Freedom Compromised by Terror
Published: 15 June 2013 By Abiodun Giwa
The Writer
Edward Snowden was unknown before the Guardian’s publication about the telephone and internet surveillance program in the United States. He has suddenly shot into the limelight. He is displaying rare courage and bravado, matching the threat of extradition from the United States. He has succeeded at creating a crisis for the Barack Obama administration to manage. It is not strange to see the White House; the National Security Agency, NSA, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation,FBI, in frenzy, to disabuse public perception of the surveillance program, that the government may have been peeping to gather information from private telephone conversations and internet chats.
President Barack Obama, defending his administration, said that it had struck the balance between security and privacy. Further, he said the internet communications of US citizens and residents had not been targeted, and “nobody is listening to your phone calls.” This is the BBC version of the president’s immediate response. And all other government officials’ responses followed the same script. But the news consumers found it extremely difficult to accept the government’s alibi that it had not been doing what was contained in the Guardian’s publication.
How could one have expected news consumers in an environment that had not fully recovered from talks about the IRS targeting of certain conservative groups, the allegation of eavesdropping on the staff of Associated Press (AP) and the Fox News, and the Benghazi Fiasco that had refused to go react? That made the case bad for the government. Snowden’s decision to come out through a Video interview rubbished government’s public relations and damage control efforts.
Luckily for the government, many Americans also had reacted to the Guardian’s publication that they knew all along that the telephone and internet services were under surveillance. People were aware that the Patriot Act, enacted after the 9/11 attacks, had compromised whatever freedom Americans enjoyed. It made the flight of freedom another real loss to terrorism along with human casualties.
Of course, the Democratic Party enthusiasts will ask: “Did not George Bush peep into your phones and the internet? Why must Barack Obama be responsible for everything?”
Outside the partisan game, the New York Times chose to be different. It is not time to follow politicians; when allegations of eavesdropping on reporters’ phones still not completely debated and amid government’s effort to safe its face seeking reporters’ comfort. The New York Times editorial “Obama’s Dragnet” was not unexpected. The paper recalled Obama’s criticism of George Bush in 2007, against surveillance of Americans’ telephone calls. The paper said this administration has lost all credibility.
The argument remains that Americans don’t know who is saying the truth. “With an intercept, you can listen to telephone conversations,” Snowden said. But the government says it is not true. Now, the society is witnessing consequent evil of regimentation that followed 9/11 attack, as contained in Caryl Phillips’ “Color Me English”, critical of society’s misdirection after 9/11.
Some say it is a necessary evil to accept moderate surveillance than terror attack. Others ask whether surveillance can be moderated without abuse? What is to be done about Snowden? Some say extradite and make him face the fullest extent of the the law; others say he should forgiven. But the young man says he is ready for the consequence of his acts, promising to make the argument it a long drawn battle, between him and his home government.
President Barack Obama, defending his administration, said that it had struck the balance between security and privacy. Further, he said the internet communications of US citizens and residents had not been targeted, and “nobody is listening to your phone calls.” This is the BBC version of the president’s immediate response. And all other government officials’ responses followed the same script. But the news consumers found it extremely difficult to accept the government’s alibi that it had not been doing what was contained in the Guardian’s publication.
How could one have expected news consumers in an environment that had not fully recovered from talks about the IRS targeting of certain conservative groups, the allegation of eavesdropping on the staff of Associated Press (AP) and the Fox News, and the Benghazi Fiasco that had refused to go react? That made the case bad for the government. Snowden’s decision to come out through a Video interview rubbished government’s public relations and damage control efforts.
Luckily for the government, many Americans also had reacted to the Guardian’s publication that they knew all along that the telephone and internet services were under surveillance. People were aware that the Patriot Act, enacted after the 9/11 attacks, had compromised whatever freedom Americans enjoyed. It made the flight of freedom another real loss to terrorism along with human casualties.
Of course, the Democratic Party enthusiasts will ask: “Did not George Bush peep into your phones and the internet? Why must Barack Obama be responsible for everything?”
Outside the partisan game, the New York Times chose to be different. It is not time to follow politicians; when allegations of eavesdropping on reporters’ phones still not completely debated and amid government’s effort to safe its face seeking reporters’ comfort. The New York Times editorial “Obama’s Dragnet” was not unexpected. The paper recalled Obama’s criticism of George Bush in 2007, against surveillance of Americans’ telephone calls. The paper said this administration has lost all credibility.
The argument remains that Americans don’t know who is saying the truth. “With an intercept, you can listen to telephone conversations,” Snowden said. But the government says it is not true. Now, the society is witnessing consequent evil of regimentation that followed 9/11 attack, as contained in Caryl Phillips’ “Color Me English”, critical of society’s misdirection after 9/11.
Some say it is a necessary evil to accept moderate surveillance than terror attack. Others ask whether surveillance can be moderated without abuse? What is to be done about Snowden? Some say extradite and make him face the fullest extent of the the law; others say he should forgiven. But the young man says he is ready for the consequence of his acts, promising to make the argument it a long drawn battle, between him and his home government.
HTML Comment Box is loading comments...
