This title strongly implies that he seeks to harm the US. Let the media marauding begin. I really don't feel that Snowden looked to harm the US, but rather hold the country he was serving accountable for what it was and still may be doing.
I agree with you that Snowden's actions was to reveal what the administration was doing and overreaching in its power. How do you protest our government's action without evidence, reputation, and without being dragged in the general media....it's not possible without looking like a conspiracy theorist.
This is why I respect Snowden. He gave up everything... safety, great pay, family... for what he believes in.
Obama says there are "checks and balances", there are none. Given the situation today , it's not difficult to imagine what the situation will be 10 years from now. And putting republicans in power wont make a difference.
Frankly i dont know if there is any solution to that problem. Politicians never give up willing the power they steal from the people.
Good luck america.
We don't know that.
And if we were to speculate, we could observe that there have been very few terrorist attacks on the US in the past ten years. I'm not trying to equate correlation and causation here, just pointing out that very few people on the planet are able to assess whether PRISM is beneficial or detrimental to the security of the US.
Is that accurate? The list I found on Wikipedia indicates it is not but perhaps you have a better source of information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States
PRISM is nothing more than subpoena and warrant compliance in a digital age.
Stuff like the mass collection of all internet traffic is far more concerning, but that isn't what PRISM does.