Geoffrey R. Stone: Edward Snowden: "hero or traitor"?

Edward H. Levi distinguished service Professor of law, University of Chicago

Get politics alerts: Join

Yo I fun tonight to check out show on CNN this question, as if any characterization is correct. In my opinion, based on what I know so far from the media, Snowden is a hero or a traitor, but is certainly a criminal who deserves severe punishment.

I say this as someone who firmly believes in the transparency of the Government, but even more strongly in the orderly rule of law. Snowden knowingly accepted a position of trust in relation to the Government. He did not have to accept their work, but it did. A clear condition of this work was its voluntary agreement not to disclose any classified information - i.e. the information whose disclosure could reasonably endanger the security of the nation.

The Government can not always linked the conditions of employment. For example, constitutionally it cannot require its employees to accept never to criticize the President or never to get an abortion or never to invoke their rights under the fourth amendment. But it's okay that the Government may require its employees to accept certain conditions, and one of them is not to reveal classified information.

As the Supreme Court held in Snepp v. United States in 1980, not only can employees of Government constitutionally will require that you agree not to disclose classified information, but may even be to agree, as a condition of employment, not to publish "any information or material above... the intelligence activities" even after leaving the service of Government without "prior specific approval." Underlined it how the Court, the disclosure of an employee's "material relating to intelligence activities can be harmful to the vital national interests".

But what happens if the employee decides to, in his own wisdom, which doesn't need any classified information classified or that would be good for the public know classified information? Should be allowed to the employee to make that judgement? Simply to the question of the State you must answer it. There is no reason on Earth why a single government employee should have the authority, in their own say, to annul the judgment of the elected representatives of the American people and decide the nation that classified information must be disclosed to friends and enemies alike. Such an act is a complete usurpation of the rule of law.

Now, this is not to say that there can be situations where it would be in the national interest information classified for certain to be disclosed to the public. It is easy to think of situations in that the decision to classify certain information is erroneous, corrupt and dangerous for the nation. In some situations the information can be classified not to protect national security, but to protect public servants from the exhibition. Perhaps they have acted foolishly, cruelly, illegally or unconstitutionally.
Maybe it's important for Americans to know what their representatives - are doing while the information is classified. Sometimes, the disclosure can be harmless for the national interest, sometimes the damage caused by the disclosure can be offset by the benefits of the revelation.

Do the problem and is a problem that must be taken seriously, is who is to decide when it is classified information should be public? Who's going to endanger national security? The solution must be the creation of a clearly defined and credible procedure through which the leaks can bring their concerns to an independent panel of experts that can make a determination that is formal and professional if the information in question must be declassified. The absence of such a procedure leaves the possible leakage, that they believe that they are acting heroically, with no recourse, but that they remain silent or plunge ahead in ignorance, with potentially serious consequences for the nation.

Do in the absence of such a procedure, what should Edward Snowden have done? Probably, if they have presented their concerns to senior, responsible members of Congress. But only what he certainly should not have done must decide on the basis of his own ill-informed judgment, arrogant and amateur that he knows better than anyone else in the Government in the best way to serve the national interest. Import the rule of law, and no one gave him the authority to make that decision for the nation Edward Snowden. His conduct is most unacceptable; It was criminal.

Get alerts