Goodbye, Mr. Snowden

Last month I wrote a piece about Edward Snowden in which I suggested that his decision to flee the scene and not face punishment after disclosing secret US intelligence information was inconsistent with the country's long history of dissent and civil disobedience. I further suggested that such actions would tend to undermine his moral standing on the issue. Many of you offered comments agreeing or disagreeing.

Now, Mr. Snowden has gone a step further along this path by accepting asylum from Russia. As the New York Times notes in an editorial:

Asylum is for people who are afraid to return to their own country because they fear persecution, unlawful imprisonment or even death because of their race, their ethnicity, their religion, their membership in particular social or political groups, or their political beliefs.

Mr. Snowden undoubtedly fears returning home because he would be arrested and prosecuted. But those fears do not qualify him for asylum. 

Mr. Snowden has unfortunately made a mockery of his principles.  The Times further notes:

And does he really feel safer in a country where Mr. Putin, an increasingly authoritarian leader, has jailed and persecuted his critics?

I'm not saying it would be easy for him back in America.  The Administration will surely throw the book at him to deter others who might consider similar acts.  But we do have a vigorous and independent judiciary, with multiple levels of appeal, as well freedom of speech and press that could be harnessed to build a political coalition in support.  But, by accepting the help of a despotic regime without those structures, Mr. Snowden has forfeited any chance of using the resiliency of the American judicial and political system to help him and his cause.