Tweets by @Stanford_Daily

Stanford Daily headlines: 12/11/2015 - https://t.co/7YSqquBpRe: 8 hours ago, The Stanford Daily
Learn about both the difficulties and the resources that come with being a student athlete at Stanford. https://t.co/3RNId2OPnx: 1 day ago, The Stanford Daily
Stanford Daily headlines: 12/10/2015 - https://t.co/DpwHR3f97N: 1 day ago, The Stanford Daily
Stanford Daily headlines: 12/9/2015 - https://t.co/iwgZnRpCim: 2 days ago, The Stanford Daily
Stanford Daily headlines: 12/8/2015 - https://t.co/vrx5bGAhd9: 3 days ago, The Stanford Daily
Stanford Daily headlines: 12/7/2015 - https://t.co/ip2j6mBm91: 4 days ago, The Stanford Daily
Stanford Daily headlines: 12/4/2015 - https://t.co/WofW7yq7Z1: 1 week ago, The Stanford Daily
Stanford Daily headlines: 12/3/2015 - https://t.co/JdWMKeKTZw: 1 week ago, The Stanford Daily
Read the first full account detailing the events leading up to SAE's removal from campus last year. https://t.co/UKRTIymXPd: 1 week ago, The Stanford Daily
Stanford Daily headlines: 12/2/2015 - https://t.co/pjgr3Ey7R3: 1 week ago, The Stanford Daily

OPINIONS

Snowden and Manning are criminals and traitors, not heroes

Op Ed

By: Op Ed

As an officer in the U.S. Army, I was deployed to combat for a part of every year between my graduation from West Point in 2003 and my arrival at Stanford for graduate school in 2013. I am, however, intentionally vague about my military service, because my heroes are quiet professionals who have taught me to err on the side of protecting information about our units, operations and tactics so that we can be more effective against our enemies and in the protection of our homeland.

My heroes would never deliberately disclose information that might threaten the security of our fellow service members and citizens. This is why, of the many prevalent narratives I have heard from classmates and professors at Stanford regarding the post-9/11 wars, the only one that really upsets me is the narrative that depicts whistleblowers Edward Snowden and Chelsea (formerly known as Bradley) Manning as heroes. To me, Snowden and Manning are not heroes, but rather criminals and traitors.

This is more than an issue of semantics. Labels and narratives are important, and the hero worship currently directed at Snowden and Manning will likely inspire future whistleblowers to reveal classified information to the detriment of our national security. It is therefore very important to properly acknowledge Snowden and Manning as the criminals and traitors that they are.

This is also an emotional issue for me, due to my personal national security experience, but I will present a logical argument for why Snowden and Manning should be remembered, first and foremost, as criminals and traitors for illegally disclosing classified information (information marked as classified because it is potentially threatening to national security if revealed to unauthorized persons).

Too many people dwell on why Snowden and Manning did what they did, without understanding the criminality and treachery inherent in what they did. So I will briefly outline the facts of each their cases, and I challenge readers to disprove their criminality and treason.

Edward Snowden was a contractor for the National Security Agency (NSA), who leaked thousands of documents regarding NSA surveillance programs to the media. Snowden has been charged with theft and unauthorized communication of national defense information, and willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to unauthorized persons, but he is currently living in asylum in Russia.

Bradley (now known as Chelsea) Manning was a U.S. Army intelligence analyst who was convicted of stealing and disclosing hundreds of thousands of files to Wikileaks, to include Iraq and Afghanistan war records and diplomatic cables. Manning is currently serving a 35-year sentence at a military prison in Kansas.

Snowden and Manning both admit to deliberately disclosing classified information in order to inform the public about sensitive government policies. Regardless of their intentions, their actions were in direct violation of Executive Order 13526, signed by President Obama in 2009, which establishes that individuals who have been cleared to possess classified information are responsible for protecting this information by preventing access to unauthorized persons. By this standard, Snowden and Manning each clearly deserve the label of criminal.

To explain why Snowden and Manning should also be known as traitors, I must convey the significance of classified information. In Executive Order 13526, President Obama explains, “Throughout our history, the national defense has required that certain information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens, our homeland security and our interactions with foreign nations.”

His order goes on to specify, “Information shall not be considered for classification unless its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to national security.” By this standard, the revelation of classified information to unauthorized individuals has the potential to threaten national security. By willfully disclosing volumes of classified information, Snowden and Manning deliberately put national security at risk, which certainly makes them traitors.

Snowden and Manning both acknowledge that they broke the law, and they both acknowledge the potential danger they have caused to Americans. Snowden, however, remains defiant, arrogantly insisting that he is justified in his crimes. He recently told John Oliver in a personal interview, “I did this to give the American people a chance to decide for themselves the kind of government they want to have.”

Manning, on the other hand, was apologetic following her conviction, saying, “I am sorry that my actions hurt people. I’m sorry that I hurt the United States… In retrospect I should have worked more aggressively within the system… I had options and I should have used those options.” Manning realizes that there are more legal, less perfidious ways to raise awareness and inspire change.

To me, that is the moral of these stories. If an American disagrees with a national policy, then he or she should use the appropriate institutions to change that policy. Even if you believe that Snowden and Manning leaked classified information for the greater good, by exposing national security policies that should be reformed — which is a debate for another day — it is foolish to overlook the fact that their actions were criminal and traitorous in nature.

This is my logical argument, but I will admit that I am not unemotional in my criticism of Snowden and Manning. When I hear someone say that Snowden and Manning are heroes — which happens frequently at Stanford — I do get emotional. In fact, I get fighting mad.

To me, their treachery is personal. I have personally depended on classified information to accomplish combat operations in order to protect American citizens and interests. The disclosure of classified information to unauthorized individuals puts me, my family and my fellow service members at risk, in addition to threatening the security of the American homeland and its people.

To me, Snowden and Manning are criminals and traitors, not heroes.

The views expressed herein are the author’s alone and do not represent any official position of the Department of Defense.

 

David Webb ‘15

International Policy Studies Masters Candidate

Contact David Webb at webb5 ‘at’ stanford.edu

Tagged with:

  • RabbitPear

    Snowden and Manning have been tried under the Espionage act of 1917, which offers no defense in court. As Snowden’s lawyer pointed out in Citizenfour, it is even irrelevant whether or not the information was classified properly.

    In recent cases, prosecutors have convinced courts that the intent of the leaker, the value of leaks to the public, and the lack of harm caused by the leaks are irrelevant, and are therefore inadmissible in court.

    https://freedom.press/blog/2013/08/why-edward-snowden-cannot-receive-fair-trial-united-states

    Mind you, there are laws that you can charge someone under for mishandling of classified information that offer a defense. Highly selective prosecution under the Espionage Act is brought against whistleblowers. General Petraeus could have been charged under this law and imprisoned for decades if not the rest of his life, but he wasn’t, and got no jail time.

    No, the internal mechanisms for reporting don’t work. Snowden even tried that. If he pushed harder internally, he would have been fired. Who do you complain to internally, when everyone from the President of the United States, to the members of the Intelligence Committees, to the Director of National Intelligence, and the head of your agency all the way down to your boss are knowingly breaking the law and covering it up?! That is exactly what happened in the case of the phone records program.

  • Waywuwei

    When you have former US officials who have violated both international law and domestic law by instituting a governmental policy of torture in contravention of the Geneva Accord of which we are a signatory and you have governmental agencies that are egregiously violating our constitutional rights by spying on us all, it seems petty to me to focus on the people revealing these high governmental crimes. What is really important here?

  • Meghan Nova
  • Mark P

    The author needs to keep a few points in mind.

    1) It is illegal to conceal evidence of crimes, it’s called being an accessory.

    2) If the government gives you an illegal order (e.g. “keep secret this evidence of these crimes”), you are supposed to not follow that order. This is an international legal precedent, most famously articulated in the Nurnberg Trials, but it also is in the codes of conduct of many countries militaries, including the United States.

    3) An organization like the NSA, which engages in multiple activities that are pretty obviously illegal (like the 205 telephone metadata program that was just ruled illegal, and all the “upstream” internet content backbone wiretapping that is likely to be ruled illegal in the near future), really doesn’t deserve the loyalty of anyone, certainly not a patriotic American citizen.

  • Unrepentant Atheist

    You as a solider have been taught, as I have at one point (I served myself) to see things in black and white, to obey all orders because as a rank and file soldier, you follow orders or people die. I understand your point of view.

    Reality and the civilian world are a lot different. There is no black and white, there are shades of grey, and what you describe above as almost opposites are not always so despite the connotation of the words you use. Snowden is not a soldier. He was a tech guy working for a contractor that works for the NSA. As a matter of fact, we as civilians are NOT SUPPOSED TO TRUST OUR GOVERNMENT. That’s why we have term limits and frequent elections to give us some responsibility to remove politicians that are not serving our needs.

    With this in mind, may I remind you that our country was founded on traitors that decided we were not being treated fairly by our government. If not, we would be British right now. You use many words to refer to how you and the public view Snowden. Some of those words are traitor, criminal, and hero. In my view, both you and the professors are right at the same time.

    The one thing that I will disagree with, is Snowden being labeled as a traitor. Being a traitor means turning your back on your country. I do not see how Snowden has done this. What he did was with the intention of serving his country. Serving his country is not serving the government but instead serving the people. A solider, that could be disobeying orders, but not for a civilian.

    Then there is the other descriptions. I will claim he is both a criminal and a hero. He broke the law, to serve the public. I for one am glad because now I know what the government is doing, and I deem it wrong. I can write my congressman and apply pressure to make change to further protect my privacy. I am not a terrorist, nor have I done any crimes, and thus the government does not need my information or to invade my privacy.

    The law was wrong when it passed, it is wrong now, and it will be wrong in the future. Remember back to why you became a solider. Was it to protect only our safety? Or was it also to protect our way of life. When I served, it was for both. I am proud to be an American because of what it means to be an American. Not because of a particular icon on a flag, or because of geographical location, but instead because I am proud of what we stand for. Our government let down the country here, and though he is by definition a criminal, it would be justice to let him be pardoned for the good he has done. Snowden the criminal is also a hero.

  • ashamed

    “Ultimately, if people lose their willingness to recognize that there are
    times in our history when legality becomes distinct from morality, we
    aren’t just ceding control of our rights to government, but our agency
    in determing our futures.”

    Quote from Edward Snowden. MLK was also a criminal, so were all of the founding fathers. Just because telling someone that the NSA is constantly, repeatedly, and unabashedly collecting information on the entire population and violating the entire citizenry’s right to privacy is illegal doesn’t mean it isn’t the right thing to do.

    I really hope that one day you realize that laws are not morals, and that there is such a thing as doing the right thing at the wrong time.

  • M

    Unrepentant Atheist,

    We swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Snowden, without a doubt, should fall into the latter category.

    Snowden is a US citizen, and he broke our laws by providing sensitive national security secrets to our foreign adversaries. Then he fled. He did not stay to stand trial for his actions. If that doesn’t make him a traitor, I’m not sure whom would qualify for that moniker.

    I can understand your position as a normative one – whether the bulk collection was right as a policy decision – and we can all have a debate about that. This is the only good – and I’m stretching it to even say that here – that can come from the massive leaks. But it’s not without MASSIVE problems for our military and civilian intelligence agencies abroad.

    But your argument about it being illegal is misguided. The FISA court was established for just such sensitive issues. And both the Bush and Obama administrations followed this process in the end.

    And I’m not sure that I would go so far as to say we are not supposed to trust our government. Maybe a healthy skepticism, but not outright distrust.

    I served too, and I appreciate your service.

    M

  • M

    Mark P,

    1) I’m not sure what crimes you are referring to. The government followed existing law to collect the data pursuant to FISA court warrants. That’s not illegal.

    2) The “Nurnberg defense” is a little more nuanced than that (and doesn’t apply here). You cannot use “I was following orders” to then carry out what is clearly an illegal act in war. Again, there is no crime here.

    3) The section 205 provisions are currently being kicked around at the federal appellate level. We’ll see where that shakes out; maybe with SCOTUS deciding in the end? I don’t know. But the process provided for in law was followed by the Bush administration (after some pushback) and the Obama administration later.

    M

  • M

    Chelsea Manning has already been convicted. His case is on appeal to the Army’s court-martial appeals court (U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals).

    Snowden is another matter, and the DoJ is not in the habit of dropping charges against folks who did what he did. Only a jury will acquit him of charges.

    M

  • M

    Waywuwei,

    The author didn’t mention anything about torture. I think you are conflating issues here. President Obama ended the controversial Enhanced Interrogation Technique program run by the CIA. But you should note that a lot of the Bush-era counterterrorism programs have been continued by President Obama. These programs cross party lines in both the Executive and Legislative levels of our government.

  • M

    Thank you, David, for bringing to light this important issue. Snowden’s actions were more than just a concerned citizen blowing the whistle on perceived government abuses. He provided information that puts our government’s interests and employees across the globe at risk, and the many foreign citizens that are helping us. This is why one of the former NSA employees featured in Citizenfour – William Binney – recently characterized him as transitioning from whistleblower to traitor. Check out the USA Today article http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/).

    I don’t think your opinion will be popular on campus, but I think this perspective is critical to having an informed debate on this topic. I wholeheartedly agree with you that Snowden is not a hero, which is why I took the time to respond to several other comments that were somewhat misguided.

    M

  • Alex

    According to Frontline, many of the actions undertaken by Bush and Obama to expand mass surveillance under the guise of “national security” were also illegal. It is not hard to make the argument that their actions go against important American values. Both parties here did wrong.

    The problem is, though, Snowden and Manning are sent to jail, and Snowden doesn’t even see a defensible trial (5th amendment?). Is what Snowden did illegal? Yes, and he will likely never argue that. Regardless, the same arguments referencing the “greater good” you trash as “foolish” are made by our government to justify secretive and illegal actions in the name of “national security.” I think it’s unfair to just focus on Snowden’s illegality, then, because you miss the bigger picture

  • Mark P

    It was always clear that “information relevant to an investigation” did not mean “all information in the world”. The word “relevant ” has been ruled on in many many previous cases. It is also clear that it is illegal (because it is unconstitutional) to wiretap without a warrant, that has been supreme court precedent for 40 years. There has been no change to the constitution in that time, and no new precedent set. Hence, warrantless upstream wiretapping and recording of all internet traffic in the US is illegal, and the FISA court and the USAPATRIOT act can’t change that fact.

    The John Yoos and Alberto Gonzalezes of the world like to write memos claiming that illegal things are actually – hey presto! – legal, but that does not make it so.

  • M

    FISA issues warrants. Hence, no 4th Amendment issues for collection in the US. We can debate whether the process is sufficient standing alone (no one represents the interests of those whose data is being collected, for example), but the process dictated by law was followed. And don’t forget that it wasn’t only Bush lawyers saying this was legal, it was also Obama’s legal team who kept it going. Don’t make this an issue of Republican vs. Democrats.

  • M

    Alex,

    Snowden hasn’t gone to jail (yet).

    Transparency, while important, has limits. Look at the Freedom of Information Act, which provides for access to government documents by anyone – including foreign governments. Even then, certain things are exempted by statute, like, for example, law enforcement investigations, properly classified information, etc.

    I concur that American values should – and, in my mind, must – be considered in national security programs. The problem, of course, is that reasonable minds can disagree on how to implement those values in a complex world. Without a doubt, the US Government went to far with some programs (the EIT program being the worst example), but other programs (like the use of drones) are much harder to come to agreement on how American principles should be implemented.

    Good points, though.

    M

  • Mark P

    FISC has done a hell of a lot more than issue foreign intelligence warrants:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/12/us/how-a-courts-secret-evolution-extended-spies-reach.html
    The process dictated by law has clearly not been followed. Your domestic internet content has been “incidentally” stored, examined and shared as part of a “foreign” intelligence program. Any unsupervised analysts using XKEYSCORE to read your content out of the database would be able to see all your political affiliations, medical conditions, illicit friendships, and financial decisions. Why doesn’t that anger and scare you in equal measure?

  • Unrepentant Atheist

    I understand that. The challenge is that we as a country are bound by our constitution. We are bound to work with that as a mandatory rule over all else. If we don’t, then we have nothing to stop us from becoming a dictatorship one day.

    Snowden knew what the risk was when he did what he did. He had a purpose in mind, and I think he has been very transparent in it. If he was arrested, I do not think he would get to defend himself because of “state secrets”, and thus would not get the fair trial that all Americans are promised. If his personal mission was the make sure this stayed in the public eye, then he had to at all else keep from being captured. With all he has risked, I think that is his primary motivation. If he was caught in Hong Kong, then he would indeed just be another Manning … someone to forget about.

    This is further supported by what happened to Thomas Drake. He tried to warn us of the scope of the situation without using classified data. The US government came after him and three of his close colleagues and embarrassed and threatened them. They had to frame Drake by re-classifying a document AFTER he released it, in order to charge him with something, then bullied him into pleading guilty. Does this sound like something to encourage the LEGAL route of reporting an issue? Plus any time you are forbidden to talk to a lawyer concerning a legal matter should be against the law (as is with these gag order collect all info order).

    Most do not see, but the real trial for Snowden is happening right now. Enough people know at least the basics of what happened to make an ignorant jury to be near impossible, and public is split down the middle if you average the polls. On top of that, Snowden being trapped in Russia is actually buying time to see exactly what the “damage” is. I would think that a program that in the 11 years prior to the Snowden revelations having zero results to gain from the program, would have a hard time convincing a jury that Snowden somehow caused damage to that result.

    In the end, the true damage Snowden did was to the governments image. Not only to the population, but to the world, and in my opinion, the US government has no one to blame but itself.

  • Unrepentant Atheist

    I too don’t think it was a D vs R thing, but I believe they were both in the wrong. Cheney for even coming up with the idea (Bush at least opposed it at first), and Obama for not rectifying it.

  • Unrepentant Atheist

    All kinds of things can happen with politics are involved. With a presidential bid on the line, do you not thing one of the candidates may extend a hand to Snowden? Rand Paul is already vehemently against the unconstitutional spying, I could see it happening from him.

  • Unrepentant Atheist

    I think what Waywuwei was getting at is that the government is very selective in who they prosecute when it comes to high level crimes like this.

    Clapper blatantly lied to congress, yet he is still in the same position with no trial or professional reprimand. Why is Clapper any less guilty than Snowden if this is about justice?

  • Unrepentant Atheist

    Transparency is important, as is military secrets. It used to be that if something like this happened heads would roll, programs would be scaled back and the system would correct itself.

    That didn’t happen this time. The entire force of the government has been holding the scale to one side (DOJ, NSA, FISA, POTUS, DOI, AG, etc) with some exceptions, not letting it tilt back. This is causing a build up on both sides (tech industry, social media, civil rights) that could very well break the scale we use to measure such things.

    That someone like Snowden even exists is a sign of a much larger problem. The Snowdens of the world don’t pop up when everything is doing just fine. It is a sign of a much larger problem. That is the bigger picture.

  • Unrepentant Atheist

    William Binney is a great man, and is the perfect example of what happens when someone walks the middle ground and still tries to win.

    He is at peace with his choices because he did the right thing. No one could fault his actions. The man retired, giving up the career he put his life behind, because he disagreed with where the powers were taking the program. He didn’t leak any classified documents, he voiced his opinions and beliefs to his superiors. When they didn’t listen he left with others that shared his beliefs.

    His thanks for the years of service to our country? Being dragged naked from his shower and prostrated in front of his family as a show of force to ensure he knew what the consequences were if he ever DID have the thoughts of revealing any secrets. They also attempted to strong arm him into testifying against Thomas Drake.

    He has a family and is not the charismatic person that Snowden is, and could not make the same changes or choices if he was in Snowdens shoes.

    Do you think this is the route Snowden should have taken? Thomas Drake now works in an Apple store selling iPads. He was one of our top intelligence people. The US Government broke him so that they could have their surveillance state.

  • M

    Unrepentant Atheist,

    I think Mr. Webb’s OPED succeed in generating some good debate.

    I’m not sure why you think Snowden wouldn’t get a fair trial. I think your distrust of the government is clouding your judgment. Do you have evidence of this other than supposition? The DoJ has a long history of prosecuting national security crimes in federal court, from leakers to terrorists. I think they do a pretty admirable job.

    Snowden’s goal, to the extent we can know it, was more than just uncovering the domestic collection of intelligence. It resulted in the leak of foreign intelligence that was being lawfully collected. If you think this hasn’t resulted in the loss of intelligence assets and collection methods across the globe, and to the detriment of America’s interests, I think that is being naive.

    Like I said before, had Snowden released only information on the domestic collection AND stayed to stand trial, then the argument for him being “heroic” is much stronger. He didn’t do that. He fled to an adversary. That is consciousness of guilt.

    I’m unaware of any gag order forbidding a client from talking to his defense counsel about an issue. There might be hoops that a court mandates for access to classified information during discovery, but that isn’t an outright ban. Gag orders usually relate to the parties of a case discussing the case to the public. Even the detainees at GITMO have defense counsel who get access to classified information about the detainees.

    I’m also a little confused by your paradox of upholding the constitution but then dismissing the jury system. That’s a constitutional right covered under the Sixth Amendment. Does your skepticism of the government also extend to the American public, from which a jury would be drawn?

    M

  • M

    Mark P,

    Yes, FISC does do more than issue warrants. But they do that as well. And warrants are what are called for under the 4th Amendment.

    To the extent that analysts at any intelligence agency break the law, they should face consequences, including criminal sanction depending on the facts of the case. The fix for this kind of illegality is greater oversight both in the intelligence community and from the intelligence committees in Congress. Or better yet, a clearer law on what they can or cannot do.

    The process required by law is being followed. A couple of rogue agents doesn’t mean the right process isn’t being followed.

    Your stronger argument is a normative one – should we be doing this? I think that is the right place for the debate. The House recently passed a measure to kill the program on the domestic front. I think the leaders in Congress should be the ones to debate the program and decide its fate.

  • M

    UA,

    The Executive Department has always exercised prosecutorial discretion. This isn’t going to change. Depending on the issue, I am sure you can imagine issues you are for more or less prosecutorial discretion (maybe deportation proceedings against Dreamers?).

    I’m vaguely familiar with Clapper’s claims to Congress. You mentioned being a servicemember, but I don’t know if you have deployed. If you have, I’m sure you can remember situations where explaining something at the unclassified level might be rather deceptive (or for TS info at the S level). Usually following open testimony before a national security related committee, there is a closed meeting where matters are discussed at the appropriate classification level and more frankly. I have no idea if that happened in the case you referenced.

  • M

    UA,

    There’s usually a broad gulf between campaign promises and executive decisions. This happened with both Bush and Obama.

    I would be shocked if RP wins the Republican nomination, and I would be floored if he issued a presidential pardon to Snowden.

  • M

    UA,

    You cited to all Executive Departments. Since all of those organizations fall under the President’s authority and both recent presidents have consistently gone after leakers, I’m not surprised that multiple agencies want to see Snowden prosecuted for his crimes.

  • M

    UA,

    You mentioned the founding fathers earlier and them being traitors. Many of them died penniless. Service and sacrifice are synonymous for a reason.

    William Binney has done a great deal of good for our country. And I think he approached this issue the right way. Snowden did not.

  • Unrepentant Atheist

    Someone that wants change would look at the Binney scenario, and realize that he did do the right thing. But you would also see that against the current regime, that it ultimately was fruitless. They were silenced. A little got out, but there was no proof, just someones opinion and you only got that if you were looking. This was not main stream material.

    So what happens, when the top people in NSA are effectively neutralized from making any change to protect 4th Amendment rights? You have three choices. To not say anything and worry about yourself and your career. You have the opportunity to follow in Binney’s footsteps realizing that you put yourself a risk for what would likely end in the same failures, or take a more drastic measure and provide the proof that Binney and Drake lacked. Was it illegal? Absolutely, but the legal methods have been tried and dealt with illegally by the government (using police as a thug force). I don’t believe Snowden had much a choice outside of not doing anything, and to him that was not a choice.

  • Unrepentant Atheist

    True on the promises bit. Plus he has made no such promise, but if it happened, it would not be the first time a controversial persona was used as a political pawn.

  • Unrepentant Atheist

    There was not, it was a public forum, but he was warned ahead of time that the question would be asked. So based on the classified nature of the question, there was only one way he should have answered, and that was that he could not answer questions regarding classified matters in an open forum.

    Saying that no program exists was a blatant lie, and to the people that watch over his program. It was made clear in future reports that many people that were supposed to overlook the program only got very edited briefs on the actual programs capability and how it was being used. They did not know what was going on. So it wasn’t only about the American public finding out, it was about maintaining support of Congress.

    So he deceived our legislators to protect his program. So it was not a mere “Opps, I could have worded that differently”, it was calculated to cover his own backside.

  • Unrepentant Atheist

    I agree. Issues are resolved when debated in an open forum.

    The requests for data all come with gag orders. You can look it up it should be just about everywhere. Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft all got them (though I bet they asked their lawyers anyways or got special permission). Lavabit shut their doors in defiance. Librarians had formed a coalition because of the abuses, and even skirted with violating the gag orders by putting up signs that said, “The government has not been here. Beware if this sign is missing.” or something along those lines.

    As for the fair trial, that is why I said the true judgement of Snowden is now. The people are getting all sides of the debate while he is free. Once he is arrested, any defense he will pose, will be considered irrelevant, or be deemed classified/state secret. This would effectively close off any possible defense. He will get a fairer trial now than he would have two years ago.

    As for my distrust with the government, once my government opted to lie to me (Clapper, Alexander (52 cases? Wrong, 0.), Obama, and more), once my government opted to ignore the privacy granted to me by being a citizen, once my government treated me as if I was the criminal/enemy, once my government dragged people naked from the shower to make a point, once my government told me security was more important than my freedoms, once I saw that justice did not count if you were a pawn of the government, then I start not trusting the government. It has to do a whole damn lot for me to get to trust it again.

    There was a time, when I was proud to be an American, that I could look at another country and really think that I had more freedoms and that they were guaranteed to me, that we had somehow gotten it right. I want to feel that way again, not be embarrassed when our government acts like all the other governments out there that think it is ok to take their peoples rights away.

  • guest

    Actions are to be judged by results. If we lost the Revolutionary War and were still under the British throne, we would be taught to judge George Washington as traitor and Benedict Arnold as hero. As it happens, the “good guys” won and here we are. Few today consider George Washington a criminal, and yet his actions would be today’s equivalent of a decorated Iraq War veteran leading a revolution against the country he served, say to gain Hawaiian independence.

    In Edward Snowden’s case, he leaked the information, an obvious crime, and fled the country. History still needs to take its course, but it’s not looking good so far.

  • Jonathan Poto

    I agree that Snowden has an arrogant attitude like “obviously the US needs to be more socialist, so any damage i cause is actually good because it undermines the current system.” I kind of hated that Oliver was asking him hard questions but then let him off hook halfway through the interview.

    But god damn please don’t fight anyone over this– you’ll probably concuss any student here with one shot.

  • Jonathan Poto

    Great article. Thank you for your brave service in uniform and as a writer.

    I agree that Snowden has an attitude as if any damage he does is justifiable in the name of tearing down the current ‘flawed’ foundations of government. Oliver was asking him hard questions but then lets him off the hook halfway. Disappointing.

    That being said there have been some important whistleblowers in US history, revealing classified information. There were definitely revelations of unconstitutional behavior by US intelligence agencies in the Snowden documents as well. Unfortunately though, Snowden lacked a proper level of regard for the safety of soldiers and civilians as blowback from massive expanse of the release. You can never totally be assured you are doing the right thing as a whistleblower, but anyone who believes in our current democracy at all would be hard pressed to say that Snowden is a hero, in light of how reckless he was. He exists somewhere in the limbo between pure traitor and arrogantly-blind-idealist.

  • student

    I would be interested to hear more about the mechanisms/series of events by which national security is threatened after leaks like these. Were lists of military personnel names released, for example?
    What type of information release constitutes a threat to national security?
    Thanks

  • Anon123

    “To me, that is the moral of these stories. If an American disagrees with
    a national policy, then he or she should use the appropriate
    institutions to change that policy.”

    But what if you don’t KNOW about the national policies? Some of the government spying programs were only discovered because of Snowden. Also, even if they were known superficially, the exact details of those programs (e.g., how intrusive they are) were not known.

    You may claim “oh we can’t say that because of national security” but that is a catch-22.

    In fact, you could conceivably justify almost everything using this logic. Anytime someone demands more information/evidence, government can just claim “cannot disclose for national security”.

© 2015 THE STANFORD DAILY