Bob Schieffer, as reported by Americans Against the Tea Party, this past Sunday labeled NSA whistle blower Edward Snowden as a “narcissist,” insinuating that he was a coward, and said that Snowden, after making public details about the U.S. government’s spying program, decided to ‘run away and hide in China.’ Schieffer continued his criticism by drawing a contrast between Snowden and other historic reformers saying-

“I like people who are willing to stand up to the government. As a reporter, it’s my job to do that from time to time. Some of the people I admire most are in the government. Men and women who led the civil rights movement— Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr.—they are true heroes. I’m not ready to put Edward Snowden in that category. For one thing, I don’t remember Martin Luther King, Jr. or Rosa Parks running off and hiding in China. The people who led the civil rights movement were willing to break the law and suffer the consequences. That’s a little different than putting the nation’s security at risk and running away.”

The contrast seemed to be clear for Schieffer, as well as many others who have denounced Snowden. The young NSA official is undeserving of the title “hero,” they argue, for a number of different reasons. These mainly include the charge that he is a traitor for leaking information which has put everyone at risk and that he is a coward for not choosing to stay in the United States and be prosecuted for his actions.

The first of these charges is ironic, since Democratic apologists have been quick to point out that the NSA “revelations” have been known for quite some time. Therefore, outrage is considerably delayed, especially when it comes from conservatives such as Sean Hannity (as reported by Addicting Info’s Egberto Willies). This is a valid point, since the NSA program has been largely known to anyone who has been paying attention to the alarming developments of eroding civil liberties and rights to privacy in the post 9/11 world. Indeed, spying on citizens of the United States is the logical conclusion of the Patriot Act, not the exception. But it is precisely because this claim is accurate that Schieffer’s first claim that Snowden put us “at risk” is so bogus. Instead of putting the country at risk Snowden has simply offered the details to a program many already knew about, igniting a much needed debate, and offering clarity to a policy that affects us all.

The second claim is much more subjective and depends on how one classifies a “hero,” a “coward,” and a “traitor.” This subjectivity does not rob the terms of importance; it merely highlights the need to pay close attention to the speaker using the words.

Is it so unreasonable for Snowden to fear his own government? With the cases of Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and Aaron Swartz serving as examples of the length our Executive branch is willing to go to punish those who speak up, or who play the role of activist, the answer is a resounding “no.” With GITMO kept open by the fear mongering and obstructionism of the GOP, with extra judicial assassinations of foreign nationals and U.S. citizens, and the limbo of legal rights Americans now “enjoy” courtesy of the Patriot Act, one should be able to sympathize with people who fear a frighteningly powerful imperial executive.

Likewise, Schieffer’s use of MLK and Rosa Parks smacks more of a sophomoric comparison than it does actual historical analysis or deep thought. Instead of comparing the various figures on any real similarity, Schieffer seems to be throwing out names that the majority of Americans will recognize as good and stating that they fail to match up in comparison. Yet this is problematic since the civil rights movement was made up of many more people then simply Rosa Parks and MLK. The countless people who made up the ranks of CORE, SNCC, and the SCLC all had different ideas concerning the “respect of law.” Many, in fact, were civil rights reformers who engaged in civil disobedience as simply a way to change the system. They did not respect the law. They thought the law was horrible. They were willing to go to any length to change it, and it just so happened to be that non-violent civil disobedience was the most effective route to accomplishing that goal. Of course this does not hold true for all reformers. Men like MLK really did hold to the belief in non-violent civil disobedience as a guiding philosophy and not just a political tool. Yet, does that mean the others of the civil rights movement were less heroic? Were they cowards? Schieffer and others would probably counter in the negative, stating that even though their ideas may have been different the majority of the civil rights activist accepted punishment from the courts.

But again this is problematic for anyone who has studied the civil rights movement. For many activists the acceptance of punishment from the court was a tool to change the system. When MLK and other civil rights leaders challenged reformers to “fill up the prisons” of Southern cities he was not doing so because he believed law enforcement and the judicial system were fair and that they would be given an impartial hearing. Instead it was a strategy to peacefully disrupt the government and force change. Therefore Schieffer ignores the reality that when civil rights leaders “faced the consequences of their actions” they were not doing so primarily out of respect of the law but as a way to change the government.

This understanding of the civil rights movement leads to conclusions far different from the ones Schieffer seems to be drawing, where authority of the U.S. should be accepted simply because it is authority. Schieffer’s analysis separates Snowden’s actions from any intrinsic morality and states that for an action to be good or bad it must first be judged by the system of power, one in which many reformers would argue is in no place to actually decide the true ethical nature of an action. True, it can decide the legality but legality and morality are not the same, just as sacrifice is not completely interchangeable with courage.

Ultimately the “character” of Snowden will be determined in the court of public opinion and as Debbie Montesano has shown this will be an ongoing process. But in the end Snowden’s character is really a meaningless distraction to the larger story of how comfortable we are with the U.S. government ignoring the fourth amendment of the Constitution. This alarming development in our society underlines a point worthy of thought- perhaps instead of arguing who our heroes are, who should be labeled a coward, and who is a traitor, we should instead divorce ourselves from the cult of personality and pay more attention to the laws and policies that govern our lives.

Schieffer is free to pontificate as much as he wants, as is anyone. This includes Daniel Ellsberg, who actually stood up to the government and doesn’t just claim to have done so, and who applauds Snowden.

A final thought to part on – In insinuating Snowden is a coward, how hollow does Schieffer’s claim ring? During the editorial (which can be watched in full here, or below), Schieffer admits to being afraid of another 9/11 attack. Although his fears are understandable, and the loss of life and terror he and everyone else experienced real, how fair is it to admit acting out of fear and then labeling another person a coward? Put another way, who is more cowardly- the person who says they are scared and admits to allowing that fear to influence their judgment, or the person who thinks something is wrong and acts on it?

The answer, as stated above, is a subjective one and goes further in telling more about the judge then the object being deliberated.

Here’s the video: