This resolution expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the National Security Agency's bulk collection telephone records program was unconstitutional and that all federal charges against Edward Snowden should be dropped. (Mr. Snowden disclosed information about the program and was subsequently charged for unauthorized disclosure of national defense information, unauthorized disclosure of classified communication intelligence, and theft of government property).
The resolution challenges the legality of the NSA's actions and underscores the need for protecting whistleblowers who expose illegal activities within the government. By advocating for the dismissal of charges against Snowden, the bill suggests a movement towards greater accountability and reform in government surveillance practices. If adopted, it could lead to a shift in how whistleblowers are treated under federal law, advocating for a more lenient and protective approach to those who reveal governmental misconduct.
HR34 is a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Federal Government should drop all charges against Edward Snowden. The resolution brings attention to Snowden's disclosures in 2013, which revealed the extensive bulk collection of Americans' telephone records by the National Security Agency (NSA) without proper oversight or justification. It emphasizes that this program not only was carried out under questionable legality but also did not significantly contribute to preventing terrorist activities, as confirmed by various judicial rulings and oversight reports over the years.
Notable points of contention surrounding HR34 involve the implications of legitimizing whistleblowing actions that expose national security protocols and whether Snowden's actions, classified as illegal under the Espionage Act, should be justified in the context of public interest. Supporters argue that his disclosures have sparked essential discussions around civil liberties and government transparency, while critics contend that allowing him to evade charges could set a dangerous precedent, potentially encouraging future breaches of national security protocols.
Armed Forces and National Security