 After the bombings on September 11, 2001, there was a big back lash against the intelligence community. The United States government called for the allowance for more surveillance to insure civilian’s safety, and civilians responded positively to this idea. In theory, this was supposed to be used to stop another terrorist attack. However, with this new found power the NSA also began surveilling U.S. citizens here. The National Security Agency had access to many things, most importantly phone and internet records, and even the cameras on phones and computers. People began to question if what they were doing was over stepping civil liberties. Until Edward Snowden tried to put a stop to it. Edward Snowden was a contractor for the NSA when he discovered all of this information, and decided he had to take action. Snowden revealed classified information to reporters, in order to try and help the public see what was going on within in NSA. Should Snowden should be praised or punished for his actions. Some say he is a traitor who simply broke the law by revealing classified information. Others say he is a hero who revealed important information the public needed to know. My belief is that Edward Snowden is a hero for what he did, not a traitor.

 Edward Snowden was a systems administrator working with the NSA when he discovered the extent of the NSA’s surveillance program and what they were using this power to do. Snowden did not believe what the NSA was doing was within the power of the government to do, and he believed the public deserved to know about it. However, under his contract, he was not at liberty to disclose this information. This did not stop him though, as he decided to steal hundreds of thousands of documents in order to share what the NSA was doing. Because of this, Snowden was breaking the law and would have been arrested had he not fled the country. He originally went to Hong Kong while the information was first being leaked, and today he resides in Russia, where he is being protected by the Russian president Vladimir Putin. In order to reveal this information to the public, Snowden went to the press. Snowden had to give evidence, which is why he revealed the documents to reports, causing many intelligence reports to get out which never should have. Many believe Snowden is a traitor for releasing this information, while other view him as a hero for informing the public. 

In order to understand the debate, it is important to have some background on what exactly Snowden released. As a systems administrator, Snowden had access to 1.7 million documents. Of these documents it is reported that 200,000 were released to reporters he was working with (NPR). The documents are organized into four categories. The first category is documents that show the NSA’s surveilling powers, primarily telephone and internet communication records. The data collected from phone records included all Americans, not just the targets. The internet records were a bit more regulated, as if they needed to get a court order in order to investigate Americans’ internet records (NPR). This is important because at the time the public had no knowledge that the government had these capabilities, and were using them at times when it did not seem necessary. A reporter on the matter described the other three categories. One of the categories was the actual documents that had intelligence reports discussing what’s going on in the world (NPR).  Essentially this is what they hear is going on in other countries, such as threats and other things. Another category of documents discussed the NSA’s partnerships with other intelligence agencies (NPR). Fairly simply discusses inter agency relations, how they are collaborating together, and specifically who they are doing this against. The last category, often the one that is viewed as most important, was documents that were detailing what was on the NSA’s agenda. What they had to get done, and what other agencies needed the NSA to find out (NPR). The fourth category is what worries people most, as it gets into specifics and tells the public information that can get back to those who are being spied on and allows them to get a step ahead. This is what people are most critical of Snowden for. 

Those critical of Snowden question what his motives were for leaking what he did. Many of them believe that he was a nobody who just wanted to be famous. His supporters view him as a hero, who just wanted to do the right thing. In an interview with the Guardian before the leaks had even officially been released, Snowden said "I'm just another guy who sits there day to day in the office, watching what's happening, and goes, 'This is something that's not our place to decide.' The public needs to decide whether these programs or policies are right or wrong," (Starr) Snowden claimed that he had no alternative motive, and he just desired the public to have a say in what the government does. He had no personal gain from releasing the information. Later in that same interview he said “I can't in good conscience allow the U.S. government to destroy privacy, Internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building.” (Starr) This goes along with every interview that Snowden has had since he leaked the information. Every time he is asked why he did it he says that he needed to for the good of the people, and in order to feel alright with himself morally.  Kimberley Brownlee discusses her reaction to Snowden being an example of civil disobedience. Brownlee claims that Snowden was both civilly disobedient as well as morally justified. He was aware of the consequences for is actions, but decided that his moral reasoning was greater than those consequences. He put his moral responsibility before himself, even though that meant breaking the law (Brownlee). Questioning if Snowden fits under civil disobedience is important. If he truly did have the intensions that he is believed to, he most certainly falls under this category, and therefore should be praised for his actions, not disrespected. It is clear to his supporters, as well as many of those critical of him, that Snowden’s intensions were pure, and he had the good of the nation in mind. 

Others however, do not feel this way. One article stated his main issues were the way it was released, and his lack of accepting responsibility for his actions (Aka being arrested) (Keck). Keck believes that what Snowden did was not done with good intensions, and he should be held responsible. However, Snowden has said he contacted the NSA multiple times before going to the press. His legal advisor, Ben Wizner, was quoted saying “Snowden raised many complaints over many channels. NSA is releasing a single part of a single exchange after previously claiming that no evidence existed.” (Tabo). Snowden claims that he tried to discuss with the NSA, and they ignored him, continuously. The NSA claims that this didn’t happen, but they clearly don’t want it to get out that they could have stopped this from ever being leaked the way it was. Snowden testified to the European Parliament that the U.S. did not offer him any whistleblowing protection (Tabo). So that option was gone as well. Some say he could have gone to congress and discussed the matter with them, but the question of evidence once again comes to play, and it is possible without the public support that congress would have done nothing. If Snowden had done anything else, he would have been in fear for his life. Snowden did the only thing he could do to get the information out and ensure his safety.

Had Snowden stayed in the U.S., he would not be granted a fair trial because of the espionage act. Because of the espionage act, Snowden’s trial would be held behind closed doors by the FBI and the NSA, who would clearly condemn him as his actions did make them look bad, and took away power from them. Snowden’s lawyer stated Edwards openness to a fair and public trial in which he could plead his case. However, due to the current espionage law this is not possible (Macaskill). As a result of Edward Snowden’s actions there is a debate of whether the espionage act should be amended today. The espionage act is a very important law in place to ensure that top secret information stays that way. However, with the advances in technology and the growing power of surveillance agencies, the espionage act should be updated to become more current. The espionage act was intent was “to try to stop the real threat of subversion, sabotage, and malicious interference with the war effort, including the controversial reinstatement of the draft.” (Barnes) The intent of this is simple. To stop traitors from betraying our country. This is why many people question if it even applies to Edward Snowden. The argument is that he leaked documents and thus put our country at risk. However, his true intent was to cause a public debate and give the public the knowledge they deserved. Thus, many are calling for changes to the espionage act. Technology has advanced what information agents are capable of obtaining. The Patriot act had granted the NSA the ability to do what they were doing, but the public was virtually unaware of everything taking place. With the espionage act protecting it, the public may have never found out about this without Edward Snowden. 

An important thing to consider while discussing Edward Snowden is important political figures comments and thoughts on the issue. When many first heard the news they chose sides immediately. US Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren said “We have a constitution and it provides that the American people are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures unless there is a warrant. That system in the constitution has gone seriously off the wheels when you take a look at what’s happening here in the spy agencies.” (Macaskill). In her opinion it is important that we still must maintain the constitution during the digital age.  If we begin going against the constitution, we begin to lose ourselves as a nation. We cannot allow cyber surveillance to change how we are as a nation. Former NSA general counselor Stewart Baker claims that they cannot be transparent about most of these issues, and they need the public to get comfortable with the thought that someone will be doing this. His central claim is that the government agencies cannot be open about these things and they just need to be able to protect the nation (Macaskill).  Baker also discusses how it was all in the attempt to prevent another 9/11, and that all of this was necessary for the nations safety (Macaskill). However, the mass surveillance of a society will do far more harm than good. Yes, targeting potential terrorists is necessary to protect the nation, but spying on the average citizen is not. Former NSA senior executive Thomas Drake said “I believe we’re actually having the debate for the first time since 9/11. I mean, we are supposed to be a democracy we are supposed to be a constitutional republic where the most critical decisions, are made, especially the things that affect one’s rights and liberties and freedoms, there’s been no true discussion.” (Macaskill). This is a former NSA executive essentially admitting that in his belief there was no debate on whether this should take place. He recognizes that there was nothing democratic about the mass surveillance taking place. It is interesting to see just how similar Drake’s beliefs are to Snowden’s when it comes to the need for a public debate on mass surveillance. President Obama initially was entirely critical of Snowden, and whole-heartedly defended the NSA. He believed that the NSA had struck the right balance between privacy and security. However, as time went on and more information was revealed, he discovered just how critical the public was of him, and international pressure caused him to become a little more open to reform (Macaskill). 

Four years after everything happened, there is a lot of discussion of what should be done with Edward Snowden. Today he resides within Russia, as he has since July of 2013. Just this past January Vladimir Putin extended his asylum to 2020 (CNN). Many question why Putin continues to renew his asylum. Some believe it to be a strategic move, others believe it is just simply to irritate the U.S. government, and some believe Putin may just truly believe what Snowden did was the right thing. He works as an IT specialist at a company within Russia (CNN). The question remains as to if he plans to stay there forever, or if he will ever come back to finish the battle he has begun. There is also the question of if Russia will ever choose to kick him out. He still advocates strongly for his beliefs, and believes he was in the right. As time has gone on it has become even unlikely for Snowden to come back without immediately facing a jail cell, and then an unfair trial. With President Trump now in office, a man who has said he would give Snowden the death penalty, it would be shocking to see Snowden return. However, as a believer in justice I propose a solution. Grant Snowden a fair and public trial to decide once and for all whether he was a hero, or a traitor. In order to do this there would need to be an amendment to the espionage act, taking away the agencies right to conduct the trial behind closed doors, conducted by the agency themselves. 

At the end of the day no matter your opinion on Edward Snowden it is important to recognize that he accomplished his goals. He aspired to start a public debate on the issue of mass surveillance, and he did just that. Although the two sides tend to be polarized, there is no doubting the debate takes place. No matter what side you are on, hopefully you are able to recognize the democratic importance of this. Without Edward Snowden this debate would never be able to take place, and reform to the Patriot act would never have taken place. For that reason, I believe Edward Snowden is a hero. 
