As I read Ian Duncan's review of the National Security Agency's role as a business-friendly breach mender, it made me grimace ("Suspected leak shines spotlight on the NSA's conflicting missions," Aug. 21). The NSA hardly deserves to be cast as a tired uncle who comes to the rescue of conglomerates while it is pillorying people who dare reveal the other side of NSA's security coin: spying on individual U.S. citizens.
Mr. Duncan mentions, in passing, Edward Snowden. Considering all that has occurred since Mr. Snowden's revelations, why is he not being hailed as another Daniel Ellsberg? And why are others who have revealed secret information not being prosecuted? Sen. Dianne Feinstein publicly revealed secret information about the Central Intelligence Agency. I waited for her to be taken away in handcuffs but nothing happened. I have since read that "equal protection under the law" is unequally applied in the case of whistle-blowers — the law's protection depends upon who does the telling. In the case of Senate whistle-blowers, they are (supposedly) required to pass muster with both the House, Senate and the president before revealing their information. But, as Fox News reported at the time, what it comes down to is this: Senators ultimately can "reveal national security secrets on the Senate floor without the threat of prosecution." Edward Snowden didn't have that recourse, nor do you, nor do I.
So much for living in a democracy where all men are created equal and enjoy equal rights under the law. We're becoming more like "Animal Farm" where some are more equal than others and enjoy unequal benefits. NSA would fit right in.
Phyllis Gunkel