If you are truly a hardliner when it comes to non-interventionism, continuing to live and take advantage of the United States' infrastructure and quality of life (which is what it is due to said policies) makes your position suspect. Kind of like eating meat while preaching vegetarianism.
To offer another analogy: If I work at a company which makes their money off pop up ads and I think that's unethical, so I pitch management on alternative revenue streams, then is my position suspect because I'm taking my paycheck from a shady ad tech company?
I think the analogy of preaching vegetarianism while eating meat is somewhere between preaching no-interventionalism while living in the country you were born in, and preaching non-interventionalism while personally bombing people on the other side of the world.
I'm also not sure I agree that living in a country means you morally take responsibility for all its ills. I would characterize the responsibility for ills to be those that one is aware of and accepts because of the perceived personal benefit. The point of political opposition is to reject the current order of society.
> I'm also not sure I agree that living in a country means you morally take responsibility for all its ills.
You're attacking a strawman here, that's a very strong position. I just said it hurts his credibility and my analogy was that eating meat while preaching vegetarianism is suspect.
Eating meat, in my "strawman" is acceptance, or rationalization, of the evil once one is aware.
My point being that there are larger forces guiding our lives than our individual beliefs and actions.
Or put another way: as long as Snowden criticizes the transgressions as he sees them of Russia, isn't this what credibility requires?