[abraininavat]

Your stance seems to be that, since he committed the actions he's accused of, and since those actions happen to be illegal, that he therefore should end up in jail. Is that really your stance? It's not a very nuanced one.

I'm curious, would you have begrudged a slave for escaping from his slave-owner, given that that action was clearly illegal?

[mikeyouse]

    I'm curious, would you have begrudged a slave for escaping
    from his slave-owner, given that that action was clearly illegal?

Speaking of a lack of nuance...

Slavery was clearly unconstitutional, and was made even explicitly so by passing the 13th amendment. Is your stance that releasing confidential intelligence is an act that deserves constitutional protection? Of course not, so I'm sure it's more like, "Releasing confidential intelligence that exposes illegal programs should be protected." But there's no indication that the programs were illegal, I'm sure they had teams of lawyers sitting next to the engineers who were designing the systems. So then you're left with a judgement call about the severity of the leak and the public good it served. Who's going to make that call?

My stance is that he committed illegal acts, so he should be arrested and undergo a trial, like everyone else that commits illegal acts. If he feels his acts shouldn't be illegal, he can appeal to the Supreme Court which will make a ruling on the constitutionality of laws against releasing confidential information. If he feels that his illegal acts were a public service, he can lobby for a pardon. It's clear that the popular sentiment is on his side, he has some very high profile supporters, it might not be a long shot.

Speaking of, I also think that anyone who lied under oath about the NSA programs should be arrested and undergo a trial, as should anyone who abused the capabilities of the NSA's programs, as should any CIA employees who were illegally monitoring US citizens.

I'm a bit surprised that support for the laws of our country is a controversial position.

[abraininavat]

You haven't answered the question. If a runaway slave showed up at your door, would you ask him to turn himself in? Would you suggest to him that he should go through the justice system, which he has good reason to perceive as being hostile to his cause?

The way you mince words is quite adept, actually. Are you a politician? You mention slavery being "clearly unconstitutional." Then you contrast that with the surveillance programs, saying "there's no indication the programs were illegal." You've set two very different bars. You blatantly omit the following two bits: that there are convincing arguments that the government surveillance programs are unconstitutional, and that 150 years ago there was no indication that slavery was illegal in slave states.

[mikeyouse]

    You haven't answered the question.

I assumed you couldn't possibly be serious when comparing Snowden's actions to those of a runaway slave.

    150 years ago there was no indication that slavery was illegal in slave states.

Not remotely true. Many argued that it was unconstitutional for decades before the civil war or 13th amendment (Lysander Spooner[1] most famously).

    That there are convincing arguments that the government surveillance programs are unconstitutional

That's a fair point, I would agree that the programs probably are unconstitutional, but that's a determination for the Supreme Court to make. And I'm not sure how that's relevant to Snowden avoiding arrest. It still stands that he released confidential details of programs that weren't illegal -- the difference between illegal and unconstitutional is an important one.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner

[abraininavat]

Certainly a politician. You still evade the question, but that's all the time we have for now.

We'll be back next Sunday, because if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.