Yes, I love my country and, no, I don't think I would want to live in another one. I live in Military City USA and I can't imagine our city being attacked by terorists. Yes, I do expect my government to protect my freedoms, and one of my freedoms guaranteed by law is that my government will not spy on me.
I treasure all the freedom and rights I have as a citizen. I do not want my government to pick and choose which ones they can abuse in the name of protecting others. I will not blindly assume The Government is protecting me from the big bad terrorists so they can do whatever they want to accomplish it.
The reality is ‘The Government’ and our country is made up of human beings and they are not all honest and trustworthy. Many are driven by greed, a desire to control, and have power in whatever form they can get it. They are willing to go to whatever lengths they need to protect themselves from exposure.
Whistleblowers definitely expose those actions. Whistleblowers have been around for years and have been making public in various ways those acts which constitute corruption, waste, and deceit. If you review the following list, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers you will note that being a whistleblower is not for the faint of heart and it certainly helps to have a lawyer and financial backing because before the ‘The Government’ accepts your information you will be thoroughly investigated, interrogated, and possibly prosecuted. Especially if you are exposing The Government. (Yes, I know some people doubt the accuracy of Wikipedia, but, for sake of argument let's assume some of the information is correct.)
Ask yourself: “Would I be willing to give up everything I have and treasure to be persecuted for something I know is the right thing to do? If I was willing to do it, would I seek a way of doing it that would benefit my fellow countryman and protect my life? Do I have the emotional/mental stamina and financial resources to hire an attorney to fight The Government for me until my information is considered truthful and accurate? Would I trust ‘The Government’ to believe me, protect me, protect my job, not persecute me, not put me in jail, not take my home, destroy my family, and – would ‘The Government’ thank me and reward me for doing good for The Country?”
Given the list of legislation already in place http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&task... I wouldn’t have thought we would need an organization dedicated to helping to protect whistleblowers. However, there is one and former whistleblowers are part of it: http://www.whistleblowers.org/
I believe Edward Snowden did his homework. He more than likely knew how Thomas Andrew Drake and Thomas Tamm along with others had been treated. He must have known what his future would look like long before he ever transferred one single file, and known full well there is no way he would have ever drawn a breath outside of prison again had he been in the U.S. when the information was released.
Without Edward Snowden doing what he did the NSA would be scooping up information on U.S. citizens as they have been doing for many years – wait, maybe they are still doing it in some way or another and that will take another whistleblower in the future.
Maybe we don’t have to throw rose petals at Edward Snowden, but, can we at least admit he did some good for the people of the U.S.? His method might be in question - surely not his intent. I'm still waiting for accurate information on any damage done by the information he has released - instead of all the fearmongering propaganda of right wing hawks via FOX News..
Is one person doing what he thinks is right, and doing it with good intentions, going to be a threat to the entire country? Surely truth can't be our downfall.
I perceive Edward Snowden as a hero, and one I admire and respect. Those who recognized the violation of rights of citizens and said nothing is not my notion of a loyal citizen. I disagree with Eleanor Holmes Norton.
Freethinker31, the point of disagreement is to express the rationale of one's position. As long as we can refrain from name calling, blaming, accusing each other, and keep it focused on the points of disagreement and agreement, we will be fine and benefit by the discourse.
I fell in love with my country as a vey small child listening to my uncle, who was a superior court judge. He had me read the documents, discussed them with me. Took me on a trip to Washington, D.C. when I was 14 years old, with his family when he had to go on business. I sat in on a supreme court event and listened to a Senate debate.
"We are a nation of law, not of men" he intoned and I thought all citizens had the rite to vote and to express their points of view.
When I was 37 I went to him to ask why the courts and law enforcement had not protected my rights as a citizen (an ugly family violence thing). He pounded on his desk and told me that is what is wrong with our country, "Women and niggers got the vote" and "Women who have control over their own bodies are whores." "Only land-owners should have the vote!"
My naive beliefs were further shattered as I looked up his records as a judge and found he was a sexist and a racist in his court decisions, and he was not held accountable. I later learned that he refused to award alimony to any woman who left her husband. She had to be strong enough to take discipline. He also thought fathers had a right and responsibility to whip their children.
Of course, I read Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky and other critiques of a republic, and of civil law, and of national and international law.
When a crime has been committed, even if it is a man beating his wife and children, and no one speaks up, that is a crime against humanity. Silence solved no interpersonal problems, nor does it solve national problems. Snowden observed criminal activity and he spoke up about it, knowing full well he would forfeit his rights as a citizen.
Snowdon tried to go up the chain of command and wanted to see mistakes confronted. What does one do when such events happen? Be silent? Ignore the events? Make copies of revealing documents? Put his reputation and future on the line?
What would you do?
k.h. ky , I agree, Barbara is a fine writer and interesting to read.
If the folks here who question Ed Snowden's motives will read James Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me, they will understand America better. It's subtitled Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong.
First published in 1995, it reached and remained on best seller lists. About his 2007 Second Edition, he says "It's safe to say that Lies didn't influence textbook publishers very much."
One hostile reader called it "Marxist/hippie/socialist/anti-American/anti-Christian."
Hey Tom - I just wanted to thank you for the reference to Loewen's book. I picked it up on Amazon. In my case he's preaching to the choir regarding the realization that "education" is a synonym for "brainwashing," but the book is jam-packed with excellent information.
I can't make a decission on Snowden exactly because I don't have all the information. Possibly in the end what he did will come out as a good thing. Going through "normal channels" doesn't always work.
Going through channels does not work! I know from sad experience and do not trust my government to act in my interests. I don't know that it ever has. I read the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration as a school girl and fell for the concepts of equality and justice. I failed to realize the limits our documents put on women and people of color. I know, now. These documents were written by white, male, lawyers, landowners, leaders with an agenda that did not include working people, women, or people of color (I hate that phrase).
If I fail to understand what is true, I will fail to understand the limits placed on people who work for a living, or who own small businesses. With a corporation being a person, we lost whatever government we had for the people. When a corporation goes to the death chamber for a crime, when it pays its fair share of taxes, when it includes workers in pension sharing, when it empowers individuals to flourish in exchange for the work they do, I will reconsider my position.
Folks who repeat the slogan "We are a nation of laws, not of men" have stopped thinking.
They have closed their minds to at least three realities:
Laws are written by men, interpreted by men, and enforced by men.
That slogan does what slogan-makers intend; it stirs an emotion and people stop thinking.
Tom, you are correct in your description. Too bad a little 10 year old girl couldn't figure that out. I like your reference to stirring emotions that stop thinking. Sounds like religion, doesn't it!