The New York Times editorial board kicked off the new year by listing the chain reaction resulting from Edward Snowden’s act of whistle-blowing to journalists.
Across the pond, The Guardian outlined “the case for a pardon” (even though a pardon doesn’t happen until after an conviction indictment unless you are a President [1).
Mr Snowden gave classified information to journalists, even though he knew the likely consequences. That was an act of some moral courage.
Both papers cited judicial rulings and the President’s own review panel (Liberty and Security in a Changing World – pdf) as evidence for their arguments.
This vociferous defense stands at odds with Time magazine’s recent decision to snub Snowden when selecting its person of the year.
In its close, the NY Times op-ed called for the Obama Administration to backdown and figure out how to let Snowden come home. After noting that Snowden told the Washington Post that he had tried to go through channels (ie, reporting concerns to his employer), the NY Times editorial board shared this damning assessment:
In retrospect, Mr. Snowden was clearly justified in believing that the only way to blow the whistle on this kind of intelligence-gathering was to expose it to the public and let the resulting furor do the work his superiors would not.
For many of us who have sided with Snowden the whistle-blower from day one, this truth has been self-evident:
When someone reveals that government officials have routinely and deliberately broken the law, that person should not face life in prison at the hands of the same government.
Now. What about Chelsea (Bradley) Manning? And Aaron Swartz? And those who are destined to follow in their path?
From the Twitterverse
Edward Snowden – a good reminder that while a lot of immoral acts are crimes, not all crimes are immoral acts: http://t.co/5uGv6P4taV
— Skyen (@tbskyen) January 2, 2014
This might be the most significant news editorial of the last year: @nytimes says free Edward Snowden http://t.co/QX51vObDRg
— Monica Guzman (@moniguzman) January 2, 2014
What Snowden did is what Daniel Ellsberg did -unauthorized disclosure of classified information to reveal abuse of power cloaked by secrecy.
— billmon (@billmon1) January 2, 2014
NYT in its pro-Snowden editorial declares: "government officials have routinely and deliberately broken the law." http://t.co/rFeU5KHAWr
— Greg Mitchell (@GregMitch) January 2, 2014
After repeated parroting of US govt propaganda, this editorial from the NYT is HUGE. "Edward Snowden, Whistle-Blower http://t.co/d6WCPr1aCI"
— Keith Devlin (@profkeithdevlin) January 2, 2014
Really powerful/detailed plea from New York Times to USA to drop charges against Snowden http://t.co/uPDAHfCOsE
— Michael Petruzzo (@darkheartfelt) January 2, 2014
The New York Times' entire editorial board comes out to fiercely defend Snowden. It's quite something: http://t.co/tkj89iRXzr
— Jessica Reed (@GuardianJessica) January 2, 2014
What do you think? Drop the charges?
[1] See comments below re Nixon pardon by Ford and Rich pardon by Clinton.
Known for gnawing at complex questions like a terrier with a bone. Digital evangelist, writer, teacher. Transplanted Southerner; teach newbies to ride motorcycles. @kegill (Twitter and Mastodon.social); wiredpen.com