I'm not sure what your implication is with the linked article about Huawei.
I also don't see how "but Binney said" is remotely persuasive. Binney himself was the advocate of a bulk collection and analysis system named ThinThread, this aside from the generally dubious nature of arguments from authority.
What act of "economic warfare" are you referring to? Huawei's much-publicized theft of source code from CISCO? Unless you have actual evidence of the NSA passing on the intelligence it gathered to domestic firms, you have little basis for characterizing their efforts to ascertain the extent of Huawei's relationship with the Chinese government and PLA as "economic warfare."
If anyone but Snowden leaked this sort of information to the Chinese or Russians, there would be little debate about whether or not they deserved some sort of punishment for it.
Snowden's American supporters come across as shrill or even perfidious for excusing this conduct.
Again, your presenting the case as being some mere reconnaissance operation to "ascertain the extent of Huawei's relationship with the Chinese government" is quite overloaded itself, since the linked article did mention exploiting products en masse with one of the aims being to roam in foreign countries' telecom networks by the proxy of Huawei products, and this including U.S. allies. This goes beyond information gathering and recon, and yes, could be construed as economic warfare (this does not at all imply a value judgment, but you seem to be taking the term as if it's a pejorative). Hell, the fact you brought up source code theft only strengthens such a description.
If anyone but Snowden leaked this sort of information to the Chinese or Russians, there would be little debate about whether or not they deserved some sort of punishment for it.
Again, you didn't state whether these were part of the leaks, or whether Snowden had specifically handed over information to a nation state. The connotations would be quite different depending on how it was revealed. This strengthened by the case not necessarily being in favor of the NSA, your emotional pleas notwithstanding.
Well, then it's little wonder that the prospect of him sharing classified information with the Chinese or Russians doesn't bother you all that much. However, I never would have guessed you to be non-American from your posts in this thread, particularly the one quoted below where you forcefully instruct us as to how and if (at all) we should punish those who violate our laws, and where the last sentence begins with the pronoun "we," which I foolishly took to refer to the citizens of the United States but apparently instead referred to some larger collective (perhaps the citizens of the world?):
>That's exactly how it works. The law does not exist in isolation as an axiomatic rule. The intent and circumstances of an action are all taken into account. Legalism is tyranny, plain and simple.
>Also, you are allowed to say "Yeah, he broke the law, but we don't give a fuck." It's called jury nullification.
>As soon as you excuse the law because it doesn't "feel" right, you walk a shaky path to anarchy.
>The United States hasn't been walking to the path of anarchy, but quite the opposite. We actually need more anarchy.
I'm also uncertain of how exactly I have forcefully instructed anyone, unless you consider speech to be aggression.
That said, though I am not of U.S. nationality neither by jus soli nor jus sanguinis, I do reside in the United States at present. Stay classy with your throwaway account.
You keep drawing some distinction without a difference between "the leaks" and Snowden "directly handing over" the documents; either way, he is the author of their release and ultimately responsible for the consequences, and Americans are right to be angry with him for it.
> That said, though I am not of U.S. nationality neither by jus soli nor jus sanguinis, I do reside in the United States at present. Stay classy with your throwaway account.
You're a guest in this country; perhaps you could try acting like one?
Of course you have a right to be angry with Snowden if you deem the consequences of the actions to have had sufficient negative blowback.
You're a guest in this country; perhaps you could try acting like one?
Free speech until it hurts my feelings. What an American sentiment to advocate, throwaway. I salute you.
Snowden easily the most honorable person in this whole situation, for one reason alone: he kept is oath to defend the constitution.
All those laws you want to see Snowden sacrificed upon are inferior to the oath everybody in the intelligence community had to take. That oath was to the constitution, and not a particular law, government, or politician.
You claim to want to see people face the consequences of the law, but you're deliberately ignoring the content of Snowden's message, which confirmed unconstitutional actions of many people in government. It is a shame that it took one person risking their life and possibly living forever in exile to reveal the corruption of our govenment. It is a terrible cost that the espionage act has been abused so badly with Binney and Drake, making it necessary for Snowden to bring evidence with him. In case you're forgetting, people tried going through "proper channels", and it lead nowhere.
If you had any intention of having a useful discussion about Snowden, you would know that he wouldn't get a fair trial, as the espionage act doesn't allow a a "public good" defense. You are calling for a start chamber style show trial, not justice.