Snowdon is a dummy

If he faces a court of law and tells the judge that what the NSA did was illegal in accordance with our Constitution, why is he afraid?

I don't get it.

If Snowden believed what he did was the right thing to do, he should also be brave enough to face his accusers of wrong-doing.

That he would seek asylum in communist countries is almost laughable.
He is truly a confused young man.

I don't think it's going to be so easy...

Snowden took a vow to not reveal classified US document, yet like the narcissistic personality he appears to be, he gave into the urge.

He can either prove to the world that the US government acted illegally by not defending the US Constitution, or he was wrong in his revelations.

If Snowden doesn't believe in the US Constitution, why is he bothered by what the NAS does?

How can he not trust the US justice system? He can either prove to the world that the US government acted illegally by not defending the US Constitution, or he was wrong in his revelations.

If Snowden doesn't believe in the US Constitution, why is he bothered by what the NAS[sic] does?

We need to know.

What do you expect from these two who only see the crimes of the US and Americans?

True, and with the help from the Supreme Court! What a country.

A key U.S. senator has told NBC News that the United States should consider boycotting the upcoming Winter Games if Russian President Vladimir Putin grants leaker Edward Snowden asylum — even suggesting that Putin's actions should raise the specter of the pre-World War II Berlin games hosted by Adolf Hitler's regime.
"I love the Olympics, but I hate what the Russian government is doing throughout the world," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told NBC News on Tuesday. "If they give asylum to a person who I believe has committed treason against the United States, that's taking it to a new level." Moron!

Individual Jewish athletes from a number of countries also chose to boycott the Berlin Olympics. In the United States, some Jewish athletes and Jewish organisations like the American Jewish Congress and the Jewish Labor Committee supported a boycott of the Berlin Games. Once the Amateur Athletic Union of the United States voted for participation in December 1935, however, the other countries fell in line. Forty-nine teams from around the world competed in the Berlin Games, more than in any previous Olympics.

"I knew when I began reporting the [NSA] story, that the technique that the U.S. government uses -- and its media allies use -- against anybody who discloses what they're doing in the dark is to distract attention away from the contents of the revelations," Greenwald said. "[But] this weekend was probably the most extreme and obvious distortion, really a fabrication on the part of Reuters, that I’ve seen yet."

Reuters did not respond to a request for a comment.

Greenwald also took aim at MSNBC on the radio show. He quoted one of the network's former producers, Jeff Cohen, who recently charged that the network and several of its talk show hosts are protecting the Obama administration in coverage of the NSA story. Cohen is the founder of the media watchdog group FAIR.

"If you’re a loyalist of the Obama administration, as most of MSNBC is," Greenwald said, "you are desperate to distract attention away from these disclosures."

It is now well known that the Obama justice department has prosecuted more government leakers under the 1917 Espionage Act than all prior administrations combined - in fact, double the number of all such prior prosecutions. But as last week's controversy over the DOJ's pursuit of the phone records of AP reporters illustrated, this obsessive fixation in defense of secrecy also targets, and severely damages, journalists specifically and the newsgathering process in general.

New revelations emerged yesterday in the Washington Post that are perhaps the most extreme yet when it comes to the DOJ's attacks on press freedoms. It involves the prosecution of State Department adviser Stephen Kim, a naturalized citizen from South Korea who was indicted in 2009 for allegedly telling Fox News' chief Washington correspondent, James Rosen, that US intelligence believed North Korea would respond to additional UN sanctions with more nuclear tests - something Rosen then reported. Kim did not obtain unauthorized access to classified information, nor steal documents, nor sell secrets, nor pass them to an enemy of the US. Instead, the DOJ alleges that he merely communicated this innocuous information to a journalist - something done every day in Washington - and, for that, this arms expert and long-time government employee faces more than a decade in prison for "espionage".

The focus of the Post's report yesterday is that the DOJ's surveillance of Rosen, the reporter, extended far beyond even what they did to AP reporters. The FBI tracked Rosen's movements in and out of the State Department, traced the timing of his calls, and - most amazingly - obtained a search warrant to read two days worth of his emails, as well as all of his emails with Kim. In this case, said the Post, "investigators did more than obtain telephone records of a working journalist suspected of receiving the secret material." It added that "court documents in the Kim case reveal how deeply investigators explored the private communications of a working journalist".

But what makes this revelation particularly disturbing is that the DOJ, in order to get this search warrant, insisted that not only Kim, but also Rosen - the journalist - committed serious crimes. The DOJ specifically argued that by encouraging his source to disclose classified information - something investigative journalists do every day - Rosen himself broke the law. Describing an affidavit from FBI agent Reginald Reyes filed by the DOJ, the Post reports [emphasis added]:

"I love the Olympics, but I hate what the Russian government is doing throughout the world," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told NBC News on Tuesday.

Nationality Law & Legal Definition

Nationality is the legal relationship between a person and a state. The person becomes subject to the state's laws, even while not physically present in the state, in exchange for the state's protection, and other rights.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, (INA) with some major, and many minor changes, continues to be the basic immigration law of the country. The most significant amendment to the INA was in 1965, which abolished the natural origin provisions and established a new quota system.

In 1997, OMB issued a Federal Register Notice regarding revisions to the standards for the classification of federal data on race and ethnicity.[8] OMB developed race and ethnic standards in order to provide "consistent data on race and ethnicity throughout the Federal Government. The development of the data standards stem in large measure from new responsibilities to enforce civil rights laws." Among the changes, OMB issued the instruction to "mark one or more races" after noting evidence of increasing numbers of interracial children and wanting to capture the diversity in a measurable way and having received requests by people who wanted to be able to acknowledge their or their children's full ancestry rather than identifying with only one group. Prior to this decision, the Census and other government data collections asked people to report only one race.[3]

If ethnicity had no bearing, why do most countries bother with race and ethnicity?

GCHQ did not break British laws in the use of the American Prism system to gather information, the Commons intelligence and security committee reported today. But the MPs also stated they would be reviewing the legislations regarding the effect of surveillance on privacy and human rights.
[..]
The ISC said in its report: "It has been alleged that GCHQ circumvented UK law by using the NSA's Prism programme to access the content of private communications. From the evidence we have seen, we have concluded that this is unfounded."

However, the Committee, chaired by former foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind, added: "it is proper to consider whether the current statutory framework governing access to private communications remains adequate". It was "examining the complex interaction between the Intelligence Services Act, the Human Rights Act and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act [Ripa], and the policies and procedures that underpin them, further."