By Craig
Moorhead
NEW YORK, Sept. 14 – It has been two years since the notorious Edward
Snowden fled to Russia to avoid espionage chargers for his role in the mass
disclosure of classified information garnered by virtue of his role as a
contractor for the National Security Agency (NSA). Even years after his
departure, the public debate over civil liberties rages on leaving some asking
the question: does the government have a need to keep some information secret?
My answer to this question is absolutely, yes.
Just a few days after the anniversary of 9/11 we should all be reminded
that the political climate which inspired those devastating attacks still
exists today, and in fact terrorism and related violence has continued to rise
over the past few years with high profile attacks occurring in France, Canada,
and elsewhere. When it comes to national security, the government has an
obligation to do what is necessary to ensure the safety of those citizens they
are charged to protect. When the details of how these shadowy protectors do
their work becomes public domain, their ability to do their jobs is adversely
affected. This is especially true in the case of the NSA. As a signals
intelligence service, the NSA's activities are primarily capabilities-based;
and when the details of those capabilities are disclosed to the media without
restraint, the ability of the NSA to acquire the information needed to disrupt
a terrorist plot is hampered significantly. Such public disclosures as the one
carried out by Snowden are tantamount to showing our hand to our terrorist
adversaries. This has effectively hamstrung national security efforts because
when the enemy knows your capabilities, they can work around those techniques
and keep their operations off of your radar. Because of Snowden, the NSA and
consequently Americans, have effectively been blinded to a variety of potential
threats.
Julian Hattem, who writes for the Washington DC tabloid The Hill, reported on this very issue
just days ago, showing the fallout from the Snowden story is still going
strong. The article titled "Spy
chief: Snowden killed 'important' spy program in Afghanistan"
discussed comments made by U.S. Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James
Clapper in regards to the damage Snowden has done to the nation's intelligence
capacity.
Specifically, Clapper makes reference to a cell phone tapping program
that had been active in Afghanistan which was scuttled by Snowden's
revelations. Clapper describes the program as being "the single
most important source of force protection warning for our people in
Afghanistan". One need only look at the dismal situation in Afghanistan,
with the Taliban resurgent and ISIS establishing itself in the country earlier
this year, to understand the true cost of this type of activism on the part of Edward
Snowden.
With all that said, I don't think anyone would dispute the importance of
civil liberties in American society. The Founding Fathers wrote the first
amendment for a reason and greater government transparency to its people should
be seen as a good thing. However, I take personal issue with the manner in
which Mr. Snowden chose to utilize these rights, most notably in the
recklessness with which he acted. The nature of the mass information he
revealed to the public was of such volume that there was no way for him to have
known all the details of what he was putting out into the air for the world to
see. He held no regard for the lives he may potentially destroy with his
actions, and he didn't even have the courage to stick around to face the consequences.
Some may praise the nobility of his actions for revealing perceived
government misbehaviour but the reality, to quote DNI James Clapper, is that
Snowden "exposed so many other things that had nothing to do with
so-called domestic surveillance or civil liberties and privacy in this country".
No comments:
Post a Comment