Edward Snowden: Hero, Traitor or What?

Just when I thought national politics would nearly bore me to death this summer, what with Congress having gotten so good at accomplishing so little, up jumps a fascinating story in the form of Edward Snowden.   Certainly by now you know the gist, a 29 year old government out-sourced computer systems administrator has released numerous top secret documents to the press and is now making a home in Hong Kong, hoping the Hong Kongites will protect him from the long arm of American law.

snowden_nyc10june_DSC_0003

snowden_nyc10june_DSC_0003 (Photo credit: Michael Fleshman)

There are several elements that interest me about the Snowden affair, but unlike so many others, I’m not interested in making a snap judgement on the man.   Hero, traitor?   What’s the rush?  Why not let the story play out for awhile, let more facts come out and get more clarification?

FREE-FOR-ALL

What’s most interesting to me about this is you can’t jump to the usual conclusions as to who is on which side of the debate.  It is truly one of those “you can’t tell the players without a program” moments.   For example, how often do you find Michael Moore and Glen Beck on the same side of an issue?  Like never?   But both see Snowden as a hero.  Ron and Rand Paul are also on the Hero Team.  This is one of those odds moments when the spectrum of left to right curves into a circle leaving extremes on both sides holding hands.

Both have a deep distrust of government.

Among those on the Traitor Team are, of course, members of the government, such as the head of the NSA, but also frequent Republican critics of the administration, like Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham.   Add to that group Diane Feinstein (D.) and Mike Rogers (R.), the chairs of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees respectively.

It is the trade off of  security vs. privacy that divides the two teams, with the Hero Team imagining the administration committing worse crimes through government technological over reach than Edward Snowden has in divulging “state secrets”.   The Traitor Team, on the other hand, believe there are sufficient checks and balances on government spying on Americans in place.  They believe this because they see themselves as part of those checks and balances, or at least know more about them than we, the public, does.

BETWEEN THE TWO POLES

I imagine some of you are on the Hero Team and others on the Traitor Team.  I am more interested in whether his actions did more good or bad for our country.  I tend to think what Snowden did was more good as it opens the possibility of a real debate over security vs. privacy, which the President has said he wants but we wouldn’t have had without Snowden or the like revealing some government secrets.

On Thursday FBI Director Robert Mueller told Congress:  “…these disclosures have caused significant harm to our nation and our safety.”   O. K., but haven’t they also done some good for our democracy?

Without these revelations (whatever they may be in total), what would we have to debate about?   Back in 2011 Ron Widen, on the Senate Intelligence Committee,  obliquely warned “when the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry.”

Hint.  Hint.   But hint is all he could do with the top secret knowledge he had.  How can you have a public debate when those in the know aren’t free to talk about it publicly?  As Ruth Marcus wrote  in the Washington Post yesterday“Edward Snowden, in an instant, was able to achieve what Wyden has been seeking for years: a vigorous, informed and public debate about the proper balance between liberty and security.”

The judgement as to whether to call Snowden a hero or a traitor does not exclude the possibility that he did more good than bad when releasing that information.   Liberal leaning Columnist Matt Miller has said Snowden is “no hero,” that he is basically a law-breaker with a “grandiose” sense of himself.   Others well versed in national security assert that the young man  is exaggerating what he knew or could know in his position.

So what if he is on a giant ego trip.  You don’t have to be a great man or woman to do a good thing.

——————–

P. S. –  I don’t know who is holding that sign in the photo above, but he may be a high school classmate of mine who has a rebellious nature, normally lives in Kansas and is known to wear strange disguises on occasion.  We’ll call him MB, whose hair in normally gray, but the brown beard and hair could easily be faked.

Advertisements

Gun Control Politics

My post last Friday was prompted by the scheduled appearance of both David Stockman and Paul Krugman on This Week with George Stephanop0lis two days ago.   Just as I thought, the aforementioned pair of fiscal authorities could agree upon little.  The points of difference deserve consideration, but there is no need to rush.  If you’d like to see that discussion again or for the first time, it can be found clicking here.

English: John McCain official photo portrait.

English: John McCain official photo portrait. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Displacing that discussion today is that of gun control legislation, which is the hot topic in the Senate this week.    You probably have heard that families of the Newtown victims have flown to Washington aboard Air Force One to lobby for gun legislation, something they did very successfully to toughen Connecticut gun laws.   They will be visiting Senators with photos of their slain children and….  well, I don’t know, but I figure we’ll see some dramatic confrontations on the news.

I imagine the Newtown folks will concentrate their efforts on 14 or 15 Republican Senators who have threatened to filibuster any gun legislation that Speaker Reed will bring up, though it is not clear at the moment exactly what that legislation will be.  For one thing,  Pat Toomey (R) and Joe Manchin (D) are still working on some compromise on background checks.   If they can agree, perhaps some deal  can be reached.  Perhaps, but then let’s not forget there is still the Republican dominated House to deal with, the place where bills go to die.

So, why are 14 or 15 Republican Senators threatening to filibuster legislation that even if passed in the Senate will require a miracle to get through the House?   That’s what some Republicans/conservatives , such as Senator John McCain and columnist Charles Krauthammer, have puzzled over.   “What are they afraid of?” McCain has asked of his fellow Republican Senators.

Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post provides part of the answer when noting “Of the 14 (senatorial) seats that Republicans are defending in 2014, just one — Maine — is in a state that President Obama won in 2012.”  Given their constituents, allowing any air for gun  control to breathe now might negatively impact their chances of winning their primaries in 2014.    Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell is one of those who are up for reelection and has threatened to filibuster.

On the other hand, stifling gun control debate will further the image of Republicans as the party that is inflexible and unwilling to compromise, an image that some in the party are trying to reconstruct.    Given the roughly 90% national approval rating for improved background checks, it is not clear to me that dodging the gun control issue today will be as helpful in 2014 as these candidates seem to believe.

But the drama is just beginning, so let’s take our seats and watch.