Text 1 discusses if Edward Snowden is a hero or a traitor. It’s a more objective text, that involves both positive and negative aspects of Snowden’s actions. The text is based on contrasting quotations from different people that have a connection with the US government. The article is objective in that way, that the author does not choose to comment on the indrawn quotes. The objective point is seen in the way the writer approached the readers: “Should Snowden be lauded or punished for exposing government surveillance programs?” The chosen quote shows the theme that is through the whole story. It’s also an indicator on the purpose of the article. The article is written to inform and give background information and not to persuade a specific point of view. The article ends with a study of public opinion on the case. …show more content…
He focuses on the aspects on why Snowden’s actions are against the laws of the US government and the contract he has signed at his workplace NSA: “Any government employee or contractor is warned repeatedly that the unauthorized disclosure of classified information is a crime.” By noting this he accuses Snowden of breaking the law he has signed as a government employee. He has not only broken the law, but also put the security of the government at risk: “As a result, all of Snowden’s secrets may wind up in the hands of the Chinese government” This quote indicates, that the leaked information is critical and may have bad consequences if it ends in the wrong hands. By saying “Snowden’s secrets” indicates that there 's more the public does not know about. To empathize that he made the wrong decision he explains what Snowden could have done about the situation bothering him: “they can try to protest within the institutions where they work.” Tobbin points out that Snowden 's reaction was wrong, and that there were other ways he could have
Your Honor, my client is pleading guilty to the charges of breaking the Espionage Act. Although Mr. Debs is extremely sorry for the disturbance he has caused but he was only exercising his first amendment right, peacefully. My client is aware, and has a clear understanding in what the Espionage Act is put in place for; the real problem is how could a law such as this exist? The espionage Act is in place to stop treason, and anti -americanism thoughts, but there is not enough war propaganda that exist to prohibit people from realizing war is not completely glorious. Any person that is anti- war does not make them anti-American.
“Ed Snowden from the N.S.A 30 year-old former contractor for N.S.A
Without the Espionage and Sedition Acts, the United States’s national security might have been threatened, and the United States might have never won the war.
1. In your own words, summarize the core of each writer 's argument. The article by Rebecca Mead argues that the statistical advantage of a degree has declined, but that an intangible value remains. The article by Ken Saxon focuses on the intangible value of a degree and how it helps student determine who they are and what job they want. 2. What is the key issue for each writer? How does each frame the issue?
Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau both use the same kinds of rhetorical strategies in their writing to achieve similar purposes, although they target completely opposite audiences. In both Thoreau’s “Resistance to Civil Government” and King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, logical appeals are scattered throughout to strengthen their arguments. Thoreau says in his essay, “It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience.” Thoreau deduces that if corporations are made up of men, and men have consciences, then corporations are therefore conscientious.
The case against Edward Snowden is strong. He acted with recklessness and possible self-serving convenience; even so, by shedding light on the invasive government actions taken to deal with terrorism, Snowden did his country a service, demanding accountability from a branch of the government that has been given free reign because of our post-9/11 fears. Still the fear persists that a society that accepts challenges to laws also insights anarchy (Leibman). This argument quickly falls flat: civil disobedience is action taken to fulfill a worthy higher principle, not just a means to benefit oneself. The intricacies of this were exposed when the acting Attorney General refused to allow the Justice Department to defend President Trump’s travel ban until its constitutionality could be affirmed.
The Article kept true to the facts but Mark Felt was a hero, a patriot an original Edward Snowden who did the right thing even against something that was bigger than
His purpose was to let the detractors know Snowden’s exact motive. Because the government constantly looks over ones’ shoulder, they have to constantly be mindful of their online activity and their online footprint. The Constitution was founded upon the principles of freedom from fear of the government, but this is not the case today. Edward Snowden’s views are reciprocated by the general US population. According to the Pew Research Center, 81% of people find it unacceptable for the US to monitor citizens of their countries, 73% finds it unacceptable to monitor leaders of their country, 62% finds it unacceptable to monitor American citizens, and 64% finds it acceptable to monitor terrorist suspects (Document 5).
I don 't think of Edward Snowden as a hero or a traitor. I do think what he did was bad he informed the general public of what the federal government is doing and the people have the right to know. If my best friend 's girlfriend was cheating on him and I told him about it does that make me a traitor? that 's an over simplified comparison but the point is that we as people of the "free world" have the right to know. The federal government should not have the ability to monitor your activity without a warrant without a just cause.
From this quote the author continues to spread his opinion for this court process to be over, as it is hard for many to listen to this tragic event all over again. This use at a rhetorical question is effective in trying to get the reader to think about the matter at hand. It is true that that nobody wants to relive such a
Snowden, who was a computer systems contractor, worked for the National Security Agency and revealed to the public how the American Government was spying on its own citizens and foreigners. Snowden was committed to the truth which allowed him to reason and understand the difference between what is right and what is legal. Snowden was convinced that the truth requires an individual to do the right thing and not necessarily what is legal. However, doing the right thing could sometimes require an individual to break the law.
Espionage has been utilized as a tactic throughout the world for many centuries. The height of intelligence and counterintelligence organizations peaked during the Cold War, because there was an increase in the amount of government funding and resources devoted to espionage. The Cold War was a period of continuous political and military tension between the United States and the Soviet Union. Both nations had opposing ideologies, different views on capitalism and communism, and wanted power for global supremacy. For this reason, the Soviet Union employed espionage, fearing that capitalist nations would bring the downfall of communism.
A few weeks later, these documents were released by The Guardian, and Edward Snowden was the reliable source. Now, people all over knew that the United States Government was spying on its own people through messages, internet searches, browser history, smart T.V’s and many many more. This case is ongoing, as he seeks asylum in other countries. This newfound information raises the question, is Mr. Snowden a traitor, or did he save us all by “blowing the whistle” to warn us about the unconstitutional collection of our private possessions protected by
Snowden’s actions proved his incompetence as a professional. He basically took all the files and dumped them on newspapers doorsteps. If his intentions were for the government to reform the NSA activities so they protected civil liberties more, he would have stayed at the agency longer and collected more information and carefully presented it to the people who do the changes, not to the public. 2. Snowden harmed the relationship between the US and its allies.
It can be dangerous and endangers the mission of the military, but there is a difference between espionage and freedom of speech, which had to be made clear by Debs to the people of the court. Debs explained to the court that he should not be treated like a public enemy when he was just expressing his rights as an American citizen. His argument using the first amendment is still commonly heard and relevant to this day. Debs was not the only voice heard during the post-World War 1 era, he was followed by others to remind the nation of our beloved