Fuzzy Signals

When laws and morality collide

How many of you know the ancient story of Antigone as told by the masterful Greek dramatist, Sophocles? Let me give you the synopsis in case you bypassed the humanities like so many unfortunate souls. (Admittedly, I didn't "get" why we had to learn this until a political theory class drummed it into me.)

Antigone is a story of a seemingly weak maiden who confronts a significant moral challenge. Her two brothers were slain at the Gates of Thebes in one of the many wars of the day. As was custom, it was critical that the fallen be given proper burial rites or else their souls would be trapped, forever tormented in the neither-neither world. However the ruler, King Creon, forbade the burial of one of her brothers, Polynices, because he didn't die nobly unlike his other brother. As punishment, the King decreed that his body should "lie mutilated, as a feast to dogs and birds." Nothing could be worse or more shameful in Antigone's mind, presenting her with a grave dilemma: should she obey the laws of the king or the laws of the gods? After debating this with her sister, who didn't see the need to defy the king, Antigone decided to follow her conscience; she put her poor brother to rest with the burial rite of sprinkling "dust thrice" over the body. The elders immediately caught wind of this and brought Antigone before the King. Outraged by her transgression, the King threw into jail and sentenced her to death by starvation. Of course, as the seer then foretells, this punishment eventually brings ruin to the entire house of Creon. His son, the lover of Antigone, kills himself. His mother follows suit. All end very badly and Creon is forced to acknowledge that he is to blame for this death and destruction.

Thousands of years later, a striking editorial article, "Truths worth telling" (Sept 28, 2004) in the NYTs by Daniel Ellsberg reminded me of Sophocles' tale. The House of Bush is now forcing many insiders to face Antigone's dilemma: the laws of the land and loyalty, or the laws of individual morality and greater good? Specifically, Ellsberg argues the case for leaking classified documents; that is, information describing a more accurate and full picture of the war in Iraq (e.g. projected costs, etc.) so that the public can make more informed decisions at the electoral polls in November. Ellsberg knows of what he speaks. In his view, he made the mistake of not leaking documents when he should have in a similar pre-election situation during the Vietnam War. While Ellsberg eventually did make the hard choice, famously leaking the Pentagon Papers, he claims that had he leaked selective intel sooner he might have prevented the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution from passing in 1964, an important tipping point in the intervention that authorized further escalation and thus loss of human life.

Leaking information is a work-around, a corrective, to a maladaptive hierarchy obsessed with secrecy. If things were more transparent, perhaps the need for leaking information wouldn't be as necessary. And whether you agreed with Ellsberg's bold argument or not -- in essence, a stunning public encouragement to break the law -- the very existence of this editorial is a remarkable indicator of just how badly things have gone in the House of Bush. While no one thinks the House of Bush will fall like King Creon (myths are not predictions, just enduring ways to rehearse life's dramas and dilemmas), even the powerful are more fragile than they look, especially today with the growing impact of blogs and many-to-many technologies like the Web. And as Ellsberg points out, the fate of this administration may lie in the hands of a few seemingly weak and insignificant Antigones.

Posted by nicole at September 28, 2004 12:54 PM