Defending the First Amendment since 1911 | The independent student newspaper of Texas State University

American fugitive and whistleblowing intelligence contractor Edward Snowden has been described as many things including a traitor, a detractor, a dissident, andin my opiniona hero.

He now sits in exile in Moscow, enjoying his temporary asylum status. However, his time in Russias capital is quickly drawing to a close.

To remedy this, on March 5 Snowden made a video plea to Switzerland hoping the nation would grant him asylum. If Snowden were permitted to relocate to Switzerland, he would be able to escape extradition and impeding prosecution in the United States. In light of the convictions faced by whistleblower Chelsea Manning and the pending case against Julian Assange, Snowden deems his chances at a fair trial slim to none. His lingering skepticism is everything but misplaced.

Snowden made international headlines in 2013 as the National Security Agency (NSA) contractor who exposed thousands of documents detailing confidential surveillance programs that collected phone and Internet records of people in the U.S. and across the globe.

In June 2013 the U.S. Department of Justice charged Snowden with three felony counts including theft of government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information and willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person. The latter two are in direct violation of the Espionage Act, passed during World War I to prohibit interference with military operations during wartime efforts.

Apparently, the American public falls right in line with this archaic thinking, though it redeems itself to some degree. According to an April 1, 2014 joint HufffingtonPost and YouGov poll, while only 31 percent of Americans think what Snowden did was the right thing, 53 percent thought the public had the right to know about surveillance programs Snowden disclosed. These numbers illustrate a wee bit of contradiction, but then again housing two conflicting ideals on a singular topic is one of Americas foremost dilemmas.

Snowdens loyalty to the constitution and American freedom was thankfully strong enough to forego the countrys complacent indifference to gross violations of liberty and justice. He singlehandedly uncovered and massively disclosed possibly the greatest misstep of government power and authority of the 21st century. Critics theorize his seemingly insubordinate behavior is what led to his political troubles. I do not subscribe to that theory.

What he did is not what got him in a world of trouble. How he did it is. If there is one thing the powers that be loathe, it is being made a fool of on an international scale and that is exactly what Snowden arranged. Embarrassment and a tainted ego are the plutocracys unforgivable sins.

Snowden hopes, however, that those encroaching plutocratic powers do not have their hands in Switzerlands regime. Given the countrys human rights record and rich history of neutrality, accepting Snowdens plea for asylum would be symptomatic of Switzerlands condition. Here is a political martyr seeking refuge from oppressive regimes and powers that seek to brand him a threat in order to control and reprimand him for his unwavering commitment to liberty.

Unfortunately, there is a wrench in Snowdens desire for political asylum in the land of the Alps. Under current Swiss laws, in order to be considered for asylum, a potential asylum-seeker must submit a request on Swiss territory. The capital of Russia does not exactly fit that criterion last I checked.

See the original post here:
Defending the First Amendment since 1911 | The independent student newspaper of Texas State University