Originally Posted by HappyCatholic01
There were far more effective and legal ways for him to do something, and he chose not to. So other than throwing his own life away, highlighting the fact he has no integrity, and guaranteeing he is going to die a pauper on the streets of Russia like other former spies (Martin and Miitchell), I don’t know what he thinks he accomplished.
Snowden may have a flawed integrity, but I don’t think he is completely lacking in it. He could be faulted for being self-righteous or moralistic. A favorable interpretation would be that he is principled. Snowden doesn’t seem to have benefited from his revelations or the turmoil they created. Yet, he did violate the trust given to him, so there is fault on his part. But couldn’t the same be said of any whistleblower?
Snowden doesn’t even seem to have made plans for his exit from the US, which makes wonder if his decision wasn’t impulsive. He clearly didn’t believe the US government or his superiors would make reforms based upon his concerns.
What does he think he has accomplished? I am not entirely sure. In the Washington Post article, he offered this explanation:
â€œFor me, in terms of personal satisfaction, the missionâ€™s already accomplished,â€ he said. â€œI already won. As soon as the journalists were able to work, everything that I had been trying to do was validated. Because, remember, I didnâ€™t want to change society. I wanted to give society a chance to determine if it should change itself.â€
â€œAll I wanted was for the public to be able to have a say in how they are governed,â€ he said. â€œThat is a milestone we left a long time ago. Right now, all we are looking at are stretch goals.â€
The problem becomes you can call every turncoat, spy, whistleblower, or traitor “principled” if we are too liberal with the term. What happens to whisleblowers who breach security and then it is found nothing illegal was done? Do they get credit when they take is upon themselves and our wrong?
The very essence of the intelligence community is that it deals in a world that it is unfortunately necessary, and foreign to how average people live their lives. Thus, good guys in any country can be seen as bad guys, especially when limits are stretched. It simply isn’t his place to make the calls he made either way. He had options he chose not to take.
Posted from Catholic.com App for Android