Predictably, the main stream media and legions of other brave and noble individuals have spent the last few days poking their noses down Edward Snowden's butt crack looking for the tell-tale signs of cowardice, self-interest and allegiance to his masters in Beijing.
We have heard from CNN (if he was a real whistle blower he would be in the USA now - presumably interviewed by Wolf Blitzer, something, perversely, I'd like to see), Dick Cheney (offered without further comment) and more cereal box reading bloggers than I could HR in a year (if was inclined to HR anonymous death treats posted by clueless bed-wetters).
What we have heard precious little of, are reasoned defenses of Snowden in the media on the basis of what matters - the importance of what he disclosed and how the character assassination of him in the media might affect the future of whistle blowing.
Except for this: Whistleblowers and the economy of esteem, posted by W.W. on The Economist blog, with reference to Ron Fournier in the National Journal, and, at last, Snowden on Snowden in The Guardian live blog.
Reason & rebuttal after the fold. Awesomeness abounds.
W.W. starts with a rhetorical question about Snowdon's character leading to a quote by Ron Fournier in the National Journal:
" 'Is Edward Snowden a hero or a traitor? I don't care. You read right: I don't give a whit about the man who exposed two sweeping U.S. online surveillance programs, nor do I worry much about his verdict in the court of public opinion.
Why? Because it is the wrong question. The Snowden narrative matters mostly to White House officials trying to deflect attention from government overreach and deception, and to media executives in search of an easy storyline to serve a celebrity-obsessed audience.' "
Generally, yes. But is that all?
W.W. thinks not:
Yet I do give a whit about Mr Snowden and I do worry about his fate in the court of public opinion. I worry because the conversation influences our tolerance for future overreach and deception from the security apparatus. More importantly, it influences our attitude toward future acts of bravery by public-spirited Americans who witness overreach and deception of this sort. One need not believe that Mr Snowden is a hero to see that the campaign to smear him is in large part a campaign of pre-emption against future leakers. The prestige and infamy that ultimately attach to Mr Snowden will surely affect the supply of future leaks. The rush to lionise and belittle Mr Snowden is a rush to get the jump in the fight to determine the level of status that whistle-blowers will enjoy, or suffer, in our culture.
Please tell us more, W.W., in terms TE readers can relate to:
The outcome of this fight matters, because, as economists like to say, incentives matter. But few incentives are pecuniary. Humanity operates primarily within an economy of esteem, and one basic function of any human society is to assign status, to distribute honour and shame. That pundits hustled to pass judgment on Mr Snowden is no surprise, but the way it has been done is illuminating, and depressing.
He then takes
David Brooks to the wood shed for
"his reckless, smug psychologising of Mr Snowden", finally concluding:
The attack on Mr Snowden's reputation is in no small part a rearguard action to keep America's spies and generals beyond the reach of suspicion, to maintain their relative immunity from serious democratic scrutiny so that that the public will continue complacently to trust them when they say, in so many words, "Trust us...or else". But it is democratic affirmation, not uniforms and security clearances, that makes state power legitimate. When the state acts without proper democratic authority, it acts as a rogue operation—as just another band of thugs with money and guns and a dangerous sense of self-righteousness. Whether the NSA's monitoring programmes are actually legal and effective may be more pressing questions than whether Mr Snowden deserves our esteem. But it became possible to address those questions openly only because Mr Snowden chose to speak up. If we wish to keep similarly pressing policy questions available for public examination, we must defend the honour of whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.
"Absolutely God-damned right", says B.L. Willard. This really matters.
How often since Snowden reveled his identify have we witnessed innuendo, unsubstantiated accusations and insults leveled at him to assassinate his character and attack his credibility?
How many times have we read veiled or not so veiled suggestions he be tortured or executed, even on this most progressive and fact-oriented of websites?
Whether one considers Snowden's actions to be legal, correct or otherwise, whether one considers the "balance" of security verses loss of privacy to be acceptable or not, what we should recognize that Snowden acted on principle to expose what he considers to be an illegal and unacceptable violation of public and human rights, and in doing so he knowingly put himself at risk. And this should not only be respected, but supported.
But most importantly, we would not be having this debate had he not acted.
And these NSA whistleblowers agree (scroll down to watch all).
Enter Snowden to his own defense.
Smug? Self-aggrandizing? Delusionary?
No. Reasonable, funny and maybe a little pissed-off. Some of the good stuff:
On the MSM:
Question: So far are things going the way you thought they would regarding a public debate? – tikkamasala
Answer: Initially I was very encouraged. Unfortunately, the mainstream media now seems far more interested in what I said when I was 17 or what my girlfriend looks like rather than, say, the largest program of suspicionless surveillance in human history.
On his Chinese Masters:
Question: Edward, there is rampant speculation, outpacing facts, that you have or will provide classified US information to the Chinese or other governments in exchange for asylum. Have/will you? - Spencer Ackerman (Guardian moderator)
Answer: This is a predictable smear that I anticipated before going public, as the US media has a knee-jerk "RED CHINA!" reaction to anything involving HK or the PRC, and is intended to distract from the issue of US government misconduct. Ask yourself: if I were a Chinese spy, why wouldn't I have flown directly into Beijing? I could be living in a palace petting a phoenix by now.
On being a "Traitor":
Question: US officials say terrorists already altering TTPs because of your leaks, & calling you traitor. Respond? — Kimberly Dozier by Twitter
Answer: US officials say this every time there's a public discussion that could limit their authority. US officials also provide misleading or directly false assertions about the value of these programs, as they did just recently with the Zazi case, which court documents clearly show was not unveiled by PRISM.
Journalists should ask a specific question: since these programs began operation shortly after September 11th, how many terrorist attacks were prevented SOLELY by information derived from this suspicionless surveillance that could not be gained via any other source? Then ask how many individual communications were ingested to acheive that, and ask yourself if it was worth it. Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it.
Further, it's important to bear in mind I'm being called a traitor by men like former Vice President Dick Cheney. This is a man who gave us the warrantless wiretapping scheme as a kind of atrocity warm-up on the way to deceitfully engineering a conflict that has killed over 4,400 and maimed nearly 32,000 Americans, as well as leaving over 100,000 Iraqis dead. Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him, Feinstein, and King, the better off we all are. If they had taught a class on how to be the kind of citizen Dick Cheney worries about, I would have finished high school.
He has much more to say on other issues and all of it strikes me as reasonable if, in some cases, opinion. Particularly, his explanation of why he is disappointed in Obama ends with a suggestion (a plea?) for the President to step up to the challenge and redeem himself in a way he could without compromising security:
This disclosure provides Obama an opportunity to appeal for a return to sanity, constitutional policy, and the rule of law rather than men. He still has plenty of time to go down in history as the president who looked into the abyss and stepped back, rather than leaping forward into it. I would advise he personally call for a special committee to review these interception programs, repudiate the dangerous "State Secrets" privilege, and, upon preparing to leave office, begin a tradition for all presidents forthwith to demonstrate their respect for the law by appointing a special investigator to review the policies of their years in office for any wrongdoing. There can be no faith in government if our highest offices are excused from scrutiny—they should be setting the example of transparency.
Traitor?
10:03 AM PT: It's after 01:00am here so I'm out for the night.
Thanks for your comments. Debate.
Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 9:44 AM PT: Response to this diary was much greater than expected. It seems this hit a nerve for many people. I can't hope to respond to as many comments as I'd like (after midnight here) so I would just like to thank people for expressing their opinions; even when the discussion gets heated, if we have something to say it's good to share and I hope everyone got eyes opened wider.