The original composers of our Constitution had some serious reasons to question government authority. Old world monarchs flagrantly used taxation, threats and questionable legal practices to fill coffers and live extravagant lives.
Founding fathers saw first hand how power could breed corruption. They tried to establish a more equal playing field in the evasive pursuit of happiness.
Our democratic experiment has worked pretty well for the last 237 years. But suddenly technology, terrorism and trust issues with our officials have seemed to bring us to a brand new conversation.
There are new stories of drones shaped like mosquitoes, satellite surveillance to the millemeter and questions of which Americans are entitled to due process. In some ways we must trust our officials like never before, but with our healthy national cynicism intact.
The role of good journalism and brave journalists has never been more important. They should be very well protected in a free society.
Outspoken thought leaders (and anyone with a cable tv show) from both sides of the aisle have either defended or demonized Ed Snowden. Did you ever think Glen Beck and Michael Moore would agree on anything? Snowden’s release of government surveillance secrets harkens to Julian Assange’s message that journalists should and must be a watchdog for us, wary of those in power.
Whistleblower is just another name for inside source.
After the Boston Marathon it was both reassuring and eye raising how astoundingly fast the alleged criminals were brought to justice. How much power and secrecy are we willing to extend to our government in the name of protection. It is a valid and important question as we move forward.
There is a well worn Franklinian quote worth paraphrasing now, “..those who would sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither.”
—-
From The Economist…
LET’S get the most contentious point out of the way first: Edward Snowden made the right call to make public the extent of the National Security Administration’s surveillance of electronic communications.
The American people can now have a debate about whether or not they consent to that level of surveillance in order to prevent terrorist attacks, a debate that we were previously denied by the government’s unwillingness to disclose even the broad outlines of what the NSA was doing. There may be some slight risk that knowing more about the breadth of NSA surveillance will lead terrorists to take better precautions in concealing their communications. But that risk seems manageable, and is of far less importance than the ability of Americans, and the rest of the world for that matter, to finally have an honest discussion about how much we think our governments should be able to see of our online behaviour.
See the full article in the Economist
—-
Read about Ed Snowden on Mother Jones