The hysteria surrounding Edward Snowden and his disclosure of the classified and sensitive documents regarding the NSA’s expansive surveillance program underscores a deep and troubling problem facing our nation today— what happens if a whistleblower releases information of an abuse that a nation, for all intents and purposes, condones?
The U.S. government has classified Snowden as a fugitive and has charged him with espionage and theft of government property — enough to sentence him to 30 years in prison. And government officials have condemned both China and Russia for not extraditing Snowden. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has stated that the Snowden affair with Hong Kong will have a negative impact on U.S.-China relations.
Members of Congress have expressed similar sentiments. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), in an op-ed for the New York Daily News, wrote, “[W]hat Edward Snowden did amounts to an act of treason.”
But what this exaggerated panic truly amounts to is a simple realization that many Americans are okay with the government collecting their information from cell phones, emails, and internet searches as long as it is in the pursuit of national security.
Because so many Americans are okay with this kind of government surveillance, the effect of Snowden’s disclosure of the NSA program only amounted to a worsening of national security. Under this mindset, Snowden’s actions truly do appear treasonous.
Over the past few weeks, we have heard a lot of slippery slope arguments concerning these leaks and the NSA surveillance program in general. The worry constantly vocalized is that once the government has all of our cell phone and internet usage records in its possession, they could then use this information for evil — presumably, as a way to “set-up” Americans. This is an argument that bears some (but not much) consideration.
However, the real slippery slope that we should be worried about has nothing to do with the ongoing debate between privacy and security. It instead has to do with the nature of whistleblowers and how to protect them as a valuable check against government abuse.
As a nation, we have an invested interest in protecting whistleblowers. Whistleblowers have historically uncovered serious wrongdoings committed by our own government—wrongdoings that, if gone unnoticed, would have been detrimental for our nation.
Snowden’s true crime was uncovering something that much of America is okay with.
Indeed, any argument that attempts to challenge Snowden’s actions must rely on the premise that the American people were not victimized — that they were “okay with it.” However, solely being “okay with” the American people is not the necessary and sufficient standard of which to judge and prosecute whistleblowers.
Historically, America has been “okay with” some truly horrible things, and it is frightening to imagine what our nation might be okay with in the future. Perhaps the NSA surveillance program is something that is justifiable and independently good; however, prosecuting Snowden does not send this message. Instead, prosecuting Snowden sends the message that if a whistleblower discloses something the American people happen to be “okay with,” he or she will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
This is not the kind of precedent that will encourage a healthy relationship between the U.S. government and whistleblowers.
Snowden could be wrong; he could be naïve. But his actions were motivated by what he genuinely saw as a dire abuse in the U.S. government. Moreover, he has supported his perspective with a sympathetic and logically valid, constitutional argument. For this, and for the sake of protecting the future integrity of the U.S. government, Snowden should be immediately and swiftly pardoned.