Did it, though? Or did he just expose how bullshit the "protectors" are? Except you know that wouldn't be a fair trial. No way the government is going to let this dude get away with what he did, no matter what the actual outcomes of his actions were. severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it.
He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers
It definitely wouldn't be a fair trial and I definitely admire what Edward Snowden did to really highlight just how much we've (very wrongly) sacrificed in the name of 'security' that is actually all just bullshit anyway. But at the same time I do have to wonder if maybe he would've gotten people even more outraged by what the government and the NSA has been doing if he hadn't have fled the country to begin with. In my mind, at least, you can't have the concept of civil disobedience without also highlighting just how unfair the system is - I think it was Henry David Thoreau that wrote about how people campaigning for emancipation would refuse to pay taxes in the belief that that would support a government that endorsed slavery, but allowed themselves to be imprisoned for that 'crime'. The idea was to stick to what was morally right, even if it meant being legally wrong, and allowing yourself to be punished by the legal system to highlight just how morally repugnant the entire thing was. Obviously whistleblowers are important and I think they should be treated with amnesty (though, it depends on what they reveal, in my opinion). Edward Snowden shouldn't be treated as some sort of fugitive, but at the same time the media concentrates on the 'spectacle', I suppose, of his self-imposed exile as opposed to focusing on the actual issues he revealed and I feel that if were he to be given a trial, it might turn the lens back on what actually matters. Or maybe I'm just being naive (probably am, in fairness).
I think I would be a fair trial, at least from the government's perspective. I think there's little question whether what he did was illegal or not, and that's what the White House response ignores. Those signing the petition, myself included, aren't arguing what Snowden did was legal, we're saying it was right and petitioning our government to acknowledge that.Except you know that wouldn't be a fair trial.
I'm pretty sure that is exactly what he didChallenge it, speak out
It's that second bit I take issue with. He (and others in agreement) should not simply 'accept the consequences' of his actions if we believe the consequences are unjust. It reads as if we should sit back and passively let our governments dictate the agenda of their citizens, when It is the citizens that should set the agenda. The petition acknowledges that laws were broken, but is asking for the consequence to be changed. While the position outlined in the response is understandable, I feel like they could and should have put together a much more robust rationale rather than simply saying "it's a dangerous world and people only have the right to take part in this important debate on our terms - namely on US soil and when in solitary confinement - certainly not while you're out there broadcasting views openly from some commie state".
Dear Citizen,
Sincerely,
President Obama Thank you for signing this petition. We do not care for your opinions. We have placed your IP and associated name into a database of known dissidents. Your understanding of your own personal security is faulty, and we will be in charge of it to ensure maximum liberty within the constraints of safety. We want to keep you safe. For your own safety, please place your hands on your head and wait for the authorities to bring you to a holding facility where you will be retrained to your benefit.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) hack as well as the intrusion to Interior Business Center makes me feel safe as an American /s. Snowden reported that he attempted to do his due diligence and escalate matters through the proper channels, but had no channels to do so. The "danger" as reported by the DoD is that some organizations will alter their behavior making it more difficult to eavesdrop on them. As well, having our allies realize we've been unethically spying on them has caused relationships to go through tension. The former being "unprovable" without classified resources and the latter being common sense. Unfortunately for the American government, vilifying Snowden won't make anything he revealed go away. Finding him guilty in a kangaroo court won't lessen the impact of the government's blatant abuse technology against its own citizens nor will it fix any of these issues moving forward. One course of action could be to restructure the NSA's primary objective to auditing and securing existing federal infrastructure. At the same time, hold every single director, congressmen, and senator responsible for contributing to the delinquency of American's privacy; much in the same way they wish to hold Snowden accountable for his actions. Until that happens, I have no qualms about him hiding out in Russia, we're not doing anything to solve the problems he has brought to our attention."Since taking office, President Obama has worked with Congress to secure appropriate reforms that balance the protection of civil liberties with the ability of national security professionals to secure information vital to keep Americans safe.
Instead of constructively addressing these issues, Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it.