Snowden – Right or Wrong?

                         Comments.    Considerations.     

                                 by Kenneth Bagnell

       For whatever reason, words of a legendary philosopher have lingered deep in memory and came alive the other day for an explicit reason. The words are these: “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in times of comfort but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” They apply perfectly to film studios in Hollywood, not one of which would touch production of a great film we saw the other afternoon: “Snowden.”     Craven cowards. It thereby framed a very serious, and worthy moral question: did Edward    Snowden , a young agent with the CIA, in releasing much confidential information, (often included taping of private telephones) endanger the US, and other countries, by exposing it all? Or, did he do the world a favor by exposing a dreadful mass intrusion, not only on American spy agencies, but also the privacy of countless innocent law abiding Americans and maybe beyond his country. For all we know, it may have reached numerous private and innocent citizens in European countries. In my view this specific act against the good intentions of Snowden (it’s now been revised but secretly) was almost fascistic.

    First an embarrassing revelation of the great film: no Hollywood film producer would accept the opportunity to produce “Snowden.” They’re cowardly. So in time, it was financed basically by Europeans, mostly German and French. Then, to add to the incongruity, this historic film was first screened, not in the US, where we all expected, but in our own Canada,  a week or so ago, at Toronto’s highly regarded Film Festival. This should be greatly embarrassing for the very proud America film industry. The film is not a promotion of Edward Snowden’s act. It’s prudent, balanced, a straight forward production of what he did. It leaves the moral dimension to you, to me, to everybody to decide. As for Snowden himself he said this a few days ago in Moscow, where he’s ended up, for obvious reason: “I think when people look at the calculations of benefit, it is clear that in the wake of 2013, the laws of our nation changed. The US Congress, the courts and the President all changed their policies as a result of these disclosures. At the same time, there has never been any public evidence that any individual came to harm as a result.”

     As to whether his act was within moral boundaries, it poses, like many issues — casual abortion, lawful execution, state espionage —  an enormous question of deep complexity. There cannot be any objective, absolute and morally certain answer to many moral questions. That said, I do accept the ever broadening view that young Edward Snowden (29 at the time) did what he did largely if not entirely, guided by a moral principle: to save millions in various parts of the globe. The National Security Agency, (in my view a crude and rough-hewn group) tapped not just here and there, but into millions of innocent homes and offices in the US and elsewhere around the world. How would you feel if you were one of the objects? This was only part of the crudity, but enough to move Edward Snowden to dump the evidence that led to Obama — an ethical and liberal Christian — to punish its abusiveness, and to have its operation and staffing renewed.

     Now, given all the indignation rightly expressed about the security agency’s behaviour, the natural sequence is to reflect on the man at the heart of it all, Edward Snowden. If the conduct of the NSA was  wrongheaded and devoid of morality, it’s time to review the exclusionary treatment foisted on Snowden. He fled his own country to China, made his revelations, and took refuge in Russia, to live — a virtually penniless young man in old stern solitary Moscow. The US cancelled his passport so he’s still there.  I was there a few weeks during the mid-1960’s Cold War and was watched every Moscow walk I took. Indeed that was then, but I expect it’s still a place to be wary in.  How then should Edward J. Snowden be treated now?

    In any case, so long as Trump is defeated, Edward Snowden, if he wants, will probably have a renewed life back in the US. How come? Because opinion on what he did is shifting steadily but surely. How do I know? Because the major and respected media organizations –– influential magazines and major TV organizations– are calling for his right to freedom in his homeland where he did nothing that deserves criminal punishment. They are usually in touch, or even a mirror, of public opinion. What are his chances?  I’d say good. The main liberating influence is the current reasoning of the Democratic governance of Barrack Obama. That and and the liberalism of US cultured and influential print publications from the NY Times to the Atlantic, among others. Such journalism is both progressive and courageous.

     For example, Barack Obama, while sensibly not making public his view on Snowden, has always been moderate on Snowden’s future. He takes the middle road, obviously to be politically sensitive. So, said Obama: “I welcome this debate,” he declared shortly after Snowden revealed the NSA program of reckless surveillance. He went on to add later: “I think it’s healthy for our democracy. I think it’s a sign of maturity, because probably five years ago, six years ago, we might not have been having this debate.” Obama’s U.S. Attorney at the time, Eric Holder, also applauded the debate Snowden sparked. Even the chief lawyer at the NSA acknowledged, “It’s certainly possible to think that increased public discourse about intelligence programs is a good thing.”  Last week, speaking from Russia (where the U.S. Government stranded him with his cancelled passport), Snowden said: “Yes, there are laws on the books that say one thing, but perhaps this is why the pardon power exists — for the exceptions, for the things that may seem unlawful in letters on a page but when we look at them morally, when we look at them ethically, and when we look at the results, it seems obvious that these were necessary things.”

   It’s at least arguable that the English speaking world’s most authoritative media voice comes from The New York Times. I have read it for years, for one main reason: it’s prudent and its editorial perspective is always moderate. It was early in the Edward Snowden issue, when to my surprise, the paper ran an editorial on its Opinion page with the byline: “By THE EDITORIAL BOARD. (At The Times that means around 16 journalists). In its editorial The New York Times said this: in part:

     “Considering the enormous value of the information he has revealed, and the abuses he has exposed, Mr. Snowden deserves better than a life of permanent exile, fear and flight. He may have committed a crime to do so, but he has done his country a great service. It is time for the United States to offer Mr. Snowden a plea bargain or some form of clemency that would allow him to return home, face at least substantially reduced punishment in light of his role as whistle-blower, and have the hope of a life advocating for greater privacy and far stronger oversight of the runaway intelligence community….” Well said.

                               30

Past blogs are archived on my  website: your comments are welcome there: www.kennethbagnell.com.