C'mon, Convince the Cynic!

                I enjoy a good spy novel or movie.  The intrigue, the suspense, the constant struggle between good and evil, right and wrong, grip my attention and don’t let go until the last word is written or uttered.  Of course, we all realize real spies are nothing like James Bond or Jason Bourne.  It’s a much more mundane world than the ones in which the likes of Bond and Bourne live.  Nevertheless, it is still a world about which few of us are very knowledgeable.

                Edward Snowden has piqued our attention recently.  His case is one which raises questions of morals, ethics, conscience and legality.  Some are touting him as an American hero, while others are calling for him to be tried for treason.  I haven’t made up my mind yet.  But I do find the discussion thoroughly intriguing.  We have a government contractor working with the NSA who swore an oath to secrecy revealing information about secret government operations.  An international flight to avoid prosecution ensues.  The hero/traitor ends up stranded in Moscow’s Sheremetyevo International Airport “transit zone” similar to Viktor Navorski's situation in the New York airport, the Tom Hanks character in the Spielberg movie The Terminal.  His attempts to gain asylum status in numerous countries are thwarted by U.S. diplomatic maneuvers.  Finally, Julian Asange, founder of Wikileaks and resident of the Ecuadorian embassy in London where he was granted asylum protecting him from a European arrest warrant for questioning in a sexual assault investigation in Sweden, enters the scene.  From his Ecuadorian embassy apartment, Assange is doing all he can to get Snowden asylum in some country, somewhere. If all this wasn’t reality, it would make a great fictional novel.

                Is Snowden a patriotic leaker of information in an effort to summon “the American people to confront the growing danger of tyranny” as his father has written?  Or is he a traitor bent on providing sensitive information to countries not considered friendly with the United States?  His detractors point to the broken oath he took when he signed on to the job where so much information was at his fingertips.  They insist he has provided less than friendly countries (the U.S. doesn’t really have enemy countries right now) with information that could compromise national security.  His supporters maintain he had a moral right, even a responsibility, to reveal information about illegal and/or unethical activities by a tyrannical government.  They claim his actions are defenses of the Constitution, to which he also pledged to defend from enemies foreign and domestic, not assaults on it.

                The other day, I read the statement by Edward Snowden, released through Wikileaks. While I still haven’t decided whether I think he acted correctly or not, I have decided he, or his Wikileaks advisors, are not doing well at building his case or winning me over.  

                1. He laments that he had to flee for revealing the truth.  Not a good argument.  Not all truth should be revealed.  Ask any negotiator involved in hostage situations, vehicle or real estate sales, or union contracts. I don’t want to know about military secrets being used to protect our country.  As the old saying goes, “Loose lips sink ships.” Just because it is true, doesn’t mean it is best to broadcast it.

                2. He chides President Obama and others for engaging in “political aggression” by convincing other countries not to grant him asylum.  Not a good argument.  He and Assange insist he is a political refugee, not a criminal fleeing justice.  If so, he has willingly entered the political arena and should expect to play the game of political maneuvering.  The U.S. government isn’t forcing him into exile.  He has chosen that course.  And he is accusing President Obama of deception?  Wasn’t it Snowden who deceived the NSA by promising never to disclose the information made available to him?

                3. He accuses the U.S. government of “using citizenship as a weapon.  Although I am convicted of nothing, it has unilaterally revoked my passport, leaving me a stateless person.”  Not a good argument.  Whether he is guilty or not has yet to be decided.  It can’t be decided until he is held to answer charges in our justice system.  Of course the government is pursuing him, blocking his avenues of escape.  That’s what all law enforcement agencies around the world do when someone is suspected of breaking a law.

                4.  The Obama administration is not afraid of whistleblowers like him.  It is afraid of us, “an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was promised.”  Not a good argument.  First, he makes the mistake of referring to the American public as informed.  Our presidents are consistently elected by much less than half the eligible voters (and quite a few ineligible ones).  Second, he assumes the information he is leaking will make the American public angry.  We are angered out.  We have grown tired of exerting angry energy every time we learn of some new breach of the constitution by congress, state governments, circuit courts or Supreme Court justices.  What is it he thinks should anger us now?  The government has been using records of phone numbers called by suspected terrorists to track down leads.  What a surprise.  We had no idea our government would do something like that.  We are also supposed to be outraged to find out our government has been bugging dozens of foreign embassies.  Again, what a surprise.  My only question is, “Where are we on the list of countries that spy on other friendly countries?  Are we keeping up with the competition?”  I know it is just for their own political necessity, but I’m a little irritated by the French and English statements of indignation when everyone knows they have been doing exactly the same thing.

                Yes, I have become cynical.  I have been for quite awhile.  I still vote, though I really don’t believe it will do any good.  If an  initiative I agree with is passed, some court will strike it down anyway.  I still pay my taxes, though I know they will be grossly misused by those entrusted with them.  I still hang out my flag on national holidays.  I think it is an attempt to remind myself that the basic ideas on which this country was founded are still worth celebrating, even if most are almost unrecognizable today.

                I am something of a whistleblower as well.  And some think I am a traitor because of it.  I believe God sent Jesus to tear down the wall that separated all of us from him.  And I believe everyone on earth needs to hear that truth.  I am blowing the whistle on God.  In spite of governments' or individuals’ attempts to suppress that truth, I am proclaiming it; living it.  As a result, many people in this world believe I have betrayed mankind, turning my back on science, social norms, cultural mores and political entities.  I won’t be fleeing, looking for asylum.  Just praying and trusting in God.  I guess, in a sense, I am stuck in the “transit zone” as well; my citizenship is in heaven, but my life is in this world. What a privilege.