Edward Snowden was justified

Snowden was justified. That's the motion argued earlier this month on Intelligence Squared US at the Kaufman Center in New York.  As always, there were two teams of two "superbly qualified debaters" taking on this exciting topic.  While the caliber and substance of the debate was indeed superb, I don't believe the side arguing against the motion had arguments as polished as their opponents.  Their pedigrees and experiences may have qualified them, but their speaking style and debate experience wasn't in the same league.  Nevertheless, this was the most satisfying exploration of the topic I've come across.

Summary

For the motion:
Daniel Ellsberg, whistleblower of the Pentagon Papers
Ben Wizner, Director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy & Technology Project

• The reaction to the leaks has caused needed debate and inspection, aka "There was something to blow the whistle on"
• Whistleblower and watchdog systems are broken internally
• There was no other way for Snowden to accomplish what he wanted
• Snowden didn't set out to spy for our enemies

Against the motion:
Andrew McCarthy, former US Attorney who prosecuted Sheik Omar Abdel Rahmen
James Woolsey, former CIA Director (1993-1995)

• Nothing justifies the damage to the security of the United States caused by Snowden
• Snowden's leaks destroyed numerous programs that were very effective against our enemies 
• Sheer number of documents released means he couldn't have know or evaluated what he was releasing
• Internal whistleblower and oversight systems do work as best they can

Perspective

McCarthy made an assertion that we are trying to apply peacetime rule of law to wartime situations.  That makes everyone uncomfortable.  I didn't buy that argument as a justification for domestic surveillance of all US citizens.  He also consistently argues that judges have decided that metadata collection and other surveillance programs were constitutional and legal based on the laws of the era (referring to post 9/11 and post Patriot Act).  

Woolsey argued that the sheer number of documents was irresponsible, and that by going public, he gave the documents right into the hands of our enemies.  Later, after a question from the audience, he goes on to suggest that Snowden should have just called up congress and made an appointment to share his concerns.  He suggests that no system is perfect or works 100% of the time, but out of 535 members of Congress, there should have been someone sympathetic to listen to Snowden's concerns.

Wizner's two best arguments addressed Woolsey head-on. First, he points out that Snowden didn't trust his own bias in terms of deciding which documents served the public interest.  Therefore, he released the documents to trusted journalists and expressed his wish that they, in consultation with their editors, made the call.  In fact the Guardian and the Washington Post (later the New York Times) have all worked with the NSA to make the determination of what was harmful to national security and in every case, have made some degree of edits based on their feedback.  He suggests this was as responsible a method as anyone could have selected.  Second, while Ellsberg and Woolsey went at it about how whistleblowers are or aren't treated and how they went on about whether or not congress would even listen to a low-level 29-year-old contractor, Wizner cuts to the chase:

We're slightly on the wrong track here.  Sometimes the scandal is something that is illegal going on that people, that Congress doesn't know about and the proper channel is to go to Congress and alert them.  Sometimes the scandal is that a whole regime has been created in secret, that the system deems legal.  That's what we're talking about here.  I believe that these programs were briefed to the committees.  I believe that the intelligence committees routinely approved this and were briefed on this.  I believe they were taken to General Alexander's lair where he had Hollywood set designers design a captains chair and have the doors whoosh open and closed like on the deck of the starship Enterprise.  <pauses> This was in an article in Foreign Policy magazine. I believe that they knew this was going on.  So a 29-year old contractor calls up Congress and says 'Excuse me, I need to really tell you what you wrongly approved in secret.'  No, what was needed was for the public to know.  Once the public knew, everything changed.

Ellsberg argues that Snowden had no choice.  There were four senior officials in the NSA (he named them) tried going about the internal process for reporting concerns.  They were all treated as suspected leakers and FBI raided their homes.  Another official, Drake, has stated he wants to testify before Congress on the record about not just metadata, but actual content being collected, including on members of the intelligence committees themselves.  He has not been invited to testify.  This demonstrates that the process of whistleblowing is necessary and may be justified from time to time to defend the Constitution and the Republic to which it serves.  

My recommendation is watch this debate in full, as opposed to catching the edited podcast version.  Ellsberg has several incredible moments of powerful patriotic and compelling speech.  Wizner sits back and lets the others flail until just the right moment, then eloquently jumps in and sets the record straight. 

Declared Winner: For the motion

PRE-DEBATE POLL RESULTS

29% FOR | 29% AGAINST | 42% UNDECIDED

POST-DEBATE POLL RESULTS

54% FOR | 35% AGAINST | 11% UNDECIDED