Now that, as a result of Edward Snowden’s revelations, the nation
has begun to see the real scope of the extensive domestic surveillance that the
US intelligence establishment has put in place since 9/11, the question again arises
of whether Snowden’s actions made him a traitor or a whistleblower hero.
Clearly he violated the security agreements he signed, so he
is technically a criminal. On the other
hand, without his revelations we would have had no idea of how out-of-control
the security apparatus in this country had become – violating with impunity,
and in secrecy, the most fundamental constitutional rights of Americans. Yes,
all these intrusive surveillance systems are technically legal, but only
because they were put in place secretly by executive order, and/or voted into existence
by a Congress that was not doing its job (no surprise there). Indeed, James
Clapper, testifying to the Congressional oversight committees as Director of
National Intelligence, lied to them repeatedly (with no apparent consequences) about
the extent of the surveillance systems, so it is hard to claim that there was
any effective oversight by Congress.
Of course the intelligence bureaucracies will claim they
need all the powers (and funds) that they can get – that is what bureaucracies
always do. Yet despite a massive PR effort,
the security agencies have yet to identify a single case in which the collection
of phone or email metadata has led to the prevention of a terrorist act. And by
their own admission, the system has already been abused a number of times by analysts
using it for personal reasons.
I am inclined now to think Snowden has done the country a
great service, at some considerable risk to himself. I wouldn’t want to
establish a precedent encouraging others to break their security agreements,
but remember that when Nazi officials claimed at their post-war trials that
they were just following orders when they committed terrible atrocities, we
didn’t accept that as an adequate defense. We argued that individuals had a responsibility
to stand up to immoral orders. I think this may apply in Snowden’s case as
well. He saw gross violations of our Constitutional rights, and stood up to
oppose them, despite the risks and consequences.
We would do well to remember again Ben Franklin’s comment
that “They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Posts
