned the governance of a country, and if I ever was offered a job in one (heh, right) I wouldn't take it until I knew. Can I impose my own morals and ethics upon the arena of rulership?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ok. But what if it would be illegal for you to expose them? Eventhough the goverment acted unethically and illegally, they could still prosecute you for treason. Would you still do it?

[SteveThaiBinh]

Would you allow Torture in East-Europe, and leak it if it was in the US?

 

Because in the US it is outlawed, but there in Eastern Europe it isn't...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually torture is outlawed in all (or almost all?) Eastern European countries - certainly in the ones accused of having secret CIA camps.

 

I agree that it would depend on the specifics of the case most of all. We have a whistleblowers law in the UK (Public Interest Disclosure, I think it's called) though I don't know if it applies to government employees, and probably not to those who've signed the Official Secrets Act. For me, a lot would depend on whether lives were put in danger, either by keeping my silence or by revealing what I knew.

[Arkendale]

I wouldn't say anything, unless they're doing something really wrong like torture.

[Kaftan Barlast]

On May3rd 1973, journalists Jan Gouillou and Peter Bratt published an article that shocked all of Sweden. The had come across information that there existed a secret miitary intelligence organisation called "IB= InformationsByr

[Surreptishus]

Thats different, these were civilians discovering something about the government. The journalists likely considered it to be of public interest. Would you be the guy that passed them the info?

[Kaftan Barlast]

Would you be the guy that passed them the info?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hell yeah!! )

[Judge Hades]

We had a case quite recently where a worker at GCHQ ratted out the fact that we were (OMG) eavesdropping on our European allies. I'm really not clear what she thought should be done differently. Nor why she felt that this heinous crime permitted her to ignore her own legal obligation NOT TO TELL ANYONE.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Privacy needs to be maintained. No one has the right to know I what I plan om doing. If I break the law then arrest me after I break the law. Also why the hell would you be invading the privacy of allies. They are allies, and there should be a level of trust. If you don't trust them then they are not allies.

[LoneWolf16]

They are allies, and there should be a level of trust.  If you don't trust them then they are not allies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No power truly trusts another. If they were to do that, they'd leave themself open to betrayl. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

[Darque]

I would, only if it broke the law.

[PhantomJedi]

Judge Hades:

Also why the hell would you be invading the privacy of allies. They are allies, and there should be a level of trust. If you don't trust them then they are not allies.

 

First of all you can never guarantee someones loyalty so it always a good idea to be prepared in case one day they decide they don't like you very much any more. You got to face the fact alliances change. Secondly, some of the United States allies fall under the category of "shady" because what they say their actions are going to be and what their actions actually turn out to be some times aren't the same thing. Plus some of our allies are allies simply so we can get them to do things for us that would other wise look bad if it got out we were doing it i.e. torture.

Edited January 2, 2006 by PhantomJedi

[Tigranes]

Ok. But what if it would be illegal for you to expose them? Eventhough the goverment acted unethically and illegally, they could still prosecute you for treason. Would you still do it?

 

Theoretically, yes. In reality? Depends on if the weight of my guts outweigh the risks.

[Judge Hades]

Lonewolf, if they are enemies then they are not allies.

[LoneWolf16]

Lonewolf, if they are enemies then they are not allies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I know...don't know why I threw in that last part...but my main point remains. Completely trusting a foreign power is one of the dumbest things a nation can do. One must always be on the lookout for ulterior motives.