UK Court: David Miranda Detention Legal Under Terrorism Law

[Maedhros]

21. The key issue regarding Snowden/Greenwald, Manning, Assange et al. is this:

In each case, these people discovered government wrongdoing hidden behind a shield of secrecy and took action to inform the people of what was being done in their name. Governments responded by harassing and imprisoning these individuals.

This issue has uncovered a fundamental conflict between two groups of people.

One group believes that government secrecy is antithetical to democracy. Not operational secrecy, such as tactical plans or identities of agents, but "policy secrecy": secret laws enforced by secret agencies interpreted by secret courts. This group believes that it is more important to protect the civil and privacy rights of citizens that to protect the ability of governments to act in secret without accountability to the people. This group comprises small-d democrats, i.e. persons dedicated to government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Another group believes that government secrecy is necessary to keep us safe, because the government knows best. When confronted with the fundamental conflict of government secrecy vs. individual liberty, this group chooses the former. When presented with evidence that the government is acting to enhance its own power at the expense of personal freedom, they choose to attack the source of the evidence rather than the source of the problem. This group comprises persons who believe that an individual (such as Snowden, Manning or Assange) breaking the law is more reprehensible than a government doing so. This belief is consistent with an authoritarian mindset.

It's nearly impossible to reason with an individual with an authoritarian mindset, because that individual's sense of well-being is innately dependent on the perceived well-being of the authority figure - be that a charismatic leader, a national identity or a political party or movement. If something is perceived to threaten or attack the authority, it is perceived to threaten or attack the well-being of the authoritarian individual.