Snowden’s actions provoke debate on merits of surveillance, covert drone policy

Snowden’s actions  provoke debate on merits of surveillance, covert drone policy

Michael Bragg

To the Editor:

I would like to post my disagreement with Kevin Griffin’s op-ed regarding the Nobel Peace Prize nominations, titled “Snowden’s efforts don’t quite warrant Nobel Prize.”

Edward Snowden has leaked documents that make apparent the United States’ tragic level of usage of Predator drones.

In 2009, President Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize shortly after his inauguration. Surely he has accomplished much in the goal of disarming countries of nuclear weapons, and making economic pacts with Southeast Asia and Oceania nations.

However, he has also engaged in disapproving, imperialistic actions.

The increased counterinsurgency measure in the Afghanistan war and the “kill list” that he picks and chooses from are the main actions that do not warrant such a “Peace” Prize.

Obama has executive power over the Central Intelligence Agency, the agency that conducts drone strikes that claim citizen deaths as “collateral damage.”

Certainly if the president were to promote world peace, would it not be more diplomatic to arrange agreements with Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen to work bilaterally with each respective country to combat terrorism activities?

Yes, Snowden’s whistleblowing was mostly geared at checking the exponential growth of surveillance on American citizens.

However, at the same time, his deed allowed for the public to learn how the National Security Agency and CIA are working intimately to conduct drone operations that nevertheless violate both international law and the United Nations Charter.

His work was meant to inspire a nation to debate the merits of multi-fold U.S. governmental actions that Americans were largely unaware about, but would subsequently most likely condemn.

Ronald Kolodziej
Junior actuarial sciences major