<<Snowden is an undereducated IT security tech, and he seems to go to great lengths to avoid having his actions examined in court.>>
Don't know I'd agree with that statement. Apparently, he was able and educated enough to get promoted to a position where he could tap anyones phone including the President's per the interview. As far as going to court, are you serious?? In the USA? Maybe 30 years ago but now do you think there is any justice in the courts today. Look what they did to Bradley Manning almost a year in solitary and 3 years before he even got a trail.
Of course they are spinning it that way, he is just a non-educated hack with a pole dancer girlfriend. This begs the question of "who the hell screened him and gave him such high level clearance" this wonderfully efficient organization that we should allow to override the constitution because they are dedicated, loyal and professional?
As to the Broader question, I think it's "Should the government be above the law? Should parts of the government, CIA, NSA etc., be able to commit murder? Sabotage innocents, lie to the public?"
<<Clearly, Snowden revelations indicate that our government has been engaging in policies of very questionable legality. In this sense, he may have done us all a favor. But he also may have broken the law>>
Okay, so your saying our government probably broke the law but by telling us (the people to whom the government is supposed to be serving) about them breaking the law, he broke the law and should give himself up?
As Mq pointed out the President's oath of office is to uphold the Constitution of the US? Why should he be any less guilty? Is he giving himself up to trail are any of them? |
