Editor-in-Chief
Twenty-eight year-old self proclaimed “computer wizard” Edward Snowden
made national headlines earlier this summer after leaking thousands of
classified documents containing evidence linking the National Security Agency,
also known as the NSA, to the illegal collection of private information of
United States citizens. To avoid being taken into custody, he fled to Moscow,
Russia where he was granted temporary amnesty. In editorials published last
week, both the Guardian and New York Times pleaded for President Obama
to drop charges against Snowden and to allow him to return to the U.S. with the New York Times saying, “Mr. Snowden
deserves better than a life of permanent exile, fear and flight. He may have
committed a crime to do so, but he has done his country a great service.” A sentiment that I and many other Americans
would agree with. Snowden risked the only life he’d known to inform the
American public of the crimes being committed against them.
While I agree with the idea that Snowden should be allowed to return to
the U.S. a free man, I have to ask, “Does he even want to return to the
country?”In a July interview Snowden admitted, "I don't want to live in a
world where everything that I say, everything I do, everyone I talk to, every
expression of creativity, or love, or friendship is recorded, and that's not
something I'm willing to support, it's not something I'm willing to build, and
it's not something I'm willing to live under.” Scarily enough, the society
Snowden describes is eerily similar to the dystopian society portrayed in
George Orwell’s 1984. In the novel,
all communication is controlled and monitored by the government, known in the
book as the Party. The actions of citizens are monitored to prevent revolt, and
the Party encourages citizens to report suspicious activity of any person,
friend or family.
However, despite the overwhelming amount of evidence against the NSA,
some media outlets suggest the idea of offering amnesty to Snowden is out of
the question. Fox News says, “Bring him home. That’s what The New York Times’ and The
Guardian’s editorial pages say about NSA leaker, Edward Snowden. In other
words, he’s a hero, not a villain, for breaking the law and disclosing top
secret documents.” Of course, that depends on your definition of hero and
villain.
A column published by the Los
Angeles Times calls Snowden a “scoundrel who deserves prosecution and
public condemnation,” and says, “Snowden's disclosures have expanded far beyond
those laudable aims to exposing U.S. intelligence-gathering operations that
appear not only legal but legitimate in the eyes of most Americans.” Should it
matter whether or not the actions of the NSA appear legal or legitimate? The
fact is they committed a crime against the American public and they should be
punished for it.
The media is so quick to label Snowden as a traitor, but are completely
unaware of the kinds of people who founded this country. The founding fathers
were considered to be just as much traitors as Edward Snowden is today. These
are the people who wrote the United States Constitution, a future American
police state is not the country they would have dreamed of. Edward Snowden is
looking out for the rights of the people, when the government has neglected to
do so.
He didn’t just highlight the NSA’s surveillance program, he made light
of a trust issue between the U.S. Government and its people. What else have
they kept quiet from us? If in Snowden’s position, what actions would you have
taken?
So yes, condemn Snowden for breaking the law and risking his life to
reveal that the government is invading your right to privacy and completely
ignore the fact that the crimes committed by the U.S. government are much
greater than that of Snowden, because that’s what the government wants you to think.
They don’t want you to realize who the real criminals are.
