Timelordwho wrote:
Again, there should not have been "music to face", so to speak.
Theft and espionage are still crimes, I believe. Are you saying that you should be immune to those if you think you're acting in the common good? Shouldn't that be for the courts to decide rather than one guy who decides to be a hero and then sells out the US to other nations to evade prosecution?
Quote:
There were clear violations of the constitution and civil rights. Are you debating this?
I'm not debating it because it's irrelevant to his actions. You don't get to decide you're immune and allowed to break the law because you see someone else breaking the law. We call that vigilantism and it's only cute when Batman does it.
Yes, shockingly not a lot of nations want to take on a guy who just stole thousands of secrets from their ally, trade partners, etc. That's pretty much international diplomacy working as intended. Not much of an excuse for sucking Putin's di
ck for a set of sheets though.
Quote:
this could have been solved in a civil manner
The "civil manner" in this case is the rule of law. Which Snowden had zero interest in because that was inconvenient to his primary interests: himself.
Anyway, I'll let it set with that. Unless you have something to say that's going to change the fact that, when given the choice, Snowden overwhelmingly chose his own security over that of the United States', there really isn't much else to go round about.
Edited, Jul 7th 2016 11:49pm by Jophiel