An Evening at Grand Central

By Adrienn Keszei

NEW YORK, NOV 17 — People glide relentlessly through the doors of Grand Central Station during the 5 pm rush hour. ”Excuse me” rings all around as harried New Yorkers try to pass quickly  through the terminal and keep out of each other’s way. A lady in the main concourse eyes the departure board anxiously for her delayed train’s gate assignment,  wishing good luck to the reporter but declining to answer her questions. A couple in the Transit Museum store is casually browsing the toys selection as their little son, standing on his toes, is gazing at small trains travel through the model railroad. In front of the Apple store on top of the stairs stand tourists, frantically trying to snap an Instagram-worthy selfie with the astronomical ceiling or the crowd below. From the underpass, paramedics are bringing up an intoxicated, injured lady, warning her to take better care of herself.

 Grand Central is a place where the rich and poor cross paths, a meeting place for the American and the immigrant, the New Yorker and the commuter, the homeward bound and the homeless. To some people it is the station where they beg for money, others change trains for subways here, and for others the trains are irrelevant. Rather, the terminal is the location of Joe’s where they can buy one of New York City’s best cups of coffee. When Gilanie Marion, who collects donations for the Salvation Army, wants a sweet snack, she always stops by Grand Central to get a huge cupcake at Crumbs. But this place also has a more symbolic meaning for her — a rite of passage.

“The only big event was when I was sixteen and I was finally allowed to come to Grand Central by myself to get on the train. I saw that huge clock and I thought, oh my god! Before I got sixteen, my mom was overprotective, in those years there were a lot of rapists and stuff like that. It is safer now...but you still got to watch out.”

There are indeed a lot of security guards, standing almost completely still at all exists of the station. If one also stops for a few minutes to observe the rhythm of Grand Central, the periodical changes of people entering from all sides become hypnotic. As trains arrive, people run through the halls, some listening to music, others still on the phone trying to arrange a meeting or catch their train. Soon the crowd transforms into a softer pattern of people walking slowly towards their destination. Sometimes there are a few precious seconds when things almost seem still for a moment, and then it all starts again, new trains and buses arrive, with new people coursing through the station like veins through a heart.

Diane Ganoga, who used to be a community development worker, highlights the importance of the terminal as a gathering place. 

“I was always about creating perfect places and spaces for communities, so when I see the influx of people and sort of everyone participating in this experience, it is so great, I love it!”

Rick Miner, who moved here in 1974, talks poetically about Grand Central while he is passing time between meetings. 

“This is such a different place than it was 20 years ago. It was horrible, it was dirty, it was very user-unfriendly. They took down a lot of the gross advertising that covered the whole place, and exposed the architectural bones of the facility. They made improvements. It’s a whole different environment, and it’s wonderful to see people using it. It is part of New York rising.”

 

One of the most memorable things for him was when he saw a man walking through here naked, completely drunk.

“It is not an everyday occurrence. But you also see the excitement and the romance of the city. You see couples meeting, people coming in from out of town, and you see frustration when trains are late. Everybody’s running, some people are excited to be going somewhere, others are frustrated, it’s sort of a microcosm of the city, but a nice microcosm.”

Grand Central means something different to everyone, but one way or another, it is part of the excitement of this metropolis. Contrary to first impressions, there is no chaos here - all those people coursing through the terminal’s many tunnels, like veins through the human heart, are tiny components of a well-oiled machine. Grand Central Station, like the clock in its lobby, is pulsating and changing every moment, but it is also a consistent and constant part of New York.

 

Journalists at the Heart of the Ebola Outbreak

By Adrienn Keszei

Nov 2, 2015

I found The Ebola Story very appealing not only because it provided valuable, expert information about the spread of the disease, but because of the human stories that helped the detached foreign readers identify with those suffering through the epidemic. Although these articles are not classic investigative pieces, since the outbreak was heavily publicized, and there was no conspiracy behind it to reveal, the journalists used an investigative approach when they travelled to Ebola-stricken countries to get the full story. 

Access, especially in this particular case, was key to ensuring that readers around the world get credible and insider reporting that is not based on details acquired from other news organizations, but includes the hands-on experiences of those involved in the battle against the deadly virus: the experiences of the doctors and patients in Africa. The journalists involved in the writing of these articles provided an authentic and diverse picture about the Ebola outbreak, often risking their own safety, or to be more exact, their lives. 

The sourcing of these stories is first-class. The journalists used a wide variety of sources that verify the credibility of the stories told. Officials working for the Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organization, or Doctors Without Borders are all quoted. Information was also received from the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the Guinean Health Ministry, and hospital workers in Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia. With all the information acquired from the sources above, the journalists could provide hard facts about the disease, the numbers of those who died of Ebola, details about the (insufficient) budgets provided to battle the virus, the magnitude of the outbreak, or the reasons of the delayed response and the failure to track how the virus was spreading. 

However, what made these articles especially fascinating were the stories about everyday people living inside the epidemic, experiencing the cruelty and the unimaginable speed of the virus every second of every day. These people may not be experts, but they possessed first-hand knowledge about Ebola, as most of those quoted in the articles had lost family members, friends, or colleagues within a span of only a few days. The reporting largely relied on the information provided by officials and stories shared by average people, and at no point could I detect opinionated writing or biased commentary. 

The photos were also an important factor in making the writing transparent. When the author talked about how Ebola destroys relationships because people cannot touch their loved ones, this phenomenon is illustrated with photos about patients isolated from others, with the shocking sight of small children lying on the ground in agony, and completely alone. The excellent photo journalism contributed to the credibility and authenticity of the reporting.

I admire the journalists involved in the writing of this series of articles because they did not hesitate to go to hospitals or sit in ambulances where probably hundreds of Ebola patients have died before. This is why I doubt there could be any hidden motive behind these articles. The bravery and integrity of these journalists has been proven by their willingness to go to the heart of the Ebola outbreak and I seriously doubt that they would falsify or omit information to endanger the credibility of the stories that they risked their lives to produce. 

Has the Time Come for a New Era of Trudeaumania?

By Adrienn Keszei

NEW YORK, Oct 21—The Liberal Party won the October 19 Canadian election with an unanticipated majority of 183 seats in parliament, vaulting them from third to first place in Parliament in the course of only one election. Their victory signals the beginning of a new era after 15 years of mostly unstable politics due to minority governments and weak majorities. The voters demonstrated their readiness for a more activist government to take immediate action and stimulate economic growth, which was a cardinal point in the party’s political campaign.

As Liberal leader Justin Trudeau is expected to take office on November 4, 2015, Canada will take a sharp turn away from long-serving Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s conservative politics. After the exceptional political turnaround for Trudeau’s party, he will have the responsibility to make sure the government delivers on its campaign promises. He also has the additional burden of following in the footsteps of his father, Pierre Trudeau, who dominated Canadian politics for decades—inspiring a sensation called Trudeaumania—and held the post twice during the 1970s and 1980s.  

Justin Trudeau is the first child of a former Prime Minister ever to be elected to head the government. Pierre Trudeau’s government had remarkable political achievements, so the new Liberal leader, who at 43 is also the second-youngest Canadian prime minister to hold the post, is now under significant pressure to prove himself as the head of state and also as a worthy successor of his father’s political legacy, although the campaign was consciously trying to distance him from the former prime minister in order to paint him as an independent political figure.

‘Justin’, as he was often called during his campaign, used to be in the public eye as a child, but after his father left office, he lived a relatively private life, graduated from the University of British Columbia and became a teacher. However, in 1998, an unfortunate accident forced him back into the limelight; his youngest sibling, Michel, died in an avalanche in British Columbia during a skiing trip, which inspired the eldest Trudeau son to campaign for improving avalanche safety measures.

In spite of Conservative attacks on Trudeau, which dubbed him an inexperienced “pretty boy” not ready to govern a country, the prime minister-elect expressed his support for the Liberal Party from a young age and used his public status to advocate change and speak out about various issues. For instance, he inaugurated the Trudeau Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Toronto with his brother Alexandre, in 2004, he was part of a public campaign against a zinc mine to protect a UN World Heritage Site, and in 2006 he was part of a rally to promote Canadian support in the fight against the Darfur crisis.  These examples of Trudeau’s previous public activities demonstrate his interest in a wide variety of issues and his willingness to take action and bring about change.

His political beginnings go back to 2007, when he was nominated in the Papineau riding. In 2008, he became a Member of Parliament, and got re-elected three years later. He was an exemplary young force within the Liberals—in 2009, he was chosen to be the party’s critic for multiculturalism and youth, and appointed a year later as critic for youth, citizenship, and immigration. Although many encouraged him to run for leadership of the Liberal Party, he declined the offer several times, citing his eagerness to focus on his young family, until in 2012 he finally declared his intention to run for leadership.

After he takes office, Canadians can expect policy changes in economic, social, and environmental policies, as well as in the country’s foreign affairs.

In his campaign Trudeau committed to stimulate the economy, which will not be an easy task, considering the present low prospects for future growth. In order to boost the economy, he plans to double the national infrastructure spending, creating a short-term deficit. He also proposed to increase taxes on those earning more than $200,000 a year, in an attempt to help the less affluent by lowering the taxes for middle-class citizens.

Trudeau indicated that his government would accept 25,000 Syrian migrants by January 2016, and invest a large sum of money to improve the progress of refugee application procedures.  He is also expected to create a new line of social policies. The significance of fundamental rights in relation to religion and ethnicity will be highlighted, as indicated by the Liberals’ strong opposition regarding Harper’s previously proposed ban on public servants wearing the Muslim headscarf known as the niqab. During his campaign, Trudeau also proposed to drop visa requirements for Mexicans, reversing previous policies implemented by the Conservatives.  

Similarly to the Australian policy changes after Turnbull took office, Trudeau aims to change Canadian environmental regulations considerably, in which the Paris Climate Change Conference this December will be a turning point. He plans to reduce carbon emissions and work out strategies to support each province to achieve the new environmental goals.

A decisive change of direction is expected in Canada’s foreign affairs too, as Trudeau has often indicated his willingness to restore relations with Iran, after Harper’s government cut all ties with the country three years ago. The future prime minister also wishes to create a new strategy to battle the Islamic State, and withdraw Canada’s bombers from the conflict in the Middle East.

Trudeau, similarly to Obama in 2008, built his campaign around youth and change – even his campaign slogan, ‘Real Change Now’, alludes to that of the American president’s campaign slogans – putting huge pressure on himself. It has yet to be proven whether or not the Liberals can keep up their upward trajectory and bring about the change they promised to the Canadian people.

Risks to Global Stability in 2016

By Adrienn Keszei - Oct 12, 2015

 

(Source: http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=176293 )

New York — As 2016 approaches, it is important to keep close watch of the political and economic risks worldwide to evaluate their potential global impact. Although it is difficult to precisely assess the consequences of single events in terms of global stability, the following list explains some of the major risks for the following year(s):

-          The Russian intervention in Syria may have wide-ranging global consequences for the next year. Although a possible clash with the U.S. over their different strategies to solve the Syrian civil war is a low probability risk, if it happens, the conflict will have high risk implications for global stability. While Putin’s decision to help the Syrian government defeat the militant groups may produce some positive results in the short term, it is possible that the country will not be able to fully control the extent of its involvement in the civil war. It is possible that the following events will require a deeper involvement from the Russian military, which could alienate the Russian public from Putin. Depending on how long and how deep Putin’s involvement in the civil war will be, it may have serious political consequences for Putin’s regime in the long term.

-          The Paris Climate Conference in December 2015 may have significant global implications for the following years. As the 190 nations will meet, their differing views are likely to cause a major falling out between the industrialized and the emerging markets. Although numerous countries have previously committed to cutting their greenhouse gas emissions to some extent, more serious efforts must be made to limit the emerging threat of the greenhouse effect. However, even if the developed countries could agree to significantly change their energy policies, poor states do not have the financial means to invest in clean technology. They would expect rich countries to provide the funding for them to adapt their economy and infrastructure to the new global energy policies. Even if an agreement is reached regarding the environmental issues, cooperation between the participating states will be problematic.

-          The stagnation of the Eurozone is likely to remain a major problem for the next year. Ever since the global financial crisis of 2007-08, the economy of the European Union has been unable to return to its previous growth-path. The present migrant crisis will further reduce the prospects of major GDP growth for 2016, as most of the developed countries in the bloc will have to focus on restructuring their immigration policies and resolving short-term issues related to the huge influx of migrants. Although a turnaround is not out of the picture, the current GDP growth path of the EU is quite worrying, and raises questions in terms of its ability to sustain the bloc and lift the Eurozone from stagnation.

-          Although at first glance water scarcity may seem like an isolated issue only influencing specific countries and regions, it is becoming a global phenomenon. Poor water management is causing severe damages to the environment in the Middle East, Africa, and in parts of Asia as well. Australia is under extreme pressure due to the growing drought, and other developed countries are threatened as well—California in the U.S. has been especially challenged by water shortage. Furthermore, it is also threatening business and industry interests; the extractive industry, agribusiness or the manufacturing sector all heavily rely on water. The regulatory risks due to the new policies will further aggravate the investment risk, causing tremendous impacts for the global economy. In addition, geopolitical tensions are also expected to cause disputes over water resources in many regions.

-          The recent developments in the conflict between the government forces and the militant Kurdish PKK group are raising the risk of a Turkish civil war. Militant attacks on the Turkish military and the serious nationalist demonstrations have shown that the current climate of political polarization might lead to open conflict between the two sides. Although at this point it may be a moderate risk only, in case of another civil war ensues, it is unknown how serious the conflict could become. It may happen that military intervention from other countries will be necessary. As civil wars in the neighboring region have been damaging for global stability, a conflict in Turkey would certainly upset world politics even more.

Although some of the risks discussed above may have a low probability at present, it is crucial to carefully consider all the potential risks for the following years, so that we can take evasive action early on. Looking at risks from different perspectives may always change the order of priority, however, decision makers must realize that all threats are concurrently present and all of them need to be mitigated to ensure global stability.

Pope Francis: Politician or Pope?

By Adrienn Keszei

NEW YORK, Sept. 28 - The Pope’s recent visit has generated a lot of discussion about the relevance of his title and moral authority. The origins of the papacy go back about 2000 years - if we consider Peter the Apostle to be the first pope - and it has been frequently questioned whether or not popes should have a say in world politics. The Catholic Church has the single largest religious body, and the number of Christians alone proves that the papacy is still a very relevant institution. But does that mean he should also be able to influence politics? According to a mini-survey conducted out and about in Manhattan, people have strong opinions about the pope’s role, and they do not necessarily approve of his efforts to bring about change employing his moral authority.

“Because of his global position, he has a very widely accepted, respected and valued opinion”, Elizabeth Trocchia said. “It depends on what he is discussing, but I think that he has more of a sway than he should sometimes”

The Vatican’s role in history and the notorious corruption of the Holy See during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance give the pope something of a steep hill to climb. Popes have had tremendous influence in European politics, but since losing its sway with the Reformation, the institution has had a hard time re-establishing its moral authority in a part of the world that has become increasingly  disenchanted with religion. Of course devout Catholics will always support the Vatican and political leaders have a generally good relationship with the pope; from time to time, however, when a pope proposes new ideas or has agendas that could interfere with politics, his role in the world’s political scene is heavily questioned by the public.

“I think the pope can be much more influential than politicians because there are a lot more religious people than politically active people, so many more people will listen to the pope than the president for example”, Maya Benain told a reporter. “As bad as it sounds, I feel like popes in general have so much power that they can just brainwash people…figuratively.”

Others attribute less influence to the institution of the papacy. “I think he has a political role similar to that of the queen in the UK, “claimed Niki Foth. “He can motivate those who support the church, but he cannot make decisions”.

Pope Francis, probably the most progressive pope ever to head the Church of Rome, established a surprisingly modern attitude about LGBT rights and the issue of abortion. This augments pleas that seem more in keeping with his predecessors – an appeal for a peaceful solution to the war in Syria, for instance, and his recent warning that Europe faces the threat of terrorist recruiters passing as migrants, or his call for urgent action on climate change. He is clearly becoming involved in social, political, and economic issues worldwide to a greater extent than his modern predecessors.

Precisely because of his progressive attitude and style, both liberals and conservatives may find particular arguments of the pope appealing, especially if those are perfectly aligned with someone’s political agenda. When Pope Francis addressed the United Nations last Friday, his main concern was environmental action, but also the potential harm done by those trying to work towards sustainability. He warned the General Assembly to consider how the fight against climate change could cause further suffering to the poor. Whether or not this distinguished group of political leaders will actually listen to him remains unclear.

Jeff Goad, who braved a 40-minute ferry station and street lockdown due to President Obama’s arrival at the General Assembly, said he believes the pope may be able to influence issues that are out of his reach. “Yes, I believe the opinions are relevant, he’s the leader of the world’s largest religion and lots of people listen to him because he’s powerful and important. Whether or not I feel like he should be a moral authority, popes end up building a lot of political power; they are religious leaders who have tremendous sway.”

“I find it kind of odd that although he is not supposed to be a political figure, people would look to him for his political views, “said Elizabeth Trocchia. Indeed, the popularity of Pope Francis stems from the fact that he is not a political, but a moral figure, and even if he cannot be an active participant in decision making processes about war and peace, people often look to him for moral guidance.

Whether or not we want to accept it, he is transforming the institution of the papacy. Some worry that this change may bring about a Vatican that has too much of an influence. Granted, he is not a politician—although the Vatican has a governing body and is a sovereign entity recognized by international law—but he is the most politically involved pope the world has seen for a very long time. He is someone whose moral opinion is often highly valued even in secular circles and he can use his moral authority in controversial issues quite brilliantly, Regardless of people’s concerns, however, at the moment the pope does not have much influence in political issues. It has yet to be seen how influential he could become in the future.

Did Everything Just Get Worse?

By Adrienn Keszei

I was fourteen years old, sitting in the tv room of our high school dorm in Hungary, watching a television show with my roommates, when someone rushed into the room and changed the channel to see the news. Her sister, she said with trepidation, lived in New York and worked in the financial district. None of what she was saying made any sense—until we saw what was on the screen.

Exactly fourteen years after the attacks of September 11, 2001,  I found myself in Manhattan looking at the Tribute of Light from Brooklyn Bridge Park, and contemplating what – if anything - we have achieved in almost one and a half decade. How much closer did we get to a world where such things simply could not happen? Unfortunately, not much at all.

Washington - Pentagon Memorial 

(Source: http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=203186 )

9/11 was an extraordinary catalyst that started the long War on Terror. A lot has happened since 2001. The U.S. waged war on Islamist terrorist organizations and regimes supporting them, launched a war on Iraq based on erroneous intelligence, then the suffered international embarrassment when the inhumane treatment of detainees was unveiled and Saddam Hussein turned out to have no weapons of mass destruction after all. Of course, Osama bin Laden was killed, and in the midst of all this, following a US withdrawal from Iraq, the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) was “born’ into the political vacuum—a new enemy gaining more territory, power and followers every day. In many ways, the situation got worse than it was before, with the U.S. having to deal with a more dangerous and much more brutal organization than al-Qaeda ever was, while the government cannot seem to figure out an effective strategy to eliminate this new enemy. Furthermore, as a result of the war in Syria, which has been indirectly enabled by the U.S. intervention in Iraq, tens of thousands of people are migrating to Europe from the Middle East, seeking a better future. Among them, hidden safely in all the chaos, could be people sent by ISIS or other terrorist organizations, posing as migrants. Threats and security risks were ignored once before and with devastating consequences. Now, weary as the American public may be of the topic, the U.S. government must find a way to eliminate threats in the Middle East and minimize the risk of terrorist activity in Europe.

Many abroad now think that waging an extremely aggressive war on the countries associated with terrorist organizations was a mistake. They also believe that the U.S. overemphasized 9/11 while civil wars, famine, or constantly deteriorating hygiene and health conditions across the globe are contributing to much larger death tolls every day. Others argue that the leadership’s hostility toward all of Islam contributed to the ever-growing popularity of new jihadist groups. These are strong opinions, which seem quite insensitive at first, but a more detached perspective might just be what America needs in order to find a better strategy to eliminate the source instead of fighting a futile war against people on the ground.

It is hard to understand how the US government, with all the resources at its command, cannot figure out a better strategy to stop Islamist militant groups. After 9/11, most of the attention was focused on al-Qaeda, and as much as people wished for retribution, weakening al-Qaeda and killing bin Laden did not make the world much safer, nor did it heal the wounds caused by 9/11. Soon after al-Qaeda was weak enough to consider it less of a threat, a rival Islamist group appeared, known as the Islamic State. Their growing power and brutality forced thousands of people to leave their home countries.

These people are seeking a safe, better future—and it is the responsibility of the destination countries to assist them in any way possible to realize this wish. But migrants are arriving in large numbers, which means it will be difficult to effectively integrate them into society for a while as they will probably create their own isolated societies. This environment is unfortunately perfect for recruiting people to follow jihadist groups. Granted, the absolute majority of migrants are innocent people who deserve a better life. Nevertheless, it would be awfully naive to think that terrorist groups—that have been systematically recruiting people from all over the world for years now—would not take advantage of the chaos and the huge, uncontrolled mass migration. Some suspicious individuals have already been identified in several European countries, but chances are that due to the overwhelming crowds of migrants and refugees, most threats will remain undetected.

New York - U.S. Coast Guards Maritime Safety and Security Teams 

(Source: http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=2714)

To prevent such an outcome, the U.S. should offer help to Europe to ensure that migrants are registered legally and effectively; not only to ensure global security, but also to create a safer future for America. The Bush administration ignored several clear warnings before 9/11. Who is to say that the present administration will not make a mistake again, ignoring the minor threats in Europe, which may only become greater in time. So, as I was sitting on a bench, looking at the blue lights relentlessly pointing towards the sky, I was contemplating the past fourteen years, and realized that we must very quickly learn how to prevent threats in time; otherwise, we will find ourselves fighting futile wars for decades, only creating more enemies and more tragedies in the process.

The Lesser Evil?

By Adrienn Keszei

At first sight, probably most people think of the Snowden/NSA controversy as a case of classic whistleblowing—and these people are not entirely wrong—but after careful consideration of the motives of both parties involved, the picture may not be so black and white anymore.  Edward Snowden has been recognized as a hero by many, and truth be told, his courage to reveal classified NSA information about activities many regard as unconstitutional is indeed impressive considering the consequences he may have to suffer. However, no matter how straightforward this case might seem, it would be unfair and undemocratic to only consider Snowden’s perspective while ignoring the NSA’s explanation.

(Source: http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=203215 )

Snowden leaked a large amount of information revealing top secret NSA projects that involved mass surveillance (with the cooperation of telecommunications companies), such as systematic data collection from the internet as well as people’s phone calls. This is clearly a violation of Americans’ rights, especially since allegedly the NSA did not only use the metadata, but the content of the phone calls as well. This invasion of privacy is frightening for citizens, who are becoming increasingly outraged as time goes by and more information is revealed about NSA surveillance programs.  At the same time, the NSA is attempting to do damage control, emphasizing, for instance, that the data collection was aimed at foreign targets only. But this begs the question of who is considered as foreign and how accurately can the NSA identify foreignness based on metadata. Can we be sure that only foreign suspects were targeted? Not really. What is also worrying is that once secret intelligence agencies start spying on people, no one knows where they will draw the line. Americans may live in a democracy, but systematic mass surveillance is hauntingly similar to Foucault’s panopticon, where people are objects of information and under constant observation or control. Based on the above, most people would agree that Snowden was absolutely right to leak information about the agency’s operations.

This is the point, however, where we have to consider the NSA’ point of view as well, and explore how the information leak is affecting their work. The NSA claims that Snowden put many people’s lives at stake. By publishing details of top secret operations, Snowden did not only help the American people realize how their privacy was violated, but he also enabled terrorist organizations to acquire information on how the NSA is tracking foreign targets. As these organizations are now abandoning their previous methods to communicate in order to avoid surveillance, field agents are now in much more danger, because intelligence services can no longer protect and/or inform them accurately.

Clearly, Snowden’s decision to publish the NSA files endangered long-term projects to battle terrorism, and it provided useful information for the enemy about the NSA’s surveillance system. Consequently, new programs and strategies will have to be established, which will be costly and time-consuming.  It would be ignorant to forget that the NSA was spying on people with a‘mission’—to eliminate terrorism.  Only a few days passed since the 14^th anniversary of 9/11, and people may wonder how much mass surveillance is actually contributing to the efforts to prevent similar attacks from happening in the future. Is it worth it? Could the illegally obtained information really help the government to stop terrorism? One thing is for sure, it is not so easy to decide what the right thing to do is in such situations.  As in most cases in life, one has to choose the lesser evil, and probably that is what inspired Snowden’s decision.