Posted on 06/13/2013 6:43:51 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It is a testament both to the complexity of the political and legal questions surrounding the NSA’s PRISM program, and to the mixture of intellectual honesty and political opportunism characterizing those debating them, that one cannot accurately extrapolate from a person’s views on the program his views on Edward Snowden, the low-level government contractor who exposed it.
Speaking broadly, “establishment” Democrats and Republicans alike tend to be apologists for the program, and to think Snowden deserves prosecution for compromising it. By contrast, libertarians left and right tend to be outraged by the program, and think Snowden a hero for showing it the light of day. But you can count me in a third group, those who find PRISM disturbing but aren’t ready to crown Snowden.
To my mind, there is no reason at this point to think of Snowden as a “whistleblower,” as so many are calling him, since whistleblowing means exposing actual malfeasance, not merely the unwisdom of a duly enacted policy. Nor is it clear that his leak of classified information is an act of “civil disobedience,” at least not if that phrase still means what it did when its most consequential practitioner, Martin Luther King Jr., practiced it. In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” written mostly in the margins of a newspaper, King laid out his four-step process for conducting acts of nonviolent civil disobedience: “collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action.”
Did Snowden’s actions meet the first of these criteria? The case that there was racial injustice in Alabama in 1963 was both obvious and overwhelming. King writes that Birmingham was “probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States,” with a long record of legal discrimination and violent intimidation of blacks. By contrast, did the information to which Snowden was privy obviously and overwhelmingly point to injustice? The NSA was using powers granted it by Congress, under the watch of the courts, for the purpose of protecting America. This program may be unwise, it may be dangerous, it may be immoral, and it may yet be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. But does the information Snowden had at hand, and disclosed to the press, make that case obviously and overwhelmingly? Is the injustice of the monitoring program so gross that it morally compelled Snowden to break his oaths, and the law, to reveal it?
King’s second step requires “negotiation” with the perpetrators, or at least the enablers, of the injustice in question. In King’s case, his Southern Christian Leadership Conference agreed to put a moratorium on all demonstrations in Birmingham when merchants agreed to take down “humiliating” racial signs from places of business. Before he went to the press, did Snowden first raise his concerns with PRISM to his superiors at Booz Allen Hamilton? Or to officials at the National Security Agency? Or to members of Congress charged with oversight? Or to the courts? Did he work through official channels to have PRISM declassified, even while reserving the right to resort to unofficial channels should this prove impossible?
In the Birmingham case, King negotiated in good faith, but the other side failed to live up to its promises. “A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained,” King wrote. Only then did he and his followers proceed to “self-purification,” which involved readying themselves morally, psychologically, and, in this case, physically, for the consequences of the fourth step, “direct action.” Demonstrators workshopped the principles of nonviolence. They asked themselves, “Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?” and “Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?” Did Snowden undertake a similar self-appraisal? That’s highly unclear, especially since, instead of submitting to the law, Snowden fled the country to escape it.
The necessity of submission to the law, of accepting punishment for an act of resistance, is perhaps the area of civil-disobedience doctrine most fraught with debate. But canonical civil resisters such as King and Gandhi certainly thought it was necessary. And in the essay that started it all, Henry David Thoreau wrote, “Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.” The recognition that the moral justifiability of disobeying a law is not legally exculpatory is thus a major part of what makes civil disobedience itself morally legitimate.
Or as Erwin Griswold, Nixon-era solicitor general and former dean of Harvard Law School, said of the prosecution of conscientious draft-dodgers in the Vietnam era: “[It] is of the essence of law . . . that it is equally applied to all, that it binds all alike, irrespective of personal motive. For this reason, one who contemplates civil disobedience out of moral conviction should not be surprised and must not be bitter if a criminal conviction ensues. And he must accept the fact that organized society cannot endure on any other basis.” Nothing about Snowden’s behavior leading up to and following the leak suggests that he understands (a) the gravity of his action or (b) the fact that civil disobedience works — and makes sense — only when it is embedded in a broader respect and concern for the rule of law.
There is a world in which Snowden grew disturbed by PRISM, and brought his concerns to his superiors. There is a world in which, unsatisfied with their response, he then resigned from Booz, relinquished his security clearance, hired counsel, and took legal action to have PRISM declassified, at the same time he approached Congress, the White House, and the courts with his concerns. There is a world in which, being stonewalled in each of these attempts, he turned over information regarding PRISM to Glenn Greenwald, but on an encrypted file to which only Snowden knew the key. There is a world in which he used this “direct action” to generate King-style “tension” and spur a return to negotiation with government officials. And there is a world in which, stymied, threatened with reprisal, and having exhausted all lawful methods, Snowden sent Glenn Greenwald the password to the encrypted file and awaited arrest. In that world, Snowden would have all the hallmarks of a noble civil resister. In this world, I’m not sure what he is.
— Daniel Foster is news editor for NRO.
Your boy ran off to the Chicoms. Any rational person knows what he’s really up to.
Any rational person would be far more alarmed by what the NSA and the fedgov is up to, especially in light of what the IRS has been doing to conservative groups and the rampant lawlessness of the Obama Admin. The fact that you can only bleat about Snowden in this situation shows just how misplaced your concern is.
You still don’t know if Snowden is telling the truth.
Be sure not to pull your head out of your arse. Only way you can maintain your little fantasyland about how benevolent and without malice our government is.
About the current NSA system, it's supposed to be used against the funny little foreign guys ~ but the arguments we are hearing from your side is that we should not forearm or forewarn ourselves against enemy action ~ just stand there while they nuke us or something.
Strawman.
It should not be collecting massive amounts of data on American citizens.
Well, too much of it can be disastrous as well. Just ask the millions of dead Russians and Chinese and Cambodians killed by their own governments.
That is what I am fighting against, the next step on the slippery slope. And all you can do is spout the establishment talking points. Face it, you are part of the problem.
Alas, that's not what NSA is doing. We will be forced to join self-assembled militia to protect ourselves from the enemy aliens wandering the streets unmolested.
Good reason to NOT allow any third worlder to run for President ~ EVER!!!
What the NSA is doing is grabbing all the data they can until someone forces them to stop. And the morons are not watching those millions of suspect types. They are watching US, as witnessed by the IRS scandal.
Germany was a first-world nation.
Nice try.
Face it, totalitarianism is a long, slow grey twilight. And it's getting worse in this country. But go ahead and wave those pom-poms for a police state. Obama and the DC establishment love your enthusiasm.
You’re conflating the real and vile acts of abriging and undermining our 1st & 4th amendment rights.
Snowden is a work of fiction and mist of what he discussed was already known. That he was so special he had access to all that information at the tip of his fingers is just plain not real ir possible.
He would have to have authority to gather that information across a wide array of agencies, analysts compilers various database formats that don’t talk to each other.
Kind of lime trying to get all the reports for financial and sales from all locations and divisions by the end of the business day at the a $$$$multi billion dollar company.
It can’t be done and very few people have the authority to order very specific details.
He’s bogus.
The threat is real.
Germany had been turned into a pig sty by WWI and the follow up. They also had a strong authoritarian tradition and were far from being a first class society.
The NSA grabbing this data is a major erosion of the 4th Amendment. But simpering fearful idiots like you clamor for the illusion of security that the surveillance state promises. Heck, they can't even stop a terrorist when notified by a foreign power. They are not using this data the way you think.
If you have knowledge of what they are doing with the data, why not divulge it here and educate the rest of us. Thank you in advance.
So why do you tolerate a tax system that sends people to prison for nonpayment of remarkably small sums yet has provisions for EXEMPTION FROM TAX PAYMENT.
Doesn't that strike you as bizarre? And then the supplicants after the tax exemptions get PO'd ~ WOW!
How long do you think I'd languish for asking for an exempt status ~ 10 years, 20 years ~ maybe the 35 years Reverend Ewing waited!
In a country with 7 million CEOs the IRS thing was symptomatic but it was still small potatoes.
My leftist friends think he’s a traitor but Bradley Manning is a hero. Not sure how that works.
Hmm ~ those funny little foreign people have nuclear warhead tipped missiles. If we don’t protect this country first, there won’t be any 4th amendment to worry about.
What special "information" is he claimed to have knowledge of -- besides simply exposing the harvesting of personal data of US citizens?
What I see as "bogus" is the red herring meme that Snowden is a "threat" who has divulged info to the ChiComs that threatens the national security of the USA...and apparently now that he's just a patsy.
He's a "threat" all right -- to the credibility and MO of a corrupt guv whose secret agenda was/is to create a dossier on every living creature within its border (EXCEPT Mexicans and Chechs.)
We are seeing all kinds of stories about misuse of NSA data, such as against soldiers serving abroad. And the simple fact stands that they on two occasions that we know of, were given solid leads on future terrorists and did not act firmly on it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.