What should be done with Eric Snowden? Some laud him as a heroic whistle-blower for risking his life and freedom to bring to light the clandestine surveillance operations of the U.S., both home and abroad. Others say that his decision to disseminate this information represents high treason, having caused or greatly heightened the threat of harm to the U.S. by leaking this information. The New York Times, amongst many others, argue that he should receive clemency, and be allowed to return to the U.S., without either punishment or reprisal. Others say that he should be extradited to the U.S., stand trial for both treason and a host of many other, serious and illegal acts - many of which could carry the penalty of life in prison or even the death sentence, should he be convicted. So, two questions: 1. What should happen here, using either of the choices above, or any other and alternative solution which you may wish to suggest? 2. Why?
I am conflicted on this. While the government serves the people, and not the other way around, it must maintain some secrecy or it cannot function in certain environments. I am sure some people vilified Deep Throat, while many others deified him. I believe, in this case, that Snowden should be exonerated. While I am not personally all that worried about my government spying on me, I do not think that a blanket allowance for such surveillance should be allowed. Snowden, imho, did the right thing leaking this out. The question then is, where do you draw the lines? The only way to get information on foreign operatives that happen to be US residents, however, is to spy on US residents. It is tough.
i'm not conflicted. he should be in jail. it's not his decision to decide what's ok to leak and what isn't.
Even just the domestic programs would likely be enough to lock him up, but the other details he has revealed makes it much more clear for me. He should be put on trial.
I think there's a difference between whistle blowing and stealing tens of thousands of documents and giving them away. I don't deny that our society will benefit from his revelations, but what he did was still wrong and should be punished harshly. The thing I have a hard time understanding is why people treat him differently from Bradley Manning when they did the exact same thing. Snowden's a hero (to some) while Manning committed treason.
Let me postscript my above statements with the fact that I have only cursory knowledge of what Snowden did and if he leaked anything that would compromise our foreign assets or US operatives in foreign countries, then yes, he should be tried and put in a deep hole.
i'm not sure It matters what he leaked. it's classified for a reason. we do that so we don't have to rely on one man's opinion as to what is important and what isn't.
I believe that a person can have a moral need to expose something that his blatantly wrong, even if it is classified. It is the same as a soldier refusing to follow an order given to him by a superior that is obviously morally wrong, is it not? Area 51 was burning toxic waste and it was exposed by workers, even though it was the most classified place on the planet.
Great post. I agree. Based on this I believe a trial would resolve whether he should be exonerated or share a cell with Baghdad Bob.
Yes. I can understand some of the arguments around the domestic, but the revealed specifics and his actions (alleged and otherwise) while seeking asylum are traitorous, imo.
He chose to go it alone instead of going through the proper channels. I honestly wonder whether wanting celebrity status had anything to do with him going about everything the way he did.
I don't believe it's the same thing as a soldier failing to follow an "immoral" order, at all. The soldier, like Snowden, has a chain of command / hierarchy of responsibility around and above him, each specifically designed to address the kinds of things he objected to, and leaked. The soldier, like Snowden, can decline to follow the order, or to remain silent, but they cannot simply do so by ignoring or circumventing the necessary and authoritative structure above them. Simply, you have every right to object and to make your thoughts known, via proper, responsible and recognized channels of redress, but not autocratic autonomy to simply do whatever you wish, instead. That he chose to go to Wikileaks at all, much less first, is all the proof that I need that his primary intent was not simply so pure and blameless as desiring to make others aware of what he believed to be immoral / wrong / illegal his activities - but that he wanted to be seen as being this sort of heroic figure who went against it all to make it known. He's an attention-whore who stepped into a much bigger and more serious situation than I think he first envisioned, or could conceive. Consider this: imagine if he had taken the same documents which he leaked, wrote an accompanying email of explanation / his concerns, and sent it to every member of Congress, via an anonymous. Do you think that someone would have acted on it, or looked into it? Didn't someone deserve a chance to do so, before he went public? His intent seems far less like a lion of transparency and truth, and more like a simple-minded fool who wanted attention and to cause actual harm and international shame to the United States. He should be extradited, put on trial, and if convicted, sentenced to death, IMO.
Fair enough. As I said, my knowledge on this particular issue is limited to headlines, as it is not something that I have followed all that well. Shame on me, I am sure. Thank you for informing me that he basically took the files and ran to wikileaks, and didn't apparently do it anonymously, either. And if I recall, he offered other tidbits if given asylum, no? It did not occur to me to run to Congress with it.
