Snowden signed a non-disclosure agreement to get the Federal security clearance

[woo me with science]

91. "Where there should be a debate is on..."

Your attempt to defend THIS thread with references to a hypothetical thread is an interesting rhetorical tactic. However, we can all read THIS thread and the arguments within, which follow the typical Third Way playbook of (1) attempting to smear Snowden as a lawbreaker...as though breaking laws were not often a necessary part of principled whistleblowing... and (2) directing faux outrage and bullshit "false equivalence" accusations against anyone who points out that lame rhetorical tactic...say, by referencing other egregious situations in history in which government abuse of power was made "legal."

No, we don't need "debate" about whether it's lawful or right for the government of the United States of America to engage in mass surveillance of its own citizens. And we certainly don't need "debate" about whether it was a good thing for the abuses to be made known to us. Arguing over whether Snowden broke a law is a DIVERSION. More than that, it is a deliberate diversion.

We need defense of the Constitution and of the American people. We need the dismantling of the surveillance state that never should have happened here. And dismantling of the propaganda machine would be nice, too.