Edward Snowden is the 29 year old former security guard making $200,000 a year for an NSA subcontractor who leaked the details of classified programs to the left leaning British paper the Guardian. His actions have exposed a huge domestic spying operation being conducted within the United States government.
And while learning about this "Big Brother" over-reach has confirmed the worst fears of many conspiracy theorists and black helicopter types Snowden's actions have also awakened a host of ordinary citizens to the possibility that our own government may have over-stepped its bounds in the name of national security.
But now a new controversy has arisen which could further splinter the republican party. Following the lead of his hero Ron Paul, Congressman Thomas Massie says that in his opinion leaking top secret intelligence information to a foreign press should, in this case, not be prosecuted.
“I’m not a lawyer, but based on what I know so far, I don’t think he should be prosecuted,” Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, a self-styled libertarian, told CQ Roll Call on Monday. “If someone reports illegal activity as a whistle-blower, they shouldn’t be prosecuted.
“Whether or not this program was authorized by Congress, it seems to me that this is an unconstitutional activity,” he continued, “which would make it illegal, and he should have some kind of immunity.” [Roll Call]
Here's the rub. Massie isn't alone in his thinking. Justin Amash of Florida, another Ron Paul protege, and Trey Radel of Michigan are of like mind. To them the only law that counts is their own interpretation of the Constitution.
But was the intelligence gathering taking place approved by Congress? Is there an expectation of privacy in Facebook postings, Google searches, forum or bulletin board discussions "on line"? Are the numbers you call or those that call you private matters or is it just the content of your conversations which are private except to those in possession of a valid search warrant?
If what the NSA was doing was not illegal, (and Massie clearly states that though he is a lawmaker he is not trained in Constitutional law) might his rush to defend what under any other circumstance would clearly be prosecuted as treason raise some serious questions about his own world view?
While Massie and Ron Paul might find much support for their concerns over domestic spying the fact remains that we are a nation of laws. As such we need to be very careful not to become so over-zealous in our approach to this situation that we begin to behave like anarchists even though at least one self proclaimed anarchist was a significant factor in Massie's election to office.
Anarchists begin with the philosophy that all government is immoral. If the debate in Congress breaks down as Massie seems to suggest over whether to exempt from the law certain individuals while holding others accountable to the law, then our "nation of laws" will have devolved back into a nation of men.
The bigger issue isn't whether the government had a surveillance system designed with the intention of ferreting out terrorist plots before they hatched, the real issue is whether we can trust those whom we have elected to office to manage that system legally.
Do we want NO counter terrorism database in the nation capable of connecting dots before they become launch codes for mayhem? Or is it that we want to live in a nation where the moral underpinnings of our elected office holders gives us the comfort and assurance that permits us to live our lives free from worry that the men we have elevated to positions of power will turn that power against us? And as part of that moral underpinning isn't it really that we want the men and women elected to office to know their legal boundaries and then be able to trust them to respect those boundaries?
If we fear, then hate then want to dismantle ALL government then we are anarchists too. But if we stop letting the passions of the moment cloud our thinking we can and will make better decisions consistent with our time honored traditions, our system of law and justice and not give in to the political showmanship of a few ego-maniacal people who seem to live their lives in a way where all they seem to care about is to prove to the rest of the world that they are the smartest guy in the room.
Am I glad that we know more about domestic spying? Yes. Is there more to learn before rushing to judgement? Yes. But calling for a grant of immunity for those who transmit classified information to the foreign press seems to me to put ones own trustworthiness for knowing and respecting legal boundaries front and center.
Let's remember Robert Oppenheimer - his attitude and thoughts as to use of the A Bomb. Imagine this scenario: "Dateline: 1943, Tokyo: "Robert Oppenheimer, outraged at the US Manhattan Project and development of an atomic bomb, leaked news of the top secret weapon and its destructive potential - then ran to the capitol city of the Empire of Japan, a government he claimed would protect human rights and him."" And then comments from Massie, “I’m not a lawyer, but based on what I know so far, I don’t think he should be prosecuted,” Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, a self-styled libertarian, told Paul Winchell and Army Archerd on Monday."
Are we to see Massie continually apply his pop constitutionalism to every complex issue when he demonstrates he is so far out of his depth on these issues? For example, Massie totally misunderstands and misconstrues whistleblower status and how that is applied. Then there's the 'whether or not it's authorized by congress remark' and Massie's conclusion the activity is illegal. Amazing in the width and breadth of his lack of knowledge on these issues ... Massie's limitations are on display and it's not pretty.
Posted by: Bill Adkins | June 11, 2013 at 11:44 AM