Assignment 2 

By Miao Yang

Though I think the U.S. government has a need to keep some information secret, Snowden’s case could not perfectly fit into the category of violating that need in my perspective. I perhaps won’t categorize Snowden’s act as either heroic or traitorous. To me, he is very American, even as he himself said so: “I'm an American and I'm a citizen, just like everyone else.” The word “American” goes further than its literal meaning. It is the respect for individual rights. Snowden’s solid faith in the protection of citizens’ rights to privacy results in his courageous decision; he is not confronting with the government, but to work together that make both open government and private life come true.

It is alleged that Snowden has stolen 1.7 millions documents but only a few hundred of them have been shared with the public. I think Snowden understands the bottom line between public interest and national security. Some classified documents related to national security should not be disclosed, which Snowden also has considered when he made such decision, as he mentioned at the very beginning of his talk: “[I aims] to have a dialogue and debate about how we can inform the public about matters of vital importance without putting our national security at risk.” Snowden’s selective revelations of certain documents manifest that he is truly concerned with American public’s rights being violated rather than put national security in risk.

Furthermore, Snowden emphasized several points which I think are critical to our understanding of the relationship between individual rights and national interests, quoted: “Public interest is not always the same as national interest” and “We don’t have to give up our liberty to have security”. He questions the credibility of the notion that American society could only guarantee its security at the expense of personal privacy, as he later pointed out “Two independent White House panels who reviewed all of the classified evidence said these programs have never stopped a single terrorist attack that was imminent in the United States.” The NSA’s Deputy Director Richard Ledgett’s emphasis on defeating terrorism as the priority task is not a persuasive justification for the violation of citizens’ rights.

In essence, Snowden’s case also raises the debate about procedural legitimacy and substantive legitimacy. NSA people could argue that though they realize it might not be good to invade personal privacy, they are obliged to do so in cases where the national interest is at stake.  Is that as long as the goal is for national security, whatever means to achieve that goal is not worth concerning? I highly doubt that an illegitimate procedure could guarantee social justice （perhaps in few cases it did, but it still cannot be a proper way to solve problems).

Consequently, by agreeing that the government has a need to keep some information secret, I refer to military secrets or more likely strategic plans that closely relates to national security. In Snowden’s case, spying on the public as a way to defeat terrorism might be inappropriate, especially when so little evidence is available to suggest such an has effectively prevented terrorism.