PRO/CON: Is Snowden a hero or traitor?
By Mark Weisbrot and James Jay Carafano, McClatchy-Tribune News Service
Feb. 04, 2014 5:00 AM
Demonstrators rally at the U.S. Capitol to protest spying on Americans by the National Security Agency, as
revealed in leaked information by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, in Washington, D.C., Oct. 26,
2013.
PRO: His courageous action protected both our privacy and our democracy
WASHINGTON—Edward Snowden is a courageous American hero and will be remembered as one
long after the “war on terror” is replaced by some other pretext for violating Americans’ constitutional rights and the rest of the world’s national sovereignty, privacy and, sometimes, security.
He won his first major legal victory on Dec. 16 when a federal District Court ruled that the
NSA’s collection of Americans’ phone records that Snowden first exposed was probably unconstitutional.
It’s unfortunate that even most of the critical reporting on our national surveillance state still
frames the abuses that Snowden revealed as a result of overzealous efforts to protect Americans
from terrorism.
1
Even ignoring the industrial espionage and phone-tapping of foreign leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel or Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff that obviously had nothing to do with
terrorism; the surveillance state at home is much more than a violation of our privacy.
Don’t get me wrong: that’s bad enough. Most people don’t want to share the intimate details
of their personal lives with government snoops. But the Obama administration has managed to
convince some of the more naive among us that the NSA’s big data sweeps just sit in some huge
storage facility that are sifted with algorithms to identify or investigate targets that may have
something to do with terrorism.
However, there is a mountain of evidence that this massive data-gathering is in fact being used
against citizens who are involved in constitutionally protected activity, such as political organizing
and public education.
The American Civil Liberties Union has a nice compilation of U.S. law enforcement agencies “spying
on American citizens and infiltrating or otherwise obstructing political activist groups” in 36 states
in recent years.
From spying on anti-war groups like Pittsburgh’s Thomas Merton Center, to infiltrating groups
across the country who were planning to protest at the 2004 Republican convention, our government
has plenty of additional resources to use the NSA’s data for discouraging and disrupting opposition
political activity.
In 2011, the Boston police, the federally funded Boston Regional Intelligence Center and the FBI
were very busy tracking activists who were part of the Occupy movement, Code Pink, and Veterans
for Peace.
As a result they seem to have ignored the intelligence that was literally handed to them about the
terrorists who bombed the Boston Marathon in April. This tells you a lot about the priorities of
our morally corrupt national surveillance state.
“These programs were never about terrorism,” wrote Snowden in a letter to Brazilians on Dec. 17,
noting they are really about “economic spying, social control and diplomatic manipulation. They’re
about power.”
Back when Martin Luther King Jr. was inspiring millions in the struggle for civil and voting rights
for African-Americans and for economic justice, the FBI was busy tapping his phone and harassing
him.
At one point they tried seriously to blackmail King into committing suicide. Today they would
have a constant flow of real-time information not only on his every move and phone call, but on
every activist in that movement across the country. That is the difference that technology makes,
2
if we let them get away with it.
The surveillance state is also making the U.S. into a banana republic, as the burgeoning militaryintelligence apparatus becomes more powerful relative to our elected officials, including the President.
It was the wounded military-intelligence community’s priorities that got the Obama administration
to threaten China, Russia and Latin America, and violate all sorts of international laws in a futile
attempt to force their co-operation in capturing Snowden. And it is their power that is currently
blocking reforms to rein in the NSA’s abuses.
It’s not just your privacy that is disappearing because of the abuses that Snowden exposed—it’s
the foundations of a democratic society.—ABOUT THE WRITER:
Mark Weisbrot is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Readers may
write to him at CEPR, 1611 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20009; website:
www.cepr.net.
This essay is available to McClatchy-Tribune News Service subscribers. McClatchy-Tribune did not
subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily
represent the views of McClatchy-Tribune or its editors.
CON: He is a traitor in all but name
WASHINGTON—Edward Snowden stole hundreds of thousands of American secrets and sprinkled
them across the Internet. Should he be considered a traitor?
The Australian government thinks so. Snowden’s revelation of highly sensitive intelligence operations “down under” led Australian Federal Attorney-General George Brandis to brand the ex-NSA
contractor an “American traitor.”
No wonder the Aussies were angry. For years they had cooperated covertly with Indonesian intelligence services. Overt cooperation was out of the question, due to Jakarta and Canberra’s
longstanding war of words over “Bali, boats, and beef”—the treatment of Aussie tourists, South
Asian “boat” people, and cattle exports.
But behind the curtain, the two democracies had worked out a practical, mutually beneficial
information-sharing deal that helped them deal with sensitive issues like refugees and human trafficking. Snowden’s disclosures have now jeopardized this valuable cooperative effort.
In a strictly legal sense, under U.S. law Snowden might not meet the definition of the word “traitor.”
But the common understanding of the term would certainly apply.
3
In disclosing national security secrets, Snowden was following in the footsteps of Julian Assange, the
Australian-born founder of WikiLeaks. Both men claim a noble purpose: to use the power of the
Internet to expose the corruption and wrong-doing of totalitarian regimes. But in practice, they have
told us almost nothing about countries like North Korea, Iran, China, Cuba and Venezuela.
Instead, they’ve mostly spilled secrets from nations ranked at the top of the Freedom House “Index
of Freedom in the World.” These are the countries that organize the peacekeeping and humanitarian missions, combat nuclear proliferation, champion human rights, fight terrorism and human
trafficking, and hold free and fair elections. Regardless of their stated intentions, Snowden’s and
Assange’s actions have undercut the world’s champions of freedom and given aid and comfort to
the world’s totalitarian regimes.
Further, they have betrayed the idea of freedom. The Assange/Snowden doctrine asserts that
complete transparency equals freedom. That’s not just nave. It’s as pornographic a description of
freedom as Auschwitz’s “Work Makes You Free” sign.
Respect for individual privacy is an inherent component of freedom. The government of free peoples
is an extension of the people, exercising sovereignty on their behalf. Free societies recognize that
keeping legitimate secrets is a legitimate function of government.
Democracies operate under the concept of “ordered liberty.” They establish rules to protect both
the individual and the community as whole—guarding both individual freedom and public safety.
No one has the right to discard those rules and substitute rules of his own devising. Flouting
ordered liberty doesn’t advance freedom. It creates chaos. And chaos enables evil and kills democracies.
Snowden is neither “freedom fighter” nor “whistle-blower.” His leaks are indiscriminate. The vast
majority expose no wrongdoing whatsoever.
What about those cases where Snowden might argue he has revealed practices that might cross the
line? His actions are still, at best, irresponsible.
The United States system of ordered liberty offers multiple ways to raise claims of malfeasance or
abuse of power without compromising national security. Federal agencies have inspector generals.
Congress routinely investigates such claims. And, yes, we have “whistle-blower” protection laws.
The notion that Snowden had no option but to leak is indefensible.
Finally, Snowden betrayed the trust he was given by the U.S. government to safeguard the nation’s
secrets.
Free societies depend on a trustworthy citizenry. If bank tellers, lawyers, doctors, police officials
and others in positions of trust were to decide they were, individually, the best arbitrators of what
4
information should or should not be dumped in the public sphere, we wouldn’t be living in Assange’s
paradise. We would be living in North Korea, where no one is trusted . . . ever.
Edward Snowden has betrayed freedom. In the end, that’s a much greater offense than intentionally
acting like an enemy agent.—ABOUT THE WRITER:
James Jay Carafano is vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at The Heritage Foundation. Readers may write to the author in care of The Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Ave.
NE, Washington, D.C. 20002; Web site: www.heritage.org. Information about Heritage’s funding
may be found at hhttp://www.heritage.org/about/reports.cfm.
This essay is available to McClatchy-Tribune News Service subscribers. McClatchy-Tribune did not
subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily
represent the views of McClatchy-Tribune or its editors.
5
Quiz
1. What sort of literary device does the PRO author use in his argument that the government
is collecting a lot of data on everyday people?
(a) rhetorical questions
(b) hyperbole
(c) simile
(d) analogy
2. A banana republic is a political science term for a country whose economy is largely dependent
on one product (like bananas). It is usually ruled by business elites, the military and politics.
Knowing this, what is the BEST reason for why the PRO author referred to the United States
as a “banana republic”?
(a) because the United States is largely dependent on one product
(b) because the United States is already run by the military and by politics
(c) because the military in the United States is becoming increasingly influential
(d) because the elite businesses in the United States are becoming increasingly powerful
3. A judge ruled that the NSA’s collection of American phone records was unconstitutional
because of an amendment on the Bill of Rights. Which amendment do you suspect it was?
(a) Amendment II
(b) Amendment IV
(c) Amendment I
(d) Amendment IX
4. What legal reasoning might the judge have used?
(a) The NSA was violating people’s privacy by spying on them.
(b) The NSA was violating people’s right to free speech by spying on activists.
(c) The NSA was violating people’s rights by allowing illegal search and seizure of information.
(d) The NSA was violating people’s right to assemble peacefully by spying on groups near
the Boston Marathon.
6
Answer Key
1. What sort of literary device does the PRO author use in his argument that the government
is collecting a lot of data on everyday people?
(a) rhetorical questions
(b) hyperbole
(c) simile
(d) analogy
2. A banana republic is a political science term for a country whose economy is largely dependent
on one product (like bananas). It is usually ruled by business elites, the military and politics.
Knowing this, what is the BEST reason for why the PRO author referred to the United States
as a “banana republic”?
(a) because the United States is largely dependent on one product
(b) because the United States is already run by the military and by politics
(c) because the military in the United States is becoming increasingly influential
(d) because the elite businesses in the United States are becoming increasingly powerful
3. A judge ruled that the NSA’s collection of American phone records was unconstitutional
because of an amendment on the Bill of Rights. Which amendment do you suspect it was?
(a) Amendment II
(b) Amendment IV
(c) Amendment I
(d) Amendment IX
4. What legal reasoning might the judge have used?
(a) The NSA was violating people’s privacy by spying on them.
(b) The NSA was violating people’s right to free speech by spying on activists.
(c) The NSA was violating people’s rights by allowing illegal search and seizure
of information.
(d) The NSA was violating people’s right to assemble peacefully by spying on groups near
the Boston Marathon.
7