Edward Snowden broke the law. There are penalties for breaking the law, and I believe he should be prosecuted.
Edward Snowden
broke the law. There are penalties for breaking the law, and I believe
he should be prosecuted. I do not overlook or believe our country should
condone people who have access to military secrets to reveal those
secrets.
But that isn't the whole
picture, and too many people on both sides of this equation are trying
to make a very gray subject black and white. The Journal is the latest
to do so in your editorial "Rand Paul's Snowden Apologia" (Jan. 8).
For
advocates of throwing the book at Mr. Snowden, we should ask: Are they
going to ignore the perjury of Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper? Mr. Clapper broke the law when he lied to Congress. So an
important question, ignored by advocates of frontier justice for Mr.
Snowden, is do they seek clemency for James Clapper?
I
suffer condemnation by the Journal for expressing the opinion that a
death sentence or life in prison is not the appropriate sentence for Mr.
Snowden. The Journal claims I "exaggerate" the possible sentence. Mr.
Snowden's accusers claim he violated the Espionage Act of 1917 for which
the penalty is, indeed, death or life in prison. Senators such as
Dianne Feinstein, former officials John Bolton and Ralph Peters, and
even Speaker John Boehner, have accused Mr. Snowden of "treason," a crime which is indeed punishable by death.
You
claim "in essence" I've asked for a plea bargain for Mr. Snowden. I've
made no specific legal judgment other than to say that I do support laws
against national security leaks. I have not argued, as you allege, that
Mr. Snowden is a hero. I have stated that history will decide.
Further,
his leaks that had nothing to do with unconstitutional domestic
surveillance may have caused real damage to our national security and
relations with other countries.
There
are advantages to having Mr. Snowden face trial: We could determine how
he breached our security and to what extent and how much information was
shared with foreign countries. Ruling out the harsher end of the
sentencing spectrum might encourage him to return for trial.
Standing
trial would allow a judge to determine whether Mr. Snowden's
law-breaking served a higher purpose and thus sentence him accordingly
and also whether some of his actions went too far in endangering our
security and aiding our enemies, and also sentence him for that
accordingly.
But legally and morally,
the actions of the individual lawbreaker must be weighed against the
government law-breaking that he went to great lengths to reveal. I do
not believe we must give up this much of our liberty for security, nor
do I apologize for standing up for the Fourth Amendment, which restricts
such frighteningly unlimited power.
Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.)
No comments:
Post a Comment