You can't handle a crime by committing another crime. Police (or you) can't illegally gather evidence. Snowden gathered his evidence illegally. That doesn't have anything to do with the alleged US-government crimes.
You can't illegally record phone calls, you can't illegally spy on someone. If you know that your neighbor is a criminal, you are NOT authorized to put a camera inside his house to prove it.
US committed crimes? Ok, that doesn't absolve Snowden from HIS crime.
And stop talking about 'right' or 'wrong' when you talk about the law (unless you're 18 and still an idealist). The law is not 'right' or 'wrong'.
Snowden has nothing to do with the collateral murder videos of the innocent civilians being murdered. That was Manning who exposed that. The evidence is there in that video and the subsequent attempted coverup of the video, it's crystal clear who was at fault there.
The military says you obey all lawful orders. If you are ordered to commit a crime (ie cover up an international crime) then you don't obey that order. Did Manning break the US law in exposing this evidence? Yes. But the sad fact is the US government made exposing it's own crimes illegal.
"You can't illegally record phone calls, you can't illegally spy on someone."
Snowden believed the US government did this and covered it up. That's why in part why Snowden did what he did. I totally agree with you that unjust laws exist. In an ideal world, the US government would not have spied on it's own people in that way. Or if the government did, it'd have been punished for doing so. But the world is not perfect and that did not happen. So Snowden had to break the law to expose the governments crimes.
If your neighbour is a criminal, I agree your not allowed up sneak a camera into his house. I agree with you there. But you are allowed (and encouraged) to contact the police about it. The issues arise when the police (and/or government) ignore most of what you say and put a gag order on you, so you are in trouble if you speak about it at all. I think you get my point. Massive grey area there.
some folks might disagree that he did the right thing by committing a crime to expose so called crimes. Some folks might even disagree that what he exposed was a crime at all.
But in the end it doesnt really matter because he admits he committed a crime and he will be made to pay for it one way or another, even if by permit banishment from his home and lost of everything he owes etc. and he's okay with that. because he felt that the ends were justified by committing his crime. Its like the father whose child is killed by a drunk driver who through legal games gets off scot free so daddy kills the driver in cold blood knowing it means life in jail or perhaps the death penalty
He committed a crime to expose a crime. (exposing the governments illegal activities should not be a crime in the first place but that's another story). Ok Snowden has been punished, being forced to flee the USA. But was the US government punished for it's crimes? No.
"Some folks might even disagree that what he exposed was a crime at all."
And that's the point. People always try to justify their own actions as legitimate. The government will not openly admit it committed crimes. So they disagree with the notion that what was exposed was a crime on the principle to cover their own asses. Just because some people think what was exposed is not a crime, does not make it any more or less of a crime.
"Its like the father whose child is killed by a drunk driver who through legal games gets off scot free so daddy kills the driver in cold blood knowing it means life in jail or perhaps the death penalty"
It's sort of like that. If the drunk driver was convicted for his crimes and given an appropriate sentence, there would be no need to go kill him for it. The difference is the US government was not put to trial for their crimes. But we all know that's a pointless exercise. It'll be some royal commission (or other juryless) trial. And government appointed judges will not call the government who appointed them guilty of crimes. It's a no win situation.
But at least in both Manning's and Snowden's situations, the public know about it now.
I suspect locking down the iPhone is lower on the priority order.
*appleboy4life*
