“There can be no faith in government if our highest offices are excused from
scrutiny – they should be setting the example of transparency” (Snowden, qtd in
Pope). Edward Snowden made this statement following his leak of thousands
of classified documents to the press. The contents of these documents shed light
on the National Security Agency’s massive surveillance system. However, this
system was not only being used against the United States’s enemies – U.S. citizens
themselves were being monitored. This practice, a gross violation of the fourth
amendment, was ruled unconstitutional. Because he revealed government
wrongdoing, many would say that Snowden was a whistleblower. ”Whistle-
blowing,” explains Adam Pope of the University …show more content…
This is a serious injustice. The espionage act is currently too broad and
allows for the prosecution of individuals who act in the interest of the United States;
therefore, it is imperative that the Espionage Act of 1917 be amended to include a
whistleblower clause.
Although the original purpose of the act was legitimate, from the very beginning
the Espionage Act has been used to silence critics of the state. Before its official
entry into World War I, the United States was already fighting the Germans. Pro-
Germany propaganda, espionage, and sabotage prompted President Woodrow
Wilson to call for legislation that would allow him to more effectively prosecute
such actions. Consequently, on June 15, 1917, Congress passed the Espionage Act
(Strassfeld). The purpose of the act, as reported by David Greenberg of Slate, was
“to try to stop the real threat of subversion, sabotage, and malicious interference
with the war effort” (Greenberg). However, Greenberg goes on to describe the
wording as “deeply problematic,” leaving “far too much room for …show more content…
. . The last
two charges were brought under the 1917 Espionage Act” (Finn & Horwitz).
Forced to flee the U.S. to escape prosecution, Snowden is currently residing in
Russia.
Broad wording and technicalities are being used to prosecute whistleblowers
under the Espionage Act, which means it must be amended – the act is being used
contrary to its purpose, acting as a deterrent to those who would expose corruption,
and punishing individuals who have helped the United States. The purpose of the
act, as stated previously, is to combat sabotage and espionage. Whistleblowers are
guilty of neither. Glenn Greenwald, journalist and former constitutional lawyer,
vehemently defended Edward Snowden against the espionage charges, declaring
“[Snowden] could have - but chose not - sold the information he had to a foreign
intelligence service for vast sums of money, or covertly passed it to one of America's
enemies, or worked at the direction of a foreign government. That is espionage. He
did none of those things” (Greenwald). Since whistleblowers are not spies, they
should not be charged with
scrutiny – they should be setting the example of transparency” (Snowden, qtd in
Pope). Edward Snowden made this statement following his leak of thousands
of classified documents to the press. The contents of these documents shed light
on the National Security Agency’s massive surveillance system. However, this
system was not only being used against the United States’s enemies – U.S. citizens
themselves were being monitored. This practice, a gross violation of the fourth
amendment, was ruled unconstitutional. Because he revealed government
wrongdoing, many would say that Snowden was a whistleblower. ”Whistle-
blowing,” explains Adam Pope of the University …show more content…
This is a serious injustice. The espionage act is currently too broad and
allows for the prosecution of individuals who act in the interest of the United States;
therefore, it is imperative that the Espionage Act of 1917 be amended to include a
whistleblower clause.
Although the original purpose of the act was legitimate, from the very beginning
the Espionage Act has been used to silence critics of the state. Before its official
entry into World War I, the United States was already fighting the Germans. Pro-
Germany propaganda, espionage, and sabotage prompted President Woodrow
Wilson to call for legislation that would allow him to more effectively prosecute
such actions. Consequently, on June 15, 1917, Congress passed the Espionage Act
(Strassfeld). The purpose of the act, as reported by David Greenberg of Slate, was
“to try to stop the real threat of subversion, sabotage, and malicious interference
with the war effort” (Greenberg). However, Greenberg goes on to describe the
wording as “deeply problematic,” leaving “far too much room for …show more content…
. . The last
two charges were brought under the 1917 Espionage Act” (Finn & Horwitz).
Forced to flee the U.S. to escape prosecution, Snowden is currently residing in
Russia.
Broad wording and technicalities are being used to prosecute whistleblowers
under the Espionage Act, which means it must be amended – the act is being used
contrary to its purpose, acting as a deterrent to those who would expose corruption,
and punishing individuals who have helped the United States. The purpose of the
act, as stated previously, is to combat sabotage and espionage. Whistleblowers are
guilty of neither. Glenn Greenwald, journalist and former constitutional lawyer,
vehemently defended Edward Snowden against the espionage charges, declaring
“[Snowden] could have - but chose not - sold the information he had to a foreign
intelligence service for vast sums of money, or covertly passed it to one of America's
enemies, or worked at the direction of a foreign government. That is espionage. He
did none of those things” (Greenwald). Since whistleblowers are not spies, they
should not be charged with