Edward Snowden and the Rule of Law - Assignment Example

Fallacies Name: Tutor: Institution: Date: Fallacies Topic one: Edward Snowden and the “rule of law” Identification and logical analysis of the key arguments structure, premises, conclusion With regards to Edward Snowden and the rule of law, professor Stone puts forward diverse reasons towards underpinning his standpoint regarding Snowden criminality. The primary foundation of Stone’s argument concerns the tenet that no government official with unelected tag on him should arrogate himself or herself the obligation to make information disclosures regardless of the perceived benefits that such pronouncements may have. It then follows that Edward Snowden took upon himself to make disclosures which otherwise falls on other people’s purview hence his actions qualifies him as a criminal.1 This observation is premised on the idea that disclosing government information without permission equals acts of betrayal since the information disclosed by Snowden was classified. In other words, being a public official Mr. Snowden was entitled to respect the rule of law just as the rule of law has superiority over all citizens including the president. On the other side, Carter also highlights some critical observations in response to Professor Stone’s assertions. According to Carter, there is no place written that unelected officials should not make any information disclosures such as the one made by Mr. Snowden. As such, Snowden did not infringe on any rules. Carter further argues that since the classified information had severe impacts on the basic rights of citizens, Mr. Snowden did what was right by informing the general public of the government operations. Looking at the diverse arguments presented in relation to the topic, certain fallacies can be discerned on both sides. Starting with Mr. Snowden, it is fallacious to argue that disclosure of any information amounts to criminality since some information may be detrimental to the society in general. However, since Snowden was a public official figure who took an oath of office, it also becomes invidious for such an officer to disclose the information he should be keeping. Therefore, it is a fallacy in Carter’s argument that Snowden undertook his moral duty by informing the public what the government was doing with certain information. Put differently, the fact that Snowden was an official figure means that he should only act according to what his superiors consider right. Analysis of relevant factual claims or assumptions, including data and causal theory used to interpret such data; looking at the content of the evidence Based on the evidence content, there are material factual claims, as well as assumptions that both Stone and Carter use to articulate their views. Professor Stone uses the casual theory and assumption that the law is above everyone and when Snowden accepted to be an intelligence officer, he is supposed to obey the law with respect to his duties. In his perception, Stone makes the assumption that Snowden should have respected those in position of authority such as the president. This is to say it is individuals such as the president who have the duty to talk about classified information. Snowden consider the action of Snowden as that of someone who betrays his master. On his part, Carter also makes distinct assumptions in connection to Stone’s arguments. One of the factual claims advanced by Carter is that the rule of law due to its superiority does not allow individuals to be quiet when they detect something wrong. 2 This implies that the actions of individuals and state officers should be in accordance with the rights of individuals and if one identifies any wrongs, and then they are entitled to report them. Carter points to the data of 1945 to 1946 when Justice Jackson rejected the Nazi war criminals claims that they undertook their operations because they were following orders from above. Jackson argued that an order from the government does not in any way absolve an individual from upholding moral duties. The assumption employed by Carter on his evidence regards the fact because the Government adopted an action that infracted on American citizens and others, Snowden indeed took the right decision by informing the public of these activities. Put in another way, Snowden merely reported an illegal activity he thought the government was engaging in. Thus, he upheld his moral responsibility by not wanting to become part of the government conspiracy to rob citizens of their rights. Another assumption that originates from Carter’s claim is that disclosing information on a matter that affects the constitutional rights of individuals does not in any way expose America to security risks. Identification and consideration of ethical, political or economic ideas underlying the arguments On both sides of the arguments divide, given ethical, political, and economic ideas can be seen as underlying the arguments. Starting with professor Stone, his argument has ethical and political undertones to it 3. From the ethical perspective, Stone contends that it is unethical for a public official to go against established canons and make announcements that does not fall among his designated obligations. Stone’s perception of Snowden is that of a selfish individual who decides to override the rule of law by taking the responsibility preserved for those who are elected representatives in the United States. This means that Snowden did not consider the ethical conducts desired in his office as a public official. On the political front, Stone gives the potential of security threats by American enemies as a reason why the disclosures by Snowden could impact on the United States or its citizens negatively. In the same vein, Carter the arguments advanced by Carter also have both ethical and political feel to them. To Carter’s mind, actions of Snowden smacks of ethical and moral courage, and this qualifies him as a person who observes the rule of law in its right way. Carter also states that it is not unethical when an officer discloses a wrong done by those in authority. On the contrary, it was the spying a4ctions of the state which constituted unethical act. The arguments of Carter also points to political perspectives in that Snowden’s actions are considered to help in the preservation of rule of law which protects the constitutional rights of Americans. Analysis of relevant legal claims or assumptions One of the legal claims presented by Stone in his argument is that Mr. Snowden participated in criminal acts by stealing government property, wilful disclosing of classified information to unauthorised individuals and disclosing of information respecting national defence. The fact that he considered that such information should not be classified and relayed it to others meant that he did not respect the executive arm of the government, the judiciary and the Congress. The very fact that he undertook the decision upon himself makes him a criminal with wrong intentions. These legal claims invoke the espionage act which prohibits individuals from undertaking acts that may jeopardize the state or its citizens through information disclosure. In the same breath, Carter also describes certain legal claims in connection to the Espionage Act. First, Snowden had the opportunity to offer an enemy of the United States the information or sell them for a fortune to another foreign intelligence service but he did not do that. Subsequently, invoking the Espionage act to charge Snowden has pervasive elements in it, and is illegal. Since motives are fundamental in criminal law, Snowden actions did not demonstrate that he had intentions to profit from the disclosures or to aid another foreign intelligence service to the detriment of the United States. Nonetheless, the Espionage Act represents a widely worded statute which gives the government the leeway to address leaked classified information as crimes irrespective of the leakers’ intent. Secondly, the Carter also hypothesise the legal claim that in certain situations , individuals moral judgements can make them break a law provided such actions are aimed at benefiting the wider society. To this end, Carter consider Snowden’s actions to be legal. My considered thoughts and proposals in relation to these arguments Considering the arguments offered in relation to Snowden case, I also have few observations and proposals to make. For starters, it is imperative that all understand the fact that Mr. Snowden disclosed the classified information of intrusions to the public through the forums he used such as the Guardian and not the enemies of America. In subsequence, it stands to reason that he was only acting on the interests of citizens on the principles of civil disobedience. A criminal charge against him may therefore be illegal granted that such information should not have been classified. Having said so, Mr. Snowden as a public figure had the ethical obligation to respect the Judiciary, the executive arm of the government and the Congress. The least he could have done was to initiate deliberations with the stakeholders in the matter before adopting the position he took. The fact that he decided to make the responsibility to become his own does not portray him as obedient citizen. Therefore, I propose that Mr. Snowden be charged on the accounts that he failed to uphold the moral principles of his duties regardless of his intentions. Read More