The ethics of whistleblowing: Creating a new limit on intelligence activity

Ross W Bellaby

doi:10.1177/1755088217712069

Abstract

One of the biggest challenges facing modern societies is how to monitor one’s intelligence community while maintaining the necessary level of secrecy. Indeed, while some secrecy is needed for mission success, too much has allowed significant abuse. Moreover, extending this secrecy to democratic oversight actors only creates another layer of unobserved actors and removes the public scrutiny that keeps their power and decision-making in check. This article will therefore argue for a new type of oversight through a specialised ethical whistleblowing framework. This includes, first, outlining what intelligence wrongdoings justify whistleblowing; second, whether whistleblowing is the correct remedy – something not necessarily clear with intelligence; and finally, what form the whistleblowing should take. This framework will examine the Snowden case to determine whether he was correct leaking intelligence data and whether the means were appropriate, and second, whether those involved in the Central Intelligence Agency use of torture should have blown the whistle and if they now face blame for failing to act.

Highlights

One of the most important sets of security questions facing modern societies is how much power should be allowed to the intelligence community and how can we ensure that this power is being used correctly
The case of Edward Snowden brought to the fore need for a debate on what sort of oversight should exist on the intelligence community
There is no culture or framework within intelligence that details exactly when whistleblowing might be used as a means of limiting unjustified harms that certain policies might cause

Summary

Introduction

One of the most important sets of security questions facing modern societies is how much power should be allowed to the intelligence community and how can we ensure that this power is being used correctly. This framework will consist of several criteria that each aid in the deliberative process, including the presence of a clear justifying reason that prompts the whistleblowing activity, that it is only done when the overall benefit it can bring is greater than the harm that blowing the whistle can potentially cause, that the information is released to the correct audience given the harm being caused, and ensuring that the potential backlash to the whistleblower is taken into account when determining their obligation to act.

Results

Conclusion