@nigelmarkdias proffered an interesting question set about Snowden and I took the bait. Encouraged by his response, I am sharing it here.
I do not consider myself an expert on this topic, but that doesn't prevent me from having an opinion. ;) And, unlike many other people, I have become, over the years, very willing to share my opinions. ;) I am, however, also different from most other people because I don't take a stance that is immobile; I am willing to listen to, evaluate and consider changing my stance. In fact, I do change my stance from time to time, and usually as the result of intelligent conversation with others.
"Hold on loosely, but don't let go. If you cling too tightly, you're going to lose control."
I used to get very emotional during such exchanges, far worse than your friend ebryan. I try to avoid that nowadays, but I sometimes slip. If I do, please try to let me know. Sometimes, however, my writing style is such that people make the mistake of thinking that it is emotionally charged.
"Still crazy, after all these years."
Are people like Snowden traitors?
To answer that, we must first understand what a traitor is.
Merriam-Webster says:
"traitor: a person who is not loyal to his or her own country, friends, etc"
Gosh, now we have to consider loyalty. Who is more loyal - those within the establishment who are breaking the laws in a very Machiavellian fashion in order to achieve the goals, or those who feel that "the end justifies the means" is an erroneous belief that must be uncovered? Some people will side with the establishment, usually because they want to assume that those in positions of authority and trust would never betray us or do anything wrong. Foolhardy, I say.
If you make a promise, is there ever a time when a promise should not be kept? I am a big one for holding sacred the value of a promise, but I also teach my kids that you shouldn't promise something if you know it'll involve doing something illegal or immoral, or if you're likely to forget you made the promise (an all-together-common mistake people make). I also teach them that if a promise is to be made without knowing the terms and requirements (ie: there isn't full disclosure prior to it), you're better off not promising. In addition, I tell them that they should NOT keep a promise if the result will be that they will commit a crime and/or do something immoral.
Yes, signing an NDA is a promise/contract/oath, but we are not freed of our responsibilities as citizens to fight against corruption and criminal activities within that organization, club, union, government, agency or other body. We are, when it comes down to it, ALWAYS required to follow the laws that take precedent over an NDA. An NDA is NOT a law and it is ONLY binding when it doesn't force people to break the law. It is not enough that the President made that NDA, nor that the Attorney General or a federal judge declares it sacrosanct - they are only a small part of the government, and they don't have the authority to abrogate the law willy nilly, even if they THINK they're doing the right thing.
NDAs are lower on the totem pole than laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, statutes and anything else that is issued as law by any legally authorized governing body. I will refer to all these things together as "laws", unless I specify otherwise.
But, ah, you might point out that we will come upon the problem that sometimes laws (et cetera) that are made are inherently bad, or even criminal. That is another discussion entirely. We're discussing whistleblowers.
Who is more loyal to their country: the person who is willing to do ANYTHING, even break laws, in order to get good results for their country, or the person who is ONLY willing to do that which is legal and moral? In my mind, both are equally loyal to the country itself, but only the latter is entirely loyal to the country, because only that person is willing to work within the laws to protect that country so that those very same laws will keep the country together (in theory). The second person might, however, be too naive to see that the situation in the country is bad, and that the laws are a part of the problem, whereas the first person won't be concerned with the laws - the country is tantamount. Yet, you cannot really have a country without laws, can you? Anarchists can say what they like (and I knew one, but he was a coward when it came down to it, who preferred the security of laws over chaos), but the human world cannot function without some degree of order. There is still order, even amongst societies of criminals (as insane or unfair as those rules may seem to outsiders), and criminal leaders who don't enforce them fairly eventually get replaced - then again, even fair criminal leaders will probably die by the sword. ;)
So, the person who tries to save the country by breaking the laws is actually performing a form of treason. Since an NDA is incredibly low on the list of legalities, breaking one for the greater good is entirely within the law - since law requires us NOT to break it, even when there is an NDA. The person who breaks the NDA is the hero, AS LONG AS they are actually exposing criminal behavior.
If Snowden's confidential material (covered under a higher legality than an NDA, but still subject to the question of criminal activity) indeed reveals criminal behavior according to any laws or international treaties, then he did the right thing. That thing is certain, which means he is not a traitor. We are required to defend our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Therefore, he is a hero.
The question of whether his course of action was best is more difficult.
To understand that, we would need to know what legal forms of recourse outside the "binding" NDA that was used to prevent the leakage of information about criminal activities. Since the NDA was being used to deceive both members of the government and the public by forcing silence it was, in effect, invalid since it was used to cover up wrong-doing and violating relevant laws.
The CIA has been implicated in MANY acts of terrorism against foreign nations since its creation, and has repeatedly performed illegal ops (MK Ultra comes to mind, which started before WWII) on American soil before Bush took away that legal obstruction. It is, in essence, a terrorist organization that works for the US's interests. Since it violates both US laws and international treaties, it is a treacherous organization.
Thus, any binding elements of the NDA, such as binding arbitration and non disclosure are invalid. With that, he would have certain choices, I presume, as to which way to best report the violations.
One way would be to report to his immediate superior. If that person were corrupt, part of the problems to be reported, or not the best immediate choice because of other concerns, he might try to take to people higher up the chain. Given that, in the past, many government whistleblowers have tried doing the very same thing and met with resistance or indifference to the complaints, he may have felt that this would not be effective. In addition, if the documents in his possession showed a conspiracy the size of which he was unable to determine, he was aware the people he would be able to report to were involved in the conspiracy, he felt that he was placing his life at risk by trying to expose the criminal behavior, then he may not have felt it was wise or, indeed, safe for him to report to those within the suspect organizations. Indeed, judging by the reaction of the government to recent whistleblowers who leaked classified documents, in defiance of the Whistleblower Act, he most certainly felt he could not take this to the government. That Obama never pardoned him speaks volumes on the wisdom of his decision.
With no clear route to resolution of the problem within the government, the only other options would be to go the media or to an alternative (there are other options but their nature is treasonous - such as going directly to foreign nations with the knowledge he procured, unless such documentation proved criminal behavior that involved those nations and violated international treaties involving those nations and the US). Given that the majority of media within the US and even in many other countries is owned by a small number of people, and that almost all of them are very biased and/or controlled by the government, he likely felt that going to the media would result in a cover-up. It is even possible that he naively did so, only to discover to his chagrin that a cover-up ensued. Alternatives abound, but many of them are unworthy, such as tabloids like the Star and the National Enquirer, or are not trustworthy. Of all the alternatives, there are few indeed, I suspect, with the record of WikiLeaks, and that is probably why he chose them.
I have not taken the opportunity to peruse what he has revealed nor, indeed, what WikiLeaks has released, except for a tiny number (less than 10) of documents revolving around last year's email server scandal. Thus, I am unable to do more than theorize that he most likely went to WikiLeaks for lack of what he felt were better, safer, and more reliable options. Was it the best decision? I'm inclined to say that America's government deserves mud in its eye. It has belly-ached loudly about other nations' invasions of its secrets, yet has done great damage to numerous nations over the years, across the globe, and flaunted the authority of the UN while simultaneously undermining its power and using parts of the UN as fronts for espionage. The neo-imperialism they employ is nothing short of Machiavellian, and they routinely behave in ways that prove just how untrustworthy the government really is - both in regards to international affairs and on the home front.
This is not to say that other governments don't do the same things. It is, however, the responsibility of a leader of nations to set a proper example, not behave like a combination thief, assassin and bully carrying a machine gun.
So, IMNSHUO (In My Not-So-Humble Uninformed Opinion), he is a whistle-blowing hero and I think he should be pardoned. Exposing corruption, vice and worse within the government is the responsibility of ALL citizens.
The mainstream media, on the otherhand, ought to be sorted out quite seriously so we can get reliable, complete, unbiased coverage all the time. If Obama can save Wall Street and a major car manufacturer, surely the journalists can be made to do their jobs correctly instead of being loudspeakers for one political group or another.
Thank you for raising the question, @nigelmarkdias.
If you appreciate this article, please 🏅upvote/like👍
, 🤩resteem/share
and share it to Facebook
, Twitter
, Reddit
, LinkedIn
and wherever else
you can!
OK you define "traitor: a person who is not loyal to his or her own country, friends, etc", Im fine with that. For me we cannot look at the act alone, we must look at the motivation.
Selling secrets for personal gain and/or to weaken the institution, makes a traitor.
Divulging secrets that are only secret because if the sponsors of the institution knew, they would withdraw support for the institution, is not a traitor. The reason is the institution exists to serve the sponsors.
Its hard to classify which side of the line Snowden is on, history will decide.
Thanks for adding that excellent point on personal motivation. Did Snowden have such a motivation? Was he substantially remunerated by Wikileaks? Did he gain more than he lost due to his exile? How much of that offset was planned/expected by him, and thus could be considered as delayed gratification/rewards for his actions?
These are not questions I can answer.
Were the secrets of such a nature that the sponsors (the American public) were upset, withdrew support or in some other way reacted unfavorably to what the American government had done? AFAIK, yes...Correct?
Given the very, very long history of despicable action by the CIA (and other agencies) within the US and across the globe, I think it would be very hard to leak information that would NOT result in an outcry. ;)
When the FBI agent who had wanted to pursue members of the 9/11 group was prevented from doing so, went up the chain of command and was still told to stand down, then went to the public and revealed these facts, she was doing the public a service and revealed the underbelly of what was possibly a conspiracy to allow 9/11. I can posit further, but who will provide proof?
When the CIA was exposed for running the MK-Ultra program on American soil, testing American citizens, most of whom were homeless or mentally troubled, performing torture, vivisections without anesthetics, and killing over 20,000 Americans, the outcry was predictable.
When the CIA's involvement in drug running in SE Asia and South America (separately in history) was revealed, there was an outcry, too.
The CIA has a long, long history of damaging other countries through various types of espionage, even to the point of destroying economies, assassinations and coup d'etat. This in itself marks the CIA as a terrorist organization. That it works for the US government, ostensibly with the POTUS's authority, marks the executive branch of the US government as the leadership (much like bin Laden was the leader of al-Qaeda), meaning that it is the head of the terrorist organization. Hypocrisy at its finest.
So, I guess the real question is: How long will humans continue to do morally, civically, socially, ethically, economically, spiritually, (etc.) reprehensible things? Is there not a better way?
Love it. The CIA is "in essence, a terrorist organization that works for the US's interests. Since it violates both US laws and international treaties, it is a treacherous organization."
Someone had to say it...
Agreed