Point and Counterpoint
As with any event in the political sphere, Edward Snowden’s actions and revelations are shrouded in political, legal, and moral intrigue. To some, he stole private government documents and leaked them to the world and enemies of the state. To others, he took information the people of the United States and other countries deserved to know. On the one hand, he violated the preexisting, though lackluster, whistleblower legislation and processes, forcing him to flee the country to avoid prosecution. On the other hand, he knew the whistleblower process would restrain the information and its reach, so he disregarded it. To one side, he’s a hero, and to the other, a traitor.
The first major cause for being against Snowden and his actions comes from legal frameworks. This makes it plain as day: Snowden is a criminal. By the laws of the time, that’s exactly right. He did steal government documents, flee the country, reveal said sensitive information, and then found shelter in a county the United States finds itself with high tensions with. He refused to follow the legal steps for whistleblowing at the time, making himself eligible for prosecution and forcing his search for asylum. Not only are there angles for the argument about the legality of the theft, but the damage both economically and politically to the United States. The damage was widespread, and according to President Barack Obama, the damage meant “we will not be able to keep our people safe or conduct foreign policy” (Transcript of Barack Obama’s Speech on NSA Reforms).
The government attempts to quantify the damage done by leaks both to government spending and relationships with foreign nations, and “The potential damage here is staggering. Whether or not there are automated audit trails we can only guess; if not, there may be no way of bounding what may have been compromised. And if the damage assessment teams cannot identify what secrets may have been lost, they cannot assess who or what may be at risk. It is this shattering uncertainty that our adversaries prize most of all” (Van Cleave 3).
The United States is a unique spot compared to other countries due to its almost omnipresent influence. The United States has military bases across the world, brokered peace with many nations, and has a lengthy list of countries that depend on it to a degree for economic, diplomatic or military reasons. There is practically an invisible shroud across most of the world of American influence, and it can be easily damaged as “ in addition to all the other harm Snowden has done, the secrets he disclosed have been used to discredit U.S. intelligence among the very democratic populations that depend most on the American defense umbrella” (Van Cleave 7).
Another angle against Snowden is based in ethics. Similarly to the previous claim, it is quite simple: Snowden betrayed not only the trust of his employer but his obligations to his country. Granted, he can easily and accurately be deemed a traitor by conventional means. In this sense, not only is Snowden under fire but so are the pair of journalists he worked with; Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. The journalism industry has dealt with leaks many times, “Nevertheless, when reporting leaked information, journalists must verify the information's veracity and authenticity and should provide the proper context for the information so that the public can understand it” (Fenster 113).
It can be said that the leaks were not verified, nor were their impacts fully considered before letting them loose. There are two sides to this part of the argument as the impacts of the leaks were so varied. Among those against his actions, his leaks, in regards to domestic impacts, are said to be “well chosen to inflame public opinion” (Van Cleave 3). The impact is considered even more grievous in foreign countries, who, as stated before, began to look down on the United States intelligence agencies, and used the leaks to their advantage to more accurately counter United States operations.
In the argument in favor of Snowden’s actions, in regards to legality, there is no attempt to deny the technical illegality of the theft. But, there are arguments to justify it, as “telling the truth isn’t a crime” and is the “civic responsibility” of the people (“Statement from Edward Snowden”). The most major factor in his defense being that the information he had needed to be available for the American public to read and discuss. He could have followed the whistleblowing process, but that would’ve only resulted in a closed doors debate and tight non-disclosure agreements. This still could’ve changed something, but he thought the public had a right to know, and he had a legal obligation, as a member of the government, to serve the people.
His choice to leak wasn’t a long, drawn-out plan, and more along the lines of how the material he was processing during his “job” conflicted with the U.S. Constitution. Snowden “claims he was only moved to leak when convinced of the specific illegality and immorality of the National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program” (Fenster). The argument is that he may have broken the law, but to reveal legal violations on a large enough scale to do more good than harm.
Furthermore, the concept of civil disobedience is often referenced when debating his actions, as he refused to comply with a specific set of laws but in a directly peaceful manner. His actions caused no direct physical harm, meaning his actions could be considered a peaceful protest.
The next argument for his actions is morals. Ethics are almost strictly against him, as ethics are the standard codes of good and evil, which outline more than anything his violation of his country and its wellbeing. Morals, however, are the personal sense of good and evil. This approach is referred to as Virtue-based ethics, which prioritizes the personal moral beliefs of a person over the existing laws or statutes. Snowden’s personal belief is that he understood the government's ethical and moral failure to fulfill its duty to the people they govern. As a government's job is to protect and serve those they govern, their mass invasion of citizens’ privacy was a blatant violation of their civic and moral duties. Seeing the moral failure of the institution he served, Snowden believes “we have a moral duty to ensure our laws and values constrain surveillance programs and protect basic human rights” (“Statement from Edward Snowden”).
A large section of the moral debate comes from the age-old question of whether the ends justify the means, an essential part of consequence-based ethics. It is “ In this case if Snowden believed that safeguarding the Constitution outweighed the deliberate compromise of U.S. collection capabilities and national defense strategy, then his actions were justified” (Thu).
Legality, though solidly set in ink and text, is open to interpretation. There are just as many clauses for those against Snowden to point out as there are for those in support. While he did break the law, he did it in a calculated manner as an act of civil disobedience, not out of malicious intent but in hopes of exacting change. However, where the waters get muddied are in the debates of ethics and morality. Ethically, he could be considered wrong, having violated his duty to his employer and government. The moral side of this, however, is ambiguous. The morals of the government violating their oaths to work for the people are clearly egregious. The morals of repeated intrusion into the privacy of the citizenry are clearly egregious. The morals of leaking these violations, however, are too complex to pinpoint, and for that reason, Snowden and his actions remain a topic of intense debate.
Bibliography
Fenster, Mark. "The Elusive Ethics of Leaking." Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, vol. 18, no. 3 SI, fall 2017, pp. 112+. Gale In Context: World History, Accessed 12 Sept. 2022.
Shah, Rina. “Heartbeat: Snowden Program Collected Key Documents.” Shortform Books, 18 Aug. 2020.
Snowden, Edward. Permanent Record. Henry Holt and Company, Sep 17, 2019.
“Statement from Edward Snowden: ACLU.” American Civil Liberties Union, 27 Feb. 2023, https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/statement-edward-snowden.
Thu, et al. “Challenging Snowden: Spycraft, Ethics, and Amendments.” Challenging Snowden: Spycraft, Ethics, and Amendments Small Wars Journal, Accessed 3 May 2023.
“Transcript of President Obama's Speech on NSA Reforms.” NPR, NPR, 17 Jan. 2014,
Van Cleave, Michelle. MYTH, PARADOX & THE OBLIGATIONS OF LEADERSHIP: Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning and the Next Leak. Center for Security Policy, 2013. JSTOR. Accessed 15 Sep. 2022.
