Snowden claims he's very brave, but at this point he's coming across as a coward.

[Cali_Democrat]

He's literately cowering in Hong Kong, a Chinese protectorate. Yes, China, that bastion of freedom utterly opposed to surveillance and censorship

If Snowden did nothing wrong and broke no laws, then he shouldn't worry about making his case to a jury of his peers.

[still_one]

1. He did something wrong, he released classified information to the media, and that is a crime.

However, you are correct, if he truly believed that he was doing this for the Constitution, he should have no problem wanting to come back and defend his cause.

Daniel Elsberg did not run off to another country.

There is a lot of things we do not know, among them why would Booz Allen even hire such a person

[Cali_Democrat]

6. Exactly

Snowden is no Daniel Elsberg.

[freedom fighter jh]

21. Is it a crime?

I remember reading that Ellsberg thought he was committing a crime but then learned that there is no law against releasing classified information per se. That is why Ellsberg never went to jail -- there was no law that he could be charged with violating. There is a law that you are *at risk of* breaking when you release classified information -- something about endangering national security -- but it's not clear off the bat that Snowden did that.

I don't blame him for running off. Whether he committed a crime or not, he surely will be punished if caught. Just look what they did to Bradley Manning *before* his trial.

All that said, Snowden's choice of Hong Kong does make me doubt his motives, especially given the timing, with the summit going on.

[MADem]

31. Manning is subject to the UCMJ. Snowden is not. It's apples/oranges. nt

[freedom fighter jh]

37. What does the UCMJ have to do with treating the accused illegally, unfairly, and inhumanely?

Are you saying the UCMJ allows for the accused to be tortured before they are tried?

I'm saying they tortured Manning because he spilled secrets, and they didn't wait for legal cover before they did it.

Yes, he's governed by a different code than Snowden is, but so what, given that they did not rely on that code to justify torturing him.

[MADem]

38. You're suggesting Manning was waterboarded? Placed in stress positions? Hanged by his thumbs?

Please.

Being put on suicide watch isn't "torture." Don't degrade the actual meaning of the word--it's offensive.



The military justice system is not the same as the civilian system. You can find lots of information on the differences at Google.

[freedom fighter jh]

41. You're right; it wasn't torture.

But it was the U.S. breaking a rule meant to prevent torture. See http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/12/u-n-says-u-s-broke-torture-rule-in-denying-access-to-manning/.

And it was "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment." See http://www.salon.com/2012/03/07/un_top_torture_official_denounces_bradley_mannings_detention/.

I don't know why you keep trying to say I have to understand the whole military justice system before I can say these things.

[MADem]

43. I don't 'keep trying to say' any such thing.

You don't have to know a doggone thing about the military justice system, except for ONE thing--that military justice isn't the same system as civilian justice.

Manning is subject to military justice. Snowden is not.

That was the point I was making.

You have the ability to Google and learn more about the differences between the two systems, if you'd like. It should be a fairly straightforward search.

[freedom fighter jh]

60. Then just what *are* you trying to say?

Manning is subject to a different justice system than Snowden is. And your point is?

[MADem]

63. That's it. That's the point.

The two systems are very different, and you should get on the Google and do some homework if you're interested in exploring them.

[freedom fighter jh]

67. Why would I want to do that?

I have a feeling you're trying to say something, but I don't get it. Just what do I have to understand about the differences between the two systems that relates to this thread? You seem to be saying there's an important difference, but I see no indication of what that difference is -- except that I should go to google to find out.

[MADem]

68. You started this--reread your post 21.

Under the UCMJ, certain things are "crimes" that aren't crimes in civilian life.

Examples:

Don't show up for work. Crime in the military, not in the civilian community.

Have sexual relations with a married person or someone who is a junior employee in your workcenter: Crime in the military, not so much in civilian life.

Tell your boss a lie. Crime in the military, not as a civilian.

Military personnel are held to higher standards across the board. They don't always live up to those standards but when they don't, the punishment is often harsher.

[freedom fighter jh]

88. I don't know what your point has to do with my post #21.

That's why my perception is that you started it. Clearly you see it differently.

[LeftInTX]

53. Ellsberg was charged

Case fell apart due to I guess you could call it, "prosecutor misconduct". (Nixon et al) So case was dismissed.

Ellsberg was willing to spend the rest of his life in prison.

[still_one]

66. That is right Ellsberg was willing to really pay the price

[arely staircase]

78. Where do you get your information? Ellsberg was charged under the Espionage Act. He surrendered and

was placed under arrest. During his trial it was revealed that the Nixon administration had engaged in gross misconduct towards him and the judge declared a mistrial and dismissed the charges.

[pnwmom]

84. There is a huge difference. Ellsburg wasn't a government employee or anyone else

given special access to his information. That's why the law didn't apply in his case, but did in Manning's and Snowden's.

Snowden WAS given special clearance through his work and he took an oath to protect the classified documents he was given access to.

Have you heard, by the way, of the interview he's now given to the Chinese newspaper, where he described US hacking against China?

[Monkie]

65. the guardian liaised with the NSA before publishing, redacted the slides

the details of which are in this thread i posted:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022992399

he may have broken US law, but the USA broke international law, and the collaborating companies broke european law to aid in the spying on all the citizens of europe, your supposed allies.

so what is the worse crime, the leaking of a few documents from a program that is supposedly legal in the USA, after vetting by the NSA, or the limitless spying and permanent storage of the data obtained through spying on your allies, the citizens of europe.
i think that fits the text book definition of a whistleblower?

[Pholus]

2. What a brave sentiment! nt

[pa28]

8. Congressional medal of honor for brave sentiment awarded to the OP. n/t

[ProSense]

3. He screwed himself, and

the claim in Greenwald's piece will likely ensure he's toast.

The Guardian, in its promotion of this story is one of the “most significant leaks in US political history.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022978492

The media is running with that "biggest leak in US political history" and establishing that he cannot be considered a whistleblower.

[CakeGrrl]

4. Crickets...he's a hero here

Maybe this Ron Paul supporter isn't the great Obama-destroying warrior that people were so eager to believe.

When Hannity likes someone, I'm not on board.

[LeftInTX]

5. Yes, he's conveniently in a country

that would love more of what he has. (Classified US information)

If he wanted to merely escape, he could have gone to Tahiti.

[davidpdx]

52. Maybe China will take him in and offer him a sweet deal

in exchange for whatever else he has. It will be interesting to see if he turns up whether they will deport him or let him stay.

[Abq_Sarah]

7. I understand why he bolted

But I question his choice of Hong Kong.

A lot of people claim he should have gone through normal channels,, talk to a supervisor, make an appointment with his congressional representative but I think we all know where that would have ended up.

If the US is able to extradite him, there is absolutely NO chance he will have anything approaching a fair trial. Evidence of what he leaked would be suppressed and it would boil down to did he leak classified material? Well, I don't live in such a black and white world that I could possibly separate the information from the act. If what he says is true, his "crime" would be akin to jaywalking compared to the crime committed against the people of this country by their government. Would a jury be allowed to address that?

[Cha]

9. He did break the law..

Pure motives and laudable effects don't alter the fact that he broke the law and exposed information that is both deeply classified and highly useful in tracking terrorists. The government can't easily ignore the offense without creating a standard that would expose more damaging secrets to individual discretion.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/06/09/nsa-whistle-blower-edward-snowden-editorials-debates/2406409/

We'll see how this plays out.. it's early yet but so far we do know.. he told his supervisors that he was going to get treatment for epilepsy but went to China to leak documents from NSA and he's a Ron Paul supporter. Got it.

According to campaign finance reports, Snowden made a $250 donation to Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign in March of that year. Paul has been a critic of excessive government intrusion.

For the past several months, Snowden was stationed in Hawaii, working as an NSA contractor for the firm Booz Allen Hamilton. It was there, at the NSA offices, he told the Guardian newspaper, that he copied the last set of documents he intended to disclose, told his NSA supervisors he needed time off for treatment for epilepsy, and boarded a flight to Hong Kong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/edward-snowden-says-motive-behind-leaks-was-to-expose-surveillance-state/2013/06/09/aa3f0804-d13b-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html

.Snowden told the Post “I’m not going to hide,” but his future is uncertain.

Hong Kong and the U.S. maintain a bilateral extradition treaty, but it includes exceptions for political crimes. It is unclear how the Chinese government, which maintains significant influence in the Special Administrative Region, will react to Snowden’s presence or how they will treat him. He told the Post that he is seeking “asylum from any countries that believe in free speech and oppose the victimization of global privacy.”

http://swampland.time.com/2013/06/09/four-things-to-know-about-surveillance-leaker-edward-snowden/

But, he says he's "not going to hide".. Does that means he's coming back to the US to face the consequences?

Sounds like he's looking for the sweetest deal he can get. Iceland?

[LittleBlue]

10. He's a coward because he doesn't want to spend the rest of

his long life in a hole like Bradley Manning?

Crap troll thread is crap

[Cali_Democrat]

11. He's a hero who did nothing wrong

So why not just face a jury of your peers instead of cowering across the globe?

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. Juries frequently enforce crap laws

such as the jury who freed the man who shot the escort in his home in Texas. He may have done nothing wrong, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an American law against it. Many DUers think there's nothing wrong with smoking marijuana, but it's against the law.

[fasttense]

20. Because he can NOT get a fair trial.

Fair trails are reserved for the uber rich in America, not the average man. There are 2 types of legal systems in America one for the average person and whistle blowers who ares always found guilty, and one for the rich, who are always found to be innocent or guilty of mistakes (they then pay a very small fine for their mistake and are let out to make those mistakes again). Just check out banksters, money launderers, and Rick Scott.

But supposing he could get enough money to afford a good defense, do you really thing the US government would play fair? This is an administration that has prosecuted more whistle blowers and won in the history of our country. Obama doesn't like whistle blowers and whistle blowers (and pot smokers) are one thing Holder does NOT ignore. They hate people who tell on the illegal practices of the government and corporations. They attack them mercilessly and will use any trick in the book to put them behind bars. And paid off judges go along. A jury is no protection against crooked judges and corrupt government lawyers.

[blm]

76. So he entrusts his life to China or Russia where citizens' private lives are respected.

Right?

Boasts that he knows the locations of every CIA outpost in the world and he fears that US justice system is the problem for him going forward? Gee - no country you can think of that would look to ACQUIRE Snowden by any means possible and torture the information out of him, right?

[dkf]

12. If he had stayed here while the WAPO sent his docs to be reviewed by the Govt he might have been

Taken and the article suppressed.

Really he had to be out of the US first. The WAPO took 2 weeks to publish...Snowden had to go to Greenwald in the UK to ensure someone would do the article.

[cali]

13. I disagree. He knew he would have no opportunity to talk and explain his

side of things if he didn't leave the country. He knows he's in for it. He's said so. If he's such a coward, why did he reveal himself of his own volition?

[pnwmom]

14. Why? Maybe he wanted the recognition. n/t

[bobduca]

75. yeah he risked his career, and broke the law just for the recognition

there's plenty of cowardice on display on this thread, for sure.

[pnwmom]

83. Grandiose narcissists aren't like you and me.

Having that personality defect, with its overwhelming need for attention and to feel "special," could be enough to explain his actions.

Now that he has gone to the Chinese newspaper for another interview, are you still defending him?

[bobduca]

91. Nationalism is a poison

[JoeyT]

15. And in the meantime a confessed war criminal chills at his ranch.

Our priorities suck.

[greiner3]

17. Oh how I wish;

For a return for the 'thumbs down', at least for SOME OP's.

[reformist2]

26. We should have it like YouTube, where you can see the number of likes *and* dislikes separately.

[TomClash]

19. Literally

Hong Kong is not Beijing.

"If Snowden did nothing wrong and broke no laws, then he shouldn't worry about making his case to a jury of his peers." An argument made by conservatives forever everywhere, yea, even unto the Middle Ages.

[RILib]

22. he is a hero. He's given up the rest of his life to expose corruption.

[leftynyc]

42. Given up the rest of his life?

How? Is he sick?

[TampaAnimusVortex]

46. You really cant figure that one out?

Think about it a bit... Hint, it doesn’t have to do with him being sick and more has to do with being surrounded by metallic cylindrical objects that stretch from the floor to the ceiling.

[leftynyc]

54. He hasn't been arrested

and is actively looking for asylum somewhere so your hyperbole is a bit off the mark. I'm still waiting for more information to come out before I declare him hero/goat but going to Hong Kong is setting off all kinds of bells for me and I don't trust Greenwald at all. We don't know anything today we didn't already know last week so all this worshiping of a leaker is a mystery to me.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

56. Regardless - his freedom is over.

If the NSA wants to get you, they will - borders mean little to those in the spy game. He knows this and has stated as much.

I think your bias has more to do with who's in office then it does with anything. If this was a Bush administration going after a whistle blower, you would probably be ready to house him in your basement. Think that type of bias isn’t happening here? Polls show otherwise. Here we have effectively 2/3rds democrats ready to trade off their liberties and change positions on surveillance simply because of who's in office. Statistically speaking your more than likely one of these type of pliable types who will trade principle for party.

[leftynyc]

58. He's not a whistleblower

he's a leaker. He didn't uncover anything we didn't already know, he didn't uncover anything illegal. And you don't know shit about me but I'll willingly say I'm waiting for more to unfold until I make up my mind about everyone's motivation here. Looks like so many here are ready to believe whatever they're told by Greenwald so I merely yawn at you deciding what my positions are.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

69. I dont have to decide what your positions are...

Your automatic categorization of leaker instead of whistleblower already shows your bias... which puts you back into that little charts 2/3rds statistically pliable types.

You may say of course that my categorization of whistleblower shows my bias, and indeed it does. I'll take the bias of protecting individual liberties against an overreaching surveillance state any day of the week. You can take the inverse position, which of course involves that whole trading civil liberties for safety thing. Let me know how that works out for ya. I'm sure you’ll be perfectly content as they convince you to let them strip search you too... again, for your own safety. I'm sure that wont be illegal either by that time either.

[Marr]

71. +1

[leftynyc]

77. I'm using a legal definition and

you are parroting glen greenwald...knock yourself out. I'm loving how everyone here thinks they can crawl into other peoples heads and JUST KNOW WHAT THEIR POSITION IS....it's laughably pathetic.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

81. You chose that term, no one made you pick it.

The question is why you decided to choose the legal term "leaker" instead of the term "whistleblower". Both terms are correct, but the selection of the terms point to underlying biases. You can run from those biases, but you cant avoid having them.

You can complain about people crawling in your head, but it has nothing to do with the fact that YOU picked the term... take responsibility for your own perspective and opinions. I simply pointed out that which terms you picked had very definitive relationships to how you perceived the situation. No reason to shoot the messenger here.

[leftynyc]

82. No. legally both terms are not correct

What Snowden did was leak classified documents that showed a legal program's innards...there was nothing illegal and no wrongdoing so he most certainly is not a whistleblower. It's the same as people calling the President a fascist because they don't like him - not because he fits the definition of an actual fascist.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

85. Wrong again - he most definately is a whistleblower

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whistleblower

Definition of WHISTLE-BLOWER
: one who reveals something covert or who informs against another

There is no requirement for something to be illegal for them to be considered a whistle-blower. One can be a whistle-blower on something perfectly legal, much like the recent revelations of Apple's and Google tax structures to avoid taxes.

You just prefer the term leaker instead of whistle-blower because of bias. Why not just admit it?

[leftynyc]

86. If it were true, I would admit it

But it's not. And now on another thread your hero has reportedly given information to the Chinese government so he is the very definition of a traitor. Keep defending him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023001669

[TampaAnimusVortex]

89. You still havent invalidated the definition...

All it takes to be a whistleblower is to reveal something covert.

Also, maybe you should be asking yourself why your defending the NSA hacking other countries including the "Chinese University of Hong Kong"?

[leftynyc]

90. Where did I defend the hacking?

Now you're just making shit up. Are you going to defend him giving the info to a foreign government?

Here is the wikipedia definition of whistleblower - nothing about your entirely benign "covert" nonsense.

A whistleblower (whistle-blower or whistle blower)[1] is a person who tells the public or someone in authority about alleged dishonest or illegal activities (misconduct) occurring in a government department or private company or organization. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health and safety violations, and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused organization) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues).

Not to mention the awesomeness of his giving the info to the Chinese. Keep defending this creep. It's telling me everything I need to know.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

93. Well first of all, definitions dont come from wikipedia... they come from dictionaries.

Wikipedia (which in fact you could edit that article and make it say anything you wanted) is hardly a scholarly source as any English 101 teacher would be happy to tell you.

As for you defending the NSA, well given that your gripe with this guy is that he alerted the world that the NSA is hacking Chinese sites, and you seem to have a problem with that, one can only assume your defending the NSA for doing so. So, is it moral to hack Chinese sites or not? If not, is it moral to alert anyone of an immoral activity?

Also and in a completely separate thread - his confirming to the American people what was suspected, that they were being covertly monitored by some big brother 1984 system is in it's own right a completely justified and proper action that again, defends everyone's civil liberties and anyone with the slightness modicum of respect for freedom could appreciate that. Only authoritarian boot licking lemmings would trust some unseen, unknown state apparatus with that kind of power. The appropriate approach to those that wield that kind of power is a healthly distrust, not placid acceptance of whatever platitudes they happen to be spewing at you.

The great Carlin knew this well...

[sgtbenobo]

23. I concur greiner3

Some on this tread talk shit like circus ponies.

Cali_Democrat your effort to become king stooge is still ridiculously laudable. (thumbs down)

Carry on.

[reformist2]

24. Why make it easy for a tyrannical government to squash him?

[noamnety]

25. Remember when that one coward, the Dalai Lama, fled Tibet? (n/t)

[ozone_man]

70. Yes. And why all this attack the messenger stuff?

Deal with the message.

[backscatter712]

27. Keep spewing Stasi propaganda, quisling! *PLONK*

[Laelth]

29. A coward? Surely, you jest.

He is in great danger. The US is very strong, and Snowden isn't safe (even in China). He's no coward in my book. Even if he were (and there's good reason for him to be timid at the moment), how would it matter? Smearing the guy isn't going to do the President or the Democratic Party any good. I mean that, and I'll say it again:

Smearing the guy isn't going to do the President or the Democratic Party any good.

I hope that key operatives heed this advice.

-Laelth

[Karmadillo]

30. I hear he committed sex crimes or something like that in Sweden or someplace like that.

[Festivito]

32. Silly post. Danger is not just for people who brake rules.

Cowering, in front of television cameras. Really?

[n2doc]

33. Your Icon worship knows no bounds n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

64. I guess just like the people who worship Snowden

right?

[99Forever]

34. A crime you say?

There has been a crime committed for sure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. Yeah that law.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. What? He says he knows he is in deep shit with the law.

Hong Kong may not have been the wisest choice to avoid arrest.

[Apophis]

39. So are all whistle blowers cowards?

[geek tragedy]

40. He's permanently exiled, has about 5 countries he can travel to if he can travel at

all.

And the Chinese aren't going to be eager to keep him around.

[treestar]

44. He said he wanted to stand up for what he did

So he should have stayed here to be charged and face the music.

At least Bradley Manning did that, though it may not have been first choice.

[sibelian]

48. Well, that's providing yourself with an expectation

that you are fully aware the subject of your disdain is not in a position to meet if he intends to acheieve his goal, the better to provide you with "reasons" to disdain him.

[treestar]

49. This doesn't make any sense

He should have stayed to face the charges. Then he'd be worthy of at least the respect that he believed in what he was doing, if misguided or wrong.

[Savannahmann]

45. Have you ever heard of Rendition?

I'll get to the idea of a fair trial in a minute. For now, I thought I'd fill you in on a program that those wonderful folks in National Security use. Rendition. Now since the Government is monitoring all of us, a charge that they say isn't as bad as it seems, and they really aren't listening to your phone calls, do we think they aren't using Rendition anymore?

A fair trial. For it to be a fair trial, the Defense Council would have to have access to all the documents, and be able to present any and all information to the jury. Yet, we won't let any Defense Council have access to the information, and if we do, we then tell them they can't present it in open court. The Judge rules that the information must remain secret, and disallows it's presentation in court. The jury is left to judge the following. Did he release the information? Yes. Well lock him up for life in the electric chair.

Come on Cali, you know better than that don't you?

[treestar]

51. That's not going to happen

If our legal system is worse than China's, I'm a Hitler teapot.

Rendition only happens to Arabic men under the Bush Administration.

[sibelian]

47. Why are you inviting us to react emotionallty to this man?

Why are you not addressing what he has revealed?

[Puzzledtraveller]

50. You're really upset at this guy, aren't you?

[ForeignandDomestic]

55. Crap Thread

He's a coward because he doesn't want to be locked up 23 hrs a day for the rest of his life in a dark cell? Pure genius this thread is pure genius!

We now have a US government that has set precedent and said it can kill it's own citizens without ever been convicted or even charged with a crime, we have a NSA that spies and collects data on practically every American citizen, geez I wonder why Snowden felt threatened!

What Snowden did was reveal to the American populace that we have a Military Industrial Complex gone mad.. that tramples on the 4th amendment and the privacy of every American. People have speculating and indicated for years that this type of activity was going on, but this is the first time someone from the inner workings of the NSA has blown the whistle and expose it for all to see; and for that many, many Americans consider him a hero.

What he has done and going through is far more important than whether or not you consider him a coward. Such a brave soul you are that you can't even mustard enough courage to come from behind your ideolougues to face the reality that our government is spying on it's own citizens, over the top wrong no matter how you slice it, who cares what political flag it's coming under whether it be Republican or Democrat.

Government is what should be open and transparent not the private life of it's citizens; instead it's been flipped upside down and now government is secretive and ambiguous, and the God given right of our privacy is now open and fair game to Military Industrial Corporatocracy.

[sibelian]

57. The more expectations of him I have the better I feel.

It's truly awesome. Particularly when I choose expectations that make me feel BETRAYED BY HIM FOR NOT BEING THE GOOD GUY!

He's a poopyhead that made me look stupid on the Internet.

Can I have a cookie?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

59. Cowering? He's been on TV making his case. Brave man.

[Matariki]

61. If he did nothing *right* then why the overreaching and ridiculous character assassinations?

I'm not defending him, I don't have enough information for an opinion.

BUT when I see the usual suspects go into frenzy mode to smear the guy, it sure makes me wonder. That article you posted yesterday was WAY over the top in ridiculous attempts at painting him as a 'bad guy'. Unfriendly as a neighbor

[Capt. Obvious]

62. Huge coward - he refuses to take a lie detector test

about whether or not he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990

[Douglas Carpenter]

73. he was 7 years old in 1990 - he must have been bad to the bone from the very beginning

[Douglas Carpenter]

72. whatever faults he may have or quirks of personality he may possess-

no matter what wrongs he has ever done or will ever do in the future - It is obvious to everyone by now that anyone who stands on the side of freedom and against the forces of tyranny will be relentlessly smeared by tyranny's loyal and devoted cadre - But whatever is true and whatever is false - if some day the cause of freedom triumphs over tyranny the cause of freedom will forever owe this brave young man, Mr. Snowden an eternal debt of gratitude

[Marrah_G]

74. He's not in Hong Kong any more

[Liberal_in_LA]

92. where is he?

[LanternWaste]

79. how we perceive others is more an illustration of who we are than of who they are.

As Euripides once penned, how we perceive others is more an illustration of who we are than of who they are.

[hamster]

80. President Obama's got this

The Republicans drove the car into the ditch and now they want the car back. Some folks are just mad because they didn't get a horse when President Obama was re-elected. I have President Obama's back. PRESIDENT Obama.

[arely staircase]

87. now we know why he won't return

he is a chinese agent.

[Skip Intro]

94. Let's apply the "if you did nothing wrong" standard to the govt.

And quit chastising someone who just struck a blow for freedom and the Constitution.

You do like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, don't you?

Worth defending, yes?