ON HEROISM AND SANBORN
The
Japanese struck Pearl Harbor and we citizens were devastated. In the maelstrom
of reports, we were heartened by the report of a genuine American hero, Colin
Kelly. He, we were told, dived his bomber down the smokestack of a Japanese
capital ship and blew it to pieces and we went wild with joy. His son was voted
an automatic entrance into West Point and a Brooklyn machine gunner on his
plane also achieved some notoriety.
Even at thirteen, it seemed dubious to me,
but along with the rest of the country, I believed. Later on we learned that
our country had lied to us, that the Colin Kelly story was fiction but by then
things looked better and we were not too distressed.
The
story had all the elements of heroism, personal sacrifice for a worthy cause.
Still, the Japanese Kamikaze pilots did exactly the same thing and we called
them all sorts of names, but heroes was not one. German pilots rammed American
bombers, again heroic from the German perspective but I think we called them
cowards on the home front.
An
essential part of heroism is the hero’s vulnerability; an invincible character
surely does not qualify. Achilles could not be defeated in battle; all he did
was chop down the enemy, hardly heroic. Superman’s authors had to invent
kryptonite to add vulnerability. Batman? Totally vulnerable so he fully
qualifies.
In
truth, there are two defining characteristics of a hero. The above is one; the
other simply is the hero of a story. More precisely, it is the protagonist, but
what do we generally call characters that do great things in our stories? You
got it: heroes.
The
general notion: “He that fights and runs away lives to fight another day,” does
not fit our concept of hero . . . all of which takes us to Sanborn.
The
details about Sanborn are somewhat murky. We know he worked for a company that
contracted with the CIA to do what I have no idea. Suddenly, he disappears with
many documents, his story exposing the NSA surveillance systems appears in a
British newspaper and he has zipped off to Hong Kong. In a public announcement,
he tells us that the people have a right to know about their loss of privacy
and states he is willing to face the consequences. Somewhat irrelevantly, he
also tells us that he trusts the Hong Kong courts more than American courts,
thus he is now an expert of jurisprudence.
There
is some talk that he has given the Chinese government some information but he
also has exposed that the UK has spied on friendly and not-so-friendly
governments. In spite of his willingness to face the consequences of his
behavior, he continues to hide. There is no hint about what resources he has. I
mean, it costs money to live and I doubt he qualifies for Hong Kong charity. Surely,
before he made his move, he amassed sufficient funds for him to live and apparently
comfortably. This clearly was not a spontaneous adventure but a carefully
planned one.
Well,
here there is an extraordinary argument about whether he is a hero or a
traitor. On the hero side are the extreme right and the extreme left wings,
both of which hate government secrecy. On the traitor side are those who insist
that the NSA has acted lawfully, that he has broken laws and should punished.
Of
course, there are not certainties about such matters. A case can be made that
however he did it; he opened up a debate long overdue. Senator Udall has already , or
will introduce legislation that will curtail the Patriot Act and I think that
is a good idea though it probably stands not a chance. But, now we are hearing
that our allies are less likely to share information with us because we leak
too easily. Shaking our relationship with our friends cannot be good.
I come
down on the side of traitor. Had he been willing to face the consequences, hero
would have been better. In the event, he seems a bit too self-aggrandizing for
my taste.
Is this
fellow named Sanborn a hero?
Or
simply a traitorous zero
He
exposed many secrets
And
expressed no regrets
The
ethics of his act seem clearo.