The recent Edward Snowden debacle revealed dangerously misguided policies and government programs that are a cause of concern for any American with a cell phone. Meanwhile, the conviction of Bradley Manning proves our government’s commitment to hiding footage and information about controversial military operations.

Both individuals have been charged with crimes. Manning was found guilty of espionage, theft and fraud, while Snowden was granted asylum by Russia on Aug. 1. Neither of the two whistleblowers are heroes. They both should be fully brought to justice.

Despite the seriousness of the issues raised by Manning and Snowden, they are both guilty of crimes. Manning and Snowden are narcissistic vigilantes who, acting solely on their own personal views, disclosed information potentially harmful to the United States and its citizens.

To be effective, it is necessary that certain government programs and activities be kept secret.

If a soldier in our armed forces refused to go into battle because he didn’t agree with his commanding officer’s order, he would be seriously disciplined. The same rationale should be used in the cases of Snowden and Manning.

How is our government supposed to function if its employees and contractors feel they have the right to leak important classified information whenever they don’t agree with certain programs?

Of course, for the preservation of a free society, governments should be subject to scrutiny and provide a fair amount of transparency. Also, journalists should fully exercise their First Amendment rights and bring to light information about some secret government activity.

The National Security Agency’s Prism program was legally authorized and subject to review by an internal court process. Snowden obviously knew this because he leaked the court order allowing the continuation of the program.

The footage revealed by Manning included an air strike on a group of people. Two of these individuals turned out to be Reuters reporters. The footage is certainly gruesome, but we are in a war. The fact of the matter is that wars are gruesome and military mistakes will be made.

Our system offers government employees legal and legitimate means to voice their concerns. Snowden and Manning could have made use of federal whistleblower laws, met with Congress or protested within their own institutions. Neither tried to pursue any of these avenues.

Instead, they both haphazardly assembled their information and gave it to news sources.

No legitimate news source would take Manning’s information. He finally resorted to giving it to WikiLeaks, the anarchist organization that hides behind the guise of promoting government and corporate transparency.

Ultimately, their goals lost validation.

For example, Snowden’s goal of promoting government transparency, freedom of the press and protection of personal rights is delegitimized by two issues.

First, he fled the United States instead of staying and facing the charges of which he acknowledges that he is guilty, like the famous whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. Second, one of the countries to which he fled was Russia, which is notorious for disregarding the rights he claims to be advocating.

Manning, to his credit, stayed in the United States to face the consequences of his actions. This helps to legitimize his personal goals, but certainly does not diminish the severity of his crimes nor does it free him of guilt.

It is important for people to understand that our system is flawed and some government programs may be unnecessarily probing its citizens. However, the actions of Manning and Snowden are inherently criminal. Their failures to pursue legal courses of action to voice their concerns screams of narcissism. Their actions harmed the United States. They are not heroes.

Michael Hacker is a senior political science major. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at mahacker@syr.edu and followed on Twitter at @mikeincuse.

Published on August 19, 2013 at 3:06 am