But the fact many Americans believe Snowden should be extradited and charged with espionage or treated as though he is an enemy of the state is discouraging for journalists and watchdog organizations, chiefly because of the precedent this case might establish.

American history is chock-full of investigative reporters, many of whom set off seismic events that shook foundational aspects of our nation to their very core.

Take Upton Sinclair, author of “The Jungle,” a 1906 exposé of the unsanitary working and processing conditions of the meatpacking industry, which was arguably the driving factor in getting the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act.

“I aimed at the public’s heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach,” Sinclair said.

Back then, Sinclair and similarly minded authors were known as muckrakers, individuals driven to expose corruption happening unbeknownst to the average citizen. But I hear you saying, that’s a private industry, what Snowden did was against the federal government, there’s no precedent for a case like this. How about the Watergate scandal, where two journalists from The Washington Post, using a source from within the government, exposed corruption within the highest levels of government and ended up getting a president to resign?

The fact is, Americans deserve to know the truth, whether it is about how their meat is made to whether or not the government is listening in on their flirtacious phone conversations. This idea that the government has the right to invade our privacy is such a post-9/11 state of mind; a state of illogical fear where we believed we could face total annihilation on a daily basis.

We should have moved beyond this paranoia long ago. We simply can’t hand away our civil liberties under the ubiquitous mantra of national security.

Furthermore, the critics of Snowden will contend those without anything to hide have nothing to fear in terms of having their conversations recorded or their emails scanned. The issue with this reasoning is multifaceted: The average citizen’s ignorance of the law shouldn’t be used as a method of prosecution. Things such as digital law and media exchange via the Internet are the Wild West, where no laws are set in stone and things could change in an instant.

Other federal sympathizers point out that a great deal of the information obtained in the NSA system hasn’t been reviewed and never will, invoking imagery of some sort of Indiana Jones vast hanger of unopened crates.

However, the fact is, this information exists. And it can be accessed whenever they feel the need. It would be like giving someone the keys to your car, but they tell you they aren’t going to drive it. If it were a close friend, sure, but this is an enormous governmental body that is liable to change its mind at any given moment. Why give them the opportunity?

Not to be dramatic or engage in hyperbole, but where does it end? Should we have cameras on every block, within every home, to monitor citizens all in the name of preventing another Boston bombing? Should we accept that our emails, or phone conversations, any means of communication or interaction, need to be closely monitored to ensure we aren’t planning the next big attack on America?

When did we revert back to this McCarthy-esque, Red fear era of American politics? When did questioning of spying become an admission of wrongdoing? I don’t believe there is any evidence to suggest that these types of domestic spying programs lead to the halting of tangible attacks. Events such as the bombings in Boston or school shootings happen, but I don’t think these programs aid in preventing them nearly as much as individuals advocating for their continuation would have us believe.

The other part of this is the ongoing where in the world is Carmen Sandiego-esque game the U.S. government is playing with Snowden. Currently he is sitting in an airport in Russia because the U.S. government pulled his passport, effectively stranding him in the frozen tundra. Now he is working on obtaining temporary asylum in Russia until he secures more permanent asylum in Latin America.

When did the land of the free become the land where citizens flee in order to maintain freedom? The NSA and the federal government made the mistake, and now are working to change the conversation from the ethics of domestic spying to a conversation on espionage and why leaking government documents is wrong.

This whole ordeal makes our country look really bad. We are dedicating manpower and political resources to capture one computer whiz who spilled the beans on an illegal practice the government was engaging in. Snowden broke the law to expose law-breaking. And we should be encouraging citizens to root out corruption and illegal activity, not attempting to arrest whistle-blowers and accuse journalists of aiding and abetting criminals.

If Snowden is captured and tried, I fear for the future of investigative journalism and exposing the underbelly of criminal activity. If you knew your boss was watching child pornography, you would tell the authorities. But if you knew the authorities were breaking the law and exposing the corruption would force you to flee from country to country in an effort to maintain your freedom, would you stand up?

R.J. Wolcott is a staff writer at The State News and a journalism senior. Reach him at rj.wolcott@statenews.com.