Boulder Weekly on Facebook Boulder Weekly on Twitter Boulder Weekly on Tumblr Boulder Weekly's RSS feed Email Contact

Find Local Events (pick a date)
 
Browse Boulder real estate by neighborhood, school and zip code along with other homes for sale in Colorado on COhomefinder.com
Browse Boulder real estate by neighborhood, school and zip code along with other homes for sale in Colorado on COhomefinder.com.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Home / Articles / Views / Danish Plan /  What should we do with Edward Snowden?
. . . . . . .
Give Through iGivefirst
Thursday, August 8,2013

What should we do with Edward Snowden?

By Paul Danish

I’m of two minds as to what we should do with Edward Snowden.

Mind 1: Pursue the little traitor to the ends of the earth, drag him back to Washington in chains, and hang him from a 100-foot gallows on the mall (after a fair trial before the FISA court, of course).

Mind 2: After the local buzzards have had their way with him (the ones with wings, not wing-tips), cut him down and give him a posthumous Presidential pardon, a state funeral, burial at Arlington and the Medal of Freedom.

Fortunately, we can do both.

Snowden needs to be punished as a traitor not just to deter future traitor wannabes, but because his treason has done incalculable damage to the country’s security.

Gen. Michael Hayden, former head of the CIA and the NSA before that, says the information Snowden stole informs the country’s adversaries “of American intelligence’s tactics, techniques and procedures.”

Glenn Greenwald, the reporter for Britain’s Guardian newspaper who is Snowden’s journalistic enabler, agrees. He says Snowden has documents that are “basically the instruction manual for how the NSA is built … very sensitive, detailed blueprints of how the NSA does what they do.”

And “there are already reports of counterterrorism targets changing their communications patterns,” Hayden says.

“And I would lose all respect for China’s Ministry of State Security and Russia’s FSB [formerly the KGB] if they have not already fully harvested Snowden’s digital data trove,” he adds.

Some leftist and libertarian apologists for Snowden argue that these national security concerns are grotesquely overblown, that the supposed nothing foreign threats are largely a product of neoconservative fever swamps, and that the path to true national security is to stop provoking other nations, peoples or religions.

It is a narrative that seems plausible to a lot of people, and is likely to remain plausible to them — right up to the next time some excitable boys fly an airliner into a skyscraper, or a nuclear power plant, or a football sta dium on game day, or blow up a van full of explosives in the middle of the Golden Gate Bridge at rush hour, or merely shoot up the Pearl Street Mall on a Saturday night. Or until someone sets off a nuke in lower Manhattan.

Then they’ll start howling about intelligence failures.

Leftists and libertarians may be loath to admit it, but the United States and the American people have real enemies. There are actually people out there who want to kill Americans and destroy the United States — and who, given the opportunity, would launch attacks that would make the 9/11 attack look like a walk in the park.

Snowden has made the job of protecting the American homeland and the American people orders of magnitude harder, by essentially handing over the complete order of battle of the lead agency in detecting threats to America’s adversaries. For that he should hang.

But at the same time, Snowden has performed a service of incalculable value for the American people — by exposing the existence of a dagger pointed at the heart of American liberty.

What Snowden has revealed is that the government’s counter-terrorism programs, which have had undeniable success in keeping people safe, are based on the government seeing and knowing — everything.

Snowden’s disclosures, and the subsequent congressional hearings and press investigations of government surveillance, have made it clear that the answer to today’s version of the Watergate question, “What did the government know, and when did it know it?” is:

“It knows everything that it is possible to know, and it has known it since it became possible to know it.”

In other words, it has become the government that knows too much.

In the interest of defending the American people against the threats of asymmetrical warfare in the nuclear age, the United States government has transformed itself into a surveillance state, which, if allowed to evolve unchecked, will transmogrify into a totalitarian state.

The problem is that once the government has the capability of collecting information that reveals potential terrorism and crime, it must collect it.

And once it has collected the information, it must act on it. It can’t help itself. To do otherwise would be dereliction of duty — and would actually be immoral.

The way to prevent the emergence of a totalitarian state that will inevitably evolve from the surveillance state that is now in place is to dismantle the surveillance state and not collect the information in the first place — and to explicitly agree to live dangerously in the interest of living free.

Whether a country that is crawling with nanny statists and neurotics who are afraid of everything from guns to fracking to Big Gulps to their own shadows has the guts to abandon the surveillance state remains to be seen. I doubt it.

At any rate, for alerting the American people to the existence of the surveillance state, and for doing so in a way that is forcing us to confront its reality and its implications, Snowden deserves to be recognized as a hero.

Posthumously, of course. Respond: letters@boulderweekly.com

This opinion column does not necessarily reflect the views of Boulder Weekly.


  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
POST A COMMENT
No Registration Required
REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
QG

I find myself disgusted by old man Danish's "get off my lawn" rant regarding Edward Snowden. It reads as so regressive and superficial, not to mention so full of self-righteous bloodlust, that it should probably be dismissed outright as merely cynically trolling for hits. Since when has Paul Danish been so gullible that he believes a government acting with impunity in secret is safer than one in which the people it is purported to be protecting actually know and approve its actions? When did we become required to submit to such an ignorant elitism? It might be said that alarmists such as Danish and all the others spouting the specious concept of treason, according to their geriatric conception of the "offense o' the day," have wreaked more destruction than they ever prevented. All right, I will say it: Let these fools and their enemies embrace each other right to hell, and leave the rest of us out of it.

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT

Will the surveillance state inevitably turn into a totalitarian state? No. Quite the contrary. Actual individual rights will continue to increase, as they have continued to do in the areas of voting rights, protections against discrimination, and the winding down of the drug war.

Will Americans let themselves be blown to bits to prove they have guts? No. They won't. There are ample real-world examples of states that can't provide security and stability and as a consequence are becoming completely dysfunctional.

Just as Orwell's notion of the monolithic totalitarian state has thoroughly penetrated the popular imagination, it is already going the way of the Dodo. The real threat to individual liberty in the future is not the totalitarian state, but the disintegration of societal institutions and their replacement by digital anarchy, and government by mass tantrum. The kind of hacker culture that Fast Eddie exemplifies is not unlike a high-tech version of the Athenian democracy that kept the Founders awake at night.

 

Hi Peter, In regards to personal rights, I thought that you might be interested in the events that have changed habeas corpus (unlawful detention) in the United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States#Habeas_corpus_in_the_21st_Century

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT

So what's the deal with the government knowing who you communicate with and how long. Well with this information the government can determine if you are with us or against us. Just think Jews, Minorities, Political undesirables and people who disagree. With a few key strokes now, lives can be destroyed or even rounded up and eliminated. Think that can't happen here? Where have you been?  

 

Sure. Except that that's just the opposite of what's happening in the real world. Gubmits are growing less monolithic and more fractured, and individual rights have continued to increase for the last half-century.

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT

This is the key paragraph:

"The way to prevent the emergence of a totalitarian state that will inevitably evolve from the surveillance state that is now in place is to dismantle the surveillance state and not collect the information in the first place — and to explicitly agree to live dangerously in the interest of living free."

Obama should pardon Snowden. China and Russia learned little or nothing new from him. 

 

There never has been a state that would pardon an offense of this nature, and there likely never will be. The reasons should be obvious. But the principal reason Obama could not pardon Snowden even if he were so inclined is that Fast Eddie refuses to face justice and there is no conviction to pardon.

 

The Wikipedia article on "pardon" makes it plain that, in the USA, pardon can mean amnesty. Amnesty is defined as freedom from prosecution. It's the same elsewhere. Pardon is often given for political crimes. In Russia fully one of the few pardons was for treason. I think that's all your substantive points rebutted.

 

Don't hold your breath.

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT

"Leftists and libertarians may be loath to admit it, but the United States and the American people have real enemies. There are actually people out there who want to kill Americans and destroy the United States — and who, given the opportunity, would launch attacks that would make the 9/11 attack look like a walk in the park."

Why do so many people hate the USA so much? If they are irrational, or mad, then what is it about them that makes them so? If Americans are rational and sane what is it about them that makes them so? It cannot simply be Americans are good because they are Americans as that is a circular argument. Sure, irrational monsters exist, but demonizing entire population groups or religions does not help America. E.g. killing 20,000 Afghani civilians by carpet bombing as a first response to 9/11 could only result in anger and resentment amongst those who, until then, had no reason to dislike the USA. How America deals with its enemies creates enemies. Some irrational and insane Americans LIKE that! Sane rational Americans need to find a way to moderate American behaviour so that it has a chance of dealing with its enemies instead of creating more of them.

 

 
Close
Close