We knew about the metadata collection since 2007. We knew the NSA spied on other countries since forever.

Snowden abandoned his girlfriend, his family and apparently never had any friends so his contention that he is important is suspect.

It's really that simple.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]It made sense when we were children. Not so much now.
Talk to a stranger today. You might learn something. You might help someone.[/center][/font][hr]

that he had nothing new.

He also kept boxes in his garage.

rights?

What did we DO when the criminals were exposed is what you should be asking, not telling us they were exposed before. We KNOW that, we also know why they are not all in jail. Do you?

Go on. Get to it. If you want the law to change, um...change it! But the law currently allows the metadata records to be retained. And there are no Constitutional protections for non-citizens so I have never been able to understand why Snowden's 'revelations' are so important.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

unconstitutional. It is shameful that the 'law allows' violations of the Constitution of the US so long as our elected officials recognize it as the law of the land and continue to swear to 'defend and protect' it in their oaths of office. They have violated those oaths by supporting any law that assaults the rights of the people.

It may not matter to you that we are losing our democracy, but you are by far in the minority on that.

That's a very clever way to rationalize giving column inches to gossip about a non-important person.

Petulance however, while not as good copy as Mockery, is yet more accurate.

1. You're getting something out of spying on everybody and don't want to lose it. These haters are part of the Military Industrial Spying Complex.

2. He embarrassed a Democratic administration. These haters would love Snowden if he'd blown the whistle while the Republicans were in control.

They disrupt threads to derail conversation. I avoid clicking on some poster's threads as they are filled with the small but vocal echo chamber pushing their agenda which is in my view anti many of the principles this country was founded on. They make this board suck.They prevent detailed and productive conversation which this board used to be so wonderful at providing the reader.

I'm not a Snowdenista but I do think he did a good thing in exposing the NSA's domestic spying. Where I think he and Greenwald went wrong is in revealing intricacies of our international covert operations.

On everyone of these Snowden threads the Eddie fan's don't seem to want to accept that this is a TWO-PART ISSUE. On the domestic side, imo, he is a legitimate whistle blower.

As far as the international revelations, I say it is not the business of a somewhat naive 29-year-old to make the decision to give away details of his own country's international covert operations. It's that simple. He wasn't elected. It was not his decision to make, especially when just a few years earlier when Bush was in office he was vehemently against this sort of thing.

When Obama came in, the right-leaning Snowden had a dramatic change of heart that has made him a hero to some progressives. If you want to know more just read the transcripts below from an online correspondence Snowden (TheTrueHOOHA) had with a User19 in 2009:


"This is the background of Snowden and his position on this very issue...

Another topic made him even angrier. The Snowden of 2009 inveighed against government officials who leaked classified information to newspapers – the worst crime conceivable, in Snowden’s apoplectic view. In January of that year the New York Times published a report on a secret Israeli plan to attack Iran. It said that President Bush had ‘deflected’ a request from Israel for specialised bunker-busting bombs to carry out the risky mission. Instead Bush had told the Israelis he had authorised ‘new covert action’ to sabotage Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons programme.

The Times said its story was based on 15 months’ worth of interviews with current and former US officials, European and Israeli officials, other experts and international nuclear inspectors.

TheTrueHOOHA’s response, published by Ars Technica, is worth quoting in full:


<TheTrueHOOHA> HOLYSHIT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/ washington/11iran.html?_r=1&hp
<TheTrueHOOHA> WTF NYTIMES
<TheTrueHOOHA> Are they TRYING to start a war?
<TheTrueHOOHA> Jesus christ
<TheTrueHOOHA> they’re like wikileaks
<User19> they’re just reporting, dude.
<TheTrueHOOHA> They’re reporting classified shit
<User19> Shrugs
<TheTrueHOOHA> about an unpopular country surrounded by enemies already engaged in a war
<TheTrueHOOHA> and about our interactions with said country regarding planning sovereignty violations of another country
<TheTrueHOOHA> you don’t put that shit in the NEWSPAPER
<User19> Meh
<TheTrueHOOHA> moreover, who the fuck are the anonymous sources telling them this?
<TheTrueHOOHA> those people should be shot in the balls.
<TheTrueHOOHA> ‘But the tense exchanges also prompted the White House to step up intelligence-sharing with Israel and brief Israeli officials on new American efforts to subtly sabotage Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, a major covert program that Mr. Bush is about to hand off to President-elect Barack Obama.’
<TheTrueHOOHA> HELLO? HOW COVERT IS IT NOW? THANK YOU
<User19> Meh
<TheTrueHOOHA> I wonder how many hundreds of millions of dollars they just completely blew.
<User19> You’re over-reacting. It’s fine.
<TheTrueHOOHA> It’s not an overreaction. They have a HISTORY of this shit
<User19> with flowers and cake.
<TheTrueHOOHA> these are the same people who blew the whole ‘we could listen to osama’s cell phone’ thing the same people who screwed us on wiretapping over and over and over again. Thank God they’re going out of business.
<User19> the NYT?
<TheTrueHOOHA> Hopefully they’ll finally go bankrupt this year. yeah.

A few minutes later the chat continues:


<User19> It’s nice they report on stuff.
<TheTrueHOOHA> I enjoy it when it’s ethical reporting.
<TheTrueHOOHA> political corruption, sure
<TheTrueHOOHA> scandal, yes
<User19> is it unethical to report on the government’s intrigue?
<TheTrueHOOHA> VIOLATING NATIONAL SECURITY? no
<User19> meh.
<User19> national security.
<TheTrueHOOHA> Um,YEEEEEEEEEEEES.
<TheTrueHOOHA> that shit is classified for a reason
<TheTrueHOOHA> it’s not because ‘oh we hope our citizens don’t find out’
<TheTrueHOOHA> it’s because ‘this shit won’t work if iran knows what we’re doing.’
<User19> Shrugs
<TheTrueHOOHA> ‘None would speak on the record because of the great secrecy surrounding the intelligence developed on Iran.’
<TheTrueHOOHA> direct. quote.
<TheTrueHOOHA> THEN WHY ARE YOU TALKING TO REPORTERS?!
<TheTrueHOOHA> ‘Those covert operations, and the question of whether Israel will settle for something less than a conventional attack on Iran, pose immediate and wrenching decisions for Mr. Obama.’
<TheTrueHOOHA> THEY’RE NOT COVERT ANYMORE
<TheTrueHOOHA> Oh you’ve got to be fucking kidding me. Now the NYTimes is going to determine our foreign policy?
<TheTrueHOOHA> And Obama?
<TheTrueHOOHA> Obama just appointed a fucking POLITICIAN to run the CIA!
<User11> yes unlike every other director of CIA ever
<User11> oh wait, no
<TheTrueHOOHA> I am so angry right now. This is completely unbelievable.

The ‘fucking politician’ was Leon Panetta, appointed by Obama in 2009 despite his evident lack of intelligence background. The appointment was supposed to draw a line under the intelligence scandals of the Bush years – the renditions, the secret CIA prisons and the illegal wiretapping.


This should be required reading for you Snowden supporters.

Snowden evidently knew of WikiLeaks, a niche transparency website whose story would later intersect with his own. But he didn’t like it. At this point, Snowden’s antipathy towards the New York Times was based on his opinion that ‘they are worse than Wikileaks’. Later, however, he would go on to accuse the paper of not publishing quickly enough and of sitting on unambiguous evidence of White House illegality. These are somewhat contradictory views.

Certainly Snowden’s anti-leaking invective seems stunningly at odds with his own later behaviour. But there is a difference between what the Times arguably did – reveal details of sensitive covert operations – and what Snowden would do in 2013. Snowden nowadays explains: ‘Most of the secrets the CIA has are about people, not machines and systems, so I didn’t feel comfortable with disclosures that I thought could endanger anyone.’"


In 2009 he thought covert operations leakers "should be shot in the balls" (his words). Quite a change in philosophies he had from 2009 to 2013 don't you think?

I know I myself haven't went from being a progressive to a teabagger since 2009, yet Snowden has somehow managed just the reverse of this in his thinking from that of authoritarian right winger to a progressive beacon of human rights.

IMO that just doesn't happen. Obama happened.

violation of the Constitution of the US?

THAT is the topic, don't have the slightest interest in the political views of Whistle Blowers. Most of the recent Whistle Blowers were Republicans, Drake and Binney, yet they cared more about their COUNTRY in the end than about their political party.

What has been revealed is SHOCKING in a Democracy, even more SHOCKING is that ANYONE left or right or in between could even try to excuse it, yet some have been struggling very hard to do that.

It won't matter, in the end, unless we have already lost this democracy, which I do not believe, justice will be done for the American people. And the perpetrators of these egregious crimes will hopefully spend time behind bars, which is where they belong.

what Snowden revealed about domestic spying was a good thing. See my quote below:

"I'm not a Snowdenista but I do think he did a good thing in exposing the NSA's domestic spying. Where I think he and Greenwald went wrong is in revealing intricacies of our international covert operations."

Again, this Snowden story has a dichotomy that his fans don't seem to want acknowledge. Revealing domestic spying by the NSA is admirable, revealing intricacies of his own country's international covert operations is not, and IMO, where he and Greenwald went off the rails and came dangerously close to sedition — some say it is sedition, even treason. As it lies now, I'll just call him a defector.

It seems Greenwald recruited him and the naive, 29-year-old right winger was off to the races working to take classified info about not only domestic spying but also about our international covert operations from his job. As we know he then fled the country, most likely with Greenwald's assistance.

It worked out well for Greenwald — what with his newly financed media venture and the press coverage and humanitarian awards. For Snowden, not so much.

Wonder if Eddie, now holed up in Russia and having to periodically come out and kiss Putin's . . . er ah . . . extoll Putin's and Russia's human rights virtues, is thinking he might have been used just a touch?

Nearly all the Whistle Blowers since Bush first occupied the WH and began the destruction of this country's Constitutional foundation, have been Republicans. Primarily because they were the position to see what was really going on.

Sometimes, in the 'affairs of men' party politics no longer matter. That is a luxury that is no longer viable when a country is clearly under attack. At which point CITIZENS do the right thing.

I see you are still focused on the now, considering the threat to this country, relatively irrelevant issue of which team someone belongs. That would mean that you have not yet figured out just how serious things are regarding maintaining this democracy.

Snowden, Drake, Binney, Tice among others, are beyond the luxury of playing 'for the team'. Because they witnessed the crimes personally.

And Because all of them DID grasp the seriousness of what was being done to this country.

And no matter how many people exposed the crimes, no matter how they went about it, following all the rules, going through the proper channels, it was THEY, not the criminals, whose lives were destroyed, confirming that their fears for this country were more than justified.

I AGREE WITH THE EXPOSURE OF THE DOMESTIC SPYING AND THE DANGER IT REPRESENTS TO THE COUNTRY.

Again, I agree with that.

What I don't agree with is his revealing the intricacies of our international covert operations.

There are two issues — the domestic revelations which I agree with, and the international operations expose. Snowden's fans seem to want to ignore that he quite possible committed sedition with his international info gathering revelations.

First of all, we live in a Global World and the NSA and the Corporations that appear to control everything, operate in a Global World. We the people have been left far, far behind still living in a world where we think what our Government does affects us only. OUR GOVERNMENT operates on the world stage.

Everything our government and its agencies does, affects people all over the world, mostly negatively. Once they declared war on the world, claimed the right to go into every country in the world and murder its citizens, if they wanted to, see Bush/Cheney, we lost the right to protect the actions of these criminals, and they ARE criminals.

Put it this way, if you witnessed someone you knew planning to cause harm to someone you did not know, would you try to warn that person, or out of loyalty to the person you knew was committing crimes, would you protect that person because he was your friend?

Your remarks about Greenwald are not even worthy of addressing. Most Progressive Dems have been familiar with him for almost ten years, HE has not changed, since the days when the Left considered him to be one of the most credible bloggers who was exposing Bush and his war criminals.

To try to insinuate that he is manipulated Snowden is not just a CT, it totally contradicts the known facts about this situation. One of which is, Snowden handed over the material had and is no longer needed by Greenwald or anyone else to get this information out.

He was smart enough not to travel with those documents.

We are facing a real threat to this democracy and whoever helps to expose the corruption, lies, violations of law, by our own government, deserves a medal.

I supposed Putin's Russia and all the other countries that also have covert operations will cease and desist as well>

C'mon! You know that's not going to happen.

International laws, due to these revelations, to curb the use of the technology now available. The world has not kept up with the development of all this technology. Neither have the laws. For that to happen it was necessary for world to learn how dangerous it is in a world where there are no rules.

Laws won't stop criminals, but they can deter abuses. Right now there is nothing to deter those who will abuse their power, in every country with the ability to do so.

people in charge of the spying. We are all pretty much the same to them. Between the semantics, making up their own definitions and code words for their unconstitutional and otherwise illegal spying activities, the NSA is nothing more than a renegade agency, operating outside the law, both here and abroad.

doesn't bother you?

Plus the fact that divulging those very things disturbed the hell out of him (the libertarian bagger) when Bush was in office.

All bets were off however when Obama took over.

Huh . . . how does a leopard change spots so quickly?

The last decade has been a real eye opener.

of Snowden. It's a personality cult.

Just two faces of the same thing, authoritarianism.

that condemned war crimes passionately and would, as soon as we were able to get them in power, diligently pursue war criminals, end Bush's anti-Constitutional policies and begin the process of restoring the rights that were taken away, not by terrorists, but by Bush/Cheney.

How naive that was. We were it appears, just being used for political purposes.

The exposure of the real truth has been for the best imo.

I definitely never thought I would see excuses for torture, for war criminals, for Wall St criminals, but we have. And now imo, we are better equipped to make decisions regarding the future of this country.

to him more so than any principles.

Attack the person, deflect from the information, make it about something else and assign motives to attack, etc.

It's not about Snowden because Snowden is not about the NSA. At all. NSA-gate is about Obama, period, and Snowball, Greenbag, Assleak and the rest are creatures of ODS personifed and writ large by unsavory persons who should get no love on DU. Unfortunately, there's a sucker born every minute, and quite a few wind up here, bless their souls. Present company excepted naturally!

Hope that helps!

No, it is about the NSA. This doesn't fall all on Obama, and Obama's sycophants should realize that. The problem is bigger than Obama and didn't start with him. The suckers are the ones who don't understand that.

And it doesn't matter who started it or who does it, it's still wrong.

It is a mix of simple-minded fans, paid shills and other party-liners.

They are unable, unwilling, or not allowed to support or recognize anything critical of the Obama administration. I don't think they actually hate Snowden, I just don't think they are critical thinkers. It is Obama first, nothing else second.

through both the MSM and infiltration of social media/political discussion boards on the internet.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4628548

It might be because he stole national security documents while defecting to a country that hates us.

rescinded his passport thus making it impossible to leave the Moscow airport. And given that he brought nothing of value to Russia, how is that relevant?

It is a statement of fact.

The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Show me evidence that Snowden defected to Russia.

Here is the definition of Defect:

verb
past tense: defected; past participle: defected

1.
abandon one's country or cause in favor of an opposing one.
"he defected to the Soviet Union after the war"

Snowden was prevented from leaving Russia by the United States. He clearly stated that he was trying to reach South America. You may have some basis for claiming he was attempting to defect to Ecuador, but to claim he was a "defector" to Russia is demonstrably false.

don't need to make sense, thus: "Baloney"

He gave them to journalists in order to shed light on a massive unconstitutional spying program. He is a whistle blower.

hypocrite Russia has to offer except maybe Putin.


BuzzFeed Benny ✔ @bennyjohnson
Follow
Snowden condemning unwanted and illegal government interference in peoples lives from Russia
6:42 AM - 10 Mar 2014 104 Retweets 41 favorites •Reply
•Retweet
•Favorite

TOD

The partisan-colored glasses are worn by many DUers, unfortunately.

You should be so proud.

Clearly, you shape the opinions of no one here. Your overkill campaigns -- which turn off pretty much everyone that might have an open mind either way -- only make sense if you're being paid by the post.

or don't speak at all

campaigns -- which turn off pretty much everyone

doesn't like the message.

(Democrat and Republican and almost half of independents) want Snowden arrested??! And it apparently doesn't even matter that most of those folks have never heard of or have ever visited DU!

Girl, you have POWA.

Here are some more recent numbers http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/01/02/clemency-for-edward-snowden-the-public-is-skeptical/

Hell, they're probably both run by the NSA

suuuure they do

or this

but I don't get all of the love and adoration he gets here. He just seems somewhat grandiose (delusional? Russia is a big supporter of human rights? WTF?) and, frankly, I'm sort of underwhelmed by his claims, some of which have described capabilities or things that might have been discussed at one point but never utilized. Still waiting until we get some confirmation about his claims that the government is watching our thoughts form. His motives and timing seem suspicious as well. I am (so far) failing to lose a lot of sleep over what he has disclosed so far. Maybe my hair should be on fire but it just isn't.

Website sued them for copyright infringement. And DU Admins won the Case. It's "Electronic Freedom Foundation Website" and they are protectors of Internet Freedom. This explains Snowden Revelations with Video and interactive website informing of you of what Snowden Revealed and why it's important.

If you are a serious inquirer you will find it informative.

https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/how-it-works

Though you will see a great deal of it on display, by virtue of your having mentioned the hated name, and all of it from the usual suspects. In fact, there's Post #1 already. Never fails.

It certainly serves the NSA though, doesn't it? We talk about Snowden about five times more than we talk about the extraconstitutional undemocratic agency of war that actually monitors and stores this discussion.

But...some of us still believe their are honest "questioners" who don't have the time or background through Bush Years and Before to have the sense to know the History of CIA/FBI/NSA.

So...we get duped into trying to give more information to people whose motives aren't always innocent.

For two reasons:

1. They are obviously using an empty pejorative to smear Greenwald.

2. If they actually believe Greenwald is a Libertarian, then they have demonstrated that they lack basic critical thinking skills and anything they post subsequently can be dismissed out-of-hand.

I felt that I should remain open to everyone's views.

But then, over time, the same group of disingenuous persons kept posting the same exaggerations, smears and outright falsehoods over and over and over - even after having those falsehoods continuously debunked. The "Greenwald is a Libertarian" nonsense is the best example of this: repeatedly shown to be false, yet repeatedly being stated as fact. I reached the conclusion that these people are being paid to lie, and that is definitely worth a place on the ignore list.

Once the cacophony of paid shills went away, DU is a much more interesting place.

Rand Paul is anti-NSA too, but that doesn't mean we should automatically like him, does it?

Unless you can tell me what that reason is that is the same. You didn't say what the reason actually is but I don't see how there can be a similar one for all three of the people named.

for the Two Minute Hate.

What is harder to explain is how low many on DU are willing to go to smear Snowden.

Anyone who offers criticism of him, his policies, his decisions, or any of his appointees is greeted with visceral hatred by everyone in that group.

Anyone who offers criticism of him, his felonious behavior, his delusions, or any of his motives is greeted with visceral hatred by everyone in that group.


Damn. Haven't done that in a while. Still works!

actions, not him as a man for no reason.

The Snowden supporters can argue why they support him and what actions of this they do or do not support.

The Obama supporters who are so emotionally tied to him rarely offer any rebuttal to valid policy criticisms and never find anything to criticize about Obama. We all know there are several valid criticisms to be made of Obama's policies.

The thought experiment that I propose is to consider how this community would have reacted had the discloses occurred under the W administration. Not that Snowden would be loved but he'd be held up as a "hero" without the same kind of instant debasing.

That's my belief anyway and I do expect to be flamed for having it but then I can't help how others think. I think for myself and don't follow a prescription or a party line.

Snowden didn't actually leak what everyone says he did.

The story is he revealed spying on Americans. And so lots of people are up in arms, claiming the government is spying on us. Anyone who disagrees is only an Obama lover!!!!

Except that isn't actually true.

Take a look at the documents that were actually leaked, instead of the media coverage, blogs and a billion DU posts talking about what was leaked. You'll notice something that those people keep leaving out.

Every program but one had a "targeting" component. That component was designed to exclude collection from US persons. It's legal for the government to spy on any non-US person. In fact, there was some debate in the first few days about whether or not the targeting component was sufficient. Phrases like "51% certainty" and "incidental collection" were discussed.

The one program without a "targeting" component? The phone metadata program. A 1979 SCOTUS decision ruled that phone metadata is a run-of-the-mill business record that belongs to the phone company. As such, phone metadata has no 4th amendment protection.

But that wasn't a good enough story. So those details were eliminated from coverage. Instead, every program became only good for spying on US persons. First through insinuation ("you know they abuse it!&quot and finally through outright statements. And so a halo was installed on Snowden, and no one was allowed to question the story that was being told.

And you see plenty of evidence of that in this thread. The vast majority of your responses are from fans of Snowden, insisting that only fascists or Obama fanatics could doubt Snowden. Any questioning of the narrative is a viscous attack. Pointing out that a legislative change is required to bring about the reforms they want is a quick end to the sub-thread - It's not the story they want to tell. Heck, spying by other countries on non-US persons is the fault of the NSA.

So why do I think Snowden is a putz? He worked very hard to collect a bunch of documents to reveal something that is legal in order to turn himself into a hero when he 'tweaked' the story. And he was so delusional he started in Hong Kong.

Take a look at the responses you got. Note the enormous number of people attacking anyone who questions the story. Or look at your own OP. Why does this topic devolve into name calling? There's your answer.

Snowden accepted the position and by his admission was doing so to gather information. He stole the files, they did not belong to him, ergo he stole the files. The terms of his employment required he protect the privacy of the work performed and he chose. He stole and I do not like a thief
Now it seems the spy has come in from the cold.

That's akin to saying those enlisted in the military have to follow every order not matter what, since everyone knows when they enlist they have to obey orders.

Snowden's work revealed to him massive violations of our rights. Now, maybe someone like you from Texas thinks he should have just done his job and kept his mouth shut. You know, be a good German.

Snowden is a real patriot, unlike those who grovel before the national security machine.

The skewed viewpoint is with Snowden who thinks he is "appointed" himself judge and jury, lied, stole and presented himself as nothing more than a ZERO. BTW, the real truth is presenting itself, now he wants to plea bargain with more exposure, your "patriot" needs to stay where he is, save the US a cost of a trial.

"If a person accept a position of employment then they accept the terms of the employment."

i.e. There are rules put in place by authority. One must never break the rules, regardless of any mitigating factors: morality, constitutionality, personal conviction, the public's right to know, etc. Because they are THE RULES, put there by AUTHORITY, to guide us and KEEP US SAFE.

compass is higher than being a thief, I see and hear all the time about others who do not think stealing is a bad occupation, I do not share their thoughts.

you wouldn't?

It is an easy yes or no answer.

for food? There is a way besides stealing.

would you steal?

Either you will continue to avoid the question (for the 3rd time) or you will answer...it's your choice.

Ask for food for my children and offer my services to repay for the food. Apparently you may think everyone would take to path of stealing rather than asking, I am not one who would steal. I do not need your wiggle room. Stealing is wrong, you can justify it to yourself but I do not. BTW, since you decided to question me about stealing, how much nutrition value di you think Snowden's children received from the files he stole?

It seems you have always had enough money to never been hungry enough to even think of anything else, other than going to the grocery store. Not everyone is so lucky. Not even in this country.

Those I ask for food, you know, like doing work for food. There is a difference. It would be a labor of love to grow one's produce to feed their family, stealing is not the answer.

the bum needs to reset, step up and take responsibility for his actions.

Still does not justify stealing. The stolen files is on Snowden, by his own admission, he needs to answer for his lack of moral judgement.

He got nowhere. You would want him to just keep quiet and let the unconstitutional and illegal data gathering to continue unimpeded and in secret?
Considering what has been disclosed of the NSA's doings, I'd say Edward Snowden was being patriotic and put love of country over a corrupt government agency. That should be good, correct?
From what we have learned so far, the NSA's main interest is not terrorists, but the communications and doing of private citizens, both here and abroad. Their record of exposing terrorists activities is dismal at best. However, listening in on our congress critters and other people, in power, including Obama, should be an embarrassment worthy of long prison sentences for treason.

Already knew this information. Looking into his past may reveal some information on his activism and may direct you to some deeper thinking. He took the position in Hawaii in order to collect files, he has admitted this, he has admitted taking files from NSA, he has admitted he passed the information to some one outside of NSA. These are crimes he has admitted to having committed. If NSA is committing crimes they will have to answer to the crimes. Neither party should not be tried because someone else or group committed crimes. If Snowden should be allowed clemency because he claims the NSA has committed crimes then NSA should be granted immunity also. Now does this make sense?

Snowden had no say in the running in the NSA. It was the criminality of the NSA that Snowden exposed to the public.
It does no good to know about some bad conduct about some agency and keep it to yourself, as was the case before Snowden made it public. Most people knew little to nothing about what the NSA was doing, let alone even about the NSA, until Snowden exposed their wrong doing. The criminal actions are about the violations of the US Constitution and of International Law by the NSA, not Edward Snowden "stealing" their secrets.
Edward Snowden's claim to fame is, he exposed the wholesale law breaking of the corrupt agency he worked for. In other words, HE blew the whistle on government corruption. Snowden had no say in running the NSA and very little say in it's operation. To claim otherwise is to try to muddy the waters and side with the over reach and the criminality in the running of the NSA. If you side with the NSA, that also means you are OK with the United States becoming a military dictatorship. To me, that is the bigger problem.

collected.

How about Karen Silkwood? Colleen Rowley, Cynthia Cooper, and Sherron Watkins, who all revealed documents their employers wanted kept secret, were named Time Magazine Persons of the Year in 2002. Are they "thieves" as well? Or did their actions serve the public interest?

Russia?

All of them stole files or otherwise privileged information from their employers, and all have been hailed as great public benefactors for their whistle blowing. Some were prosecuted for their revelations, some were not, and some kept their identity secret until the threat of prosecution or retaliation was past. And let's add Chelsea Manning to the list, because her case reveals the very real risk of persecution whistle blowers face when they shine a light under the government's rock.

Do you?

Hong Kong and Russia, they have fallen lower. I don't like theives and traitors.

I doubt that you'll be happy posting here for long if you condemn the likes of Deep Throat and Daniel Ellsberg for revealing the crimes of Nixon and his administration, or Serpico for narcing on police corruption, etc. But that's just me.

Let me be among the first to welcome you to Ignore. G'bye.

It's highly personal for them.

Then there's the authoritarian camp that hates him. And they excel at whipping Camp #1 into a frenzy.

It does seem like a lot of the posters are trying to cover for Obama. But, maybe some just don't want the national security system's actions exposed to public. Either way, those who attack Snowden are on the wrong side of history.

Same reasons some people hated Ellsberg and Manning.

The fact that these people ... people w. unshakable integrity , with a willingness to risk EVERYTHING to take on pure evil...... exist in the world is a reflection of our own relative cowardice and hypocrisy. They can do it.... but we know we cannot.

That nagging dissonance drives the bitterness. The stronger the internal conflict the more vitriolic and bitter its victims become.