WASHINGTON - Mr Edward Snowden’s explosive leaks of vast surveillance programmes run by the US National Security Agency (NSA) that trawl through telephone and Internet records have triggered widespread consternation, gaining him admirers but also critics who call him a traitor.
But any public debate on civil liberties is unlikely because the legal and political obstacles, whether in Congress or more broadly, are formidable.
The 29-year-old, who worked for a government contractor, is behind one of the most significant security breaches in American history, joining the likes of Vietnam- era Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg and Bradley Manning, who released US diplomatic cables and war logs to the WikiLeaks website.
“In my estimation, there has not been in American history a more important leak,” Dr Ellsberg wrote in The Guardian.
“Snowden did what he did because he recognised the NSA’s surveillance programmes for what they are: dangerous, unconstitutional activity.”
“I know it takes enormous courage to do what Snowden did, and the willingness to give up everything - life, freedom, everything - for a good bigger than yourself,” Mr Peter Van Buren, an ex-State Department official who released classified documents, told Agence France-Presse.
“If that is not a definition of patriotism, nothing else can be.”
But intelligence officials and lawmakers from both major parties have labelled him a traitor.
“I hope we follow Mr Snowden to the ends of the earth to bring him to justice,” Republican Senator Lindsey Graham wrote on his Twitter account, casting the leaker’s action as potentially a felony.
Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat, slammed the “act of treason”, and called for Mr Snowden’s extradition and prosecution.
President Barack Obama, while deploring the leak, has, however, endorsed the goal of a vigorous public discussion of the “trade-offs” between national security and personal privacy.
“I think it’s healthy for our democracy,” he said last Friday.
Mr Steven Aftergood, who runs the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, said: “If President Obama really welcomed a debate, there are all kinds of things he could do in terms of declassification and disclosure to foster it. But he’s not doing any of them.”
Congressional leaders of both parties have so far expressed support for the newly disclosed initiatives.
The legislation governing such surveillance was renewed for five years at the end of last year.
“The Democrats want to support Obama, and the Republicans supported Fisa expansion,” said Professor Peter Swire, an expert on privacy at Ohio State University, referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
“Both parties face internal tensions on this issue.”
So far, there has been no groundswell of public anger to shift congressional views.
In a Washington Post-Pew Research Centre poll conducted after the NSA revelations, 56 per cent said it was acceptable for the agency to get secret court orders to track the phone calls of millions of Americans; 41 per cent said it was unacceptable.
1 comment:
Patriot or traitor?
WASHINGTON - Mr Edward Snowden’s explosive leaks of vast surveillance programmes run by the US National Security Agency (NSA) that trawl through telephone and Internet records have triggered widespread consternation, gaining him admirers but also critics who call him a traitor.
But any public debate on civil liberties is unlikely because the legal and political obstacles, whether in Congress or more broadly, are formidable.
The 29-year-old, who worked for a government contractor, is behind one of the most significant security breaches in American history, joining the likes of Vietnam- era Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg and Bradley Manning, who released US diplomatic cables and war logs to the WikiLeaks website.
“In my estimation, there has not been in American history a more important leak,” Dr Ellsberg wrote in The Guardian.
“Snowden did what he did because he recognised the NSA’s surveillance programmes for what they are: dangerous, unconstitutional activity.”
“I know it takes enormous courage to do what Snowden did, and the willingness to give up everything - life, freedom, everything - for a good bigger than yourself,” Mr Peter Van Buren, an ex-State Department official who released classified documents, told Agence France-Presse.
“If that is not a definition of patriotism, nothing else can be.”
But intelligence officials and lawmakers from both major parties have labelled him a traitor.
“I hope we follow Mr Snowden to the ends of the earth to bring him to justice,” Republican Senator Lindsey Graham wrote on his Twitter account, casting the leaker’s action as potentially a felony.
Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat, slammed the “act of treason”, and called for Mr Snowden’s extradition and prosecution.
President Barack Obama, while deploring the leak, has, however, endorsed the goal of a vigorous public discussion of the “trade-offs” between national security and personal privacy.
“I think it’s healthy for our democracy,” he said last Friday.
Mr Steven Aftergood, who runs the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, said: “If President Obama really welcomed a debate, there are all kinds of things he could do in terms of declassification and disclosure to foster it. But he’s not doing any of them.”
Congressional leaders of both parties have so far expressed support for the newly disclosed initiatives.
The legislation governing such surveillance was renewed for five years at the end of last year.
“The Democrats want to support Obama, and the Republicans supported Fisa expansion,” said Professor Peter Swire, an expert on privacy at Ohio State University, referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
“Both parties face internal tensions on this issue.”
So far, there has been no groundswell of public anger to shift congressional views.
In a Washington Post-Pew Research Centre poll conducted after the NSA revelations, 56 per cent said it was acceptable for the agency to get secret court orders to track the phone calls of millions of Americans; 41 per cent said it was unacceptable.
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, NEW YORK TIMES
Post a Comment