How should American view Edward Snowden?
Using the following resources to support your opinion (and feel free to use others, but please link them so others can check your source if they intend to comment), post your feelings about how Americans should view Edward Snowden.
The New York Times has an entire page dedicated to this debate, with several links to each perspective. The Week has an article that also deals with both sides of the debate. PBS Newshour, handled this question by hosting a debate between Daniel Ellsberg and Michael Mukasey.
Jeffrey Toobin contends that Snowden is no hero, while the ACLU considers him an important whistleblower in calling attention to the government overstepping its rights by invading the privacy of American citizens. Daniel Ellsberg, the man famous (infamous?) for leaking the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times during the Vietnam War, naturally relates to Snowden and considers his actions to be service to the nation.
As the ACLU states Edward Snowden is nothing more than an important whistleblower. Some people classify him as a hero and others consider him to be a criminal. In my opinion he should not be patronized as a hero because someone eventually would have leaked this information, the opposing view of him being a criminal for leaking this information is more complicated. Snowden did leak classified information and he is not protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act but it seems that he leaked the information for the public’s best interest. The U.S. functioned without the people knowing that their own government was spying on them. The U.S. government wants to punish Snowden for treason but who is going to punish the government for illegally collecting data, phone calls, and recording history on everyone?
ReplyDeleteDavid brings up a good point, in that last sentence "who will punish the government for illegally collecting data...?". No-one can. I also support your view of Snowden as not really a hero or a criminal. If he hadn't leaked this intelligence someone else eventually would have therefore he's not a hero. But I also think Americans have a right to know they're being spied on therefore he shouldn't be considered a criminal.
DeleteWho can punish the government? No, not the government, but the NSA. And the government will punish the NSA if the American people pressure the government to do so. And if they don't, we don't reelect them.
DeleteI agree with you David. He should be considered an important whistleblower but definitely not hero. He only gave out that information because he believed our country and it's citizens needed to know what was going on.
DeleteMike also brings up a good point. We need to get our opinions about this matter out to the government, and if they don't respond, they need to be reelected. Laws have clearly been broken, and for some, so has the trust in our government.
I know I've said this before in a few places--forgive me for bringing it up again, my friends.
DeleteThis will sound really cold-hearted, but the law is the law. Snowden clearly violated the law when he leaked the information. Now, perhaps he broke the law with good intentions, but he still broke the law. Now, when people break the law, we can't just let them off the hook because otherwise other people will break that same law!
Personally, I believe that Snowden acted with the best interest of Americans in mind. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill also acted in what he believed was America's best interest when he murdered a doctor giving abortions in 1994.
Now, granted, this is an unfair example to use, but just imagine what would have happened if he hadn't been prosecuted. Staunch pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike would be killing each other. Likewise, if Snowden isn't prosecuted, an incredible amount of secrets will be leaked, leaving our nation in a very bad situation.
I agree with David for the majority of his comments. I greatly disagree with the New Yorkers post that he is a criminal that should be brought to justice. This is were I part from Davids comments. I do consider him to be a hero, to a degree. David states the he should not be over glorified as a hero because someone would have eventually leaked the info. I greatly disagree. Here is a question to prove my point, What is the NSA? Yes, the question is basic to start. "The NSA is the National Security Agency, their goal is to protect us from future attacks on the American people." That is a common answer, but WHAT do they do? We all believe we know what the NSA does, but to what extent? A quote from the Guardian struck home for me. The fact that the Congress men/woman were briefed privately and they went on with it, without open consent, is a questionable action. I will state that, by our laws, he is a criminal; by our morals, he is a hero. Also, being the second person to respond to this does make it hard for a conversation, so please post so we can talk about it.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious...so you can justify the NSA spying on literally all of America but you don't think they should be reprimanded in any way? Didn't Congress impeach Nixon for "bugging" telephone conversations? I think you would use the same principle (maybe not as severe as impeachment) but some form of punishing the government for their illegal actions.
DeleteI don't think Max was condoning the NSA's actions; quite the opposite actually.
DeleteThank you Adam
DeleteI'd like to bring up the difference between the watergate scandal and what the NSA is doing. I'm not necessarily condoning the NSA's actions, I'm only clarifying.
DeleteAll of the spying and phone tapping and impediment of justice that happened under the Nixon administration was done out of partisanship. The actions did not serve American interest--it only served the Nixon Administration's interests.
Given what we KNOW (notice that word) about the NSA's program, the purpose is to maintain public safety against what could be considered a "clear and present danger."
Edward Snowden broke the law, there is no denying. Snowden's leak resulted in foreign individuals and groups switching to more secure communication methods. However, Snowden was not the only one breaking laws: the NSA was using unconstitutional means to collect information from the public. Anyone with a basic knowledge of US Government and executive privilege (Nixon…) knows that the government’s claims for national security are not always legitimate, and can be exaggerated to suit their own needs. Someone needs to bring attention to these flaws, especially when they literally affect every person in the country. There were other ways Snowden could have blown the whistle which would not have involved releasing sensitive information. However, most of these involved talking to higher up administrators, and these complaints would probably be ignored. I agree with David that the biggest problem is the NSA’s illegal actions. Punishing Snowden should not distract from this, even though I think he should be apprehended. However, keeping an NSA collaborator in Russia is probably not the best idea at the moment.
ReplyDeleteSnowden DID blow the whistle in other ways. It's just that these higher authorities didn't listen for fear of getting in trouble.
DeleteWhat Adam brought up is a really good point. What makes the NSA any different from Nixon? Nixon tapped White House phone calls and got impeached for it. What is the consequence for the NSA tapping a whole nation’s worth of phone calls and text messages. Edward Snowden was just the person to make the first move toward making the NSA constitutional again. Yes, there should be some punishment involved because he gave confidential papers to the press, but really how bad should his punishment be compared to what the NSA should get? Also what does it say about out national security if a normal guy like Snowden can just take classified information right out of headquarters and under everyone’s noses. Besides Snowden was only doing what he thought was best for our society: to know the truth. I believe that what David said is true. If Snowden didn’t release this information someone else would have. This result was pretty much inevitable.
ReplyDeleteNixon's case is a little bit different than the NSA's. The Nixon administration was involved in a break in of the Democratic National Committee, and he claimed that he did not have to release tapes that had recorded private conversations in the White House. The Supreme Court ruled that he had to turn over the tapes, and they (shockingly) revealed that Nixon had played a part in covering up the illegal actions.
DeleteThe NSA hasn't (to our knowledge) done anything with the information or kept back incriminating information, it has just taken information without warrants or public knowledge, which is unconstitutional.
This is just me being a brat but Nixon wasn't ever formally impeached. He resigned before impeachment or removal from office would have inevitably occurred.
Though it is true that Snowden chose to leak the information in an illegal way, would a legal way have been sufficient? Perhaps his actions were somewhat forced and that should cause Americans to look at the system as faulty instead of Snowden’s actions as traitorous. From what we saw in the video, senior officials had been contacted and well as members of congress and that still did not change the direction of the NSA. The reactions the higher powers had previously to other whistleblowers left him no choice but to go straight to the public, and I am glad he did. We have every right to know that as a nation we are being monitored in every way possible. I feel what he did was illegal, but in this case I morally think he did the right thing like what Max said. There should be some other way to check the NSA so as to guard the secrecy needed to continue to protect our country, but obviously what is in place already is not effective enough.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything you've said like how no one would have listened to Snowden if he told reporters what the NSA was doing without the reports or papers he took and that the government needs to find a better way to protect our country and themselves. Snowden said in his interview last night that the NSA doesn't have a way to find out if someone took information from them or what they took. What Snowden did could have happened before and no one would know about it. That's really scary in my opinion. Who else has some of our country's secrets?
DeleteI'm kind of unusual, in that I don't have strong feelings for either side of the controversy. I don't really think spying on Americans is that bad (especially for the individual who has nothing to hide). The NSA is using these extreme methods to counter terrorism, afterall. But I also feel like Americans have a right to know that they're being spied on, so for that reason I have some sympathy for Snowden. I don't think he should be branded a traitor for merely informing the public on what's going on "behind the scenes" at the NSA. Many Americans already suspected the NSA was engaging in some form of internal spying before this leak. Snowden just provided us with indisputable evidence proving the NSA's true scope.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Danny on most of his points, and I would have to agree that the NSA’s surveillance probably does not have a huge effect of the everyday lives of most citizens. The NSA also believes that its actions would significantly reduce the threat of terrorist attacks. However, I would like to point out that the NSA’s spying directly flies in the face of the fourth amendment, which states that:
Delete”The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Danny, I can agree with you that's it hard to decide what side of the controversy to be on. Snowden broke the law, there is no denying that, but he also did a service to the country to inform them on what the NSA is really doing. Even though we wouldn't classify Snowden as a criminal or a hero, wouldn't you agree that he deserves to accept the consequences of his actions?
DeleteYes, Snowden did Americans a favor by letting them know that they're being spied on, but isn't it the point of a surveillance agency to be a secret. How can an agency like that find terrorists secretly without being secret. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Snowden did what he did, but how can the NSA function now that every hacker out there is trying to break into the NSA trying to get info on some girl they like or to get "dirt" on their boss or something?
DeleteI agree with you, Danny. I don't think this spying is bad, but America definitely has the right to know what is going on. It's all just an extreme form of counter-terrorism. Snowden simply made everyone aware of the NSA's actions.
DeleteSo would you be ok with them hacking into your computer and watching you through the mic or camera? But you did say that you weren't on either side. I agree the government shouldn't try to redirect the attention to Snowden to make him look like the bad person in this.
DeleteMckenzie, if Snowden "accepts the consequences of his actions" by returning to America the government will most likely convict him of treason and sentence him to death (he probably won't even get a fair trial). Should Snowden really be killed for his crimes considering you said he "did a service to the country" by whistleblowing?
DeleteI think what Edward Snowden did was a good thing. I do not consider him a hero, because overall the government claims to be doing it for a good cause. I am a supporter of him because do not think our government was in line when keeping this data without our knowledge. The fact the the government did this is wrong and illegal, but the intentions are there for terrorism, and thats where I am confused on my feelings on the situation. Is Snowden a criminal? I don’t consider him one in my eyes. If he was to release information of a top secret project that didn’t affect our rights as citizens of the U.S. I would think of him otherwise. He did it to let the nation know the government is in the wrong by secretly taking information and thought everyone deserved to know the truth.
ReplyDeleteEdward Snowden is definitely a whistleblower as clearly explained on the ACLU blog because of his release of many documents, which expose government overreach. Because of the highly questionable constitutionality of “the program,” it is understandable why Snowden decided to become a whistleblower. However, all previous attempts to question the program through legal channels had failed, so Snowden resorted to illegally releasing many classified documents as both the New York Times and The Week pointed out. Snowden is admirable for his willingness to break U.S. law and give up his highly successful way of life for what he believed would better the U.S., especially at his young age. Whether or not this classifies him as a hero is debateable. Snowden should not be considered a traitor, because he believed that what he was doing was in the best interest of the United States’ democracy. Fleeing the country was probably Snowden’s only chance at not being prosecuted. However, it may have been better for Snowden to face the consequences of his actions instead of running, because fleeing makes Snowden seem less responsible. Many government officials have claimed that the Snowden leaks have compromised U.S. security. However, little evidence has been provided to support this claim. Overall, although Snowden’s actions were illegal and possibly rash, he believed that he was doing the right thing and was willing to run great risks to do it.
ReplyDeleteYou hit the nail right on the head Sam, You hit a lot of main points that we are taking to our "sides" of debate if he is a patriot or traitor. While I believe him to be a hero, you do bring to light the facts that what he did was illegal. This helps me see both sides of the coin in the non-biased way you stated them. Thank you for that! I also thank you for the perfect definition of the Snowden issue.
DeleteI wanted to comment over the weekend, but my internet wouldn't allow me for whatever reason, so I am commenting now. I wanted to say that I agree with Sam on many of his points especially the fact that Snowden should have faced up to what he did and that might have made him seem more responsible and perhaps would have made what he did less controversial. I didn't think of it like that at first, but it makes perfect sense and I completely agree.
DeleteAfter watching the interview with Snowden, I find that I actually have a lot of respect for him. I don't know if it's just because I tend to believe what I hear and try to find the best in people, but I saw him as a good guy just trying to do what he thought was best for a country he cares a lot about. It takes a lot for a man to give up everything in his life (job, family, friends, etc), because of one thing he so strongly believes in. I've just been wondering if there could have been a better way for him to try to fix the problem without leaking the information to the whole world. I know he did go to higher up officials to try to fix the problem and talked to colleagues, bosses, etc., but he kept getting ignored. Stealing documents and leaking the information seemed like the only other option for Snowden, but I’m wondering if he exhausted all of his possibilities. Despite going against the law, Snowden tried to be as careful as he could and made sure that nothing published would harm the public interest. Standing up for your beliefs is usually greatly encouraged, but it becomes difficult to encourage when it involves breaking the law. Even though Snowden did what he thought was right, it makes you wonder what other people in such secretive agencies such as the NSA would be willing to do because of their belief. Sometimes when in those positions, one needs to be willing to go against what he or she believes in order to keep the country safe and do what is expected of him or her. I’m not saying that what Snowden did made our country unsafe necessarily, it just gets you thinking how trustworthy people in those positions really are. Thats where we start to wonder if Snowden is a criminal or a hero. I think this deed needed to be done; someone needed to be willing to accept the consequences in order to inform the country on something so large, important, and possibly upsetting. I can’t come to a conclusion on whether Snowden is a criminal or hero (who am I to judge?), but I do have respect for the guy and believe what he did needed to be done at some point.
ReplyDeleteHoly moly I wrote a lot....sorry guys!
DeleteI don't think that counts as a reply, McKenzie...
DeleteI do not think that counts either Mike!
DeleteFor a more real response, I have the same reaction as Mckenzie. I have a lot of respect for him even though i have never met him!
Delete(thats all, this is one of my shorter responses) :P
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDon't quote me on this, but I don't think any of these four replies should count. Even Max's last reply was rather short.
DeleteI disagree with Daniel. Every reply here is beautiful (so beautiful, in fact, I bet the NSA is keeping a copy)!
DeleteI think the American public should focus less on Snowden and more on what he revealed. The biggest worry about Snowden is that the conversation will become about him, not the government actions he exposed.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't think he should be prosecuted. It somehow seems... unfair. He did break the law, but his actions leading up to, including, and after he leaked the documents were influenced by the climate and attitude around him towards whistleblowers. He didn't feel as if he had a choice. I think he also went public because he thought the government would expose him if he didn't do it himself and because he felt that, without the eyes of the world on him, the government might kill him, prosecute him silently, or alienate him. By getting his side of the story straight, he took away one of the most effective tools that the government has used in the past against whistleblowers. But I digress.
When a whistleblower feels that he or she has to break the law to bring about revelations on illegal, unconstitutional, or immoral government action, the people and lawmakers need to realize that the system is broken and needs fixing.
I agree with Mike that people should focus less on Snowden and more on the NSA's program. What Snowden did is done weather it was a good or bad thing your opinion of him doesn't really matter because who leaked it doesn't matter. It doesn't effect anyone but what was leaked does effect everyone and will be the future of intelligence gathering in the U.S.
DeleteI both agree and disagree with you, Michael. On one hand, someone feeling the need to break the law in order to make changes is a clear identifier of a broken system. On the other hand, where should the line be to keep secrets secret (in other words, when is it OK to leak information).
DeleteI believe that this whole ordeal is more about Snowden, and less about what the actual leaks said, than what many people think. Whatever happens here will set precedent (much like a Supreme Court case sets it). It will either open the door to more leaks and more information being exposed, or it will keep secrets tightly under wraps.
Which would be better? In truth, I don't know. But, not knowing is the whole point, right? That's why they're secret!
I agree. I believe the information that was leaked should be somehow managed. Even though people might focus on Snowden, all it takes is one more person to completely reveal a government document and we have trouble on our hands.
DeleteI don't believe that Snowden himself is a hero but what he did was necessary. In the video we watched in class there were several people who were dissatisfied and were thinking of going to the press, so if it wasn't him then someone else would have eventually had leaked information. However, this information needed to be out there even if the program is legal the American people have the right to know that they are being spied on. I also believe that he made the right choice when deciding to leak it through the press/public instead of going through official channels like the ACS blog states there is little to no protection for whistleblowers if they go through official channels. The whistleblowers reports would at best just get covered up by people higher in the chain of command or worse the whistleblowers themselves get into some major trouble.
ReplyDeleteI think that Snowden shouldn't be prosecuted by the U.S. True he broke the law, but there really wasn't other way to do it. It is obvious by the push back ageist this program, for example the 5 lawsuits brought against it in the first two months, that many people disagree with it. Without Snowden the government would be doing things in secret that these people don’t think it should be doing and that is a slippery slope.
I'm with Danny on this one. I can't really choose a side. He did Americans a favor by letting them know of this crime being done upon their rights, but he jeopardized the secrecy of the NSA which gave them an advantage against terrorists.
ReplyDeleteI'm also glad Snowden is being a good sport about the whole not letting him back into the U.S. by not releasing all of the information, but instead is very careful with what he releases in order to not hurt anyone. I know he tried to blow the whistle in other ways possible so these higher authorities that ignored him should have known that he would have done something similar to what he did. They could have prevented this leaking of info by a few simple words, "The NSA is illegally spying."
In simple terms, Snowden shouldn't be prosecuted nor be regarded as a hero.
I agree that Snowden is definitely a whistleblower. He pointed out actions of the government that some may consider to be illegal. Some Americans may view Snowden as a hero, because he exposed the government. Some may view his as a coward, claiming asylum in Russia after revealing government secrets. In my opinion, Snowden could be viewed as either one. It all depends on whether one considers the NSA’s actions to be illegal or not. Like I said in the discussion yesterday, it’s a catch 22. On one hand, NSA is keeping America safe. On the other hand, they are violating privacy. So it comes back to your opinion. In my opinion, the NSA’s actions are not unconstitutional. We are being kept safe. I don’t necessarily view Snowden as a hero, but his actions were necessary. I think America should be aware of the fact that the NSA is “watching our every move.” However, we shouldn’t think too much of it. After all, you should be fine if you have nothing to hide. That being said, I know that that is not the main concern of many, so much as the concern that our personal information is online, and many can easily access it. I agree that this is a concern, but shouldn’t be a concern that keeps Americans up at night.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I feel that Snowden did something that was necessary, but shouldn’t be a big concern for Americans. You can view him as a hero or coward, but either way, he has started a chain of events that all of America will be talking about for a long time.
This topic is very controversial, should Snowden be considered a traitor? Why should Snowden be considered a traitor? He shouldn’t, use the example of someone telling on another student during the school day, some students would consider that student a tattle tale, in this case a whistleblower, while others would considered what he is doing is good. Did Snowden commit treason? No, he has not released any actual documents to any country. He did reveal that the American government was spying on the citizens and collecting every little piece of information that a person did online. Snowden did what was needed. Just like Jake said it’s a “Catch 22”. What Snowden did to the government was wrong, he accepted the job and the responsibilities of it. Even though he should have taken it with a little more caution and resigned and then just let it go, he didn’t. At the same time Americans had know idea what was going on and needed to know, it’s an invasion of privacy. They now have permission to watch any given person on their computer through the camera, without turning on any lights or anything. Invasion of privacy much? Definitely, but they are supposed to get a warrant before they do. Another problem with mass data collecting is that someone built that program and someone can take it down(hack) or just get in and leak the information out. Plus also learning a lesson, everyone has their price. What would stop North Korea from paying an NSA Agent to hack in and get information? Nothing. I feel like Snowden shouldn’t have left the US even though there were probably going to be hits against him because of what he did. I wish the government would have given him asylum and protect him from these dangers, while Snowden worked with government on how to handle this situation. Like new regulations and laws that could possibility prevent terrorist attacks but yet still monitor the web.
ReplyDeleteI’d like to begin this post with a clarification—regardless of the leaks, the public still doesn’t truly know the full extent and details of The Program. In fact, no one can even possibly know whether they know or not! For that reason, I’d like to distance myself from fully agreeing or disagreeing with it.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I WILL address what we do know—the NSA is recording data from American citizens. This at first appears to be a clear violation of privacy, and I was originally strongly against the idea of the government doing this. However, if it does actually counter terrorism, I found that I really don’t care what they do with my data. Perhaps this trust in the government seems naïve, but I still trust it more than the alternative (an isolationist defense policy).
Unfortunately, the part of The Program revealed to the public will likely become completely obsolete. The reason it worked was that it was secret—terrorists would communicate through means that they didn’t know were being monitored. Now that they know that these cannels are monitored, they will (of course) not use these channels anymore—switch to different channels. The terrorists will not stop their ‘activities’ just because the NSA stopped some of theirs.
Finally, I’d like to change subject and talk about the leak itself. No matter how much we might not want to admit it, Snowden broke the law. Perhaps it was for a noble cause, but should this really matter? Imagine if people could get away with murder or theft or kidnapping “for a noble cause.” The idealist in me would love to have Snowden go free—to have him return to America with fanfare and flowers and rainbows. The realist in me, however, knows otherwise.
Edward Snowden is a threat to the National Government. Even though he believed he did a favor by relaying classified government papers to the people, he did otherwise. The government could be arguing about whether to jail him for a small, or large sentence. The government might have been arguing enough to break into more than one opinion on how to handle the situation, leading to destruction of the government. The government, I believe should watch every thing Snowden does: talking to people, Facebook, or anything. I believe if he could get to that document, he could get to a document that is very important, leading to another world war, or jeopordizing our nation.
ReplyDelete