From Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward to Chelsea Manning, whistleblowers and investigations against the wrongdoings of government have plagued media in recent years. Perhaps the most famous whistleblower in recent times is former NSA employee Edward Snowden.
His release of thousands of sensitive government documents lead to his subsequent flee from America and the NSA’s manhunt for the whistleblower. This journey is depicted in the documentary Terminal F: Chasing Edward Snowden.
From Edward Snowden’s father to General Michael Hayden, former NSA Director, to Sarah Harrison, a WikiLeaks journalist who accompanied Snowden from Hong Kong to Russia, to Snowden himself, the documentary draws from a variety of sources to create a compelling narrative of Snowden’s escape from America, to Hong Kong, and then to Russia.
Snowden is perhaps the name most associated with whistleblowing and government leaks. Because of the well-known fact that Snowden’s released files revealed many countries’ surveillance programs, the documentary acknowledges these files and their impact, but primarily focuses on the story behind Snowden’s motivations, and the reasoning for why some praise him as courageous, and others as cowardly.
Each of the interviews presented in the documentary is a single-person interview, but the way the documentary transitions from one person’s explanation to another is unique. The two primary juxtaposing figures featured in Terminal F are Edward Snowden and General Michael Hayden. Snowden believes that the discovery of such ubiquitous surveillance deserves to be recognized by the people; as seen in his explanation in the documentary, Snowden sees himself as the mere messenger, carrying the choice of the government to the people for judgement. Contrastly, Hayden deems Snowden to be “arrogant” and self-righteous.
In one particular sequence, Terminal F cuts into Hayden’s dialogue directly after Snowden, almost as if the two are conversing. Here is what they say:
SNOWDEN: “Michael Hayden… ran a program called Stellar Wind, where the communications of anyone in America could be collected en masse, under the pretext of preventing terrorism.”
HAYDEN: “It was the arrogance of an individual, who looked upon the activity of the NSA and believed that his legal and ethical judgement trumped the judgement of his co-workers, his leadership, the American President, the American Congress, and the American Court System.”
SNOWDEN: “I thought to myself: what kind of man is this? How can someone justify the violation of the rights of an entire nation?”
In addition to the clever editing of Snowden and Hayden, Terminal F also features clips from Snowden’s father, incorporating emotion and the physical treatment and deterioration of health of Edward Snowden into the film. Combining the almost banter-like dialogue between Hayden and Snowden along with the emotional and sentimental insights from his father give Terminal F -- and consequently, Edward Snowden’s story -- more depth and complexity.
The documentary presents both sides of the argument. Despite Snowden’s martyr-like intentions, Hayden makes a point when he claims that Snowden released sensitive information that affected not only the US’s war on terrorism, but also other countries such as the UK. For example, one document accidently exposed a government intelligence plan against terrorist group al-Qaeda. In support of Snowden, the documentary describes the controversial situation when the US government grounded a diplomatic plane carrying the Bolivian president, and appeals to the rights of the people.
In relation to this class, Snowden’s story and the documentary Terminal F question the line between liberty and safety.
World War II, the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the San Bernardino shooting -- all of these events were catastrophic, but none justify the violation of citizen rights. The internment of more than 100,000 American citizens because of their nationality, because of paranoia, is undoubtedly unconstitutional. The Patriot Act, which authorized the government to monitor phone calls, the exchange of emails, bank reports, credit trails, and Internet activity of innocent citizens is unconstitutional. The creation of a backdoor to enter Apple software in order to catch one terrorist at the cost of millions of Apple users’ security is unconstitutional.
In this same sense, the threat of terrorism, though decidedly reasonable, does not justify the many surveillance programs that Snowden leaked.
Moreover, the programs created in the wake of attacks on America, based on historical evidence, produce few results. Spying on the entirety of the American people stopped no significant acts of terrorism. The programs that Snowden released information on most likely are the same.
Granted, Snowden could have released the documents at a better time, and he could have been more selective and careful in his release of the this information. But there must be a compromise between security and liberty. During WWII, America was at threat from attack from the Japanese, but that does not justify the internment of Japanese Americans who were innocent. In the same sense, it is illogical that innocent Americans have their integral rights violated when a majority of them are innocent.
Moreover, if civil rights on the domestic front are being violated, there is no precedence for American treatment of foreigners and prisoners-of-war overseas.
The issue is that these problems and these violations do not go away. In 2013, when asked about the metadata the NSA was collecting on millions of American citizens, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied under oath, on camera, about the NSA surveillance. Clapper faced no repercussions. And overseas, from Guantanamo Bay to Abu Ghraib, there are many instances of American citizens -- American officials in high positions of power -- abusing power.
While there are whistleblowers like Snowden, in several years, the media and conversation dies down and the people forget. As a society, we have fleeting memory; our attention moves like whiplash, processing only what the media presents to us. Few go out and hunt for the truth, like Bernstein and Woodward.
The problem is not those abusive authorities in power, the problem lies with the people for their passiveness, for their inattentiveness towards these authorities; because there are no consequences for wrongdoing, these people stay in power. Because of this, Snowden’s exposure of secretive government surveillance is an act of heroism.
But the issue of the 2013 NSA leak cannot be simplified that easily. As Terminal F reveals, the debate between security and civil rights is much more complex, and will continue to be a source of contention in the years to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment