Edward Snowden Deserve The Threat He Faces Summary

Edward Snowden does not deserve to be incarcerated, he is a national patriot. The government has time and time again expressed their lack of releasing information to the American Public. For better or for worse, compartmentalizing critical information violates the citizens constitutional right to unequivocal and undivided freedom of essentially witnessing fundamental indications proposing government ¨under the table¨ operations. In my personal opinion Edward Snowden, put his career and whole conventional day-to-day life on the line to open up our eyes to the reality of existential government ordinances foreign and domestic. To potentially jeopardize your entire life and stable career, exhibits a certain magnitude of commitment to your country. In conclusion no matter which end of the

Edward Snowden isn’t the only person who believes what the U.S. had done was wrong, but also many American leaders, and other nations around the world. The United States had not only been collecting data on their own citizens, but also of other countries leaders and citizens. The release of these documents had strained political relationships between the U.S. and other allied nations. The knowledge and truth other leaders and nations had gained

Edward Snowden. This is a name that will be in the history books for ages. He will be branded a traitor or a whistleblower depending on where you look. Many Americans feel that Edward Snowden is a traitor who sold the United States’ secrets aiming to harm the nation. Others believe that he was simply a citizen of the United States who exercised his right to expose the government for their unconstitutional actions. It is important to not only know the two sides to the argument of friend or foe, but to also know the facts as well. My goal in this paper is to present the facts without bias and to adequately portray the two sides of the argument.

The ethical issues involving Edward Snowden’s case encompass key issues of morality. Snowden’s actions are to be interpreted as right or wrong based on the circumstances and personal reasoning. The preceding interpretation is this case in every ethical quandary. Once these issues are assimilated to the affected parties we begin to understand the larger picture of morality and ethical reasoning in Snowden’s case.

Edward Snowden is a whistleblower from the 21st century. Snowden was a man who had outstanding IT skills and eventually landed a job at the NSA. He gained access to numerous files that showed the crimes the NSA was committing against its own people and against other countries as well. They were spying on people’s privacy and claimed that it was for the national security that would benefit all people. Snowden said that he could not let this

Snowden outing the government for spying on citizens of the US. In regards to Benkler’s statement Snowden felt at the time that our unalienable rights were being violated and wasn’t complacent with letting the government get away with violating the Constitution, more

I am not too familiar with Snowden, besides the headlines he made a few years back, which state that he released information about the NSA domestic surveillance activities. I don’t think he is a traitor to the country, because he released the truth, that we are being monitored.

Snowden is now seen as either a traitor or a hero by many. As a result of what snowden did, some persons see his actions as being unethical because of the fact that he may have violated a secrecy agreement but it can also show that the law was unjust and unconstitutional. In addition, the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, also did not find Edward’s rationale to be very convincing. He stated, “He broke the law. He caused harm to our national security and I think that he has to be held accountable for his actions.”

In 2013 former Central Intelligence Agency employee Edward Joseph Snowden leaked classified information about the National Security Agency’s ways of monitoring American citizens. Although several politicians believe he should not be pardoned because of his violations of the Espionage Act and disloyalty to the United States Government, president Obama should grant amnesty to Snowden for revealing the NSA’s domestic spying, his attempt to protect citizen’s rights and NSA’s surveillance program being found to be illegal.

Critics of Edward Snowden label him a traitor and a coward. They condemn him for irreparably harming government security operations and setting of a worldwide chain of events that weakened the American position on the world stage. While America now has blight on its records due to the leaks, the topic that should be addressed is should the whistle-blower, the man who uncovered and exposed the questionable and wrong activities, be blamed or should those who allowed the illegal and immoral activities be held accountable for what they started. Edward Snowden had the justification and conviction to do the correct thing and present the incriminating evidence straight to the public. When one takes in consideration everything that Snowden has lost because of his decision, there was little gain for him to make the immoral activities public. Snowden’s crime is breaching the trust of his government contract to expose egregious monitoring by the government on the American public. In an interview conducted by the Washington Post, Snowden speaks out about his goal in releasing the files: “All I wanted was for the public to be able to have a say in how they are governed,”

According to American philosopher and psychologist, William James, “there can be no final truth in ethics anymore than in physics, until the last man has had his experience or said his say” (William James). In regards to this quote by William James, the ethical concerns brought to light by Mr. Snowden “having his experience and saying his say” are numbered; therefore, I will elaborate upon two, which I deem deserving of comprehensive speculation. For example, the first ethical issue raised is seen through Mr. Snowden sharing his exposure of classified information, privileged only to the National Security Agency, and its employees. Indeed, Mr. Snowden took it upon himself to divulge these personal known truths for all to acknowledge, which in short; enlightened all American citizens to what the National Security Agency was doing, “behind closed doors.” Thus, Mr. Snowden displayed genuine, upright conduct in relation to his concerns about what was happening each day to the people of the United States. For as United States citizens, we befittingly have a right to know when our privacy is being infringed upon, and furthermore, should have to agree to it. Yet; at the same time we are presented with another equitable complication, which is Mr. Snowden should be held accountable for his actions of wrong doing. Consequently, he should have to stand trial in order to pay retribution for the crime he committed. In order to bring

In early 2013 a man by the name of Edward Joseph Snowden began leaking classified National Security Agency (NSA) documents to media outlets, which in turn ended up in public ears. These documents, mainly involving intelligence Snowden acquired while working as an NSA contractor, are mostly related to global surveillance programs run by the NSA. This has raised multiple ethical issues ranging from national security, information privacy and the ethics behind whistleblowing in general. The reach and impact of these leaks have gone global and have put in question the very government that protects us as well as the extent of the public’s rights on privacy. Various foreign

was setting out to restore the balance between the governing and the governed”, the reasoning behind his actions was in his effort to mend and rebuild the checks and balances within the government and its people, in order to free the government from corruption and unconstitutional practices without the proper consent (Snowden, 23:44). The revealing of private information to the Chinese, and later world-wide public allowed the people to decide for themselves whether they felt the government should have had unauthorized access to their private phone information. What Snowden had in mind was that the only way we can support representatives is if we know, or have an idea of what they stand for and who they are as a person, if we don’t know, our votes become ineffective (Snowden 23:57). Snowden questions the efficiency of our votes when the public is not completely aware of what our governing candidates are actually doing (Snowden, 24:17). Snowden brings this up because he believes that it is wrong and unfair for the people to not be informed of certain vital information necessary to electing candidates who represent our values. If we are not given accurate information regarding the missions of the candidates, how is it fair? How does this accurately represent our votes, and do we really have a say in what goes on behind closed doors? This goes back to the actions of the NSA and whether Snowden offered a possible solution to the issues, and the answer is yes because Snowden

Overtime: Response to Snowden First, since Edward Snowden didn’t release any information that could jeopardize the security or safety of the United States, I believe releasing the information that he did was the right thing to do. Through his high ranking job in the CIA, Snowden learned that the NSA was spying on the entire world, especially Americans. Even though he released private government information to the public which was highly illegal, he saw something he believed was wrong and took steps to change it which I believe is a respectable action. While watching the movie, I learned that the NSA wasn’t targeting countries with their surveillance that the government commonly says are threats to the United States like Iran. Instead, the United States Government was spying, really, on their own citizens

Edward Snowden is a United States citizen and former employee of the National Security Agency (NSA). Snowden leaked information about the NSA to the media in 2013 and is now in Russia where he was recently granted three years of asylum. The NSA uses cryptology and others forms of information gathering to enable various networks to make advantageous decisions for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances. The NSA operates undetected by civilians, and uses global monitoring so broadly defined that it has allowed for unscrupulous behavior that was witnessed by contracted employee, Edward Snowden. Snowden believed that as the public gained knowledge of the illegal intelligence gathering by the government of domestic citizens, and abroad, he would gain protection from the public. Snowden did receive protection from people including powerful lawyers, journalists, and privacy advocates. Analysis of the Edward Snowden case