The American "Split-Personality" On NSA Spying Exposure And Edward Snowden

(The photo above is by Jim Lo Scalzo and is from the New York Times website.)

I posted yesterday about the decision of a federal judge that the massive spying on American citizens being done by the NSA is unconstitutional. I agree with that decision -- and because of that, I consider Edward Snowden to be a whistleblower hero. If it were not for Mr. Snowden, Americans would still be unaware of the spying being done on them by the NSA.

And there is now evidence that the American people think it was a good thing that this spying was exposed. A new Rasmussen Poll (done on December 14th and 15th by questioning 1,000 nationwide likely voters, with a margin of error of 3 points) shows that 59% of Americans, a significant majority, think it is a good thing that the huge NSA program of spying on Americans was exposed.

Now a reasonable person would think that since a majority of Americans like the spying exposure, and a federal judge has declared it to be unconstitutional, then most people would be ready to admit Mr. Snowden was a heroic whistleblower -- and that the government should consider giving him an amnesty from prosecution for performing this heroic act.

After all, there are only two ways of looking at this. Either the spying exposure was a good thing, and Snowden is a hero who should be given amnesty -- or the spying exposure was a bad thing, and Snowden is a traitor who should be prosecuted. But Americans seem to have a split-personality on this issue. While a significant majority thinks Snowden's exposure of the spying was a good thing, very few of them would call him a hero (12%), or think he should be given amnesty (21%).

To me, this is illogical. I don't understand how anyone could think the exposure should be considered a good thing, but Snowden was a bad person for doing it (and should be prosecuted). Some might say that while it was a good thing, it was still against the law, and that's why he should be punished. I disagree. If it's against the law to expose unconstitutional behavior by our government, then that is a bad law -- and it should be nullified, not enforced.