[prewett]

Generally breaking the law and seeking to escape the consequences has always resulted in effective exile, throughout history. In fact, how could it not? Would you like the law to be suspended in this case, but not in the case of people leaking secrets to China? Where's the difference? Is it just that what you like should be an exception? You could argue it was patriotic to break the law, but working for the NSA hardly forced him to break the law, nor did it force him to avoid the consequences. He could have been like Rosa Parks who accepted the consequences. Admittedly, hers were smaller in magnitude, but there are other options than what Snowden took.

[watwut]

He did accepted the consequences. The consequence is his life now, quite literally. He has zero trust toward legal system as that is not designed to be fair. He his not willing to become martyr more than is necessary - and there is nothing wrong with that.

Rosa Park consequences went well beyond being arrested for one night. I am pretty sure she would prefer if she had the option to escape them - she did not. Altrough she did eventually left the city, due to consequences imposed on her there.

[mindslight]

Talking about "the law" is a red herring. The NSA is in explicit violation of USG's founding charter, and yet it remains in comfortable operation.

But more importantly, the concept of patriotism is orthogonal.

[nostrademons]

Exile is the consequence, in this and most other cases.