In this paper I wish to focus on the actions of Edward Snowden and his actions concerning
the method of release of the information and his flight from the hands of US justice authorities. As by way of a recap let us look at how the story initially broke. On 6th June 2013 The Guardian Newspaper reported that the NSA was collecting phone records of US citizens1 Within three days Edward Snowden was named as the source of the leaks and was reported to be in Hong Kong. Since that time more information concerning both British and US intelligence gathering methods has been publicly released and Edward Snowden has received asylum in Russia (one year licence2).
There are perhaps two things that mark this case out from previous security leaks. Firstly the ‘whistle blower’ reasonably quickly came out publicly and declared that they were the source of the information. Snowden’s actions were in stark contrast to other high-profile whistle blowers who preferred to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. Secondly, Snowden fled the USA and went to two of its key rivals. In earlier years this would have been known as defecting, but in our modern mono-polar world it takes on a more complex character. Snowden did not release the information for ideological reasons as would possibly have been the case were it during the cold war, nor was he inspired by financial gains but rather he believes that governments should not hold /gather large quantities of information.
Edward Snowden therefore represents a new breed of whistle blower3. However, for now let us concentrate on Snowden’s decision to leave US jurisdiction and its implications for him as an instigator of civil disobedience. Within western culture one of the earliest examples of civil disobedience can be in the life and death of Socrates. In Plato’s book Crito4 we hear Socrates’s argument against flight from prison and the death penalty (Plato):
Soc. Then consider the matter in this way: Imagine that I am about to play truant (you may call the proceeding by any name which you like), and the laws and the government come and interrogate me: "Tell us, Socrates," they say; "what are you about? are you going by an act of yours to overturn us- the laws and the whole State, as far as in you lies? Do you imagine that a State can subsist and not be overthrown, in which the decisions of law have no power, but are set aside and overthrown by individuals?" What will be our answer, Crito, to these and the like words? Anyone, and especially a clever rhetorician, will have a good deal to urge about the evil of setting aside the law which requires a sentence to be carried out; and we might reply, "Yes; but the State has injured us and given an unjust sentence." Suppose I say that?
Socrates argues that while living in a state a citizen makes a contract with that sate and agrees to abide by the laws. If a citizen does not agree with the actions of the executive branch then they can commit civil disobedience, yet they must accept the repercussions as laid out in the laws of the sate. Failure to accept the repercussions makes a mockery of the laws and thus contradicts the contract agreed between the citizen and the state and put in force by the citizen’s continued residence in the state (up until the incident in question) (Plato5):
For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him.
Socretes’s argument develops a concept which over two thousand years later was deployed by Mohandas K Gandhi when confronting the might of the British Empire in India. Although Ghandi was in many respects fighting the British Government, he nevertheless accepted the legal implications of his action. Ghandi in fact spent a lot of time in prison6 pleading guilty to his charges. This acceptance of guilt and failure to flee is in fact what determines the true effectiveness of civil disobedience. Were, for example, Rosa Parks7 to have left the bus before the police arrived then no doubt the story of civil rights in the USA would have been very different.
This element of public accountability is sadly what is missing in Edward Snowden’s case. Snowden’s case has been often compared to that of Bradley Manning8 with the striking difference being the arrest and conviction of Manning. While Snowden remains outside of US law his claim of fighting for democracy is at best limited.
1 See http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order
accessed 24.8.13
2 See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23768248 accessed 24.8.13
3 See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339268/Edward-Snowden-IT-geek-Americaswanted.
html accessed 24.8.13
4 See http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html accessed 24.8.13
5 Ibid
6 See
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2024558_2024522_2024456,00.html
accessed 24.8.13
7 See http://www.ushistory.org/us/54b.asp accessed 24.8.13
8 See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23784288 accessed 24.8.13
No comments:
Post a Comment