While Edward Snowden was on the National Security Agency’s (NSA) payroll, access to a majority of the documents the agency held was granted to him, and, with this, came a lot of information that proved to be unconstitutional in many cases.

“They think he copied so much stuff — that almost everything that place does, he has,” said one former government official, as reported by The Washington Post on June 21, 2013.

What is certain though, is that he fled to Hong Kong to escape arrest and detainment in the United States, and has been living in Moscow for the past year.

This six-part series analyzes four sides to this current debate: the perspective of the American government, the perspective of the average American citizen, the perspective of the affected countries, and the perspective of Snowden himself. These four sides will paint a picture for the DU student, who is now living in a world that is substantially different, one in which the exceptionalism enjoyed by the United States for so long has started to dwindle.

Snowden’s preemptive escape is understandable, as still not one government official (GO) issued a public statement in which advocated for mercy on his behalf.

“I think he ought to be prosecuted under the law,” Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, told reporters. “Extradited and prosecuted. We cannot have national security if our secrets can’t be kept on our methods of gathering information.”

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Georgia, agreed and said, “If it’s not [treason], it’s pretty damn close.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif, stands at the head of this troupe, claiming that, “I don’t look at this as being a whistleblower. I think it’s an act of treason. He violated the oath, he violated the law. It’s treason.”

Even though several GOs like Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, have said that his guilt should “be based entirely upon the damage to national security”, the issue of the governments official response remains. This is an extremely sensitive issue to the American public, considered by many to be a violation of the basic rights guaranteed by the constitution (example: PRISM, a clandestine mass electronic surveillance data mining program that has been in operation since 2007).

Snowden, in regard to why he left, made the point that “The US government … immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home, openly declaring me guilty of treason and that the disclosure of secret, criminal, and even unconstitutional acts is an unforgivable crime.”

The legal definition of treason, as defined by the United States Constitution, Article 3, is as follows: “treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” At the time when his arrest warrant was issued, the backing behind it was for “espionage” and “theft,” of which only the latter held actual standing. He stole the data for which he is wanted, but at the time did not have any relations with any government except the United States.
Unfortunately, Snowden is not and has never been a spy. Snowden released information about PRISM (specifically the powerpoint document explaining it) to the American press, an action which is protected by the first amendment. Ironically this is what the U.S. government is trying to get justice for, consequently ignoring the seventh, which guarantees a right and fair trial – in the case of Snowden, he is not guaranteed a fair trial.

According to the definition of “traitor,” Snowden is not a traitor. In order to be hired by the NSA, he had to take two oaths: 1) to protect the Constitution and 2) to never reveal what was going on in the NSA. The first is a prerequisite to the second. Thus, revealing that the NSA was not upholding the Constitution, he was doing what was legally required of him to do.

Considering the fact that “The National Security Agency ended a program used to spy on … a number of other world leaders after an internal Obama administration review … revealed to the White House the existence of the operation,” U.S. officials said to the Wall Street Journal in October 2013, the first time they acknowledged the leak.