I was fascinated with Edward Snowden for about 15 minutes. It’s hard not to appreciate his initial assertion that Americans should know about and have some say in the operation and reach of US government’s surveillance programs.
But Snowden’s whistleblower alter ego has gotten in the way, making the story about him instead of the perils of government overreach. The latest Snowden bulletin: Russia, that bastion of civil liberty, will grant him asylum on the condition that he stops the drip, drip, drip of secret information he has gathered.
Snowden now claims he is stateless, which is not accurate. He’s behaving more like a little boy who has run away from home and doesn’t want to face the consequences.
Considering how intelligent Snowden is reported to be, he clearly didn’t think this through. For starters, he underestimated how underwhelmed many Americans would be by his leaks. The very premise that Americans didn’t know about the NSA’s activities in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, is kind of absurd. Alarm bells rang loudly about the inherent dangers written into the Patriot Act, but many members of Congress, including most Democrats, were so intimidated by the Bush administration’s patriotic fervor and the march to war in Iraq that they chose to ignore them.
And those few members who did speak out could count themselves among the ignored.
Snowden also presumed that Americans have long-term memory, and that his story would grab headlines indefinitely. History tells us otherwise, and I’m guessing that Snowden’s time is running out. The more information he leaks the less relevant he becomes.
More troubling is the shady side Snowden has revealed about his character — someone who justifies dishonesty for the sake of telling a greater truth. He essentially spied to warn us about spying.
If Snowden was trying to push the country into a broader conversation about the intrusion of government, national security, and privacy, I’m afraid we’ve had it. And if he sincerely thought that this Congress could do anything constructive about what we’ve learned, he was spying on the wrong government entity.
Perhaps the biggest revelation to come out of the Snowden affair is that we shouldn’t count on members of Congress to read and understand the laws they pass, much less imagine how those laws could be misinterpreted. And that, I agree, is worrisome.
This article appears in Jun 26 – Jul 2, 2013.
I would counter by saying that the mainstream media, undeniably in bed with the federal government, has deliberately crafted and downplayed the Snowden story to focus on him as figure in an effort to deflect attention from the real issues of ‘government overreach’.
This is not a failure of Snowden’s, but a victory of the media government complex.
I expected better from you City Newspaper…
Well said, Henry Fitts! I couldn’t agree more!
Seconded, Butane. I too agree with Henry. This cynical article talks about the situation as if Snowden is a cartoon character. Fascinated for fifteen minutes? Is this entertainment? The author treats the media image and coverage of Snowden as if it is more important than the information he has disclosed, and, moreover, participates in directing the conversation away from the information itself by focusing on denigrating Snowden’s character.
A little boy? Does the author suggest Snowden should go home and endure the same sort of fate as Bradley Manning? Would that make him a man? Is it that shameful to express bitterness over being branded a traitor by your country for disclosing acts by its government one believes to be antithetical to its values?
Sure, the response by the government is to be expected, but does that preclude having feelings about what this country is doing; having feelings about being ostracized from your home? The article seems ignorant as to what a whistle-blower is, and does; what they sacrifice and risk; and it presumes a hell of a lot about what motivated Edward Snowden to do what he did. Does the author have a source that Snowden’s motivations were the desire for headlines on CNN and Fox (I’m really asking)? Is being seemingly ignored by the masses reason not to speak from one’s convictions?
How the author considers that the “alarm bells” of the PATRIOT act make the notion absurd that it is news to the American people that its government is intently spying on its citizens and allies is mind-boggling, and insulting.
Snowden’s ego has gotten in the way of what he disclosed? It is making the story? No, the media is making the story. For the relevance of facts to be judged by popularity is troubling. Would the author have written off Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s coverage of Watergate and C.R.E.E.P. because it did not initially hold the mass media’s focus?
The issues speak for themselves.
All around another reason why my respect of City newspaper continually falters.
“Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep”
– “For what it’s Worth” – Buffalo Springfield
Mr. Macaluso – You are correct that Snowden is a showboater, more concerned with self- aggrandizement then with fighting against government excesses ala’ Daniel Ellsberg.
You are also correct that, “The very premise that Americans didn’t know about the NSA’s activities in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, is kind of absurd.” It’s also easily proven that any who cared to be aware knew the general outline of what the NSA was doing years ago and sought to expose and stop them,
A case in point. In early 2006 the ACLU sued the NSA alleging that their Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) was unconstitutional and a violation of federal law. The suit also contended that the NSA was compiling and maintaining a data base of domestic call records.
In August of that year, Federal District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor granted a summary judgment ruling that the TSP’s spying on international telephone and internet communications within the United States was unconstitutional and illegal and ordered that it be halted. She immediately stayed her order pending an appeal by the Cheney-Bush Administration. She also declined to address the issue of the alleged NSA call database because the government claimed their “State Secrets Privilege” contending that the topic was a matter of national security.
Taylor’s decision was overturned in 2007 when the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the ACLU and the other plaintiffs in the case did not have standing. In 2008 the Supreme Court let that decision stand by refusing to hear the case.
So while Snowden has provided a few new details relating to domestic surveillance, the rest is old, old news. Which makes the sudden “conversion” by many Republicans to “Protectors of the Public’s Privacy” particularly humorous.
Given that president Obama has used drones to kill American citizens living in foreign countries who have been deemed as threats to US security, Edward Snowden had better be watching over his shoulder. He may have a target on his back.