ENEMY OF THE STATE PART ONE: WHAT’S THE DAMAGE

Regardless of who Snowden is or what his motives were for unveiling the dirty secrets of the NSA, there is another, more important question to ask, and that is whether all that he claimed to have done for the betterment of society and the benefit of others was in vain. Did he truly protect Americans from an NSA that was spying just to spy rather than to protect people the often referenced, looming terrorist threat over the United States? Or did he just put an end to spying that was essential for Americans’ safety? The answer lies within the facts. The predominant question that may be asked in regard to this controversy is whether it is more important to be free or to be safe. Those who seem to side with Snowden consider freedom to be of more import than national security. Some even take this argument a step further, saying that in reality, Americans are no safer than they were before and that the disillusioned NSA is fighting a phony war against terrorism. One of these such doubters of the NSA’s alleged intentions is the Cato Institute. In their opening remarks within their article entitled “The Terrorism Delusion” by John Mueller and Mark G. Stewart, they say, “This article is a set of ruminations on the post–September 11 years of delusion. It reflects, first, on the exaggerations of the threat presented by terrorism and then on the distortions of perspective these exaggerations have inspired—distortions that have in turn inspired a determined and expensive quest to ferret out, and even to create, the nearly nonexistent. It also supplies a quantitative assessment of the costs of the terrorism delusion and concludes with a discussion of how anxieties about terrorism persist despite exceedingly limited evidence that much fear is justified.” Made evident in this preliminary argument, the Cato Institute considers not only the NSA’s but the response in general to the extreme displays of terrorism that took place September 11, 2001, was similarly extreme and yet unnecessary. They continue to develop this argument as they reference multiple statistics that do not stand in favor of the NSA’s post-9/11 actions against terrorism. For example, they say, “In the eleven years since the September 11 attacks, no terrorist has been able to detonate even a primitive bomb in the United States.” On the other hand, an organization that seemed to assert that Snowden and his actions in particular put America and its relationship with other countries at risk – thus, choosing national security over freedom is the Brookings Institution. On their page dedicated to the Snowden ordeal entitled “The Big Snoop”, they made a case against Snowden’s actions in which he chose liberty over freedom, as they say, “America's diplomacy has been hobbled, its image abroad tarnished, its alliances strained, its government's standing in the eyes of its own people damaged, its policies challenged in court and, in some cases, already undergoing major revision at the behest of the White House.” The Brookings Institute also referenced several statistics in their article in an attempt to support their argument that Snowden’s actions, while having detrimental national and international repercussions, also did not have the effect for which Snowden was allegedly hoping. For example, data from Pew Research was featured in the article stated that Edward Snowden’s leaks had very little effect on Americans’ views and disapproval of government surveillance – the percentage of Americans that disapprove government surveillance only increased from 44% to 53%. All In all, with his recent actions, Snowden deepened the fault lines between people in the United States as they take opposing sides on the issue of national security versus freedom.