I assume the grounds from which people think this stems from a naïveté and unsubstantiated belief in one's country's principles. Particularly considering that the United States to many Americans to this day is more an idea than simply a country.

This striking philosophical difference between Americans and other Western nationalities tends to give Americans a trust in their system where other nationalities would have drawn the line.

Because even if Congress and the White House cannot be trusted, surely the Supreme Court and the judicial branch got our backs? If only it was so simple.

Still, I don't mind Americans being keen on the idea they believe the United States is; but they need to realise that the United States is not that idea. And if it ever was, then it is certainly not any more.

Yeah, I came to the conclusion that the USA is more like religion than country. The constitution is it's bible, its schools and malls are it's churches, the president is it's pope, Washington is it's Vatican, its military it's jihadists, the national anthem it's lords prayer, and so on. Americans believe in the USA in a way no other population believes in theirs.

BTW, I make NO moral judgement, its just my own personal observation.

I wish we could get Bible-like fanaticism over the Constitution. That would really, seriously, be the very best thing I could imagine happening to this country.

Really, you think the average American thinks more highly of his country than the average Frenchman? Have you ever spoken to a Frenchman?

There seems to be more questioning of the government though with the ability for people to dissent without being branded as terrorists, communists, etc...

America is so large that it is near impossible to impact the status quo. There is so much blind patriotism and faith in the government that anyone who disagrees is quickly marginalized and branded as unpatriotic. "You don't like it? Leave."

Since the US was formed the French have lived through five republics and a few empires. They know that government is provisional. This probably explains why they are so protective of their culture. There are still people alive today who lived under German rule.

> This striking philosophical difference between Americans and other Western nationalities tends to give Americans a trust in their system where other nationalities would have drawn the line.

Really? So other Western countries would have... revolted? Rioted? Done something? The UK is pretty much a police state and there isn't much going on there. Germany seems to be doing its own intelligence-gathering work and snooping on its citizens, too.

You are right, they would not revolt or riot. But neither do they believe that their system is great, they are just too apathetic to do anything about it, because they are provided with too high a standard of living for them to riot; they have too much to lose.

But they would not expect Snowden to get a fair trial in their own country (if we use the scenario that he was from their country and not the USA), which is what I meant.

You can argue that this apathetic culture is worse than the Americans' naïveté. And to a point I would agree.

Have you ever actually lived in the UK before ? Pretty sure most people wouldn't agree that their standard of living is so high that they wouldn't have something to lose by rioting.

It's more a case that most people don't consider their online activity to be as precious as some others do.

  | that his fleeing is cowardly, and that his
  | actions are traitorous

Ah, the classic, "Why won't you stop moving so that I can kill you," reaction.

I have a friend who has said almost exactly that. When pressed he can't really offer more other than that a trial is how the word will "get out". It's my opinion that if he's arrested he will never be heard from again.

Much more likely is that he gets put in solitary confinement until he is not capable of presenting a cognizant defense.

> Oh I am positive that there are millions in this very country who believe that he should have stayed and gone to trial, that his fleeing is cowardly, and that his actions are traitorous.

Of course. In WW2, when the Japanese were attacking the Philippines, you didn't see General MacArthur cowardly fleeing for Australia, right? Heroes stay and fight no matter what the odds are. He would have never gotten his medal of honor for fleeing to fight on a more favorable battlefield!

They think this on the grounds that he would have been tried as a civilian whereas Manning was court marshaled. I am surprised Ellsberg didn't mention that distinction. I do not know how the trial would work, though, given its sensitive subject matter. Ellsberg's position at RAND had a similar relationship to the defense establishment as Snowden's, and he was still considered a civilian.