gracchusdixit

After years of bitter partisan division, the elites who run our country—the politicians, the bureaucrats, the pundits in the media—have finally come together, with almost one voice, to vilify Edward Snowden, the young man who recently revealed the secret and pervasive surveillance of our private telephone and internet records by the National Security Agency.  The drumbeat condemning him from both right and left has been almost deafening.  It has also been remarkably vicious and dismissive.  Here are just a few examples:

Jeffrey Toobin of CNN called Snowden “a grandiose narcissist who deserves to be in prison”.   Toobin is a Harvard-trained lawyer who has written a couple of best-selling books on the Supreme Court.   He is not, however, a psychologist, and “narcissism” is not something he is competent to judge—unless, of course, he is speaking of himself.

John Bolton labeled Snowden a “deceitful and dishonest man.” Among the many “deceitful and dishonest” men in the Bush administration, Bolton stands at the head of the queue.  He lied more brazenly than anyone about the reasons for the invasion of Iraq and has continued to do so ever since.

Jed Babbin, another former member of the Bush administration dubbed Snowden a “punk and a weasel.”  Babbin’s most recent claim to fame is part-time work on right-wing talk radio, which is populated by nothing but “punks and weasels”.

Tom Brokaw, of all people, characterized Snowden as a “high school dropout and a military washout”.   This, from a man who once dropped out of the University of Iowa, having majored in—his own words, not mine—”beer and coeds”.

Perhaps I’ve missed something, but do any of these pontificating members of the establishment actually know Edward Snowden?  Have they met or spoken with him?  Do they have any insight into his motives other than what we have heard from the young man himself?

The answer, of course, is no.  All we have to go on in judging Snowden’s motives is what he has said.  And what he has said has been straightforward, self-effacing, and, as far as one can tell, unselfish.  He knew what he was doing, he knew why, and he knew precisely what the consequences would be.  You can call Edward Snowden many things, but you can’t call him “narcissistic” or “deceitful” or “naive”.

Far worse are those who talk about “treason”.   To hear such talk from John Boehner or Eric Cantor isn’t surprising.  But to hear it from Diane Feinstein, whose liberal credentials are otherwise unimpeachable, is both disappointing and despicable.  Edward Snowden broke the law, and he will probably go to prison for it.   But he did not commit “treason”.   He did not (to quote the Constitution) “levy war on the United States” or “adhere to their enemies”.   He talked to journalists about the blatantly unconstitutional activities of the NSA, and they decided to publish what he told them.

All this shrill viciousness reveals, with jarring clarity, the arrogance and hypocrisy of the elites who run our country.   They believe that only they are qualified to judge what is best for the nation.  They believe that the rest of us are too dumb to make mature decisions about our freedoms and our security.  They believe that anyone who dares to question their actions and their authority deserves to be branded a “traitor”.

Those who talk of “treason” say that Snowden violated an oath not to reveal classified information.  Since he worked for a private contractor, rather than the government, I have no idea what oath he actually took or whether he violated it.

I do, however, know that both the President and members of Congress have sworn to “defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States”.  In choosing to authorize and defend the unconstitutional actions of the NSA, they are the ones who have violated their oaths.  If it’s “treason” they’re looking for, perhaps they should look in the mirror.