INTRODUCTION
The history of human civilization is built upon the names, actions, and achievements of people whose contributions have an impact on society. Some of these people and events, be they famous or infamous, become part of the paradigm of the cultures all over the world. In a diverse world, it is not surprising that sometimes society does not always see eye to eye on some of the events that make up history. These actions and impacts may be perceived by some as wrong, while others may support the individual wholeheartedly. That is most certainly the case with Edward Snowden. One day he was a nondescript “computer guy” and the next he is a household name, whose life, actions, and ideas were now open for public debate and criticism (Turley 1). The most debated aspect is whether or not Edward Snowden’s actions are criminal or heroic and whether he is a courageous “whistleblower” or a traitor to his country. The truth is, is that the answer to that question depends on who you ask. The legal, political, and governmental opinions see his actions as criminal, while others, like many in the general public feel his actions were valid and honest. That said, Edward Snowden, is a little bit of both; the line between hero and traitor is a thin one.
RESEARCH FINDINGS
In order to understand the varying perspectives on Edward Snowden it is necessary to review exactly what it was that he did and why it is so controversial? In 2013, Edward Snowden was a North Carolina native who was working at the National Security Agency (NSA) via a subcontractor at the Oahu office in the Hawaiian Islands. While working there he became privy to top secret information regarding the surveillances practices of governmental offices. He explained that this surveillance was occurring and involved listening in and monitoring of American citizens. As per an interview, he had decided that this was wrong; the government had no business watching or listening unsuspecting citizens without their knowledge (Turley 1). He copied and accumulated the documents that would prove the government’s activity and quickly defected to Hong Kong, China before releasing the information to the public. Regardless of the ethical implications of the material released, the United States government considers his acts treason, and have charged him under the Espionage Act. Snowden sought asylum in Russia and remains their still while the United States attempts to have him extradited (Smith 11).
The Edward Snowden case has inspired a great deal of heated debate, not just involving the legal ramifications, but many ethical issues that have developed around this scandal. There is no doubt that as an employee of the government and a trusted worker in the NSA it is illegal and downright criminal for him to copy protected information, let alone disperse it for public viewing. That said if we follow the “letter of the law” and disregard any ethical elements that may have a warranted his actions, then he has broken that law and is subject to the consequences of those actions (Turley 1). It is from this platform that the government and political bodies are focused upon. To them the most important aspect is his act of treason and betrayal of American security laws.
Of course, as mentioned, in the case of Edward Snowden, the legality of his actions is not the only relevant issue. In fact, many who support Snowden’s actions feel that the government is hiding behind the legal aspects and intentionally evading the nature of the information that was released, which course would open the government to ethical criticisms. Americans have reasonable right to a certain level of privacy. Average Americans of no specific or particular interest could be monitored as the government sees fit, is unsettling and potentially unconstitutional (Vanden Heuvel 1). This is something, regardless if Edward Snowden ever returns to the United States or not, has to be addressed. Edward Snowden believed that these government acts were ethically wrong and betrayed the spirit of our government. He made a choice, one he clearly knew would have severe potential consequences as he left the country, and followed through, essentially facilitating his own exile from the United States (Turley 1). In determining the sides of this issue really does come down to very specific questions.
- Does the United States government have the right to listen and monitor all citizens as they see fit without their knowledge?
- Should a citizen that identifies, what they feel to be, a sincere breech of ethics being perpetrated by the government, should they keep that secret arbitrarily?
The United States does have a right to take actions, often covert and secretive ones are necessary in order to practically facilitate the productive and peaceful day-to-day existence of the American people. Without such top secret measures and evidence seeking surveillance to eliminate criminal or threatening elements from the public, then many genuine criminals or dangerous terrorist’s endeavors, might never be interceded. However, that is not what the Snowden information is about. This was not surveillance of known criminals or suspicious persons that Snowden was concerned about, it was the arbitrary and at-will nature of secret monitoring and watching of the general public (Vanden Heuvel 1). That level of monitoring of average Americans at random, seem like a direct betrayal of American’s citizens constitutional right to some degree of privacy. That said if the issues is only to be viewed under the “letter of the law,” then it is not just Snowden who may have broken those laws.
There are many Americans who consider the actions that Snowden took to be courageous and even heroic. He saw that something was wrong and he informed his fellow citizens of those activities, regardless of the consequences (Smith 1). The United States government cannot possibly want to set a precedent that the government can break their own laws and constitutional foundations as they see fit; at least as long as it doesn’t get caught and held accountable. This country was founded on people who felt that the actions and ideals of their existing government were unjust. When the founding fathers turned on the British monarchy and wished to establish a new government in the New World, the British no doubt saw these soon-to-be Americans as traitors to the Crown, but they were heroes to the Revolution and remain so today. While Snowden’s actions are hardly revolutionary, his intentions were not divisive or intended to cause harm, but to draw attention to actions that he believed were un-American (Vanden Heuvel 1). The government of all entities needs to follow its own ethics and support the Constitutional rights of its citizens, without exception.
REFLECTIONS
It is for all of these reasons that make the case of Edward Snowden a difficult one for people to see eye-to-eye. We live in a technological world is it all hat shocking that the United State government would not adapt those advantages for the purpose of security. But, where is the line between providing ample protection and invading the ethical rights of the public drawn? Tech savvy criminals and terrorist are not going to hesitate to use the available technology to gain an advantage to cause harm to the United States. So can the American government not be as proactive with the technology as its enemies surely are? This is not an easy issues and it is no wonder that so many Americans are torn over the aspects Snowden’s actions.
However, it is becoming apparent to more and more Americans each and every day that sometimes the government and, it’s questionable leadership, has made a number of choices and taken actions that may be Constitutionally questionable, beyond the information that Snowden leaked to the press (Smith 1). So while some Americans would be willing to ignore the idea of being “watched;” the only people who would be opposed are those doing things that they do not want to be seen doing. If you have nothing to hide, then what is the point. However, this negates the rights of individuals to believe that when they at home alone, that no one is listening, regardless of what they are doing. It is not an easy topic to find a universal consensus upon. However, Snowden, himself, has said that he would, “volunteer for jail” and be accountable for what he did, but not as a traitor (Bamford 2).
CONCLUSION
When one has to make the decision between Snowden being a traitor of his countries secrets or a hero to the unsuspecting public, there is no easy answer. His intention was not to release secrets that could damage the international interests of the NSA, but on the surveillance conducted domestically, on its own people. He may have betrayed the government body, but he did not betray the American people. His intentions were to enlighten Americans as to what their government is doing under their noses, so they can decide for themselves how that should be perceived. A conviction as an American traitor can still carry the penalty of death under certain circumstances. That said does Snowden’s desire to inform the public about their government’s questionable and, potentially, unethical behaviors a crime deserving of a death sentences, when the government actions could be perceived as un-Constitutional. It seems more likely that American government want “revenge” against the person that directed the “nosey” public to their secretive, domestic surveillance. Snowden is not necessarily a hero and he is not a traditional villain, but he is a proactive American that took a stand against something he thought to be severely wrong; one of the things that Americans are traditionally known for, at least throughout our founding and development.
WORK CITED
Bamford, James. "The Most Wanted Man in the World." Wired Magazine. 2014: 1-7. Web. 4 Dec. 2014. <http://www.wired.com/2014/08/edward-snowden/
Turley, Jonathan. "Edward Snowden: Whistleblower or traitor? ." Aljazeera. 2014: 1. Web. 4 Dec. 2014. <http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/06/edward-snowden-whistleblower-tra-20146955611522671.html>.
Smith , Patricia. "Edward Snowden; Traitor or Hero?." Up-Front Magazine. 2014: 8-11. Web. 4 Dec. 2014. <http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/sites/default/files/asset/file/upfront022414edwardsnowden.pdf>.
Vanden Heuvel , Katrina, and Stephan F. Cohen. "Edward Snowden: A ‘Nation’ Interview." The Nation. 2014: 1. Web. 4 Dec. 2014. <http://www.thenation.com/article/186129/snowden-exile-exclusive-interview
