This first article is by Stephanie Condon of CBS News, offering insight into the legality of the NSA Surveillance: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/lawmakers-question-legal-basis-for-nsa-surveillance/
The second is from Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker, and was released when the scandal was still relatively new. It focuses on the villianous status of whistleblower Edward Snowden: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/06/edward-snowden-nsa-leaker-is-no-hero.html
The third and final article I have for you today is Martha Moore's of USA Today, focusing on President Obama's relations with the NSA breach of German Chancellor Merkel's privacy. Check it out: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/27/rogers-house-intelligence-chief-nsa-europe/3282161/
EDIT: I'm learning now that I am to respond to one of my articles. I feel like my breath would best be spent responding to the New Yorker article, entitled "Edward Snowden is No Hero," by Jeffrey Toobin. Honestly, I feel that this article is poorly written, as it offers much content which Snowden used to support his actions, while only providing weak counters and a rushed conclusion. But where the article lacks in content, it raises multiple unanswered questions I feel obligated to respond to.
As I understand it, the Supreme Court has yet to investigate the actions taken by the NSA. Because of this, we must assume that everything that the NSA has done is considered legal, in the same way that criminal defendants are considered innocent until proven guilty. That assumption makes Snowden a criminal.
I typically don't think of criminals as heroes. If they're a criminal, then they're a criminal. Call me blind to the greater truth, but I like to be as simple-minded as possible in complicated matters. If, we come to the time where the United States government evolves to the point where Snowden doesn't have a price on his head anymore (reminiscent of Mandela '94) then I'm willing to change my opinions.
But it's never going to get to that point. A discussion with my classmates and national surveys reveal the same thing. Most people don't care if they're being "watched." Personally, the only thing that I find wrong with the scandal is that the NSA was investigating domestic problems, a job which is strictly reserved for the FBI. But as far as the actual snooping goes, I really couldn't care less. In a world where the actions of one can make a bigger impact than ever before, I believe the prominence of a guarding eye is "necessary," if only for the protection of its citizens. Of course, we don't want a 1984 on our hands. But I don't think we can handle another 9/11 either.
As I understand it, the Supreme Court has yet to investigate the actions taken by the NSA. Because of this, we must assume that everything that the NSA has done is considered legal, in the same way that criminal defendants are considered innocent until proven guilty. That assumption makes Snowden a criminal.
I typically don't think of criminals as heroes. If they're a criminal, then they're a criminal. Call me blind to the greater truth, but I like to be as simple-minded as possible in complicated matters. If, we come to the time where the United States government evolves to the point where Snowden doesn't have a price on his head anymore (reminiscent of Mandela '94) then I'm willing to change my opinions.
But it's never going to get to that point. A discussion with my classmates and national surveys reveal the same thing. Most people don't care if they're being "watched." Personally, the only thing that I find wrong with the scandal is that the NSA was investigating domestic problems, a job which is strictly reserved for the FBI. But as far as the actual snooping goes, I really couldn't care less. In a world where the actions of one can make a bigger impact than ever before, I believe the prominence of a guarding eye is "necessary," if only for the protection of its citizens. Of course, we don't want a 1984 on our hands. But I don't think we can handle another 9/11 either.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell, I accidentally deleted my comment...
DeleteI agree with you that Toobin's argument lacks information to make it a strong argument. Although I do agree with Toobin that Edward Snowden is putting the USA at risk. I appreciate your straight-forward thinking in separating criminal with hero, and no, that does not mean you are blind to the greater truth; we all have our own opinions. Although, I don't full agree that we can assume that everything the NSA has done is legal, even if they have not been marked as "guilty." And yes, I don't think we can handle another tragedy like 9/11.
"...we don't want a 1984 on our hands. But I don't think we can handle another 9/11 either."
ReplyDeleteWhere's the middle ground? Where would you draw the line? This is the problem. There is no line.
It's funny. beginning to read this article, I thought I would fin myself penning (keying?) a dissenting opinion here. instead, I find myself agreeing with this.
ReplyDeleteWhile it's true that the NSA are bad, bad men, it's equally true that Edward Snowden is either a traitor or a fool. The law, as the New Yorker article reminds us, is not to be broken because of personal biases or morals, or even ethics. If the law dictates that we shatter our morals, in this case creating a 1984 sort of state, we must do so -- or risk anarchy. If one law can be ignored because it's wrong, every law can be, and civilization since Hammurabi is become worthless. (The Civil Rights Movement, however, is totally chill. Because history is written by the victors, and because the legality of most racist laws with regards to the Constitution [Rather, my interpretation and friendly interpretations thereof] is questionable to say the least.)
Also, that he would run to Hong Kong, of all places, is deeply unsettling. I'm not aware that China is the only state that would refuse to extradite him. Nearly every South American country would have been more than happy to play host, and the ever-neutral Swiss are always an option. That he's in (relatively) safer hands with Russia now is no mollifying thing; he's fled to two countries whose interests and concerns with America on the global stage are paramount. Speculation as to this being an attempt to intimidate the United States or win support are immaterial. He went to potentially dangerous states with lucratively sensitive information.
So regardless of what we think of the NSA, Edward Snowden is also a bad, bad man.
Good job, Raven.