Snowden: Hero or Villain?

 

398px-Edward_Snowden-2The reverberating headline, it seems, is “Without Snowden, there would be no Freedom Act.” Snowden leaked all of the stuff about the phone records that created the public outrage. This ultimately applied the appropriate level of political pressure to put a stop to much of the things we all seem to find objectionable about the NSAs domestic spying activities. Thus, Snowden is a hero, and a deal should be struck to allow him to come home.

That seems to be a fine line of reasoning. But I can’t get past one simple thing: what Snowden did was illegal, and as near as I am aware, remains illegal. I’m not convinced he should be stood up before a firing squad, but shouldn’t he face some consequences? Maybe his two-year exile to Russia is enough? What do you say?

Published in Domestic Policy, Law
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 245 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. BThompson Inactive
    BThompson
    @BThompson

    Mike H:It is. I think the idea of the rule of law is flawed.

    Okay, we’re done here. If I have to explain why the rule of law is necessary to protect freedom to a libertarian then I just give up.

    • #31
  2. user_331141 Member
    user_331141
    @JamieLockett

    I think there are two separate actions we need to look at when discussing Snowden:

    1) The release of information through the media that exposed massive government intrusion into the liberties of its own populace.

    2) Seeking asylum in foreign, ostensibly hostile nations, creating conditions that threaten the exposure of classified information to those governments.

    Action 1 is commendable in a society that values liberty. Action 2 is deplorable in almost any circumstance.

    As always the choices are much murkier than the binary options presented here.

    • #32
  3. user_337201 Inactive
    user_337201
    @EricWallace

    BThompson:

    Spin, no one has evidence, because the only evidence would be with the Chinese and Russian governments. They aren’t sharing. But his choice of where to go after he committed his crimes and the nature of the regimes in those countries makes the speculation better than some wild conjecture. I don’t really understand why you’d want to play dumb, or what you think is to be gained by assuming that there is some way Snowden may have kept these files out of the hands of those governments.

    You don’t think it’s necessary to have evidence to prove a treasonous act? Surely the rule of law operates at a higher level than “of course he did it!”

    • #33
  4. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Mike H:

    Spin:

    Mike H:

    Right, I’m saying whatever the law says, punishing someone should be based on them actually doing something bad rather than violating the letter of the law. And I realize I’m in a pretty extreme minority here.

    This is an interesting view. Would you also apply it to speeding tickets?

    I’m glad it has been applied to me a few times, and I got off with a warning.

    • #34
  5. user_331141 Member
    user_331141
    @JamieLockett

    BThompson:

    Mike H:Right, I’m saying whatever the law says, punishing someone should be based on them actually doing something bad rather than violating the letter of the law. And I realize I’m in a pretty extreme minority here.

    This is completely counter to the idea of the rule of law. You cannot leave it up to the individual to judge whether laws are actually doing what they are designed to do, and you definitely cannot leave it up to individuals to decide whether certain things deserve to be classified. Such thinking just gives approval to people becoming law unto themselves. If a law is bad, it should be changed. If the process for classifying information is broken, it should be fixed. People can’t just break the law and say that their judgement is better than those who enacted it.

    What’s more, Snowden didn’t just leak information that shouldn’t be classified. He stole information about our cyber espionage and hacking activity against the Chinese and Russia. He gave that information to those governments. That is treason, plain and simple.

    How are we supposed to know IF the bad law should be changed if everything about its operation is classified? We wouldn’t have even known about the program if Snowden hadn’t leaked.

    Also – those of you who want to go to elected representatives over this: the vast majority of them support spying on American citizens. Good luck with that.

    • #35
  6. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    BThompson:

    Spin:Again, speculative. Do you have evidence that he handed that information to foreign governments? I’m not expressing doubt, mind you, simply asking for evidence. It was suggested that no evidence exists.

    And so we are clear, I’m not arguing in favor of Snowden, I’m simply trying to learn.

    Spin, no one has evidence, because the only evidence would be with the Chinese and Russian governments. They aren’t sharing. But his choice of where to go after he committed his crimes and the nature of the regimes in those countries makes the speculation better than some wild conjecture. I don’t really understand why you’d want to play dumb, or what you think is to be gained by assuming that there is some way Snowden may have kept these files out of the hands of those governments. Do you think those governments perhaps didn’t want that information from Snowden? Do you think Snowden is some super genius who was able to devise a way that those governments wouldn’t be able to access the files? Do you think Putin is keeping Snowden in Russia because he likes his company? I’m all for being fair, but I’m not stupid, and I don’t think you are either.

    I’m not playing dumb, nor assuming anything.  What I want, is something I can refer to, beyond speculation, in a conversation with someone who holds to opposing opinion.  You may be right, but will it stand up in a court of law?  When did it become a mark of “playing dumb” to ask for substantive evidence?  Why do these conversations so often become personal attacks?  “You don’t agree with me?  Why would you not agree with me and take what I’m saying as fact?  Are you stupid?  Don’t you have the sense God gave a horse?”  I mean, really.

    • #36
  7. iWc Coolidge
    iWc
    @iWe

    The Federal Register in 1936 had 2620 pages.

    Now it has 78,796 pages.

    It is impossible for any of us to follow “The Law” because the Law is endless, complex to the extreme, and capriciously and tyrannically enforced. Each of you is arguably currently violating a felony at any time, depending on which government bureaucrat is being asked.

    Legality does not equal morality. Our informed consciences are, and should be, our final guide.

    • #37
  8. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    We seem to keep glossing over how entirely wrong the government was in this.

    • #38
  9. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    BThompson:

    Mike H:It is. I think the idea of the rule of law is flawed.

    Okay, we’re done here. If I have to explain why the rule of law is necessary to protect freedom to a libertarian then I just give up.

    Yeah, that would be like me having to explain to you that laws don’t augment objective morality.

    • #39
  10. iWc Coolidge
    iWc
    @iWe

    I defend Rule of Law when the Law is based on the principles enshrined in our Founding Documents.

    Today’s law is tyranny. The IRS aims to destroy us, but Hillary Clinton is likely to become President. It is nothing more than “Might Makes Right”, enforced through a government that simply takes away all your property for no other reason than the fact that you have it and they want it.

    • #40
  11. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    BThompson:

    Spin:

    BThompson:

    What’s more, Snowden didn’t just leak information that shouldn’t be classified. He stole information about our cyber espionage and hacking activity against the Chinese and Russia. He gave that information to those governments. That is treason, plain and simple.

    Do you have any information that can substantiate this?

    Good grief. The government has revealed that he took this information. It has been written about and I’ve heard Tom Cotton talking about this in interviews. If Snowden just wanted to protect the privacy of Americans, why would he need to take information about our cyber defense and hacking programs? How would he prevent it from getting into the hands of the governments in the authoritarian countries hosting him? Those are the questions you should be asking.

    The question I’m asking is this:  do you have something you can show me that supports what you are saying?  Did you read something?  Is there an article in the New York Times?  On National Review?  What interview with Tom Cotton?  I realize that if we were discussing this on Facebook then my asking for a source of information would be my way of saying I disagree with you and you are wrong.  But we aren’t on Facebook, and that’s not what I’m saying.  I just want you to give me something I can go look at so I can come to the same conclusion as you.   I don’t know why that evokes a “good grief”.

    • #41
  12. BThompson Inactive
    BThompson
    @BThompson

    Eric Wallace:You don’t think it’s necessary to have evidence to prove a treasonous act? Surely the rule of law operates at a higher level than “of course he did it!”

    We have evidence of treason. Taking classified information out of the country is grounds all by itself. What’s more we know he released classified information about our cyber defense and hacking activities to journalists from China and many other countries. That is treasonous. The only thing we don’t have evidence of is Snowden actively handing his computer files to a government official. But if you think those governments didn’t at least forcibly take those files you are deluded.

    • #42
  13. user_331141 Member
    user_331141
    @JamieLockett

    BThompson:

    Mike H:It is. I think the idea of the rule of law is flawed.

    Okay, we’re done here. If I have to explain why the rule of law is necessary to protect freedom to a libertarian then I just give up.

    Yeah I am decidedly not with Mike H on this point. The rule of law is important to a functioning and free society. That doesn’t mean all laws should exist – and that doesn’t mean that breaking the law in order to effect change isn’t laudable.

    Have we forgotten that the founders of our very country were some of the biggest lawbreakers in history?

    • #43
  14. BThompson Inactive
    BThompson
    @BThompson

    Spin:The question I’m asking is this: do you have something you can show me that supports what you are saying? Did you read something? Is there an article in the New York Times? On National Review?

    They’re all over the place, look them up yourself. I’m not your research assistant. You seem to have a real interest in this topic, but somehow have missed things that are widely reported.

    • #44
  15. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    I admit to being conflicted over Snowden. He broke the law, and it’s a good law. That said, I find reasoning that relies solely on “he broke the law!” simplistic and naive.

    He’s surely a traitor. But to what?

    It is not obvious that he released information to Russia or China no matter how much it would simplify matters for those whose first priority is to reach a conclusion. I’m not a cop, prosecutor, or judge so I don’t have to.

    I suppose he could have turned over his information to a Senator. Rand Paul has snakes in his brain, that seems to run in his family.

    We cannot allow one individual to make unilateral decisions regarding our security. Unless, of course, their husband is a mendacious former president and they are a morally crippled besotted potato in a pantsuit. Or they are an anti-American post-colonialist sociopath who garnered the support of a majority of our ignorant and ill-educated electorate twice.

    Snowden broke the law and violated our trust. I think I’m glad he did it.

    • #45
  16. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    Jamie Lockett:

    BThompson:

    Mike H:It is. I think the idea of the rule of law is flawed.

    Okay, we’re done here. If I have to explain why the rule of law is necessary to protect freedom to a libertarian then I just give up.

    Yeah I am decidedly not with Mike H on this point. The rule of law is important to a functioning and free society. That doesn’t mean all laws should exist – and that doesn’t mean that breaking the law in order to effect change isn’t laudable.

    Have we forgotten that the founders of our very country were some of the biggest lawbreakers in history?

    Franklin went to France to secure that country’s support against the crown, an obviously treasonous thing to do, and he is a hero for it.

    • #46
  17. BThompson Inactive
    BThompson
    @BThompson

    Jamie Lockett:Have we forgotten that the founders of our very country were some of the biggest lawbreakers in history?

    That’s a bit simplistic. Snowden had legal options on how to expose this that should have been pursued before he did what he did. And he went way beyond what was necessary to effect change to arguably bad policies.

    • #47
  18. user_331141 Member
    user_331141
    @JamieLockett

    BThompson:
    Snowden had options on how to expose this that should have been pursued before he did what he did. And he went way beyond what was necessary to effect change to arguably bad policies.

    So did the founders.

    To claim that he went way beyond what was necessary – that’s just a value judgement on your behalf. Some of us believe the did exactly what was necessary to expose this.

    • #48
  19. Leigh Inactive
    Leigh
    @Leigh

    Eric Wallace:

    BThompson:

    Spin, no one has evidence, because the only evidence would be with the Chinese and Russian governments. They aren’t sharing. But his choice of where to go after he committed his crimes and the nature of the regimes in those countries makes the speculation better than some wild conjecture. I don’t really understand why you’d want to play dumb, or what you think is to be gained by assuming that there is some way Snowden may have kept these files out of the hands of those governments.

    You don’t think it’s necessary to have evidence to prove a treasonous act? Surely the rule of law operates at a higher level than “of course he did it!”

    Yes, in order to convict of treason, of course.  But that’s not the question.

    Here, the law has been openly violated by revealing classified information — that’s not in dispute.  The question is whether the lawbreaker’s motives and the good to the country he may have done (which is very much disputed) make him worthy of a presidential pardon or some other special treatment.  “Innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t quite apply: we’re already talking about value judgments outside strict legal guidelines.

    In this case, the very strong probability that he did in fact provide such information weighs strongly against any hero’s welcome home.

    • #49
  20. BThompson Inactive
    BThompson
    @BThompson

    Jamie Lockett:So did the founders.

    Stop comparing Snowden to the founders. He is not George Washington or John Adams or James Madison. He didn’t act in concert with thousands of prominent leaders in open defiance to tyranny and then stand his ground fighting and suffering the consequences to see the cause through. He acted in secret, on his own and ran. He didn’t run to an ally or neutral country. He ran to our enemies and gave them our secrets. Any analogy to our founding is lazy and specious and absurd.

    • #50
  21. user_337201 Inactive
    user_337201
    @EricWallace

    BThompson:

    We have evidence of treason. Taking classified information out of the country is grounds all by itself. What’s more we know he released classified information about our cyber defense and hacking activities to journalists from China and many other countries. That is treasonous.

    I may be wrong (I don’t know the case law of treason) but simply taking classified material out of the country doesn’t sound like that would be grounds for treason. Releasing info to journalists – well ya, it’s published online so it’s available to just about anyone. Again, this is more about the case law of what specifically counts as treason.

    The only thing we don’t have evidence of is Snowden actively handing his computer files to a government official. But if you think those governments didn’t at least forcibly take those files you are deluded.

    “We don’t have evidence” – exactly. If there’s no evidence to this point, you don’t have an argument.

    • #51
  22. user_129539 Inactive
    user_129539
    @BrianClendinen

    BThompson:

    Mike H:Right, I’m saying whatever the law says, punishing someone should be based on them actually doing something bad rather than violating the letter of the law. And I realize I’m in a pretty extreme minority here.

    This is completely counter to the idea of the rule of law. You cannot leave it up to the individual to judge whether laws are actually doing what they are designed to do, and you definitely cannot leave it up to individuals to decide whether certain things deserve to be classified. Such thinking just gives approval to people becoming law unto themselves. If a law is bad, it should be changed. If the process for classifying information is broken, it should be fixed. People can’t just break the law and say that their judgement is better than those who enacted it.

    What’s more, Snowden didn’t just leak information that shouldn’t be classified. He stole information about our cyber espionage and hacking activity against the Chinese and Russia. He gave that information to those governments. That is treason, plain and simple.

    Did he really break the chief law of the land? Yes he broke administrative law but screw administrative law. Yes he broke statuary law. But then one can easily make the argument when someone uses statutory law to nullify a reasonable take on constitutional law that you really are not breaking the law if you break the nullifying statutory law let alone administrative law associated with that statutory law.  However, I am not saying we don’t need classified information and some of what he disclosed was treason material.

    However just because some bureaucrat decides that some  government ongoings should be classified therefore a supposed reasonable exception to the first amendment, does not mean someone who disagree with that is breaking the chief law of the land.  When you have laws which can be rationally interpreted from an originalist viewpoint as opposition to each other as we do in this case which law takes precedence? Because the law itself can break the law.

    Let alone is it acceptable to break the law including constitutional law in order to combat another provision of the constitution that is clearly being broken? I would argue it is a form of civil disobedience that should be decided by a jury.

    • #52
  23. Gödel's Ghost Inactive
    Gödel's Ghost
    @GreatGhostofGodel

    Spin: But I can’t get past one simple thing: what Snowden did was illegal, and as near as I am aware, remains illegal. I’m not convinced he should be stood up before a firing squad, but shouldn’t he face some consequences?

    This is where I spray coffee all over my keyboard and learn, all over again, why I’m not a conservative, and sure as hell not a Republican.

    • Slavery—legal in the US prior to emancipation
    • Election of Hitler—legal
    • Theft of private property by “civil asset forfeiture”—legal
    • Theft of private property by “eminent domain”—legal

    and so on and so forth.

    Snowden is categorically in the “hero” column, and to be very frank, anyone to whom that’s not blindingly obvious needs to take a very long, very hard look in the mirror and ask yourself at what point you made your peace with America degenerating into a Fascist State—especially now that we also know the FBI is flying surveillance drones under cover of some 11 shell companies, Ross Ulbricht got life without parole for running the Silk Road web site, and section 215 of the Patriot Act has cracked no terrorism cases.

    But then, there wasn’t a second revolution after Waco, TX or Ruby Ridge, ID, either. We let government stormtroopers kidnap Elián González from his family in Florida and send him back to communist Cuba—after his mother drowned getting him to relative freedom.

    I’m sorry—this isn’t directed at you. But every time I think my disgust with the “free” United States can’t get any worse, politicians find a way to make me a liar. I used to think it was mostly the disastrously economically backwards Democrats who were the worst, but post-Snowden and, yes, Assange and Wikileaks, I’m reminded: the Republicans are just as bad or worse on the civil liberties front.

    “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” — Lord Acton

    • #53
  24. user_337201 Inactive
    user_337201
    @EricWallace

    BThompson:

    Spin:The question I’m asking is this: do you have something you can show me that supports what you are saying? Did you read something? Is there an article in the New York Times? On National Review?

    They’re all over the place, look them up yourself. I’m not your research assistant. You seem to have a real interest in this topic, but somehow have missed things that are widely reported.

    You make the argument, you have to back it up. Answering people’s questions with “Do your research” is . . . let’s see, “lazy and specious and absurd.”

    • #54
  25. BThompson Inactive
    BThompson
    @BThompson

    Eric, do you believe that the Chinese and Russian governments have copies of all the classified files that Snowden took into those countries? Yes or No.

    If you don’t think they have them, or truly believe there is a reasonable chance they don’t have them, please explain.

    Do you think the Chinese and Russian governments weren’t interested in getting those files? Do you think Eric Snowden would somehow be able to hide those files from the Russian and Chinese governments? Do you think those governments would allow Snowden to enter, stay or leave their custody and jurisdiction without getting those files from him? Do you really believe the answer to any of those questions is, no? Do you really in your heart believe that?

    • #55
  26. user_337201 Inactive
    user_337201
    @EricWallace

    Leigh:

    Eric Wallace:

    You don’t think it’s necessary to have evidence to prove a treasonous act? Surely the rule of law operates at a higher level than “of course he did it!”

    Yes, in order to convict of treason, of course. But that’s not the question.

    Here, the law has been openly violated by revealing classified information — that’s not in dispute. The question is whether the lawbreaker’s motives and the good to the country he may have done (which is very much disputed) make him worthy of a presidential pardon or some other special treatment. “Innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t quite apply: we’re already talking about value judgments outside strict legal guidelines.

    In this case, the very strong probability that he did in fact provide such information weighs strongly against any hero’s welcome home.

    BThompson started out talking about the rule of law so I think he set his own standard for requiring evidence for the claims to giving classified info specifically to Russia and China.

    • #56
  27. Tom Meyer Member
    Tom Meyer
    @tommeyer

    Misthiocracy:He did good (exposing government mendacity) in spite of doing bad (defecting to China and Russia, when other options were clearly available to him).

    If he had sought asylum in a country like Switzerland, or if he’d followed proper civil disobedience procedure by releasing the data to the public and then turning himself in to face the punishment of the state while at the same time denouncing it, I’d be much more willing to place laurels on his head.

    Jamie Lockett:I think there are two separate actions we need to look at when discussing Snowden:

    1) The release of information through the media that exposed massive government intrusion into the liberties of its own populace.

    2) Seeking asylum in foreign, ostensibly hostile nations, creating conditions that threaten the exposure of classified information to those governments.

    Seconding both of these.

    I’m — on the whole — glad Snowden released/stole the data. I’m infuriated that he appears to have absolutely no discomfort or doubt about doing such a serious thing, and doesn’t think there should be any consequences whatsoever, either for the crime or running off to the China and Russia.

    • #57
  28. BThompson Inactive
    BThompson
    @BThompson

    Eric Wallace:You make the argument, you have to back it up.

    I didn’t make an argument. I stated a fact, a fact that is well documented. I’m not required to back anything up. I wouldn’t state it if it weren’t true, and I’d think someone who was so interested in discussing this topic would make an effort to be informed on it. That’s not unreasonable.

    Answering people’s questions with “Do your research” is . . . let’s see, “lazy and specious and absurd.”

    You evidently don’t own a dictionary.

    • #58
  29. user_331141 Member
    user_331141
    @JamieLockett

    BThompson:

    Jamie Lockett:So did the founders.

    Stop comparing Snowden to the founders. He is not George Washington or John Adams or James Madison. He didn’t act in concert with thousands of prominent leaders in open defiance to tyranny and then stand his ground fighting and suffering the consequences to see the cause through. He acted in secret, on his own and ran. He didn’t run to an ally or neutral country. He ran to our enemies and gave them our secrets. Any analogy to our founding is lazy and specious and absurd.

    You said the rule of law is paramount in all cases and that treason is always wrong. Clearly that isn’t the case.

    • #59
  30. Tom Meyer Member
    Tom Meyer
    @tommeyer

    Jamie Lockett:

    You said the rule of law is paramount in all cases and that treason is always wrong. Clearly that isn’t the case.

    Right.

    I think the problem here is that Snowden has done nothing since the release to mitigate the accusations — legal or moral — of treachery and everything to secure his own safety and celebrity.

    I realize it’s easy for me to say sitting here without an angry Federal government after me, but that seems cowardly.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.