Snowden's Long Road

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/World/WOR-01-280613.html

An interesting article. I left the following comment:

This isn't the 1970's and the administration going after him isn't as compromised as Nixon's was. It was the actions of Colson et al. that corrupted the case against Ellsberg and got it tossed out of court. Snowden would be locked away as a 'detainee' or 'enemy combatant' probably tortured and wouldn't see the light of day for perhaps the rest of his life.

Why China, Russia, and Ecuador? I perhaps wouldn't have chosen China, but Russia is in some ways understandable as it has been the victim of vicious propaganda and has an interest in exposing American hypocrisy. Ecuador has a pretty poor domestic record but it also must be remembered that in Latin American countries there's a long proven record of CIA intervention. Many believe the CIA assassinated Aguilera in 1981 and Ecuador like many Latin American nations has no reason to like or trust the United States. Those that do, have been bought.

Snowden's father recently said his son had betrayed the government but not the people. Listening to BBC I heard a conservative lawyer attack this and (strangely) argue as Bill Clinton did that you can't be patriotic and hate (or in this case betray) your government.

Ellsberg and apparently Snowden believe that when the government is breaking the law of the land, the patriotic thing to do is to expose it to the people. The Bush administration and apparently the Obama administration as well seem to want to claim 'war powers' as an excuse to trample the Bill of Rights. That's an old debate going back to Lincoln's tenure. He for all intents and purposes ripped up the Constitution in order to save the nation. Is that right? Does the end justify the means?

These questions have never been resolved by the public or the political scientists.

As a Christian who rejects political power I always want the political power to be weak and law to be strong. If my conscience had bothered me working for the US government (as it did) then I would seek to remove myself from the situation and then speak about it (which I do). That said, I can respect those who behaved as Ellsberg did. I think I approve of Snowden but the jury is still out so to speak. His full story hasn't been told. I don't think he's a coward and I think he'd be a fool to let himself fall into the hands of the American government. He made a difficult choice and he's going to have to live with it.

But unlike Ellsberg's move, I don't think Snowden's actions will be viewed as a watershed that really turned what was left of the wavering public. We live in different times.