In the wake of the revelation concerning the N.S.A.’s
massive data gathering program, acute observers in our nation’s capital will
have noted the presence of a bird which, though it once flew majestically along
the northeastern shores of the Potomac, has long since been thought extinct:
bipartisanship.
Leaders of both
parties, from the sun-burnt orange John Boehner to pasty pale Dianne Feinstein,
have come out in the defense of the program and consequently in condemnation of
the snitch, Edward Snowden. His revelation has variously been labeled ‘an act
of treason’ and ‘an act of war,’ among other epithets for actions that are
politically inconvenient. Only the venerable Ron Paul, of late political memory,
has come out in praise of Snowden (see 5 below).
I write here not to bury the larger issue, but to praise
Edward Snowden.
Snowden’s act was not only necessary, but morally upright
for three reasons:
1) Snowden was asked to conceal illegal (or certainly
unjust) activity by his employer, breaching his confidentiality agreement.
2) His action was necessary in order for a test case to be
brought before the courts
3) His action attempted to return to the people some measure
of their sovereignty, which had been usurped by an unjust government.
First, it is a
well-established principle of our justice system that a confidentiality
agreement cannot be enforced in order to require a signatory to conceal illegal
activity. While the legality of the N.S.A.’s activity may be in question for
some, it seems clear that Snowden acted in good faith to reveal what he
believed was an illegal activity making argument which claim that he violated
some sort of societal bond of trust less than believable (see 1 below).
Second, it was necessary for Snowden to reveal the existence
of the program in order for a test case to be brought before the courts or even for our representatives to take action. Our judiciary
(which is beginning to resemble the Court of the Star Chamber circa 1640) has
become the toady of the executive branch in many similar cases where judges
have agreed to dismiss lawsuits against the government on the grounds that they
would endanger “national security” that byword used to justify tyranny. In
order to prosecute a case before the court system, it was therefore necessary for
Snowden to reveal what he did in order for there to be prima facie evidence so
that the case could move forward. The N.S.A.’s subsequent declassification could
not have been predicted by Snowden but has helped move such lawsuits forward - see
the excellent article (2) about the A.C.L.U.’s lawsuit below.
It also seems apparent that our representatives have been kept in the dark about the N.S.A.'s program despite the judicious questions of some senators (see 3 below). If this is truly the case, this represents an unjustified usurpation of executive prerogative by our government which upsets the balancing power of our legislature. Snowden's revelation then serves as a crucial means of repairing that broken balance of power (see 4 below).
Third, even if we allow that the government’s activity was technically
legal (though never just), Snowden’s actions represent the first steps of the
process of restoring to the people their natural rights to privacy. It will not shock anyone to learn that all of
the best revolutionaries were accounted traitors from the perspectives of the
established governments of their time. I could be obnoxious and give you a long
list, but I will confine myself to asking you to find a one-dollar bill.
Here we come to the meat of the issue: when is it morally
appropriate to take action against the established government? I myself prefer
the answer given by a physician of the late seventeenth century named John
Locke. Locke firmly concludes in his second treatise on government that when “they
universally have a persuasion, grounded upon manifest evidence, that designs
are carrying on against their liberties, and the general course and tendency of
things cannot but give them strong suspicions of the evil intention of their governors”
the people are not morally culpable for resisting their government (230). Locke
further argues that in such a case, it is not the people who resist illegitimate government that have
violated the social contract, but the
government which has usurped from the people their rights which is morally
culpable.
It seems greatly preferable to me to have resistance carried
out in the press than on the battlefield of a civil war.
Snowden acted in a morally upright fashion. And even if what
he did was technically illegal, his is the moral high ground and it is the law
that is at fault.
Roughly six years ago, I attended the release of the seventh
Harry Potter book and I recall that there were then two camps wearing slogans
about a certain character from those novels named Severus Snape. One group said
“Snape is a very bad man” and the other sported stickers declaring “trust snape.”
I’m not sure I would apply the latter to anyone whom I didn’t know very much
about, but judging by his actions, it seems obvious to me that Edward Snowden
is not a “very bad man” but is in fact a brave, courageous and noble one.
No comments:
Post a Comment