Ed Snowden: Leakers “should be shot in the balls,” and "cut this Social Security bullshit"

[mike_c]

81. thanks for a cogent response on the primary issue....

I must respectfully disagree with your faith in legalism-- recall that owning slaves was completely legal at one time in the U.S., and that crimes the Nazis committed during the 20th century were entirely "legal" as well. In fact, part of the legal framework that the U.S. has been so busy dismantling over the last decade or so grew out of prosecutions of Nazis at Nuremberg after they presented the same argument you've presented-- it was all "legal." Denying women the right to vote was also legal, as were Jim Crow laws even quite recently. Until this very morning it was legal to deny federal benefits to gay and lesbian couples. It is presently legal to kill someone in several states in order to avoid the embarrassment of fleeing from frightening behavior. Laws are routinely used to provide cover for immoral or unethical activity by powerful people.

But even from a legalistic perspective, how do you KNOW that broad electronic surveillance without probable cause is "legal?" The authorization is granted in secret, by secret courts interpreting secret memos that define secret "laws," and surveillance is conducted in secret by secret agencies using secret means. How can you know whether ANY of that is "legal" if you can't possibly know anything about it other than it's existence?