> “The Committee further found no evidence that Snowden attempted to communicate concerns about the legality or morality of intelligence activities to any officials, senior or otherwise, during his time at either CIA or NSA.”
It's not one person doing something bad, it's an entire powerful organization that pays for the livelihood of the people who work those whistleblower channels.
I have a hard time believing congress didn't authorize it in the first place. I am probably uninformed, but it seems reasonable and likely that prism is authorized directly by the patriot act. Congress told us they were going to do it, and they did it.
There are no good answers.
1. Snowden materially damaged the US government.
2. Snowden swore an oath of allegiance to the entity who most desires to damage the US government.
My personal opinion is likely closer to the idea that Snowden was a ethical person who wanted to do good, and he was handled as an asset by people who knew how to manipulate a desire to do good to achieve goals like chaos and distrust. That is a casual opinion, not informed by facts or significant research.
All that was damaged or lost was the pristine public image (which was a delusion in the first place and Snowden exposing it doesn't make him culpable).
I also dont get the whole "Snowden was a cleverly manipulated asset" attitude: Where is the evidence for that? This is exactly the kind of overcomplicated but soothing conjecture that conspiracies thrive on; Snowden put out concise and sensible descriptions of his motivations actions and timeline-- what makes you discard all that and suspect some grey eminence instead?
What we have learnt from the Snowden leaks as evidence by "what has changed" is that it wasnt a branch of government that is a problem, but the entire country its laws, its values and its people.
What I won't concede is that if you measure relative power between Russia and the US, Snowden's actions reduced US power and increased Russian power. Not in a values sense, but in a realpolitik sense.
I think he planted a seed in our rot which will eventually destroy us. I think that seed is in the form of a warning to people of good faith and good conscience that the government is not the place for them.
I think it is probably most correct to say that we are damaging ourselves in response to Snowden's actions.
> Where is the evidence for that?
I am pretty convinced wikileaks is/was/or became part of the Russian intelligence apparatus. Assange's second hand girl accompanying him to Russia is a tragic coincidence.
Ultimately this all comes down to trust. Who should I trust and why? I am amenable to your answer, but cautious of imparting trust to Snowden himself.