EDWARD SNOWDEN: TRAITOR

OR PATRIOT?

Matthew Sappington
ENGLISH 102 WRITTEN ENGLISH II Salem International University

1
Edward Snowden: Traitor or Patriot?
As of June, 2013, a computer professional by the name of Edward Snowden joined the ranks of
several famous Whistleblowers in the history of the United States. Snowden was charged with Theft of
Government Property, Unauthorized Communication of National Defense Information, and Willful
Communication of Classified Communications Intelligence Information to an Unauthorized Person,
charges that summarily amount to treason (United States of America v. Edward J. Snowden, 2013), he
became a fugitive from the United States with the Federal Bureau of Investigation seeking his
extradition from Russia where he has been granted political asylum. While there has been ample public
debate regarding the legal ramifications of Snowdens actions there has been much less fervor over the
actual details of the documents that he released, the reasons that he has stated as justification for the
release of those documents, or even the official review of precedent that defends such actions. In the
process of examining Snowdens actions, the details of the documents that he released and the
response to those actions/documents by the United States Government, a strong argument can be
made that Edward Snowden was not only justified in his actions but may have been morally and possibly
even legally obligated to carry out those actions as a matter of national interest.
On June 5th, 2013, the first of many exclusive stories is published by The Guardian, a British
national daily newspaper detailing the US Governments orders to turn over phone records of all Verizon
customers on an ongoing basis. (Greenwald, 2013) This report was followed by several more releases
that confirmed the existence of top secret NSA spying programs and tools including PRISM, Boundless
Informant, and other actions taken by the US Government that could be considered unconstitutional.
Edward Snowden has since faced both praise and criticism for his actions, actions that have left him a
man without a country.
On September 6th, 2013, F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., one of the original drafters of the Patriot
Act, wrote a letter to the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, detailing his views that the intent
of Section 215 of the Patriot Act was intended to allow law enforcement to have access to specific

2
Edward Snowden: Traitor or Patriot?
records of individuals and did not allow for the bulk collection of all records that was taking place.
(Sensenbrenner jr. , 2013) The type of collection that was proven to have taken place includes: bulk
collection of Yahoo webcam images (GCHQ, 2014), intercepted SMS text messages (United States
National Security Agency, 2011), internet game traffic (United States National Security Agency), internet
traffic data from several providers (Yahoo, MSN, Facebook, Gmail, Apple, Skype, Paltalk, YouTube, AOL,
and others) (United States National Security Agency, 2013), bulk data from VPN providers (United States
National Security Agency, 2013), as well as encrypted data that the NSA admits it can decrypt at-will
(United States National Security Agency, 2010). In September of 2014, the American Civil Liberties Union
with other Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Second Circuit United States Court of Appeals to overturn a
decision made by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York which found the
actions of the NSA to be appropriate under Section 215. The appeal was successful and the Appeals
Court found that " 215 and the statutory scheme to which it relates do not preclude judicial review,
and that the bulk telephone metadata program is not authorized by 215. (ACLU v Clapper, 2015) This
appeal virtually codified the actions of Edward Snowden as a whistleblower.
The argument that Edward Snowdens actions were both legal and justified is supported by
several important legal cases preceding these events. Firstly, in Horton v. Department of the Navy, the
Petitioner, John. D Horton, was retaliated against by his superior for pointing out misconduct that took
place. In this case, the court ruled that precedent had been set in Fiorillo v. Department of Justice in
which the court ruled that in order to be protected under the Whistleblower protection Act, the
employees primary motivation for making the disclosure must be a desire to inform the public, and not
for vindictiveness or personal advantage. The court ruled in this case that The purpose of the WPA is to
encourage government personnel to disclose government wrongdoing to persons who may be in a
position to remedy the problem without fearing retaliatory action by their supervisors or those who
might be harmed by the disclosures., indicating that whistleblower protection is not afforded to an

3
Edward Snowden: Traitor or Patriot?
employee for reporting violations to the employees direct management. (Horton v. Department of the
Navy, 2003)
Another case that lends legitimacy to the actions of Edward Snowden is Larry Meuwissen V.
Department of Interior. In this case, the United States Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit found that
whistleblowers who reveal wrongdoing that is already public knowledge are not afforded whistleblower
protection under the WPA. The judgement in this case indicates that in order for a report of wrongdoing
by a government entity to be considered whistleblowing it must point out something secret in nature
that is not already known by the public. (Meuwissen v. Department of Interior, 2000)
In White V. Department of the Air Force, the court found that in order for a report of
wrongdoing to qualify for whistleblower protection the whistleblower must disclose such serious
errors by the agency that a conclusion the agency erred is not debatable among reasonable people.
and establish that there was gross mismanagement based on the information known to and readily
ascertainable by the employee. (White v. Department of the Air Force, 2004) In the case of the
Snowden leaks there was sufficient evidence to prove that gross misconduct took place on the part of
the NSA and that proof was provided with information known to and readily ascertainable by Edward
Snowden.
Supported by these cases, the actions of Edward Snowden are legally defendable even under
the charges placed upon him by the US Government citing the 1917 Espionage Act. (United States
Congress, 1917) Unfortunately previous attempts by whistleblowers to defend their actions in court
have proved negligible, partially due to the fact that classified government programs are not handled by
the United States Judicial system but rather by a special court known as the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court which was established in 1978 in order to handle surveillance warrants for FOREIGN
spies within the United States. (United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, n.d.) Edward

4
Edward Snowden: Traitor or Patriot?
Snowden currently faces a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison and over $750,000 in fines if
convicted of the charges presented. Until such time that the United States Congress delivers legislation
that would allow him a reasonable defense or some other type action takes place in order to extradite
Edward Snowden, he will remain an asylum-status resident of Russia.

5
Edward Snowden: Traitor or Patriot?

References
ACLU v Clapper, 14-42-cv (United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit May 7, 2015).
GCHQ. (2014, February 27). GCHQ Optic Nerve. Retrieved from cryptome.org:
https://cryptome.org/2014/02/gchq-optic-nerve.pdf
Greenwald, G. (2013, June 6). NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily. The
Guardian , p. 1.
Horton v. Department of the Navy, 94-3332 (United States Court of Appeals January 23, 2003).
Meuwissen v. Department of Interior, 00-3107 (United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
December 4, 2000).
Sensenbrenner jr. , F. J. (2013, September 6). sensenbrenner.house.gov. Retrieved from house.gov:
http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sensenbrenner_letter_to_attorney_general_eri
c_holder.pdf
United States Congress. (1917, June 15). The Espionage Act of 1917. Retrieved from
digitalhistory.uh.edu: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=3904
United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. (n.d.). About the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court. Retrieved June 6, 2016, from fisc.uscourts.gov.
United States National Security Agency. (2010, June 16). Project Bullrun/2-16. Retrieved from
cryptome.org: https://cryptome.org/2013/09/nsa-bullrun-2-16-guardian-13-0905.pdf
United States National Security Agency. (2011, June 9). Content Extraction Enhancements for Target
Analytics: SMS Text Messages: A Goldmine to Exploit. Retrieved from cryptome.org:
https://cryptome.org/2014/01/nsa-sms-exploit.pdf
United States National Security Agency. (2013, April). Prism/US-984XN Overview . Retrieved from
cryptome.org: https://cryptome.org/2013/11/nsa-prism-guardian-13-1101.pdf
United States National Security Agency. (n.d.). Exploiting Terrorist Use of Games & Virtual Environments.
Retrieved June 6, 2016, from cryptome.org: https://cryptome.org/2013/12/nsa-spy-games.pdf
United States of America v. Edward J. Snowden, 1:13 CR 265 (CMH) (United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia June 14, 2013).
White v. Department of the Air Force, 04-3045 (United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
December 15, 2004).