Edward Snowden Research Paper
David Owens
Bragger/English 1A
July 15, 2014
Snowden: Judas Iscariot he is not, or is he?
The list of infamous traitors is short and perhaps less well-known than other less significant lists, like the list of this year’s Oscar nominees. There was; Brutus, Tokyo Rose, Mata Hari, Benedict Arnold, John Anthony Walker Jr., and Judas who was one of the twelve disciples, and perhaps the most well-known of all traitors, he betrayed Jesus for a mere handful of coins. This list is incomplete, but it lists traitors who were both foreign and domestic, from modern day to the time of the Old Testament. Some of these traitors were responsible for the loss of lives, and others were not. Edward Snowden is the current candidate for traitor, and claims …show more content…
that his revelations have brought no physical harm to anybody. That in my opinion is yet to be seen. Being a traitor is like being a democrat, either you are, or you are not. There is no gray area. A traitor is a traitor no matter what you clothe him in, and make no mistake Edward Snowden is a traitor. The overwhelming question’s seems to be; did Snowden take an oath, and if so did he violate that oath? Doe’s the public have a right to know everything that our government doe’s, and is it the duty of the press to report anything, and everything that they are subjected to regardless of the outcome? Like everything else that is within proximity to the Snowden story these particular questions are complicated and probably have more than one answer. Let’s begin by examining the issue of the oath.Edward Snowden states that he did not take an oath, yet he does admit that he signed a condition of his employment. A condition of employment is a standard contract, form 312, that when signed the person signing said contract, accepts the terms rather than swearing to them. In her article in The New Yorker, Amy Davidson writes in reference to the contract, “by signing it Snowden agreed that he was aware that there were federal laws against disclosing classified information.” (Davidson) However; breaking the law does not make him a traitor. But what about previous oath’s that Snowden took? He took one when he joined the Army. That particular oath includes the words: (to support and defend the Constitution and obey their officers). I’m fairly certain that supporting and defending the constitution doesn’t imply that if an employee of the United States government, thinks that the government is violating the rights of its citizen’s, then that employee is within their rights to leak sensitive information to the foreign press. This by the way is the action that in my mind makes Edward Snowden a traitor. To further qualify the idea that Snowden somehow took, and consequently broke an oath of the United States of America, and perhaps to God himself; let’s look at yet another oath that he took. The Central Intelligence Agency is a secretive government organization of the highest order, and as such should be held in the highest regard. Edward Snowden was in the employ of this agency, and took their oath that said in part “I will support and defend the Constitution…I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” Now that’s the last straw. Not only did Snowden take an oath, he took more than one oath, and as far as I know there is no expiration date on an oath. Furthermore in the CIA oath, God is in the equation, and that puts him on the same level as Judas. Edward Snowden violated his oaths to God and this country when he gave secret government information to the Guardian newspaper in England, and that makes him a traitor. Oath or no oath, Edward Snowden by his own admission is a spy, and he as well as people in general have certain moral obligations. Regardless of whether or not someone is a member of congress, a member of the press or in the employ of the NSA there is a standard in which we must atone to, and in most cases people are acutely aware of the line in the sand that should not be crossed. The events prior to Snowden’s revelations surrounding the NSA are a prime example in which employees of the NSA as well as members of the United States press, namely the New York Times toed that imaginary line in the sand, and did the right thing in order to protect this country.Thomas Drake was an employee of the NSA, and he like Snowden was at odds with what he believed where blatant violations of constitutional law, by the NSA and the federal government. Drake, at first made seemingly every attempt possible to bring these perceived violations to the attention of his superiors. This was an instance where a man (Drake) was aware of the line in the sand, and considered the collateral effects of his actions prior to making a conscious decision to act upon them. It was only after every attempt failed that he eventually leaked information to the press, the United States press. Actions like these are contrary to Edward Snowden’s actions. There are those of us, and we are many, who believe that Snowden’s acts were malicious, and pre meditated from the beginning of his career at the NSA. Yes, there is a difference between talking to the U.S. press and the press from a foreign country (Frontline documentary).The United States government is a bureaucracy, and just about everyone is aware of that, and accepts that notion. Snowden the traitor knew this when he took the job at the NSA. Government and military jobs have a hierarchy, and therefore as everyone who works there knows, there is a pantheon, and protocol must be followed. After 9/11 the government was in a scramble to put in place a program, any program that would prevent another attack like the one on 9/11. Edward Loomis an employee of the NSA made the government aware of an existing program “Thin Thread” that was already in place. This was an encrypted program design to protect U.S. citizens from any violation of their rights to privacy. In an effort to use the proper protocol Vice President Cheney’s attorney, Robert Dietz was consulted and determined that it was legal for then President George W. Busch to invoke article 2, section 2, clause 1 of the Constitution, thereby allowing him to make the decision to turn off the encryption on the Thin Thread program and spy on Americans. Thus began what came to be known as “The Program.” The actions of our government were in fact within the parameters of the law, and carried out in a fashion that maintained protocol, and in no way crossed the imaginary line in the sand. In fact post evocation of article 2, President Busch implemented the process in a reverse order, down the steps of the pantheon, as far as was necessary in order to protect the citizens of the United States.
Also worth mentioning is the fact that the Editor of the New York Times, Bill Keller found it ethically, and perhaps morally correct not to print information that had been leaked by the NSA until there was absolutely no other choice. (Frontline documentary). It remains clear, at least to me, that prior to the traitor Edward Snowden’s revelations about the NSA, and the “Program,” there was plenty of information available regarding that program. The higher echelon of the U.S. government had it, the employees of the NSA had it, and even the New York Times had it, and when the former Department of Justice Attorney Thomas Tamm leaked that information to the Times, they, at the behest of George W. Busch decided in good conscience not to publish it.It was not until the Times reporter who had originally received the top secret information from Tamm; James Risen informed the Editor of the Times that he was going to release a book on the subject, that the story finally broke on the front page of the New York Times. Perhaps with the omission of Tamm, and Risen it was a case of American patriots toeing the line. What of the traitor Edward Snowden? (Frontline …show more content…
documentary).Everybody deserves the opportunity to tell their side of the story, even an alleged traitor. In May of 2014 Brian Williams of NBC news sat down with Edward Snowden for an exclusive interview. Snowden claims that the United States government has trapped him in Russia, a communist country that according to Snowden has offered him no money for secret NSA information. Even if they had offered me money, Snowden declares “I have destroyed the documents.” (Snowden. Williams interview). Snowden claims that “after one year nobody has been hurt” because of his revelations, and that the programs that he revealed never served to protect our country, “they only take away from our freedoms.” He believes that “surveillance is arbitrary, and that the Iraq war was “a lie based on false premises.” Furthermore Snowden believes that the intelligence that was collected was nothing more than “a perversion on the war on terrorism.” Edward Snowden claims that he is a spy, and if that is true then his refusal to return to this country to face his accusers is understandable, because traitors are dealt with in a very serious manner. However; President Obama says that Snowden is nothing more than “a low level analyst,” and a “hacker.” Throughout the interview Snowden the traitor presented himself with righteous indignation, he was like a spoiled kid who got a Blackberry for Christmas instead of an iPhone, and in an attempt to justify his actions he said that “sometimes when you do the right thing you have to break the law,” and that the definition of a patriot is “knowing when to break the law.” Isn’t it odd that the two previous quotes are a direct contradiction to the stance that he takes against the NSA, and the United States of Americas governing body?
Yes it is odd, and possibly the definition of a traitor. (Williams interview).The public has many rights, and the list is a long one. At the top of that list is our right to live safely, free from harm. Our government has the responsibility to see that our rights are protected. When a person, be they a citizen, or an officer of the government turns over classified information to a foreign country then that person becomes a traitor and Edward Snowden is a traitor. This means that regardless of whether or not Snowden took an oath, he is still a traitor, and a man without a moral compass. Even the New York Times initially refused to print classified information from the NSA leaker’s, and a newspapers prime objective is to deliver the news regardless of public or governmental opinion. Indeed Edward Snowden betrayed our country, and his family. His father is a veteran, his grandfather was an FBI agent, and I can’t help but feel bad for them. If Snowden is truly a patriot as he claims, then his only hope for redemption is to come back to the United States and face charges. For her treasonous acts Mata Hari died in front of a firing,
Tokyo Rose served ten years in prison, and Judas of Iscariot hung himself out of feelings of remorse. Perhaps if Edward Snowden comes back across that line in the sand and faces the charges against him then his punishment will be less, or none at all. First he must come or maybe coward will be added to the name Edward Snowden the traitor.
Works Cited
“Part 1: The Program.” (Frontline: United States of Secrets). Dir. Michael Kirk.PBS.Org./WBGH educational foundation. May 13, 2014. Web. July 14, 2014.
Snowden, Edward. Interview by Brian Williams. “Inside the Mind of Edward Snowden.” NBC news.com NBC. May 28, 2014. Web. July 14, 2014.
The New Yorker. “Did Edward Snowden Break his Oath?” Amy Davidson. Jan. 5, 2014. (Conde’ Nast) July 15, 2014.
Bragger/English 1A
July 15, 2014
Snowden: Judas Iscariot he is not, or is he?
The list of infamous traitors is short and perhaps less well-known than other less significant lists, like the list of this year’s Oscar nominees. There was; Brutus, Tokyo Rose, Mata Hari, Benedict Arnold, John Anthony Walker Jr., and Judas who was one of the twelve disciples, and perhaps the most well-known of all traitors, he betrayed Jesus for a mere handful of coins. This list is incomplete, but it lists traitors who were both foreign and domestic, from modern day to the time of the Old Testament. Some of these traitors were responsible for the loss of lives, and others were not. Edward Snowden is the current candidate for traitor, and claims …show more content…
that his revelations have brought no physical harm to anybody. That in my opinion is yet to be seen. Being a traitor is like being a democrat, either you are, or you are not. There is no gray area. A traitor is a traitor no matter what you clothe him in, and make no mistake Edward Snowden is a traitor. The overwhelming question’s seems to be; did Snowden take an oath, and if so did he violate that oath? Doe’s the public have a right to know everything that our government doe’s, and is it the duty of the press to report anything, and everything that they are subjected to regardless of the outcome? Like everything else that is within proximity to the Snowden story these particular questions are complicated and probably have more than one answer. Let’s begin by examining the issue of the oath.Edward Snowden states that he did not take an oath, yet he does admit that he signed a condition of his employment. A condition of employment is a standard contract, form 312, that when signed the person signing said contract, accepts the terms rather than swearing to them. In her article in The New Yorker, Amy Davidson writes in reference to the contract, “by signing it Snowden agreed that he was aware that there were federal laws against disclosing classified information.” (Davidson) However; breaking the law does not make him a traitor. But what about previous oath’s that Snowden took? He took one when he joined the Army. That particular oath includes the words: (to support and defend the Constitution and obey their officers). I’m fairly certain that supporting and defending the constitution doesn’t imply that if an employee of the United States government, thinks that the government is violating the rights of its citizen’s, then that employee is within their rights to leak sensitive information to the foreign press. This by the way is the action that in my mind makes Edward Snowden a traitor. To further qualify the idea that Snowden somehow took, and consequently broke an oath of the United States of America, and perhaps to God himself; let’s look at yet another oath that he took. The Central Intelligence Agency is a secretive government organization of the highest order, and as such should be held in the highest regard. Edward Snowden was in the employ of this agency, and took their oath that said in part “I will support and defend the Constitution…I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” Now that’s the last straw. Not only did Snowden take an oath, he took more than one oath, and as far as I know there is no expiration date on an oath. Furthermore in the CIA oath, God is in the equation, and that puts him on the same level as Judas. Edward Snowden violated his oaths to God and this country when he gave secret government information to the Guardian newspaper in England, and that makes him a traitor. Oath or no oath, Edward Snowden by his own admission is a spy, and he as well as people in general have certain moral obligations. Regardless of whether or not someone is a member of congress, a member of the press or in the employ of the NSA there is a standard in which we must atone to, and in most cases people are acutely aware of the line in the sand that should not be crossed. The events prior to Snowden’s revelations surrounding the NSA are a prime example in which employees of the NSA as well as members of the United States press, namely the New York Times toed that imaginary line in the sand, and did the right thing in order to protect this country.Thomas Drake was an employee of the NSA, and he like Snowden was at odds with what he believed where blatant violations of constitutional law, by the NSA and the federal government. Drake, at first made seemingly every attempt possible to bring these perceived violations to the attention of his superiors. This was an instance where a man (Drake) was aware of the line in the sand, and considered the collateral effects of his actions prior to making a conscious decision to act upon them. It was only after every attempt failed that he eventually leaked information to the press, the United States press. Actions like these are contrary to Edward Snowden’s actions. There are those of us, and we are many, who believe that Snowden’s acts were malicious, and pre meditated from the beginning of his career at the NSA. Yes, there is a difference between talking to the U.S. press and the press from a foreign country (Frontline documentary).The United States government is a bureaucracy, and just about everyone is aware of that, and accepts that notion. Snowden the traitor knew this when he took the job at the NSA. Government and military jobs have a hierarchy, and therefore as everyone who works there knows, there is a pantheon, and protocol must be followed. After 9/11 the government was in a scramble to put in place a program, any program that would prevent another attack like the one on 9/11. Edward Loomis an employee of the NSA made the government aware of an existing program “Thin Thread” that was already in place. This was an encrypted program design to protect U.S. citizens from any violation of their rights to privacy. In an effort to use the proper protocol Vice President Cheney’s attorney, Robert Dietz was consulted and determined that it was legal for then President George W. Busch to invoke article 2, section 2, clause 1 of the Constitution, thereby allowing him to make the decision to turn off the encryption on the Thin Thread program and spy on Americans. Thus began what came to be known as “The Program.” The actions of our government were in fact within the parameters of the law, and carried out in a fashion that maintained protocol, and in no way crossed the imaginary line in the sand. In fact post evocation of article 2, President Busch implemented the process in a reverse order, down the steps of the pantheon, as far as was necessary in order to protect the citizens of the United States.
Also worth mentioning is the fact that the Editor of the New York Times, Bill Keller found it ethically, and perhaps morally correct not to print information that had been leaked by the NSA until there was absolutely no other choice. (Frontline documentary). It remains clear, at least to me, that prior to the traitor Edward Snowden’s revelations about the NSA, and the “Program,” there was plenty of information available regarding that program. The higher echelon of the U.S. government had it, the employees of the NSA had it, and even the New York Times had it, and when the former Department of Justice Attorney Thomas Tamm leaked that information to the Times, they, at the behest of George W. Busch decided in good conscience not to publish it.It was not until the Times reporter who had originally received the top secret information from Tamm; James Risen informed the Editor of the Times that he was going to release a book on the subject, that the story finally broke on the front page of the New York Times. Perhaps with the omission of Tamm, and Risen it was a case of American patriots toeing the line. What of the traitor Edward Snowden? (Frontline …show more content…
documentary).Everybody deserves the opportunity to tell their side of the story, even an alleged traitor. In May of 2014 Brian Williams of NBC news sat down with Edward Snowden for an exclusive interview. Snowden claims that the United States government has trapped him in Russia, a communist country that according to Snowden has offered him no money for secret NSA information. Even if they had offered me money, Snowden declares “I have destroyed the documents.” (Snowden. Williams interview). Snowden claims that “after one year nobody has been hurt” because of his revelations, and that the programs that he revealed never served to protect our country, “they only take away from our freedoms.” He believes that “surveillance is arbitrary, and that the Iraq war was “a lie based on false premises.” Furthermore Snowden believes that the intelligence that was collected was nothing more than “a perversion on the war on terrorism.” Edward Snowden claims that he is a spy, and if that is true then his refusal to return to this country to face his accusers is understandable, because traitors are dealt with in a very serious manner. However; President Obama says that Snowden is nothing more than “a low level analyst,” and a “hacker.” Throughout the interview Snowden the traitor presented himself with righteous indignation, he was like a spoiled kid who got a Blackberry for Christmas instead of an iPhone, and in an attempt to justify his actions he said that “sometimes when you do the right thing you have to break the law,” and that the definition of a patriot is “knowing when to break the law.” Isn’t it odd that the two previous quotes are a direct contradiction to the stance that he takes against the NSA, and the United States of Americas governing body?
Yes it is odd, and possibly the definition of a traitor. (Williams interview).The public has many rights, and the list is a long one. At the top of that list is our right to live safely, free from harm. Our government has the responsibility to see that our rights are protected. When a person, be they a citizen, or an officer of the government turns over classified information to a foreign country then that person becomes a traitor and Edward Snowden is a traitor. This means that regardless of whether or not Snowden took an oath, he is still a traitor, and a man without a moral compass. Even the New York Times initially refused to print classified information from the NSA leaker’s, and a newspapers prime objective is to deliver the news regardless of public or governmental opinion. Indeed Edward Snowden betrayed our country, and his family. His father is a veteran, his grandfather was an FBI agent, and I can’t help but feel bad for them. If Snowden is truly a patriot as he claims, then his only hope for redemption is to come back to the United States and face charges. For her treasonous acts Mata Hari died in front of a firing,
Tokyo Rose served ten years in prison, and Judas of Iscariot hung himself out of feelings of remorse. Perhaps if Edward Snowden comes back across that line in the sand and faces the charges against him then his punishment will be less, or none at all. First he must come or maybe coward will be added to the name Edward Snowden the traitor.
Works Cited
“Part 1: The Program.” (Frontline: United States of Secrets). Dir. Michael Kirk.PBS.Org./WBGH educational foundation. May 13, 2014. Web. July 14, 2014.
Snowden, Edward. Interview by Brian Williams. “Inside the Mind of Edward Snowden.” NBC news.com NBC. May 28, 2014. Web. July 14, 2014.
The New Yorker. “Did Edward Snowden Break his Oath?” Amy Davidson. Jan. 5, 2014. (Conde’ Nast) July 15, 2014.