Snowden very blatantly broke laws, if a federal prosecutor doesn't charge him they should be removed from office. The laws he broke being immoral/unconstitutional/for the greater good is to be determined by the judge/jury, not the prosecutor.
A law being a law doesn't mean it's right.
Did you even read what I wrote?
It's not up to the prosecutor to determine whether or not a law is just or not. That is not his job, that is a job for the judge/jury.
He can return anytime, as long as he doesn't mind facing trial for the crimes he has committed.
Wouldn't his crimes be judged less harshly considering this new turn of events? I remember elected people publicly asking for his death in interviews last year.
It doesn't matter how he is judged, he will be pardoned.
That is a matter of law, not thinking. We have specific laws in cases where you can expect that information you disclose to others should be kept secret. Attorney-client privilege, HIPAA, etc. That alone should tip you off that types of communication without such restrictions are not protected.
Law is an evolving matter of thinking and interpretation, not a set of instructions.
Now it would be the right time to ask for a presidential pardon for Edward Snowden. Now that candidates are gearing up their campaign platforms, it would be a great vote winner both on the left and on the (libertarian) right. If you live in a "defining primary" state, please go and ask the candidates as soon as they show up.
We may be glad with what he did but do we want to encourage this type of thing? I think quietly "being nice" to him is fine but a public pardon, a welcome hope party, adoring media coverage may inspire some idiot to be the next Snowden and we probably do not want that.
George Washington (among many others) kinda set the standard by leading a group of men who murdered those rightfully in charge. I never hear any condemn him for what he did, yet far less extreme actions taken today result in condemnation for going too far. Odd, no?
At the same time, the government has little reason to hassle people who aren't fringe minorities. Private companies have strong incentives to use data collection against the masses.
I don't buy either side of that statement. Government does hassle the masses, and I'm not sure what incentives private companies have to use data collection on the masses. My argument for the latter is probably a little weak, but certainly in the former, history is clear.
> I'm not sure what incentives private companies have to use data collection on the masses.