Whistleblower or Traitor?

Earlier this year, Edward Snowden appeared at the forefront of American (and international) media. A former National SecurityAgency employee, Snowden illegally copied documents while on the job, then leaked NSA reports, files, and data concerning the Agency’s surveillance program to the British newspaper The Guardian.

The information Snowden leaked exposed numerous surveillance programs, including the collection of both American and European citizens’ telephone records.  Following the release of information by Snowden, scrutiny towards Uncle Sam’s “programs” began.  While wiretapping of telephones is legal for law enforcement agencies, wiretapping phones of American citizens requires a warrant.  Snowden’s leaks illuminated the illegal surveillance of telephone calls by the NSA. 

However, since Snowden violated terms of the NSA’s security policy, thus breaking government laws by stealing classified information and distributing it, he is wanted on accounts of espionage and stealing.  Currently, Snowden resides in Russia, where he was granted temporary asylum.

Back in the States, people can’t decide whether to hail Snowden as a ‘hero’ or ‘traitor’.  According to the laws, Snowden is guilty of both counts, however, should he be punished for using his Constitutional rights? Under the First Amendment, Snowden’s speech is protected from governmental repression.  Should “whistleblowers” like Snowden be allowed to expose governmental policies that encroach on American citizen’s privacy without being subjected to criminal repercussions? I’m somewhat at a loss in this debate. While I believe the U.S. government should use necessary means to monitor potential threats both abroad and at home, the wiretapping of telephones certainly limits the amount of privacy to each individual. There’s always the question regarding the slippery slope; if we allow the government to monitor our phone calls, will they want to monitor our Internet, TV, or other electronic communication means in the near future?

Snowden exposed abuses of power by the government, but should he have allowed the newspaper to publish the documents? I’m inclined to think that his methods weren’t flawless; I’m positive U.S. intelligence programs were hurt because enemies know our monitoring processes.  I think that Snowden could have sought other means of calling attention within the NSA to the breach of privacy laws without publishing anything. Only as the last resort, should the smallest amount of information possible be released.

Did Snowden simply break US laws, or is the US government trying to repress his freedom 
of speech?