I think it's entirely fascinating how they've been unable to successfully assault Snowden's character. It's like the second go-to move after denying everything, and they still haven't been able to paint him a villain. He's just so damn heroic.
I'm a little skeptical of a survey on Snowden that was commissioned by a cloud storage company.
Pew Research Center & USA Today did a study in January that paints a more nuanced picture: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/22/most-young-a... For example, he's got a lot of support among young people, but a wide majority of Americans believe he should return to the US and face trial.
> For example, a wide majority of Americans believe he should return to the US and face trial.
More than 80% of Americans thought that the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do, when questioned back in May 2003, and that Saddam had access to WMD. My point is that it doesn't matter what the majority thinks, it matters what's the right thing to do. And speaking about "facing trial" and the US justice system in general, all I can see is that Keith Alexander has not had to answer for his fault of perjury (I've never been to the States, if it matters).
>My point is that it doesn't matter what the majority thinks, it matters what's the right thing to do.
Democracy naturally conflates the two and assumes that what the majority thinks, as expressed through their elected representatives and filtered through some of the Republican checks on raw democratic power, is synonymous with the right thing, or at least the legal thing. It does matter what the majority thinks in the US, because our system is predicated on the belief that majority thought should become law.
Maybe it's worth the risk that the majority will choose something wrong, as long as the majority is allowed to self-govern. After all, it's still government for, by, and of the people if the people codify a law that violates absolute moral expectations, but is widely believed to be the appropriate solution intrinsically.
There is a list of whistleblowers who "went through the right channels" for blowing the whistle. Notice that we don't hear about many (if any) of them in the main-stream media. Sibel Edmond (one of these whistleblowers for the FBI) had some very apropos comments about him.
Legally the case is a slam dunk. Exposing the NSA illegally spying on Americans is noble but only a Presidential pardon will see him back on US soil as a free man.
I'm not convinced that "legally a slam dunk" equates to "fair trial." For example, part of what makes it a slam dunk is that a leaker's reasons for leaking aren't allowed to be introduced as evidence for the jury to consider. It's all perfectly legal, but a lot of people don't consider it fair. The potential distinction between the legal and the fair is one reason we have juries in the first place.
http://www.newsweek.com/most-americans-think-snowden-did-rig...