Obama-like Snowden
Surveillance Programs for Inspection
U.S. President Barack Obama was explaining to his countrymen during the Friday press conference how difficult it is to balance country security and personal liberties. He also reminded everyone — and this is a bit of sensation — that when he was a senator, he expressed his skepticism of surveillance programs. He commissioned a critical inspection of them.
This inspection was either of the same or of similar programs as those whose existence were disclosed and criticized by the defector Edward Snowden, who is now charged with very serious crimes. What’s more, the president announced that, in the case of a possible civil liberties violation by the intelligence service, somebody independent who is able to oppose the government’s opinion will take part in the investigation. The president could say that he was implementing his inspection of the surveillance programs before Snowden fled to Russia, but as it turns out, it was only Snowden’s desperate step which forced the authorities to admit publicly that the programs don’t sufficiently protect civil liberties and are in need of repair. So, if it weren’t for Snowden ....
Obama announced so many beautiful revisions to the programs and work of the surveillance service that one might suspect that he agreed with Snowden. The whistle-blower should come back to the U.S. holding the text of the presidential address in his hand and demand a public debate to compare what he did with what the president is announcing. Moreover, he should ask Obama to be his attorney in court.
The president would surely decline because Snowden, in his opinion, is not a patriot. He actually claims that if Snowden believes that what he’s doing is right, he should, as every American, appear before a court and defend his cause. Indeed, why did Snowden look for help abroad and even in the countries which don’t play on the same team as America instead of disclosing the scandal in his own country, in Congress or in the press? Did he do that because nobody in America would stand up for him? There isn’t anywhere in the world with so strong of civil organizations as in the U.S. Organizations like Human Rights Watch criticize the authorities of their own country very sharply. Didn’t Snowden trust the American judiciary? Which one does he trust, then? In which country are there better courts? It isn’t perfect anywhere in the world; however, it’s difficult to shrug the independence of the American judiciary off.
The following question arises: Can the courts really oppose the stance of the executive? Let’s take into consideration such a supposedly minor thing as an annulment of Snowden’s passport. We don’t know American regulations, but it seems that the annulment of this document wasn’t controlled or approved by any court.
In any case, the president showed the way: We need a “fact-based and lawful” debate on the necessary reforms of surveillance programs instead of disclosing classified information to the press, which leads to heated but usually unprofessional discussions. Beautifully said. But I join skeptics who ask this malicious question: How could a “fact-based and lawful” debate be carried out if just disclosing the existence of such programs is illegal?
U.S. President Barack Obama was explaining to his countrymen during the Friday press conference how difficult it is to balance country security and personal liberties. He also reminded everyone — and this is a bit of sensation — that when he was a senator, he expressed his skepticism of surveillance programs. He commissioned a critical inspection of them.
This inspection was either of the same or of similar programs as those whose existence were disclosed and criticized by the defector Edward Snowden, who is now charged with very serious crimes. What’s more, the president announced that, in the case of a possible civil liberties violation by the intelligence service, somebody independent who is able to oppose the government’s opinion will take part in the investigation. The president could say that he was implementing his inspection of the surveillance programs before Snowden fled to Russia, but as it turns out, it was only Snowden’s desperate step which forced the authorities to admit publicly that the programs don’t sufficiently protect civil liberties and are in need of repair. So, if it weren’t for Snowden ....
Obama announced so many beautiful revisions to the programs and work of the surveillance service that one might suspect that he agreed with Snowden. The whistle-blower should come back to the U.S. holding the text of the presidential address in his hand and demand a public debate to compare what he did with what the president is announcing. Moreover, he should ask Obama to be his attorney in court.
The president would surely decline because Snowden, in his opinion, is not a patriot. He actually claims that if Snowden believes that what he’s doing is right, he should, as every American, appear before a court and defend his cause. Indeed, why did Snowden look for help abroad and even in the countries which don’t play on the same team as America instead of disclosing the scandal in his own country, in Congress or in the press? Did he do that because nobody in America would stand up for him? There isn’t anywhere in the world with so strong of civil organizations as in the U.S. Organizations like Human Rights Watch criticize the authorities of their own country very sharply. Didn’t Snowden trust the American judiciary? Which one does he trust, then? In which country are there better courts? It isn’t perfect anywhere in the world; however, it’s difficult to shrug the independence of the American judiciary off.
The following question arises: Can the courts really oppose the stance of the executive? Let’s take into consideration such a supposedly minor thing as an annulment of Snowden’s passport. We don’t know American regulations, but it seems that the annulment of this document wasn’t controlled or approved by any court.
In any case, the president showed the way: We need a “fact-based and lawful” debate on the necessary reforms of surveillance programs instead of disclosing classified information to the press, which leads to heated but usually unprofessional discussions. Beautifully said. But I join skeptics who ask this malicious question: How could a “fact-based and lawful” debate be carried out if just disclosing the existence of such programs is illegal?