On October 22, 2013, columnist Tom McCarthy, writing for the Washington Post, wrote a blog on the Washington Post website entitled: Richard Cohen’s reverse on Snowden: not a ‘traitor’, but a whistleblower.

McCarthy reports that Richard Cohen, also columnist for the Washington Post, said that last June, he, Cohen, had written that Snowden will “go down in history not as a whistleblower but ‘as a cross-dressing Little Red Riding Hood’ who is ‘ridiculously cinematic’ and ‘narcissistic.’”  (Italics mine). I interpret Cohen’s comment as suggesting he considered Snowden a traitor in June, and not a whistleblower.

I take umbrage at Cohen’s use of name calling tactics to describe Snowden’s demeanor to his readers. How does describing Snowden’s character as being similar to a “‘cross-dressing Little Red Riding Hood’ who is ‘ridiculously cinematic’ and ‘narcissistic’” support his initial belief that Snowden was a traitor? It doesn’t.

It may be humorous to the reading public, but it most certainly detracts from the seriousness of the allegation in deciding whether or not Snowden is a traitor or a whistleblower. What that kind of name calling also does is short-circuits further analysis and study because Cohen has successfully diminished the seriousness of the offense that possibly Snowden had engaged in.

I feel the subject matter that we’re discussing should be seriously assessed and dealt with accordingly. That is, a determination should be made whether or not his behavior qualifies as a form of espionage activity, where if convicted, he would deserve punishment suitable for that kind of offense, or was his behavior that of a patriotic whistle-blower, whose behavior should be praised and supported by his fellow American citizenry?

This is the fourth blog I’ve written on my website, lykeablebooks4U.com, where Snowden is the subject in the discussion. In all of the considerations, whether or not he’s a traitor or a whistleblower is the subject that is either directly or indirectly being deliberated. Considering the seriousness of Snowden’s most recent leaks, it does deserve further debate and analysis. That’s because the disclosure involved the tapping of heads of states’ phone calls, even when such activities were not prompted by any offensive provocation.

According to columnist McCarthy, he reports his fellow reporter Cohen stated that overtime, his (Cohen) judgment has proven himself as being “just plain wrong.” That’s because Snowden is, “curiously modest and has bent over backward to ensure that the information he has divulged has done as little damage as possible.” Cohen therefore concludes he’s not a ‘traitor’, because Snowden “lacks the requisite intent and menace […]”

Cohen further states, “I am sure though, that he has instigated a worthwhile debate. I am sure that police powers granted the government will be abused over time and that Snowden is an authentic whistleblower …”

Being a clinical psychologist, to determine Snowden’s motivation for doing as he did, I would have to give Snowden a battery of psychological tests and give him an extensive interview to determine the type of personality he possesses, however, I can indeed comment on his overt behavior.

There were other more lawful means he had available to him to vent his anger at how the NSA was run, short of sharing some of the agency’s top-secrets with the public. He could have spoken to one of his superiors and if he wasn’t satisfied with the reception and assistance he sought, he could have consulted with Senator Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate committee on intelligence. However, Snowden did not consider any of those options, but rather, chose to break the oath of secrecy that he took when he started working for the NSA, and therefore, broke the law.

Unquestionably, NSA’s indiscriminate tapping of heads of states’ phone calls is a serious indiscretion that appears to have no justification for doing. Considering the propaganda value and informational secret workings of the NSA department that may be available to our adversaries, is further evidence that Snowden should have gone through the appropriate channels rather than publically reporting, for all to hear, that arbitrary tapping of heads of states’ phone calls had been occurring.

It’s wrong to describe Snowden as a “whistle blower,” or a “hero,” for what he has done to date. That’s because before a definitive decision can be made, it would have had to be specifically demonstrated how what was done to an individual or group of Americans – was it an invasion of their rights and why such action was so grievous? That information would then not only need to be contrasted to how what was done protected them and all of us from a terrorist attack, but also show how in all probability the terrorist attack would have occurred if such measures hadn’t been taken . If that can’t be definitively done, and the United States Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiff and against the government that individual’s rights have indeed been violated, the status quo in preventing terrorism from occurring in this country should continue.

We must remember that it’s impossible to expect our government to honor our wish for security and privacy AND to protect us from terrorist attacks. That’s because, as I’ve said in prior blogs, they operate in opposition to one another. As your security is increased, your freedom and privacy is diminished accordingly. And conversely, we may have to sacrifice our privacy and security if we want to maintain or increase our freedoms.