In recent discussions of Edward Snowden, a controversial issue has been whether or not he was wrong for leaking government information. On the one hand, some argue that he is an American hero. From this perspective, it is a good thing that he exposed the inappropriate surveillance tactics of the American government. On the other hand, however, others argue that he is a traitor. From this perspective, he betrayed his country by leaking information to other countries.
In the words of President Barack Obama, “If any individual who objects to government policy can take it into their own hands to publicly disclose classified information, then we will not be able to keep our people safe, or conduct foreign policy” (Mason). In sum, then, the issue is whether he is a hero or a traitor. Though concede that it is good he stood up for what he believed in, I still maintain that he should have stood up inside the government instead of going public.
Although some might object that he is a traitor based on the fact that fifty-five percent of registered voters consider Snowden to be a whistleblower (QU Poll), I would reply that he gave classified information to several countries and major newspapers. My own view is that he betrayed the US because he signed an oath, saying he would not reveal the information, there are ways internally he could have signed a complaint, and he damaged national security.
Edward Snowden is now a 32-year-old “whistleblower” who left his home in Hawaii in May of 2013 to go to Hong Kong, China to leak millions of confidential documents to reporter, Glenn Greenwald. Before leaking the information Snowden worked as a system analyst contractor at Booz Allen Hamilton for the National Security Agency (NSA). He revealed top secret documents, which exposed the espionage performances on counterterrorism, from the NSA programs containing personal communications that lay within the United States and foreign nations (Frequently Asked).
When Edward Snowden started working for the NSA as a contractor he had to sign an oath stating that he would not disclose information. When all government employees sign this oath they are informed of the consequences they will receive if it is broken. Snowden stated that he did not sign an oath. When interviewed by the Washington Post’s Barton Gellman, Snowden told him that he did sign a document – but it was a condition of his employment.
After looking into the government has been proven that Snowden did take an oath. So not only did he leak classified information to other countries, but then he lies about whether or not he took an oath when he started working for the company where he got the classified information from. Even if he had only taken the agreement the punishment for his crimes would still be civil.
The Oath of Office is the oath Snowden and all other American government officials take: “I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that | will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God” (Davidson). Snowden did not do his duty as a federal government employee.
He did not keep his allegiance to his country, and any person that supports him is not keeping their allegiance either. Those like Barry Eisler, a former CIA employee, who disagree with my point of view would say that Snowden did not violate his contract/oath to defend the constitution. They say this because in the oath it says they will protect and defend the constitution and by exposing inappropriate tactics they were protecting the constitution (Eisler).
I would simply reply by saying that no matter what appens in the government, even if it is wrong, you should never go against your own country. Former Department of Defense (DOD) official, Phil Carter, believes that instead of having government officials take an oath they should sign a nondisclosure agreement because of the simple fact that they are easier to enforce legally. Many retired government officials, like Carter, now believe that our justice system has evolved to treat crimes that have to do with secrecy, like Snowden’s, more serious than crimes that go against the Constitution.
Considering that government officials have offered Snowden an amnesty, his charges must be slowly decreasing because they want him back to get more information about the damage he’s done, and he should come back. There is no reason he should be allowed to break the oath he took and have his penalties reduced, much less get away with it. However, regardless of how serious Snowden’s penalties are it is clear that he not only betrayed the NSA, but he also betrayed the Constitution (Wheeler). Do the American people really want someone who betrayed the Constitution free?
Some of Snowden’s supporters may say that he had to go public with the information he had because he raised concerns and no one listened. And I will agree with them up until it gets to the legal work he did not take the time to do to finalize his concerns. While Snowden did have every right to question the NSA’s legal training process, he had to officially and most importantly, internally sign a complaint to his superiors about the actions. Also, NSA says that any email that Snowden sent stating this concern did not raise allegations about any wrongdoings (Reuters).
NSA says that the one email they found was simply asking questions about the training that Snowden had received (Zetter). If you only ask a question, you cannot say that that is raising concerns. Snowden continuously lied to different reporters saying that he had officially reported his concerns. If the NSA does not have those complaints on file, then how could someone truly believe he sent in an official complaint? I believe that if Snowden had properly reported his complaints to his supervisor and tried every possible thing to make sure his voice was being heard, then he should go public.
But since Snowden decided to go public right away, all of his supporters are okay with laziness. They are okay with taking the easy way out. Not only is he taking the easy way out by not taking the time to complain, but he is taking the easy way out by hiding in Russia, knowing we cannot go there to arrest him. Snowden’s following statement is addressed as to why he decided to go public and not do it anonymously, “I think that the public is owed an explanation of the motivations behind the people who make these disclosures that are outside of the democratic model.
When you are subverting the power of government, that’s a fundamentally dangerous thing to democracy. And if you do that in secret consistently, as the government does when it wants to benefit from a secret action that it took. It’ll give its officials a mandate to go ‘tell the press, so the public is on our side. ‘ That falls to individual citizens but they’re typically maligned. It becomes a thing of ‘these people are against the country. They’re against the government’ but I’m not. Later in the interview Snowden said, “I’m willing to go on the record to defend the authenticity of them and say, ‘I didn’t change these, I didn’t modify the story. This is the truth; this is what’s happening. You should decide whether we need to be doing this” (Edward Snowden Interview). To address the final sentence about the people deciding whether or not the government’s actions are acceptable; of course they are. The government does what it does to keep its people safe – not to hurt us. Regardless of the fact that he came forward and said he as the one that gave out the information, it never should have happened in the first place.
Relating back to President Obama’s quote, Snowden did a number on the national security. In the public eye not much has changed, the NSA surveillance tactics are pretty evenly then how could someone truly believe he sent in an official complaint? I believe that if Snowden had properly reported his complaints to his supervisor and tried every possible thing to make sure his voice was being heard, then he should go public. But since Snowden decided to go public right away, all of his supporters are okay with laziness. They are okay with taking the easy way out.
Not only is he taking the easy way out by not taking the time to complain, but he is taking the easy way out by hiding in Russia, knowing we cannot go there to arrest him. Snowden’s following statement is addressed as to why he decided to go public and not do it anonymously, “I think that the public is owed an explanation of the motivations behind the people who make these disclosures that are outside of the democratic model. When you are subverting the power of government, that’s a fundamentally dangerous thing to democracy.
And if you do that in secret consistently, as the government does when it wants to benefit from a secret action that it took. It’ll give its officials a mandate to go ‘tell the press, so the public is on our side. ‘ That falls to individual citizens but they’re typically maligned. It becomes a thing of ‘these people are against the country. They’re against the government’ but I’m not. ” Later in the interview Snowden said, “I’m willing to go on the record to defend the authenticity of them and say, ‘I didn’t change these, I didn’t modify the story. This is the truth; this is what’s happening.
You should decide whether we need to be doing this” (Edward Snowden Interview). To address the final sentence about the people deciding whether or not the government’s actions are acceptable; of course they are. The government does what it does to keep its people safe – not to hurt us. Regardless of the fact that he came forward and said he as the one that gave out the information, it never should have happened in the first place. Relating back to President Obama’s quote, Snowden did a number on the national security. In the public eye not much has changed, the NSA surveillance tactics are pretty evenly istributed when it comes to being accepted or unaccepted.
Snowden says, “Those who followed the law were nothing better than Nazis. ” Is this the man some Americans actually want to help? He compared smart and obedient citizens to the Nazis. Not only did Snowden insult thousands of people, but he is costing the United States billions of dollars to get thousands of people to rework the system he released (Toobin). To add on to the billions of dollars being lost because of Snowden; terrorists are now changing communication methods and making them more secure so the NSA will have a harder time cracking codes and understanding their plots.
After the documents were released the NSA surveillance programs have slower operations and they have become more difficult with less of a chance control (Gjelten). So while Snowden was pushing America into the ground, he was picking up our enemies. Al-Qaeda has lost no time in strengthening their systems, while America is simply trying to undo the damage done (Coughlin). So the only thing! have left to say to Snowden supporters is – when we are attacked by a terrorist group because they found a way around the surveillance, you can blame it on Mr. Snowden.
Although raising allegations and asking questions about any type of task you are asked to do, whether it is in school or a workplace is perfectly okay, you should never do what Edward Snowden did. No one has the right to out America on tactics that are keeping the people safe. Alll ask is that anyone who supports Snowden looks into changing their mind because he broke the law by betraying his oath, he did not take the time to complain internally, and he damaged national security severely.