Which is all the more reason to respect Snowden. No one else would do it.

Some of the comments show how naive some of the readers are. Our Constitution is not going to protect anyone when we have a Marxist and his judges in power. There might have been a time when the media would have run with Snowden's story, but now they all hide behind the Bildeberger screen, and tell nothing which might ruffle the feathers of the power elite. That includes FOX. Ask Hannity about the ceremony that he and later Obama attended, of the supposed sacrifice. He will not speak on the subject. Even Limbaugh has limits as to topics he will discuss, for fear of losing his show. The media has been neutered. Sad but true, only our enemies will disclose what is being done against the citizens of this country. Who said anything when Clinton used Echelon to spy on foreign politicians' and domestic citizens' phone calls? No, he had the media eating out of his hand. Did the media then give us the truth about Ron Brown or Vince Foster? The situation has not improved under Obama.

Snowden wasn't evil per se, but he did break the law. A potentially bad law, but there are lots of those people still get convicted for. Snowden's intent was to shine light on the illicit activities of the government, which in my book is a mitigating factor.

The activities themselves are designed with the intent to control and subvert power, which is evil. Clear enough?

No Rights do not come from god they come from logic. Natural Rights starts with the simple proposition that you own your self. Rand explains why this is so for man. Anything that contradicts the proposition that you own your self means that you are a slave. Obvious examples are murder and slavery, but so are restrictions of free speech or religion.

I do not believe that Natural Rights are a euphemism for individual rights. Natural Rights has a specific philosophical basis in Locke and the Declaration of Independence. Individual rights does not have this foundation.

Rights do not only apply to a citizen that is neither logical nor historically correct under the Constitution. If they are Natural Rights then they exist regardless of whether a government enforces them. This is important, because we have to have a standard by which to judge the actions of our (any) government. It is also important, because as Locke and Jefferson made it clear when the government fails to protect these rights, the people have the right to overthrow the government - by force if necessary. The social contract theory does not limit the contract to citizens. There is not logical or historical basis for this. Based on your idea then Rights would not apply to a baby, since it could not have consented to the contract. Natural Rights transcend citizenship - they exist because you are a person.

There was no way to make the American people aware of NSA spying without also letting the rest of the world know too. And let's face it... probably most Americans have never heard (or remembering hearing) the name Eric Snowden or what he risked to expose the truth to them. Too many Americans are flat out ignorant.

Who was trying to hide the truth and who was trying to expose it? Which one is evil?

Stayed and fought....you can't 'fight' when you're in the middle of a fiery car crash, or a steep fall, or a sudden heart attack. He knows his enemy... apparently you don't.

And how quickly would 'they' have caught up to him? A freak accident of some kind...and.. end of story. He was smart to bolt with the goods and find journalists he knew he could trust. He outted the enemy and he got off it's turf before doing so. It was well thought out and planned and organized. He knew what he was doing, he knew what he was risking and he took the necessary precautions to keep it all safe, including himself and his whistle.

Obama is an elitist and dictator wannabe. He believes that due to his own ego he should be making life decisions for other people and that those people should just accept his benevolence.

Do I consider Obama's offenses to be greater than Snowden's? Orders of magnitude greater and wide-ranging. There is also the small issue of intent, in which I agree with you whole-heartedly. Obama should be impeached, but that won't happen because there is no way a Democratic Senate will vote to convict. :(

As to whom the lies get exposed to, in the end everyone is going to know anyway. Americans are simply the ones who need to know MOST.

If Snowden's defiance of the oath is a "paradox," what does that make Obama and every member of his administration? Snowden broke the oath in order to uphold the Constitution; Obama broke the oath in order to destroy it.
And the issue is not "to expose to the world" - the issue is to expose it to American citizens.

"Execution for treason" from an administration and a government that is far more guilting of treason? Fast and Furious was a direct attack on the Constitution, besides the murder of thousands of people in Mexico. Rule by fiat is a direct attack on the Constitution and the separation of powers. Out right lying to the nation is an affront to all. Need I go on? So, you want him to face execution for treason? And who are the judges?

Perhaps he knew that "staying and fighting" would have gotten him and the message six feet under. During the days of the Soviet Union, there were many patriots who wanted better lives for Russia and Russians. Some chose to "stay and fight," and they are still making good fertilizer. Others ran and hid behind the skirts of their enemies, and were much more effective, besides being alive. The US has become very much like the Soviet Union (I know first-hand); why would you expect Snowden to have acted differently? How would you have acted?

Good point, but that is not a balance it is a procedural safeguard to ensure you were (likely were) a criminal or a spy.

Natural Rights exists whether governments chose to protect them or not and they apply to all people.

My only complaint with Snowden's talk was he discussed getting the BALANCE correct. Rights are not about balancing. My right to own myself and not have the government spy on me is absolute as long as I am not a criminal or a spy. No balancing is necessary

Yes to dbh. I recall that it used to be that government could spy on or monitor citizens only with a court order specifically mentioning at least the name of the person targeted. There is a balance but that is the extent of it.

He only had one shot at it and one chance; and many chances to become shark bait. With information of this type, all US media outlets would have first cleared it with the "authorities" and by that time he would have been no more.
Perhaps a tough choice, but logical.

Would you suggest that he should have committed suicide by making himself available to the unconstitutional administration? Perhaps, then, George Washington should not have quietly slipped from the British encirclement but stood up with his sword, like a man?