- The Washington Times - Friday, July 5, 2013


While it’s understandable that the father of National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden would defend the actions of his son (not unlike the way the mother of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects defended her children), I find some of his wording unpersuasive (“Snowden’s father attempts to broker deal for son with Justice Dept.,” Web, June 28).

In particular, I bristle at the statement “If my son was exposed to information that made him to believe that the U.S. Constitution was being violated, then the release of classified information is certainly not unconstitutional, and the Constitution is the highest law of the land.” Certainly the elder Mr. Snowden knows that if everyone interpreted the Constitution to serve their personal agenda, there would be chaos. We have a Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and learned legal authorities to determine its restraints and limits. The decision of what is and what isn’t constitutional does not belong to a single failed college student.

Saying Edward Snowden was “exposed to information” erroneously characterizes the case, as the younger Mr. Snowden obviously sought out the information and leaked it in contradiction to the oath he took when he assumed his position. Words from his father cannot dissemble the harm that Edward Snowden has done. His flight from justice reinforces the evidence of his guilt.


Silver Spring

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide