Is Edward Snowden Worth Breaking The Law?

Furthermore, Edward Snowden had done more than disclose the governments illegals acts, but also inform the world about programs and secret government agendas about how much freedom and privacy is being taken away in the name of security. Samuel Adams also once said, “The truth is, all might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they ought.” In this sense, Edward Snowden had valued freedom more so over anything against it, and had acted as he did fighting and defending his individual freedom. Edward Snowden had also fought for the truth, and not only exposed the government, but also to the American people what was happening to their rights and freedoms. The many stories and historical freedom fighters had even put their lives on the line for truth and liberty, and Edward Snowden had also done the same and succeeding in continuing the fight for freedom. Many who also who perceive Edward Snowden as a hero inspire them to do the same as he had, and exposing the government of their false truths and secrecy.

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.

Imagine a world without those brave people who dared to not abide by the law and fight for a right. A world without Gandhi would be a world without independent India; without Mandela there would be white superiority in Africa; without freedom fighters, there would be no democracy in Nepal. I believe that all the actions of such law breakers are good, even though they were against various laws, and such actions can be justified to some extent. Even though laws are meant to maintain order and protect rights, it is not always justified; some might be unfair to minorities whereas others might stir up a revolution. Some just violate human rights. In such cases, civil disobedience

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.

Martin Luther King, Jr. defines “civil disobedience” as a way to show others what to do when a law is unjust and unreasonable. As King stated in the letter from Birmingham, “Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” When Negros were being treated unfairly, Martin Luther King, Jr. stepped in to show people how to peacefully protest and not be violent. The dictionary definition of civil disobedience is the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest (Webster Dictionary). That is what Martin Luther King, Jr. did when nothing was changing in the town after the law for public school to be non-segregated. In

Everyone can agree that breaking a law is morally wrong. Many people would argue that if a law is morally unjust, they have the right to break it. But these individuals fail to understand the concept of “an eye, for an eye, leaves the whole world blind.” When a person decides to knowingly break a law, they are setting themselves up for failure. The government is an entity that has jurisdiction over the people. If there is a law that you do not agree with there are certain steps you must take to ensure that they hear your opinion. Negative retaliation to this law will only cause them to be able to dismiss your case and send you to prison. Once you go to prison, they no longer have the desire to hear your case, and you no longer have the ability to deliver the message. To do wrong or return a wrong is never right. Because the individual decided to break the law, they, then, shut the door for the government to be able to learn from them. Plus, once they have that inmate title, they will no longer be respected when trying to plead their case again. Both sides never receive the opportunity to see from the others prospective. Breaking laws only divides the country further.

Breaking the law is morally justifiable and acceptable when the law in itself is iniquitous and if that law violates human rights and conscience; Certainly, rules are established for us to follow but we as human beings should be able to differentiate the right and the wrong and incase laws need to be violated for the right cause even with hard consequences, breaking the law can be justified; considering the situations and the purposes.

“A very few—as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men—serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it,” Henry Thoreau claimed in his essay, “Civil Disobedience.” Martin Luther King Jr. indisputably served the people of the state by his own conscience and was definitely treated as an enemy. “We want to be free!” King cried out during his “I've Been to the Mountaintop” speech. It didn't matter that it was seen as an evil act against the men in charge to him. “Civil disobedience” immensely impacted Martin Luther King and supported his views and drive that lead to the Civil Rights Movement.

In light to all the controversy over the Edward Snowden NSA leaks, people are in conflict when deciding on the issue of Edward Snowden being a whistleblower and hero, or just a traitor to the United States. I feel that Edward Snowden should be known as an American hero because he brought to light government secret programs, acted courageously, and caused government law reforms to take effect as a result of his actions. Snowden was a former CIA technical assistant, and more recently worked for the NSA as a defense contractor under an outside contracting company Booz Allen Hamilton. As a result of his position at these various government agencies, he had access to a vast plain of information regarding intelligence gathering and data collection.

On December 2012, who was an ordinary NSA contractor later committed one of the biggest leaks in government history. Afterwards, Edward Snowden officially became known to the public as a “whistleblower.” In reality, rather than being identified as a traitor who has damaged American security, wouldn’t Edward Snowden be viewed as a patriot for defending civil liberties? Nonetheless, I personally view Snowden as a patriot for being truthful to the people of this country. This is because many Americans had already been skeptical of the role the government in the involvement of their technology. Snowden’s actions had only verified their suspicions. Snowden disclosed the information to the public that the U.S government has been invading the privacy

Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency (N.S.A) subcontractor turned whistle-blower is nothing short of a hero. His controversial decision to release information detailing the highly illegal ‘data mining’ practices of the N.S.A have caused shockwaves throughout the world and have raised important questions concerning how much the government actually monitors its people without their consent or knowledge. Comparable to Mark Felt in the Watergate scandals, Daniel Ellsberg with the Pentagon Papers, Edward Snowden joins the rank of infamous whistleblowers who gave up their jobs, livelihood, and forever will live under scrutiny of the public all in the service to the American people. Edward Snowden released information detailing the

Edward Snowden is an American computer professional who was a former Central Intelligence Agency employee who brought to light surveillance programs conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA) and the British government (GCHO). While working for the NSA, Snowden a high salary job and lived comfortably. Snowden was not directly involved with PRISM, however, as an IT personal, he had access to an immense amount of documents that not all analyst have. One of the major reasons behind Snowden decision to release classified information was to demonstrate that “It is not that I do not value intelligence, but that I oppose.  .

If one breaks a law, they can suffer the consequences ranging from a fine to jail time. Laws are in place for a reason, even though there are times that one can justify to break those laws.

Edward Snowden was placed in a very difficult position. On one hand, he could follow the law but know he was letting unethical conduct continue, and on the other hand, breaking the law. Regardless of his decision, I guarantee he put great though into each choice and alternative.

The fact Snowden chose to leak only information he and his media connections felt would not be detrimental to the public or government, yet would provide enough information that the public as to start an open debate on “big brother” oversight and privacy laws, shows that Snowden was in good faith and conscious leaking information for good and not for personal gains.