Edward Snowden <\/p>\n
Is Edward Snowden a radical? The dictionary defines a radical as an advocate of political and social revolution, the adjective form being favoring or resulting in extreme or revolutionary changes. That doesnt sound like Snowden as far as what has been publicly revealed. In common usage, the term radical usually connotes someone or something that goes beyond the generally accepted boundaries of socio-political thought and policies; often used by the Left simply to denote more extreme than, or to the left of, a liberal. <\/p>\n
In his May 28 hour-long interview on NBC in Moscow, Snowden never expressed, or even implied, any thought radical or otherwise about United States foreign policy or the capitalist economic system under which we live, the two standard areas around which many political discussions in the US revolve. In fact, after reading a great deal by and about Snowden this past year, I have no idea what his views actually are about these matters. To be sure, in the context of the NBC interview, capitalism was not at all relevant, but US foreign policy certainly was. <\/p>\n
Snowden was not asked any direct questions about foreign policy, but if I had been in his position I could not have replied to several of the questions without bringing it up. More than once the interview touched upon the question of whether the former NSA contractors actions had caused harm to the United States. Snowden said that hes been asking the entire past year to be presented with evidence of such harm and has so far received nothing. I, on the other hand, as a radical, would have used the opportunity to educate the world-wide audience about how the American empire is the greatest threat to the worlds peace, prosperity, and environment; that anything to slow down the monster is to be desired; and that throwing a wrench into NSAs surveillance gears is eminently worthwhile toward this end; thus, harm indeed should be the goal, not something to apologize for. <\/p>\n
Edward added that the NSA has been unfairly demonized and that the agency is composed of good people. I dont know what to make of this. <\/p>\n
When the war on terrorism was discussed in the interview, and the question of whether Snowdens actions had hurt that effort, he failed to take the opportunity to point out the obvious and absolutely essential fact that US foreign policy, by its very nature, regularly and routinely creates anti-American terrorists. <\/p>\n
When asked what hed say to President Obama if given a private meeting, Snowden had no response at all to make. I, on the other hand, would say to Mr. Obama: Mr. President, in your time in office youve waged war against seven countries Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria. This makes me wonder something. With all due respect, sir: What is wrong with you? <\/p>\n
A radical one genuine and committed would not let such a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity pass by unused. Contrary to what his fierce critics at home may believe, Edward Snowden is not seriously at war with America, its government or its society. Does he have a real understanding, analysis, or criticism of capitalism or US foreign policy? Does he think about what people could be like under a better social system? Is he, I wonder, even anti-imperialist? <\/p>\n
And he certainly is not a conspiracy theorist, or at least keeps it well hidden. He was asked about 9-11 and replied: <\/p>\n
The 9\/11 commission when they looked at all the classified intelligence from all the different intelligence agencies, they found that we had all of the information we needed to detect this plot. We actually had records of the phone calls from the United States and out. The CIA knew who these guys were. The problem was not that we werent collecting information, it wasnt that we didnt have enough dots, it wasnt that we didnt have a haystack, it was that we did not understand the haystack that we had. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n