Edward Snowden- Peacemaker?
- 53 Posts
Should we have to live in fear of the government? Should children grow up in a society which represses their rights to free speech? Of course not! Government's job, by definition, is to protect and preserve the rights of its citizens. Recently, Edward Snowden, the supposed "whistleblower" was nominated by Norwegian lawmakers for the Nobel Peace Prize. Suddenly, the whole world starts freaking out saying things that fall into one extreme or the other. You have on one hand people saying that Snowden's rights were completely and utterly infringed, that Snowden was right to be a "Russian Spy" (alleged accusation) and that he is the new face for civic freedom. At the same time, people on the other side of this situation say that Snowden was a whistleblower that revealed secrets of high priority, endangered nations and their relations, and might have ruined rights for generations to come. Now, I don't fall into either of these categories. Do any of you? If so, let me know, I'd love to hear and take some comments. But before that, let's just think about this and consider carefully what exactly this experience will entail for our generation, the generation who will be dealing with the side effects when all is said and done.
Snowden was a person interested in releasing information to the public. Whatever his motives, that was his intention. Now, similarly, this happened when the Pentagon Papers were released/published. How come when that happened, our country praised Daniel Elsberg, the New York Times and the efficiency of press? I can understand; let's look at both situations: in both, truth was suppressed; the government withheld information from the public; both involved the federal government and the chief executive of the nation...No, I'm not seeing the difference. Perhaps, Snowden is so condemned because his actions did not reproach the president but rather put the entire country in 'danger.' Here's how I feel about this: the truth eventually comes out one way or another. If Snowden had not done what he did, the American public would have found out decades later. However, the appropriateness of Snowden's actions is contingent on the repercussions; if World War III starts, we will pin it on this guy. Either way, I'm in the middle. I think his rights were infringed. If he truly was a citizen of the U.S. and the government was ready to preserve his rights, he would not have run off to Russia and sought asylum. I think the repression of speech and thought in the country is a bit much (yes NSA, so many people think you are out to get them). However, at the same time, I think that Snowden might not have been in the right position to release that information. He was not a person of utmost importance/authority or power to do so and did not do it thinking he would better the world and condition of humanity. Regardless, the extent to which he is a peacemaker is debatable. I think he is definitely an emblem for free speech and press in the world, perhaps his actions convey a message of world peace or a desire to achieve it, but no actual peace yet. I'd like to hear more about what you guys think! Do you agree with the nomination? How do you feel about Snowden's actions? Comment below!