Below is my column that ran this week in Al Jazerra on the one-year anniversary of the Snowden scandal. It is hard to believe that it has only been one year given the number of investigations, promised reforms, and articles. I previously wrote a piece explaining why a pardon or commutation would not be inconsistent with prior cases, but that still seems unlikely. While I disagree with Snowden’s release of classified information that could harm the country, I do believe that his case is more nuanced than his critics have suggested. What is fascinating is that, after a year, we appear no closer to a consensus on what Snowden represents.
Edward Snowden: Whistleblower or traitor?
Jonathan Turley
It is hard to imagine that just one year ago, Edward Snowden famously walked away. He was a low-level employee of Dell contractor at a nondescript National Security Agency site. A non-entity by design. Just one of hundreds of thousands of people working in the burgeoning national security complex in the United States – the ultimate faceless cog. Now, one year later, he is a household name but the world remains divided on who Edward Snowden is. Is he a whistleblower or a traitor? It turns out that question is often answered not by how people view Snowden but how they view their government.
Snowden the whistleblower
For many around the world, and a growing number of Americans, Snowden is a hero and whistleblower who put his own freedom at stake to reveal shocking abuses by the US intelligence agencies. Much of what Snowden has done certainly looks like a whistleblower. First, he does not appear to have sought money for his disclosures. Indeed, he appears to have thought more about what he was taking than where he was taking it.
Secondly, and most importantly, is the breathtaking disclosures that he made. Consider a few of the more important disclosures:
Secret orders under which the NSA was seizing phone and text records of virtually every citizen in the United States. The scope and lack of protection in the program was described by a federal judge as “almost Orwellian”.Surveillance of world leaders, including some of our closest allies like German Chancellor Angela Merkel. At least 122 world leaders were intercepted by the United States.The forced cooperation of US telecommunication companies to turn over data on every US citizen under programmes like PRISM.Programmes like XKeyscore to search “nearly everything a user does on the Internet” through data it intercepts across the world.The tapping of fiber optic cables by British spy agency, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) in conjunction with the NSA.The interception of millions of calls in foreign countries, including every single call in places like Afghanistan.
What is most striking is that in the wake of these disclosures, the Obama Administration first denied the allegations. National Intelligence Director James R Clapper Jr not only denied the existence of the programme before the Senate but he later explained that his testimony was “the least untrue”statement that he could make. Of course, that would still make it untrue, but he has never been investigated, let alone prosecuted.
While President Barack Obama would later insist that Snowden did not influence the various reforms implemented after his disclosure, few people believe that claim. There is no question that Snowden succeeded in forcing multiple task force investigations and a series of changes, including the claimed cessation of some aspects of these programmes.
Snowden the traitor
What so many people around the world admire about Snowden is precisely what makes him such a hated figure within government. He broke the rules and worse yet, embarrassed some of the most powerful leaders in Washington. He obviously broke the law in removing and disclosing classified information – material potentially harmful to the security of the United States.
The anger over Snowden clearly goes beyond the act itself however. For many of Washington’s elite, Snowden is as baffling as some alien from another planet. These are people who spent their lives playing by the rules in a system controlled by a duopoly of power. With two parties controlling the system, there is little that happens in Washington that is not predictable and often controlled. The reactions of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and current Secretary of State John Kerry are particularly illustrative.
Clinton came off as a classic passive aggressive – expressing utter bewilderment over Snowden: “I was puzzled because we have all these protections for whistleblowers. If he were concerned and wanted to be part of the American debate, he could have been.”
Really, how? I represented the prior whistleblower who first revealed aspects of this programme years before Snowden. As I have testified in Congress, the whistleblower system referred to by Clinton is a colossal joke.
Firstly, there are exceptions under the whistleblower laws for national security information so Snowden could not use those protections. Secondly, the House and Senate oversight committees are viewed as the place that whistleblowers go to get arrested. There is a revolving door of staff going back and forth to the intelligence agencies. The only “debate” Snowden would have been part of would have been how best to terminate him in the shortest period of time.
Then there is Secretary of State John Kerry who recently offered his own brand of macho advice to the kid: “Man up and come back to the United States.”
Kerry appears ready to give him an “attaboy” on his way to solitary confinement to cut off virtually any contact with the outside world. I have great faith and love for our legal system, but national security law has become increasingly draconian and outcome determinative due to various changes in the last decade. This administration has continued the use of secret legal opinions and secret evidence in cases. The agencies continue to classify information to prevent the disclosure of potentially embarrassing or conflicting material.
Obama has refused to close tribunal proceedings and reserves the right to determine whether people go to real courts or the widely ridiculed tribunal proceedings. Even with a federal trial, Snowden would be placed under Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) to cut off any outside contact and impose limitations on even his cleared counsel in speaking with him. At trial, federal judges are increasingly barring arguments from defendants as “immaterial” even when those arguments are the real reason for their actions.
So there you have it: hero or traitor. Take your pick. What is clear is that Snowden pulled back the curtain on new reality of living within a fishbowl of constant surveillance. People clearly don’t like it, even if they don’t like Snowden. They are left however with the same sense of frustration and isolation when it comes to their government. Snowden stepped outside of a system that many Americans now view as impenetrable and unchanging. Whatever he may be, Snowden remains fascinating precisely because he proved to be the malfunctioning cog, the one who walked away.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and has handled national security cases in federal court.
Al Jazeera: June 9, 2014
“As for the question of traitor, what exactly should we call those who undermine the constitution and destroy our liberty in secret?”
.gov
” But Snowden isn’t a hero simply b/c you don’t like what the NSA is doing.”
Prior to Snowden we had elected officials who were blowing off their sworn responsibility for oversight.
We had courts that refused to allow cases to proceed because plaintiffs could not prove what many thought to be fact ( and indeed was fact).
Snowden at great personal cost and risk to himself provided irrefutable proof of abuses by NSA and the administration. Snowden, by himself, has forced the courts and elected officials to move forward and do their sworn duty.
Snowden is truly a great patriot and a great American Hero.
Everyone who cares for the constitution and liberty owes Snowden a debt beyond calculation.
As for the question of traitor, what exactly should we call those who undermine the constitution and destroy our liberty in secret?
Snowden’s a hero. He exposed the extent of the government’s abuse of our Constitutional rights.
I do see some of the “If my guy does it it’s Ok, but if your guy does it it’s a crime” here. Having said that I think despite having broken laws, he should be given a pardon.
Reblogged this on veritasusa.
Sorrry, Snowden was carrying out his civic duty
Steve H: Snowden was adhering to a higher ethic than the statutes embody. Lawyers have a duty to report their clients when they know they are planning to commit a crime; the are officers of the court first, agents of the client second. Soldiers in battle are obliged to disobey orders that they know are illegal; there should never be another My Lai.
Snowden was out his civic duty.
and all of our original Patriots were “Traitors” as well, when oppression, domination and submission instead of representation seem to be the order of the day “traitor” stops being a dirty word.
Patriot : “Give me liberty, or give me death”, a hallowed phrase. By revealing threats to every American’s Liberties, he has risked death. Our government system needs more like Snowden, not less, if we ever expect to check the runaway power of the Executive Branch in the face of virtual abdication of the Legislative and Judicial.
Why can’t he be both? He did expose abuses by the US government, and that makes him at least partially a whistle-blower. At the same time it’s pretty clear he wanted the fame/notoriety/attention that came with what he did, which fairly calls into question his motivation for doing so (it’s pretty disingenuous to claim he sought nothing for himself b/c he didn’t sell the documents, and I bet Turley knows this).
I know Turley, and this group generally, is pretty libertarian. But Snowden isn’t a hero simply b/c you don’t like what the NSA is doing. Sweeping Snowden’s less-than-admirable motivations under the rug isn’t any different than claiming he’s a traitor and ignoring the information he exposed.
Steve L – I am back in the I Don’t Know column because of the comments of Al Gore. However, I think people are capable of doing the right thing even if their motives are less than honorable.
Steve H.
“At what point do you think the law stands for something?”
= = =
That’s exactly what I’ve been asking…
… When the US Government violates the People’s Right established in the Bill of Rights, at what point do these Rights stand for something.
It’s a common theme with many on this blog: situational ethics, sometimes over-simplified by the trite phrase “the ends justify the means.” For those who believe that his disclosures justify his violating the law and his oath (i.e., one has to sign documents to have a clearance, or even an ID badge), I wonder whether I would trust any of you with anything. The lawyers would feel free to justify violating client privilege (“but he’s probably a child molester anyhow”), the doctors (“but he’s married and he got an STD from a whore”), the married (“but my wife doesn’t understand me like my (mistress) does”), and the President (“I returned a POW so what does it matter that I broke the law”).
When you tolerate (or celebrate) illegal or immoral behavior because you disagree with the “law” or the “morality”, you might as well just turn your clients in, molest the neighbor’s kid, cheat on your wife, or break any law you don’t like.
Old joke: Guy at bar asks the girl if she’ll sleep with him for a million bucks. “Maybe”. He says, how about 200 bucks. She says, indignantly, “Hell, no!!! What kind of woman do you think I’m am”. He says, we’ve already established that; we’re simply negotiating the price.
So, I guess y’all would be OK with me stealing your identities so I can take your money and give it to the poor, minus a well-deserved “administrative fee”.
At what point, you he’s-a-hero worshippers, do you think the law stands for something?
“Situational ethics”, being justifying illegal or moral actions necessary to achieve a personally desired result, is the behavior of teenagers.
Grow up. Join civil society. Snowdon broke the law. Every criminal (and teenager) can justify his actions.
I would put Snowden on the hero list. Without his efforts, we would know much less about the NSA’s abuses.
I had some respect for John Kerry. Until he came out with the Man Up statement last week, telling Snowden to Man Up and come home. John Kerry is a weenie. He needs to resign his office. He reminds me of Eric Cantor. Eric is out of office.
Jonathan, this is one issue that I find you waffling like a possible appointee to some government office. You might as well have written about whether turds smell or not.
Al Gore is an idiot, philandering, liar. His better half, Tipper, was his ONLY half. She dumped the a-hole. What Al Gore thinks about anything is irrelevant. He is a pariah in the Dem party. That’s like being too stupid to be a grave digger.
Paul C. Schulte
“Annie – you make a good point. With Gore in Snowden’s corner, I am going to go back to I Don’t Know.”
+1. Can’t be in the corner as Al “Jazeera” Gore. He’ll send his “Spider Goats” after me.
This argument makes me crazy.
If someone invented a time machine and wanted to use it to go back in time and murder Adolf Hitler before he could slaughter the Jews, Prof Turley would insist that “NO NO NO, murder is wrong!”
The crimes of the NSA and James Clapper so vastly overshadow anything Ed Snowden has done that this debate itself is rendered comical. For god’s sake, stop being so stupid.
For any act to be “wrong” it must at least match the severity of all the other heinous acts we routinely allow to go unpunished. Every child knows that.
digitaldave –
You have some source for this. As a child I learned that certain things were right and certain things were wrong.