Amnesty: The Answer for the Edward Snowden Dilemma

Edward Snowden exposed the severity and vastness of the National Security Agency’s illegal surveillance of millions of individuals across the globe. Both his leaking of information and his indictment have prompted many heated discussions in America and many opinions to be voiced. One side argues that he has risked America’s security and ought to be punished. On the flip side, others contest that his actions were completely justified because of the scope and illegality of the NSA’s reach and that the charges placed against him should be dropped. Simply stated, Edward Snowden deserves to be treated not just as a human, but as an American. Americans experience such unique opportunities as unremitted freedom, universal suffrage, and inalienable and indefeasible rights. To audaciously defend these benefits is to be a patriot. Since he acted patriotically and exposed the abuses of the NSA, Edward Snowden should be offered amnesty.

            Snowden’s findings revealed that the NSA had illegally amassed massive amounts of personal phone records and emails and that the agency had broken into important data centers around the world. The NSA “collect[ed] information about phone calls,” and through programs such as PRISM, was able to “obtain private information from the customers of leading Internet companies” (Lee). These alarming atrocities only increased in heinousness, for the NSA also had “tapp[ed] into undersea fiber optic cables,” permitting them unlimited access to “large volumes” of the Internet information of innocent users (Lee). Not surprisingly, these startling revelations stimulated outrage amongst Americans, prompting Congress and the courts to action. For example, two federal judges ruled that the NSA’s “almost Orwellian” surveillance flagrantly contradicted the Constitution. The Honorable Richard Leon of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia expressed his dissatisfaction with the situation: “I have little doubt that the author of our Constitution, James Madison, who cautioned us to beware ‘the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power,’ would be aghast” (qtd. in Heuval). Additionally, the indifferent Obama was even spurred to action. In response to these shocking discoveries, he created a commission designed for the purpose of reviewing the Snowden case. According to Katrina Heuval, a contributing writer for The Washington Post, “that commission issued a powerful critique of the NSA and called for a fundamental reform of its operations.” If a commission created by the government to review a case involving another government agency concluded that the agency was in error, then it can be safely declared that the agency was, indeed, corrupt. Because of the comprehensiveness and corruptness of the NSA’s surveillance, Edward Snowden had no choice other than to release the documents. Since his actions exposed the NSA’s wrongdoings, he deserves to be offered amnesty.

            Edward Snowden felt compelled to reveal his findings because of his loyalty both to the American people and to the Constitution. In an interview with Stephen Cohen and Katrina Heuval, Snowden defined patriotism as “act[ing] on behalf of one’s country.” He continued, “You’re not patriotic just because you back whoever’s in power today… you’re patriotic when you work to improve the lives of the people of your country.” With his ardent patriotism bleeding through, Snowden did not appreciate the government clandestinely capturing innocent citizen’s records, and thus felt obligated to report his discoveries, sacrificing selflessly for the sake of the American people. Moreover, it was not mandatory for him to remain silent, for individuals who work for the government are required to take not an oath of secrecy, but rather an oath of service. Snowden elucidated, “The oath of service is not to secrecy, but to the Constitution -- to protect it against all enemies, foreign or domestic. That’s the oath I kept” (Heuval). Snowden rightfully judged that protecting the Constitution is of more importance than brushing an egregious corruption under the rug. Some assert that his actions did not affect the government. If this were the case, you would expect to see no reaction or response by the government. Snowden sternly quelled this fallacious allegation by candidly asking in an interview with NBC News reporter Brian Williams, “How can it be said that I did not serve my government when all three branches have made reforms as a result of it?” (Schneider). Indisputably, Snowden’s exposure has had far reaching ramifications, and because of the seriousness of the situation, he was completely justified in his actions. Considering that his divulgement of valuable information expressly exhibited his patriotism, Edward Snowden must be extended amnesty.

            Still yet, some maintain that Snowden should have just reported his findings to his authorities and allowed them to remedy the problem. They contentiously contest that President Obama had signed an executive order that offered protection to whistle blowers. Obama, in his own words, stated at a news conference, “If the concern was that somehow this was the only way to get this information out to the public, I signed an executive order well before Mr. Snowden leaked this information that provided whistle-blower protection to the intelligence community for the first time” (qtd. in Editorial Board). However, what these individuals, including President Obama, fail to realize is that this “protection” is applied only to intelligence employees, not to contractors. Thus, Edward Snowden, being a government contractor, was not under the protection of this executive order. Furthermore, “Mr. Snowden told The Washington Post earlier this month that he did report his misgivings to two superiors at the agency, showing them the volume of data collected by the N.S.A.” (Editorial Board). These executives did not respond to his discoveries, “because the agency and its leaders don’t consider these collection programs to be an abuse” (Editorial Board).Therefore, the accusation that Snowden could have voiced his concerns to his superiors is void and unfounded; he was not protected under Obama’s executive order and his concerns fell on deaf ears. Quite conspicuously, Edward Snowden behaved himself patriotically by defending America against an internal threat, the National Security Agency. He did not act wrongfully and, at the very least, should be extended amnesty.

            Edward Snowden is being undeservingly punished for his exposing of the NSA’s outrageous and unwarranted seizure of personal documentation. Since he courageously and patriotically protected our nation, he rightfully deserves amnesty, because amnesty allows him to regain his American citizenship, recovering the unique rights befitting of an American. What should be blatantly obvious is that the NSA is the true culprit. They have abused their privileges and have attempted to avoid scrutiny by attacking Snowden’s credentials and character. They have diverted the spotlight, and in so doing, the attention has been purposely and prejudicially placed upon Edward Snowden. The NSA should publicly confess to the wrongs that they have committed. Justice will not be fully served until Edward Snowden is offered amnesty and the NSA admits their egregious transgressions.

           Works Cited

Editorial Board. “Edward Snowden, Whistle-Blower.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 1 Jan. 2014. Web. 7 Nov. 2014.

Heuval, Katrina. “Justice for Edward Snowden.” The Washington Post. The Washington Post, 28

            Oct. 2014. Web. 7 Nov. 2014.

Lee, Timothy B. “Who Is Ed Snowden and What Did His Documents Show?” Vox.com

             Vox.com, 29 Sept. 2014. Web. 4 Nov. 2014.

Schneider, Elena, and Steve Kenny. “Defending His actions, Snowden Says He’s a Patriot.” The

            New York Times. The New York Times, 28 May 2014. Web. 7 Nov. 2014.