Snowden: Whistleblower or Traitor? Edward Snowden, a CIA and NSA computer specialist, leaked top secret information in May of 2013, which caused a national scandal with global consequences. In your opinion, is he a whistleblower or traitor? Based on what evidence? Is he covered under the Whistleblower Protection Act?
the student answer.
In any situation similar to a case like Edward Snowden, there are going to be people on both sides of the fence; some will call him a traitor, while many have hailed him a national hero. The ability to find facts that support both titles given to him causes confusion in how a situation like this should be handled. However, the way I see it, is it boils down to ‘who’s toes are you stepping on the hardest.’ Those that call him a traitor have something to lose from his acts, whether it be the upper hand in terrorist surveliance from the leak, a life style, a belief in honest patriotism, a sense of security, etc. Those that hail him as a hero must see him that way because he has vindicated and helped them gain something they’ve been in search of. Whether it be as simple being able to say, “I knew it,” to something as complex as gaining grounds to win a court case like Klayman v. Obama, or ACLU v. Clapper where they only won because of the information regarding unlawful gathering of information was provided by Snowden’s leak. (“Snowden,” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia)
Snowden’s actions were well thought out and planned over several years. He began collecting documents in 2008 and was hopeful that with the election of President Obama that real change would occur. When it didn’t, he continued with his goal of bringing to light the wrong doing’s of the government in the only way he knew how. He began meeting with reporters and prepared to give up the life he had in order to seek asylum in another country because he knew “by law” he would be a traitor; although these were the same laws he saw being governed by the very men breaking several other laws (such as the 4th and 5th amendments, to name a few). With the court system set the way it is, Snowden later revealed that it’s extremely flawed in that if he wanted to handle the situation and have it taken care of, he would have to go through the very people he was incriminating; he knew that taking these matters to the public would be the only way he bring to light the wrong doings by the NSA, CIA, and other government agencies. And unfortunately he knew he would not be covered under the Whistleblower Protection Act because of the implementations of the 1917 Espionage Act, which would deny him of the ability to defend himself in a open court to the public, or have a jury. (“Snowden,” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia)
There is substantial evidence on both sides of the spectrum to accuse him either way. The law persecutes him as a criminal with charges of theft of the private documents, as well has breaking dozens of confidentiality obligations, however, the documents in which he took have already brought light to serious wrong doings by the government in acts in full disregard to the constitution and other lawful rulings. If the system is designed to shut down those who go through the proper steps and don’t break the laws, how would we ever know exactly what is going on? When secret court hearing take place, and entrusted public officials can directly lie under oath, this shows that the actions of a traitor are perhaps nothing more than the desperate attempts of an honest person trying to take down the wrong doings of the dishonest. For me, it stems in the motivations. According to documents, biographies, and interviews, Snowden’s intentions were never in his self interest or for substantial rise in his life situation; on the flip side, evidence would show that he gave up his secure, well paying job and the ability to live in his home country in order to expose unlawful doings and hope for change. He gave up his freedoms for others, and is now in asylum’s where he hopes to stay safe. In conspiracy movies he would be the hero, going against the system to a greater good. In the real world, although what he did was seemingly nobel, and perhaps his only option of getting it done, there are great risks and set backs from this exposed information. Now the government faces damaged relationships with close allies, blind spots in their terrorist surveillance, etc. (“Snowden,” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia)
In my opinion, based on all the evidence, and then going with my gut, I see him as a whistleblower in a day in age where it’s getting harder and harder to do so… because of such technology as the surveillance system he shed light on! By law, he is a traitor, but what good are laws if those making and enforcing them don’t even support them?
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]