Blowing the whistle: Snowden's dilemma
Second of two parts
This second article continues our investigation into what you would do when confronted with a moral and legal dilemma that would have a great impact on America’s intelligence operations and the country’s standing and influence throughout the world.
If you go public with this information, you will be branded as a traitor by the very government that is behaving as a traitor to its own citizens. You will be hounded, forced to go into hiding, or wind up in jail.
You believe you can make known only the information that reveals the government’s illegal acts without exposing the operations of individuals in these programs to danger.
However, you also know these revelations will expose many U.S. operations. The result will be the possible loss of allies and the encouragement of jihadists to mimic America. It will result in America’s loss of face in the world and the world’s loss of faith in America.
You believe your releasing this information would help right the course of America’s democracy and bolster its Fourth Amendment.
You know you could become rich by selling the unfiltered information in these files to America’s adversaries. You could search for like-minded idealists or fellow traitors (reader, take your pick), who would counsel you in making your decision.
Snowden’s dilemma
The “you” in these articles is Edward Snowden, the man who went public with heretofore secret NSA information about the United States government’s illegal surveillance of certain information (called metadata) about its citizens’ telephone conversations and Internet correspondence.
Edward Snowden compromised many aspects of America’s spy operations. He also revealed the accusations that America was making about China and Russia hacking America’s systems, when America was doing the same to them, and even to our allies.
He later became aware of Obama’s Presidential Policy Directive 20 (October 20, 2012) in which senior government officials compiled a list of organizations and countries for the U.S. to conduct cyber-attacks. Not for defense, but for offensive operations.
Snowden refused to consider selling this material. He has had to forsake his family and other loved ones. His country has issued a warrant for his arrest. Currently, he lives in Russia.
Pros and Cons
NSA claims Snowden did considerable damage to the United States intelligence system. Supporters of Snowden claim the United States did considerable damage to United States citizens. Both broke the law. Who is right?
Snowden has said, “I had access to full rosters of anybody working at the NSA. The entire intelligence community and undercover assets around the world. The locations of every station we have, all of their missions. ...If I just wanted to damage the U.S., I would have shut down the surveillance system in an afternoon. That was never my intention.”
Yet, the former head of NSA, James Clapper, said Snowden did irreparable damage to America by his actions. Clapper was the individual who lied to Congress about the program in the first place. Is this man believable? Is Snowden?
What would you do if you were in Edward Snowden’s shoes? Would you continue to perpetuate your crime and the crime of your country — at a salary of $200,000 per year — to keep America’s illegal spying system secret? Would you reveal the information to the public and find yourself branded as a pariah for the rest of your life, consigned to live in the guarded enclaves of nations unfriendly to America? Would you sell the information to the highest bidder and take on an anonymous lifestyle of opulence in Monte Carlo? Would you just walk away, and find employment elsewhere?
Who is more dangerous to our country? A government that illegally spies on its citizens, or a person who illegally exposes this spying? It’s your call.
• • •
Uyless Black is a Hayden-based researcher and author, and a decorated Vietnam veteran.