I don't think anyone who thinks Snowden is a traitor actually has considered it at all, they are just eating up the standard post-911 narrative that has been driving this country for over a decade now. The problem is that being anti-terrorism is such a political bi-partisan pillar that even appearing to rationally consider the cost-benefit (let alone the constitutionality!) of something as obscene as the NSA's domestic spying program in its current form is political suicide . It's a sad state of affairs, but the public debate driven by politicians is based on the strength of Twitter-length arguments. Based on current sentiment, can you can concoct a stronger sound bite pro or anti NSA surveillance? Critical thinking doesn't enter into it at all.

That's why only the people can change this debate. We need to convince each other of the slippery slope we're on, and the futility of an ever-increasing police state in 100% prevention of terrorism. Then we need to make the politicians aware that we do believe in the first and fourth ammendments, and that we will not allow our proxy power to be used to spy on ourselves en masse, and we will vote out of office any politician who does not respect the limits of government power.

A little help from the media would be nice, but big media is almost as beholden to political winds as politicians are these days.

You're completely dismissing the fact that he took an oath to keep certain secrets, and a few months later decided to take it upon himself that the entire world needed to know what he was working on. There are avenues to report these things, to voice concerns without completely going against your word. Call your government representatives, go up the chain. There are phone numbers to call and people to contact if you're uncomfortable.

It's people like you who make the whole issue a "black-or-white", "for us or against us" situation. Probably shouldn't assume that just because people have a different opinion on an issue are "just" anything.

Have you seen what happened to every whistleblower who did what you suggest? You'd have to be an idiot to follow them and expect different results.

This isn't black and white. There are legitimate reasons for and against the NSA spying program (I happen to fall on the side of it being too unchecked, but I can entertain the core idea of it). The Americans who believe the surveillance program is a good idea aren't sheeple you can just write off as a symptom of hysteria culture.

If you can't spend 10 minutes thinking about the NSA program and come up with reasons why it's a good idea, you're either not thinking hard enough or you're massively biased. The core idea is not stupid or unreasonable. It has a liability for abuse, which is the real problem with it, but the program stands on its own merit as a benefactor to homeland security with a few key changes.

My point is, you're writing off Americans who support this as being uninformed and outright wrong, but that's not fair to them. They have reasonable and legitimate reasons to support the NSA surveillance. They might not feel powerfully about it but they're not wrong just because it's vogue to hate this program. Open this as a conversation, not one where you have assymetrical, priveliged knowledge and a superior opinion of these things.

Also, are these Americans you're talking about supporters of the NSA surveillance, or do they simply oppose Snowden? In my opinion, there's a huge difference between the two groups, namely one is at least slightly informed, and the other is being fed lies by mainstream media.

I think many Americans assumed such practices likely existed, and believed them to be useful tools against terrorists and criminals. They believe that Snowden has reduced the effectiveness of these tools.

For example, most people know we have spies. But I think these same people would be upset if someone said, "We have two spies in Pakistan working with this group. And a common technique for this group is to infiltrate via this mosque, where we have several spies, etc...". While this isn't a list of the names of the spies, people would probably believe at even this high level of specificity that the effectiveness of their intelligence gathering would be reduced.

I personally have mixed feelings about it. I do think that to the extent that the gov't is doing something illegal, whisteblowers should be empowered to stop it. On the other hand, I think the capability of our intelligence gathering should be as secret as possible. It's not just what can they do that should be secret, but what they can't do.

Some people think that terrorists are hyper-aware and practice perfect security. I suspect that they make a lot of mistakes and have a lot of assumptions.

Is Snowden a hero? I think history will decide this question. If we see a freer US as a result then I think he may likely be viewed that way in the future. If instead it turns out that our intelligence agencies were practicing disciplined filtering and thwarting attacks, and in the future we're outmaneuvered due to these leaks then I think history will view him in a different light.

Don't wars with Iraq and Afghanistan prove that the public can have a totally incorrect view of truth?

China is a bad_guy nation. Anyone going there has got to be a bit dodgy.

In the real world, people get angry at things even if they don't cause lasting change. It doesn't matter if Snowden dismantled a program they like - people get angry just because you criticize their favorite candidate, and he did so much more than that.

It's naive to try and argue nothing is different or impacted because of Snowden just because he didn't dismantle the spying program. Snowden is antagonistic to the program itself and is publicly standing against it. As such, he is didactically opposed to Americans who support the program and vice versa.

In politics, being opposed in such a way fuels anger and resentment. You don't need to change anything - its your existence as a player on the other team and your potential to rally against something other people agree with that makes you a target.

It makes no sense. If he was looking out for himself, why would he do anything but keep his high-paid contract with the NSA and go to work like the rest of us? It's a much better life than hopping the world trying to stay one step ahead of the US Government, where the best possible outcome involves accepting political asylum and eventual obscurity in a foreign country.

Yet this is an actual thing that real people getting lots of media time have said in a serious manner.

It's obvious that there is simply no thought involved in this whole business, not at the top, not at the bottom, not anywhere in between. The reactions are purely emotional.