Update:
Melissa Harris-Perry at MSNBC has posted a letter to Edward Snowden.
The letter has received very mixed reactions.
It is at the bottom of this post.
===
Original Post:
I believe that a vast majority of Americans want the surveillance activities conducted by the National Surveillance Agency (NSA) — now or in the past — debated, examined and changed where necessary to Constitutionally protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans while still protecting our national security and protecting our citizens against terrorist attacks.
I believe that many Americans feel that Edward Snowden — regardless of his motives — has broken our laws, has revealed classified information that has damaged our national interests, including national security — regardless of how such revelations may gladden the hearts of some — and that he should take responsibility and face the justice system for his actions.
But even if I am totally wrong on these two assumptions, I am disheartened by how some are using this episode as an excuse to insult those who disagree with them — “cowards” we are called — and even more sadly, to vilify the United States — now suddenly alleged to be one of the world’s worst human rights offenders.
I am disappointed by how some hold Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Russia and China as paragons of human, civil and privacy rights compared to the United States of America.
I am taken aback by the shrill, purely malicious glee expressed in statements such as:
Snowden has enough information to cause harm to the U.S. government in a single minute than any other person has ever had…The U.S. government should be on its knees every day begging that nothing happen to Snowden, because if something does happen to him, all the information will be revealed and it could be its worst nightmare.
Or this glorification of Wikileaks, Bradley Manning and Julian Assange:
However, the freedom-loving people in the world would always be grateful to Snowden for exposing the ugly side of America that proclaims itself as the symbol of democracy and open society. It was Wikileaks that first familiarised the world with the dangerous tactics that the US administration could resort to in the name of ‘war on terror’. Wikileaks owe much to Bradley Manning, an under-trial young American soldier, and Australian Julian Assange, who has taken refuge in the Ecuador embassy in London to save itself from the clutches of the US administration. To make matters worse for Obama administration, Snowden’s reported meeting with the human rights groups, including the Amnesty International at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo international airport, is drawing international attention.
Human rights group Transparency International, the Human Rights Watch and other groups were also invited. It is ironical that the US that was once viewed as protector of human rights, is now on the receiving end. It is an interesting thought that Narendra Modi, who is not allowed to enter America for allegedly violating human rights, could on becoming the Prime Minister give Obama a lecture on protecting the rights of whistle-blowers. Meanwhile Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia have said they would be willing to grant asylum to Snowden. Whatever ultimately happens to Edward Snowden, it is clear that America would find it difficult to remove the stigma of hounding those who take a principled stand on protecting human rights and democracy all over the world. (My edit published in the DailyPost India
But back to that paragon of human rights, Russia.
Even The Guardian comments in a piece on Saturday on Snowden’s praise for human rights in that country:
Perhaps it was no more than being naive, but to list Putin’s Russia, as Snowden did, among his little list of countries for “being the first to stand against human rights violations” suggests a dangerous moral relativism.
Far from being a champion, Russia’s record on human rights violations is a grim one. Snowden’s meeting with human rights groups in Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport was preceded by another piece of human rights news – the posthumous conviction of whisteblower Sergei Magnitsky, who was tortured in a Russian prison and denied medical attention that might have saved his life.
The Guardian also mentions, “what happens” to journalists and to others “who criticise the Kremlin and Putin and explains “Why all this matters is simple”:
Snowden has built his argument on the moral imperative for leaking the NSA document trove increasingly in terms of human rights, not least relating to privacy.
He has justified his actions by invoking one of the Nuremberg principles – that it is the duty of an individual to break the law of his own state if international law is being broken – and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
While that is a compelling argument, what is less convincing is his suggestion that Russia is in the forefront of the fight by the “powerless” against the “powerful”.
Instead, in providing a public relations coup for Putin, Snowden has provided cover for a gross and serial human rights-violating state. Even then, it is not hard to imagine the circumstances how this came about. To sympathise again: exhausted, confused, perhaps, even under pressure, Snowden must feel he has been left by Washington with nowhere else to turn.
But that cannot change the fact that the comments he made on Friday – uttered naively or under duress – still have consequences. That is because Snowden’s well-developed and credible defence for leaking the NSA documents has been that, as a citizen and as a moral being, he could not tolerate the abuses he witnessed and was compelled to break the law – a powerful appeal to natural justice.
In appealing to the universality of human rights values, while appearing to apply his criticism of human rights abuse selectively, that justification, sadly, now rests on shaky ground.
Finally, yes, I agree with the premise that one should not use the miserable record on human rights, civil rights, privacy, etc. of other nations to excuse or mitigate our own failings in these areas and, no, this is not intended to focus on Snowden nor to deflect or distract from the fact that we need to re-examine and change the surveillance policy and practices of the NSA, and especially, NO, this is NOT “my country right or wrong.”
This is about — to use that all-American expression — being sick and tired of seeing our country run down or having the character questioned of those who have different views, even while in the process of getting to a common goal: Keeping our country safe and keeping our rights intact.
Image: www.shutterstock.com
Edited to add credit for image and to note the error in “National Surveillance Agency.” Of course it should be the “National Security Agency.” However, in honor of Freudian slips, it shall remain as written.
====
Melissa Harris-Perry’s letter:
Dear Ed,
It’s me, Melissa.
I hear you’re looking for a country. Well, wouldn’t you know, I have an idea for you! How about…this one?
Come on back to the U.S.A., Ed. I know you’re not super pleased with the government these days–and I feel you. The information you revealed about surveillance raises serious issues about the behaviors of our leaders and how they justify and hide those practices from the public. But, here is the deal: it’s time to come home and face the consequences of the actions for which you are so proud.
I know you must feel you’ve already given up a lot to reveal government secrets: your well-paid job, your life in Hawaii, your passport.
And maybe your intentions were completely altruistic–it’s not that you wanted attention, but that you wanted us, the public, to know just how much information our government has about us. That is something worth talking about. But by engaging in this Tom Hanks-worthy, border-jumping drama through some of the world’s most totalitarian states, you’re making yourself the story.
We could be talking about whether accessing and monitoring citizen information and communications is constitutional, or whether we should continue to allow a secret court to authorize secret warrants using secret legal opinions.
But we’re not. We’re talking about you! And flight paths between Moscow and Venezuela, and how much of a jerk Glenn Greenwald is. We could at least be talking about whether the Obama administration is right that your leak jeopardized national security. But we’re not talking about that, Ed.
We’re talking about you. I can imagine you’d say, “Well, then stop! Just talk about something else.” But here’s the problem, even if your initial leak didn’t compromise national security, your new cloak-and-dagger game is having real and tangible geopolitical consequences. So, well, we have to talk about…you.
We’re talking about how maybe now you’re compromising national security by jumping from country to country, causing international incidents and straining U.S. relationships with Russia and China. Really. Important. Relationships. And we’re talking about how you praised countries like Russia and Venezuela for “standing against human rights violations” and “refusing to compromise their principles.”
I mean, where do you even come up with that kind of garbage, Ed? What are you thinking?
I understand that you don’t want to come back. To do so would mean giving up your freedom, definitely before the trial, and likely for several months or years thereafter.
I get it. It’s in its prisons where the U.S. commits actual human rights violations.
More than 80,000 prisoners are held in solitary confinement, some for years, some indefinitely, despite the fact that solitary is cruel and psychologically damaging.
I know those aren’t the human rights violations, though, that you’re complaining about, Ed. But you might not have anything to worry about, anyway.
Unlike most of the people in solitary confinement–including Private Bradley Manning, on trial for giving data to Wikileaks–you have cultivated a level of celebrity that itself will act as protection if you ever find yourself in U.S. prison. You’ve made a spectacle of yourself, and the Obama Administration will be very careful about how it treats you. Unlike all those other prisoners.
So come on home, Ed. So we could talk about, you know, something else.
Sincerely,
Melissa
