I have been thinking about the cases of Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning for some time now and it's difficult to decide what to think. On the one hand, Snowden for sure opened the door for the American public and the world for that matter to learn that the National Security Agency (or NSA) has gone far beyond what had been previously disclosed in monitoring the communications of American citizens. This has raised justifiable concerns about our right to privacy and questions about whether such heavy handed spying on everyday Americans is justified by existing security threats. Also, Snowden's revelations included information about NSA spying on friendly governments. The Germans and Chancellor Angela Merkel in particular have been miffed about NSA overkill, Merkel noting pointedly noting that "the Cold War is over." Some want to make "whistle blowers" such as Snowden and Manning into heroes and provide immunity from the consequences of their disclosing of classified government information. Particularly in the case of Edward Snowden, I would say that what he did was a good thing. We have a right to know if our government is spying on us night and day and certainly a right to know that they are doing such things in secret, and even denying that they are doing it to Congress, the people's directly elected representatives. I have thought for a long time that government types overstate threats and are too quick to violate the rights of the people in their quest for self-importance and justifying their own existence. If I had my way, I would cut the CIA, the NSA, and all other government intelligence organizations to the bone. The CIA would be restricted to their Charter: gather and organize information on international threats. The CIA would not have a "Black Budget" wherein nobody knows what is spent on what. There would be no Ops in which the CIA takes affirmative steps to destabilize foreign governments or otherwise interfere with the activities of other countries. The CIA would not have drones with missiles and other weapons. The NSA would follow the Constitution and would be about half the size it is now. And I would close most of the 900 plus military bases we have outside the United States ringing the world. Why do we need all that? Who is our enemy? Russia? They have been pretty quiet for 20 years now. China? We are their biggest customer. Why would they wish us ill? Is was said that President George H. W. Bush, former head of the CIA, was distraught when the Berlin Wall fell and Communism disintegrated. What would the CIA and all the other spook agencies do without an "enemy?" It has been said by many observers that Washington has been searching for an "enemy" ever since.
But back to Snowden and Manning. Although in the sense of the big picture, what they did was may have been a positive thing, nonetheless Snowden and Manning violated the law. As with anyone who engages in civil disobedience, it would seem to me that Snowden and Manning and other "whistle blowers" should be prepared to answer to the law for their actions. Looking at the big picture, what they did may turn out to be a positive thing for American society but nevertheless they should expect to answer for what they did. What should happen is that Congress, with the true picture about what the NSA has been doing, should step in and put the NSA back on a track that comports with fundamental American values and our Constitution.
I assume you would also want to limit our armed forces to defending our soil in the event we are invaded and our skies against attack from the air. Because closing those bases you mention would eliminate our ability to do anything else. Our position as the last superpower would be over. Russia would almost surely go on the ascendant. Perhaps that would be a good thing for Europe. But it would pretty surely happen, good thing or not.
ReplyDelete