He's called a "traitor"

[Metsfanmax]

The rule of law doesn't mean "follow all laws." If so, then there's nothing to stop you from obeying all the laws of some fascist state.

The world is not one-dimensional...

That's an odd statement coming from somebody espousing complete loyalty to laws set up by authorities, or what you believe to be rule of law.

-TG

I did not say one should always obey laws established by authorities. I concede that the rule of law can be used by a morally unjust state just as it can be used by a morally just state. As a result, acting in accord with your moral conscience may sometimes require acting in contravention to the law (e.g. civil disobedience). However, I think that this requires an extraordinary case of injustice. Snowden is not being treated unjustly. The law clearly spells out the consequences for leaking government secrets in an unauthorized manner. As BBS says, the rule of law is, among other things, about equality before the law. If all people who leak these secrets are subject to the same treatment by the government, the rule of law is being upheld and justice is being served. Now, the treatment may still be morally wrong, even if it is just. But that's not a question of how we're treating Snowden -- that's a question of whether we need to have stronger whistleblower laws.

When the state fails to hold its members accountable or to restrain itself by obeying the Constitution, then the laws of the state need not be obeyed. Why uphold "your duty as citizen" (read: subservience to the federal government), when the state fails in its duty to uphold the Constitution?

That's not the right question, because in general we want to exist in a stable society. Taking every excuse to intentionally break down the rule of law because the other guy did it, does not achieve this goal. In general we should strive to work within the legal system to achieve our goals, because promoting general respect for the rule of law leads to a stable society. Using extra-legal means to achieve goals should be a last resort, not a first resort.

[Woodruff]

So Ecuador extended us a big middle finger after renowned fascist Senator Bob Menendez tried to strong arm them into not granting Snowden asylum.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... s/2463465/

A couple of quotes from the article:

Ecuador said Thursday it is renouncing a trade pact up for renewal by the U.S. Congress because it had become a "new instrument of blackmail" involving the fate of an NSA leaker who has asked for political asylum from the South American country.

In a pointed jab at Washington over Snowden's revelations on data-gathering by NSA, Alavarez said Ecuador offered $23 million per year to the United States to finance human rights training.

He said the money would be aimed at helping "avoid violations of privacy, torture and other actions that are denigrating to humanity."

Ouch. It's pretty sad when random countries in South America can legitimately call you out on your human rights violations.

HAHAHHAHAH! Oh my...that is some outstanding stuff. Never been much of a fan of Ecuador, to be honest...but I like their style here.

[Woodruff]

unless you're suggesting that I take up arms against the government,

There's no critical mass to support a direct action for reestablishment of Reason and Rule of Law.

I don't really see what else to do.

Apathy and apology ("But what do I do if I agree with a candidate on a number of issues, but disagree with them on the NSA's abilities? Where do I rank that in my priority list?") prevents the threat of critical mass from developing and reinforces the status quo.

You don't have to express support for Reason and Rule of Law, you just need to stop giving intellectual comfort to the supporters of Instinct and Rule of Strength like you're doing.

It is not obvious to me that reason and rule of law precludes what the NSA is doing, at least in principle.

I know, my comments are more intended for any lurkers who remain to be convinced, not Obama-McCain supporters

It does not follow that because I am not a priori opposed to the NSA's actions, that I therefore support the US policy regarding Israel.

what does Israel have to do with anything

I don't know what it necessarily has to do with anything, but I feel comfortable saying that they're spying on our government just as much as our government is spying on us.

[BigBallinStalin]

The rule of law doesn't mean "follow all laws." If so, then there's nothing to stop you from obeying all the laws of some fascist state.

The world is not one-dimensional...

That's an odd statement coming from somebody espousing complete loyalty to laws set up by authorities, or what you believe to be rule of law.

-TG

I did not say one should always obey laws established by authorities. I concede that the rule of law can be used by a morally unjust state just as it can be used by a morally just state. As a result, acting in accord with your moral conscience may sometimes require acting in contravention to the law (e.g. civil disobedience). However, I think that this requires an extraordinary case of injustice. Snowden is not being treated unjustly. The law clearly spells out the consequences for leaking government secrets in an unauthorized manner. As BBS says, the rule of law is, among other things, about equality before the law. If all people who leak these secrets are subject to the same treatment by the government, the rule of law is being upheld and justice is being served. Now, the treatment may still be morally wrong, even if it is just. But that's not a question of how we're treating Snowden -- that's a question of whether we need to have stronger whistleblower laws.

When the state fails to hold its members accountable or to restrain itself by obeying the Constitution, then the laws of the state need not be obeyed. Why uphold "your duty as citizen" (read: subservience to the federal government), when the state fails in its duty to uphold the Constitution?

That's not the right question, because in general we want to exist in a stable society. Taking every excuse to intentionally break down the rule of law because the other guy did it, does not achieve this goal. In general we should strive to work within the legal system to achieve our goals, because promoting general respect for the rule of law leads to a stable society. Using extra-legal means to achieve goals should be a last resort, not a first resort.

So,

As I believe in the rule of law, I would fulfill my duties as a citizen.

Does that duty entail ratting out Snowden--if given the chance?

If so, then aren't you still obeying the law 'cuz it's the law'?

[Metsfanmax]

The rule of law doesn't mean "follow all laws." If so, then there's nothing to stop you from obeying all the laws of some fascist state.

The world is not one-dimensional...

That's an odd statement coming from somebody espousing complete loyalty to laws set up by authorities, or what you believe to be rule of law.

-TG

I did not say one should always obey laws established by authorities. I concede that the rule of law can be used by a morally unjust state just as it can be used by a morally just state. As a result, acting in accord with your moral conscience may sometimes require acting in contravention to the law (e.g. civil disobedience). However, I think that this requires an extraordinary case of injustice. Snowden is not being treated unjustly. The law clearly spells out the consequences for leaking government secrets in an unauthorized manner. As BBS says, the rule of law is, among other things, about equality before the law. If all people who leak these secrets are subject to the same treatment by the government, the rule of law is being upheld and justice is being served. Now, the treatment may still be morally wrong, even if it is just. But that's not a question of how we're treating Snowden -- that's a question of whether we need to have stronger whistleblower laws.

When the state fails to hold its members accountable or to restrain itself by obeying the Constitution, then the laws of the state need not be obeyed. Why uphold "your duty as citizen" (read: subservience to the federal government), when the state fails in its duty to uphold the Constitution?

That's not the right question, because in general we want to exist in a stable society. Taking every excuse to intentionally break down the rule of law because the other guy did it, does not achieve this goal. In general we should strive to work within the legal system to achieve our goals, because promoting general respect for the rule of law leads to a stable society. Using extra-legal means to achieve goals should be a last resort, not a first resort.

So,

As I believe in the rule of law, I would fulfill my duties as a citizen.

Does that duty entail ratting out Snowden--if given the chance?

If so, then aren't you still obeying the law 'cuz it's the law'?

I would be obeying the law because I think that in general, when people obey the law, that leads to a more stable society. That is the entire purpose of the rule of law. Acting in contravention to the law should be done only when there is a significant violation of justice. Since I think Snowden is being treated justly in being sought for committing a crime, just as others have been and would be if they did the same thing, I do not see a cause to act in contravention to the law.

[stahrgazer]

All you guys talking about "the rule of law" and "whistleblowers" need to remember some things.

Because of The Patriot Act, NSA "spying" on us, using various means, is technically legal.

Because of various espionage laws as well as contractual legalities (oaths he took/signed when accepting the position he held) what Snowden did was technically illegal.

"Whistleblower" laws do not cover Snowden. Why? Because the Patriot Act makes what NSA does, "legal," and "whistleblower laws" are about reporting something that is NOT legal.

Snowden didn't report the US doing anything "illegal." He reported things that he knew folks wouldn't like, if they knew, truly knew, what that law meant they could do.... just as those investigating the details of the Affordable Care Act are reporting what that law means, knowing that some won't like it... EXCEPT. Again. Snowden had sworn oaths to keep classified material classified.

Now, whether the Patriot Act should exist at all - or whether it should exist as is or modified somehow - is a matter for the Supreme Courts, just as whether banning gay marriage or banning federal recognition of gay marriage was a matter for the Supreme Courts; and just as whether the Affordable Care Act should exist at all or modified somehow was a matter for the Supreme Courts. In other words, any potentially questionable law or ruling about any law is a matter for the Supreme Courts.

So. Snowden isn't a "whistleblower" because what he reported was both "legal for the government to do" and was"government classified material that has potentially damaging affects if released to wrong persons." That makes Snowden a criminal under a few laws.

He's a criminal under those laws, even if it also makes the general populace truly aware of what that Patriot Act, that Bush's regime had its Congress push through, allowed our government to do in order to "promote the general welfare and provide for the common defense" by "protecting us from terrorists."

Yup. Even if we don't like what the Patriot Act allows, it DOES allow it. So Snowden's a criminal, not a whistleblower, for making the classified details of it "public knowledge."

[AAFitz]

The government is working to make it illegal for a person to inform the public of the government acting illegally. They praise it when a private sector person blows the whistle on illegal business activities, but they turn around and make it illegal for the same whistleblowing to happen within the government.

I was afraid I was going to agree with you fully...which in reality...I do...but, the government did just write a law which got shot down, which was to make it...essentially illegal to show photos and stories of animal abuse at farms.....I know thats not fully accurate, but its an example of the goverment trying to protect business from whistleblowing as well.

[saxitoxin]

Because of The Patriot Act, NSA "spying" on us, using various means, is technically legal.

The surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act only concern roving wiretaps and sneak & peek warrants. A program similar to PRISM isn't described in the Patriot Act.

[Frigidus]

Does that duty entail ratting out Snowden--if given the chance?

If so, then aren't you still obeying the law 'cuz it's the law'?

I would be obeying the law because I think that in general, when people obey the law, that leads to a more stable society. That is the entire purpose of the rule of law. Acting in contravention to the law should be done only when there is a significant violation of justice. Since I think Snowden is being treated justly in being sought for committing a crime, just as others have been and would be if they did the same thing, I do not see a cause to act in contravention to the law.

I imagine that you and Snowden agree on that count. He viewed the NSA's actions to be a significant violation of the freedoms outlined in the Constitution. He was alerting the public to illegal activities being committed by the government. What other actions could he have possibly taken that would have brought this to light? Is whistle blowing inherently immoral?

[BigBallinStalin]

Does that duty entail ratting out Snowden--if given the chance?

If so, then aren't you still obeying the law 'cuz it's the law'?

I would be obeying the law because I think that in general, when people obey the law, that leads to a more stable society. That is the entire purpose of the rule of law. Acting in contravention to the law should be done only when there is a significant violation of justice. Since I think Snowden is being treated justly in being sought for committing a crime, just as others have been and would be if they did the same thing, I do not see a cause to act in contravention to the law.

I imagine that you and Snowden agree on that count. He viewed the NSA's actions to be a significant violation of the freedoms outlined in the Constitution. He was alerting the public to illegal activities being committed by the government. What other actions could he have possibly taken that would have brought this to light? Is whistle blowing inherently immoral?

Some would say, "Yes--if the whisteblowing undermines 'stability' or 'security'." (I wonder what Mets thinks about this position).

Even though we could argue about the optimal balance between "freedom/transparency" and "security/stability," I don't see how the government is capable of attaining that optimal balance.

[Woodruff]

All you guys talking about "the rule of law" and "whistleblowers" need to remember some things.

Because of The Patriot Act, NSA "spying" on us, using various means, is technically legal.

I suppose as long as you ignore the Constitution, it is. Of course, they won't allow it to be contested in court, so the unConstitutionality cannot be found. Isn't that handy.

Because of various espionage laws as well as contractual legalities (oaths he took/signed when accepting the position he held) what Snowden did was technically illegal.

Well of course it was technically illegal. Hell, I wouldn't even say TECHNICALLY illegal. It was definitely illegal. That doesn't offer at whether it was the right thing to do or not, however.

By the way, being a whistleblower doesn't make your actions necessarily legal.

[Metsfanmax]

Does that duty entail ratting out Snowden--if given the chance?

If so, then aren't you still obeying the law 'cuz it's the law'?

I would be obeying the law because I think that in general, when people obey the law, that leads to a more stable society. That is the entire purpose of the rule of law. Acting in contravention to the law should be done only when there is a significant violation of justice. Since I think Snowden is being treated justly in being sought for committing a crime, just as others have been and would be if they did the same thing, I do not see a cause to act in contravention to the law.

I imagine that you and Snowden agree on that count. He viewed the NSA's actions to be a significant violation of the freedoms outlined in the Constitution.

Justice is a specific ethical term. Though I am certainly no Rawlsian, I agree with him that justice can be thought of as fairness. What matters for justice is not whether the law is good in some objective utilitarian sense, but whether people are being treated fairly. That means that they're not being discriminated against by the law. For example, a law that forced all citizens to do hard labor on Sundays would be morally wrong but it wouldn't be unjust. Acts of injustice are contrary to the rule of law and need to be fixed. Whether or not the law should exist in the first place is a separate issue.

He was alerting the public to illegal activities being committed by the government. What other actions could he have possibly taken that would have brought this to light?

He could have reminded journalists that the 2008 FISA amendments actually did happen. No one should be surprised that PRISM exists after reading the Wikipedia page documenting what the law allowed the government to do. Now, I agree with the point Woodruff made, which is that we can't stop the government from running a program if we don't actually know that it exists and who is running it. If that 2008 law was unconstitutional, that is the actual problem here. Many commentators seem to agree that the government's program is not illegal when compared to that law. The potential problem probably exists only in comparing that law to the Constitution.

So the moral issue and the legal issue are actually separate here. If the government were taking secret actions that were not permitted by the legislative branch that sets its bounds, that would be an act of injustice and Snowden would be right to publicize it. If the government is just doing what it is authorized to do by Congress, then we have a simple act of legal interpretation to settle in the judicial system. That is not a moral issue.

Is whistle blowing inherently immoral?

So I hope these thoughts convince you that I don't think whistleblowing is inherently immoral. It is probably the right thing to do if the government is acting in a manner that grossly violates our sense of justice. I am asking people to think through this carefully and not just accuse the government of being unjust because it's doing something we really don't like.

[Woodruff]

So the moral issue and the legal issue are actually separate here. If the government were taking secret actions that were not permitted by the legislative branch that sets its bounds, that would be an act of injustice and Snowden would be right to publicize it. If the government is just doing what it is authorized to do by Congress, then we have a simple act of legal interpretation to settle in the judicial system. That is not a moral issue.

While I agree with what you say here for the most part, the problem with that perspective in this specific case is that the government is not allowing it to be brought to the judicial system. The EFF has been trying to do so since 2005, but...you know..."national security".

[Metsfanmax]

So the moral issue and the legal issue are actually separate here. If the government were taking secret actions that were not permitted by the legislative branch that sets its bounds, that would be an act of injustice and Snowden would be right to publicize it. If the government is just doing what it is authorized to do by Congress, then we have a simple act of legal interpretation to settle in the judicial system. That is not a moral issue.

While I agree with what you say here for the most part, the problem with that perspective in this specific case is that the government is not allowing it to be brought to the judicial system. The EFF has been trying to do so since 2005, but...you know..."national security".

That's a fair point, but is what Snowden did going to change that?

[BigBallinStalin]

So the moral issue and the legal issue are actually separate here. If the government were taking secret actions that were not permitted by the legislative branch that sets its bounds, that would be an act of injustice and Snowden would be right to publicize it. If the government is just doing what it is authorized to do by Congress, then we have a simple act of legal interpretation to settle in the judicial system. That is not a moral issue.

While I agree with what you say here for the most part, the problem with that perspective in this specific case is that the government is not allowing it to be brought to the judicial system. The EFF has been trying to do so since 2005, but...you know..."national security".

That's a fair point, but is what Snowden did going to change that?

It opened evidence which the ACLU can use to further their lawsuit, so yes.

[jonesthecurl]

The US is founded on the principle that ordinary folks can act against the laws passed by the government and still be in the right.
Isn't it?

[Frigidus]

Justice is a specific ethical term. Though I am certainly no Rawlsian, I agree with him that justice can be thought of as fairness. What matters for justice is not whether the law is good in some objective utilitarian sense, but whether people are being treated fairly. That means that they're not being discriminated against by the law. For example, a law that forced all citizens to do hard labor on Sundays would be morally wrong but it wouldn't be unjust. Acts of injustice are contrary to the rule of law and need to be fixed. Whether or not the law should exist in the first place is a separate issue.

Fair enough, but by this argument a law should not be purposefully violated as long as everyone is treated equally poorly. Let's say, for instance, that a law was put in place that stated that it was illegal to speak poorly about any aspect of the government. Proponents say it is necessary as the spreading of disharmony could lead to violence. Under this law, everyone is treated equally in the sense that everyone is restricted in the same manner. From what I gather, your philosophical take is that breaking the law would be the wrong thing to do. Unfortunately, this would make the law virtually impossible to revoke as any complaints about said law would be a violation of it.

I guess that while I can respect your stance for being consistent, I'm unconvinced that applying it would lead to a good situation for your average citizen.

[stahrgazer]

The US is founded on the principle that ordinary folks can act against the laws passed by the government and still be in the right.
Isn't it?

Again, the whistleblower laws don't apply to Snowden because he was not reporting something that was illegal.

And, as an employee who swore to keep confidential any secrets he was granted access to in performance of his sworn duties, Snowden wasn't an 'ordinary folk."

What gets me the most is how people who'd supported the Patriot Act when it applied to "them" are so suddenly shocked to find out that "them" could be "you."

I mean, duh! The guys who perpetrated 9/11 were HERE when they did much of the planning, meaning they were somebody's next door neighbors. The Boston Marathon guys went to school just like "you," participated in school sports events just like "you." The Colorado theatre shooter... the Connecticut school killer... the Oklahoma Bomber...

So when the Patriot Act allowed un-warranted phone tapping and information gathering, folks who'd give it any thought would realize that didn't mean tapping, "them." It meant tapping "you," in case you WERE "them."

But who protested it then? Almost all the legislators that were in office "then" supported it - they passed the thing into law - which is why I haven't voted for any of them since then.

But someone did vote for them, because quite a few of them have gotten several new terms of office since then.

Okay, so Snowden opened eyes that chose to be blind. If the eye-opening "confidential material" he'd shared to the open press and who knows what dignitaries in foreign countries were secrets about how the government makes and handles its nuclear weapons, and just how deadly they can be, would you have any doubt his actions are illegal?

I mean, you KNEW they're deadly, just as you KNEW the Patriot act allows what the government is doing, you just don't know the nitty gritty details about just how the government is doing what it's allowed to do. And that's all Snowden shared, right? The nitty gritty details about just how the government is doing what it's legally allowed to do.

How about spy satellite targeting codes? These, too, you know exist. You know that if unleashed they can spy on, not just "them" but "you," depending on where you are. So if Snowden released the nitty gritty details about that, is that okay with you? I mean, yeesh, knowing what was in your email electronically, or who you called, is NOTHING to a satellite focusing in through your bedroom window so tightly that it can read the email as you type it and even take a picture of you picking your nose.

So if Snowden released THAT information, information about US satellite targeting codes, to the open press especially in foreign countries, would there be any question for you that he's not really a hero?

[BigBallinStalin]

The US is founded on the principle that ordinary folks can act against the laws passed by the government and still be in the right.
Isn't it?

It depends on whether or not one syncs the notion of justice with government rules--as oppose to rules within civil society, or rather among various groups with their set of morals and ideologies (a.k.a. the non-statists or minarchists, I guess).

[Frigidus]

What gets me the most is how people who'd supported the Patriot Act when it applied to "them" are so suddenly shocked to find out that "them" could be "you."

I agree entirely, those people are hypocrites. That said, we need as much public opposition to the current state of affairs as possible. I'll take an army of hypocrites over a handful of idealists.

Okay, so Snowden opened eyes that chose to be blind. If the eye-opening "confidential material" he'd shared to the open press and who knows what dignitaries in foreign countries were secrets about how the government makes and handles its nuclear weapons, and just how deadly they can be, would you have any doubt his actions are illegal?

I mean, you KNEW they're deadly, just as you KNEW the Patriot act allows what the government is doing, you just don't know the nitty gritty details about just how the government is doing what it's allowed to do. And that's all Snowden shared, right? The nitty gritty details about just how the government is doing what it's legally allowed to do.

How about spy satellite targeting codes? These, too, you know exist. You know that if unleashed they can spy on, not just "them" but "you," depending on where you are. So if Snowden released the nitty gritty details about that, is that okay with you? I mean, yeesh, knowing what was in your email electronically, or who you called, is NOTHING to a satellite focusing in through your bedroom window so tightly that it can read the email as you type it and even take a picture of you picking your nose.

Our nuclear weapons exist entirely as deterrents and violate no personal freedoms by merely existing. Our spy satellites aren't being used to spy on random citizens and if they were I would laud anyone that revealed that as a hero. The distinction here is not that I am not opposed to our government having the capability to wire tap anyone and everyone, I am opposed to them actually doing it, especially without any oversight.

[Metsfanmax]

Justice is a specific ethical term. Though I am certainly no Rawlsian, I agree with him that justice can be thought of as fairness. What matters for justice is not whether the law is good in some objective utilitarian sense, but whether people are being treated fairly. That means that they're not being discriminated against by the law. For example, a law that forced all citizens to do hard labor on Sundays would be morally wrong but it wouldn't be unjust. Acts of injustice are contrary to the rule of law and need to be fixed. Whether or not the law should exist in the first place is a separate issue.

Fair enough, but by this argument a law should not be purposefully violated as long as everyone is treated equally poorly. Let's say, for instance, that a law was put in place that stated that it was illegal to speak poorly about any aspect of the government. Proponents say it is necessary as the spreading of disharmony could lead to violence. Under this law, everyone is treated equally in the sense that everyone is restricted in the same manner. From what I gather, your philosophical take is that breaking the law would be the wrong thing to do. Unfortunately, this would make the law virtually impossible to revoke as any complaints about said law would be a violation of it.

I wouldn't characterize my stance as saying that citizens should never break the law to convince others of the immorality of a particular legal situation. Until now, I was mainly commenting on BBS' stance that the rule of law is about equality under the law. If this is true, and I think that it is, then there is a clear case for civil disobedience when people are being treated unjustly. That is sufficient but not necessary for civil disobedience, as your example illuminates.

It is difficult to say just when it would be appropriate to violate the law to protest a government action. I don't think I could give a simple, one-size-fits-all scenario. What I would say is that it would be exceedingly difficult for the law you mentioned to pass -- in principle, it would require 51% of the populace to support it, and this seems unlikely. A democratic system, to some extent, survives because even if the people don't always make the best decisions, they make decisions that usually aren't that bad.

However, I concede that in modern society, government is (perhaps by necessity) more and more complicated every year, and less directly representative of the values of the citizenry. So it is conceivable that some muted variation of the law you suggested could pass. And in fact we do see constantly, rights being abrogated by the government, even when they apply to all citizens equally. But I don't know where the line is. And at some point things become bad enough that you simply have to overthrow the government. But where is that line too? These are tough questions that I don't have answers for.

[jonesthecurl]

The US is founded on the principle that ordinary folks can act against the laws passed by the government and still be in the right.
Isn't it?

Again, the whistleblower laws don't apply to Snowden because he was not reporting something that was illegal.

And, as an employee who swore to keep confidential any secrets he was granted access to in performance of his sworn duties, Snowden wasn't an 'ordinary folk."

George Washington wasn't just ordinary folks either.

[Woodruff]

So the moral issue and the legal issue are actually separate here. If the government were taking secret actions that were not permitted by the legislative branch that sets its bounds, that would be an act of injustice and Snowden would be right to publicize it. If the government is just doing what it is authorized to do by Congress, then we have a simple act of legal interpretation to settle in the judicial system. That is not a moral issue.

While I agree with what you say here for the most part, the problem with that perspective in this specific case is that the government is not allowing it to be brought to the judicial system. The EFF has been trying to do so since 2005, but...you know..."national security".

That's a fair point, but is what Snowden did going to change that?

That's still to be seen. However, it did provide actual specific evidence where prior to that, there was only suggestion, expectation and rumor. Plus, now the "curtain of national security" has already been drawn back a bit, so it isn't as effective of a defense. So I certainly think it will help in that way, yes.

[Woodruff]

Okay, so Snowden opened eyes that chose to be blind. If the eye-opening "confidential material" he'd shared to the open press and who knows what dignitaries in foreign countries were secrets about how the government makes and handles its nuclear weapons, and just how deadly they can be, would you have any doubt his actions are illegal?

Yet that quite clearly is a different situation, in that the handling of nuclear weapons is not an act against the US citizenry.

[stahrgazer]

Okay, so Snowden opened eyes that chose to be blind. If the eye-opening "confidential material" he'd shared to the open press and who knows what dignitaries in foreign countries were secrets about how the government makes and handles its nuclear weapons, and just how deadly they can be, would you have any doubt his actions are illegal?

Yet that quite clearly is a different situation, in that the handling of nuclear weapons is not an act against the US citizenry.

You're a riot, wooddy. Don't you know, they tested nukes on US soil which means citizenry are affected which means it damned well is an "act against US citizenry" even if, like "spying on electronic sources for terrorist activity" it's ultimately supposed to be "to protect us."

And you still don't answer why you (and anyone else who somehow wants to proclaim this spy to be a hero) didn't read the Patriot act that was passed well over a decade ago and start your protests then, against the Congress that passed it into LAW; because it's very clear that they can do some "spying for terrorist activity" within US soil.

So, what has you up in arms, that you didn't choose to think that that could include your emails? Shame on you, then. It still doesn't make a traitor a hero.