I just want him to leave now. I won't feel relief until I see that helicopter flying him away on that last day.

It's one thing when there is a clear idiot like Bush but when someone as educated and thoughtful as Obama supports this and lies to the people with word-play (making it legal instead of ending it) it just makes me sick.

Even worse, is watching all the liberals support and defend this and try to paint Snowden as someone selfish. Only commentator I can watch these days is Chris Hayes, he "gets it" because he is a progressive and not just blindly liberal.

Maybe it's always been this way and I am just realizing it, but MSNBC has went to hell. Like you said, Chris Hayes is one of the only progressives on mainstream TV to actually standup for Snowden. Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnel, they're nothing but Obama apologists. I hope that Chris maintains good ratings because television really needs him. I've been watching way more independent sources now such as Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman. Really great program and they have a podcast.

Edit: For those who haven't seen his program, here's Chris Hayes at his best. (From today, June 27th, 2013)

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-hayes-absolutely-nails-hypo...

This is not a partisan issue. Bush started it, Obama continued it and amplified it. The next President will very likely do the same.

The problem is with the bureaucracy, and that is almost wholly unaffected by who sits in the White House.

I understand what you're saying, but do you honestly think a President McCain or Hillary or Rubio or Christie would be better?

I sometimes find it amazing how partisan people can get over such simple concepts.

That's interesting, because what I've read indicates he has massively scaled up the programs, including through the continued expansion of PRISM during the last four plus years.

Do you have any sources where I can read up on Obama scaling back the programs by comparison? In all seriousness.

Really?

Here's from the "NSA reading your email headers" article currently on the front page:

In 2011, the program was terminated by President Obama "as the result of an interagency review," an administration spokesperson told The Guardian.

I require more than one example. But I'm curious.

Did they cancel the project because of fears of it infringing on civil liberties?

Did they cancel the project because it was ineffective for its defined purposes regardless of civil liberties?

Did they cancel the project to move its resources to another, more secret project that could possibly be more damaging to civil liberties?

Lots of programs get canceled for lots of reasons.