Martin Luther King, Jr. took a greater risk than that. So did the several freedom fighters in Taiwan I know personally, some of whom did hard prison time for leading peaceful public protests before Taiwan democratized. It takes people with a lot of courage to change tough situations.

I am well aware of all that, and I have great respect for those people who made those sacrifices, but it doesn't make sense to require that. The idea you're promoting here is "If you won't volunteer to have your life completely ruined, don't do the right thing. I'd rather you just be complicit in something that harms me if you aren't willing to be punished for doing the right thing."

Do you not see how completely bonkers it is to look at somebody who has already given you valuable information at great personal cost and demand that he suffer more for your benefit? Why on earth would you feel he owes that to anybody?

You're really assuming your conclusion here. William Binney did not go to prison at all; Thomas Drake got a month's probation. Now I'm not saying that they were free to make their revelations, or that it was easy; they went through a great deal of stress, legal expense, and obviously their public service careers are permanently over. But that's still a very long way from 'having your life completely ruined.'

Not exactly. I'm assuming that Snowden doesn't believe what he did will hold up in courts. Do you really feel that is an unfair assumption?

Not at all, but the courts might only impose a nominal penalty, such as the single month of probation to which they sentenced Drake. Why don't you address my point, instead of relying on the implicit assumption that facing the music would necessarily involve the government locking him up and throwing away the key?

Because I don't see how it matters. I could believe that he would be easily acquitted in a single day and it would not matter. We're talking about Snowden's decisions here, and Snowden does not listen to me. His read of the situation is the only one that counts, and it is pretty clear that he does not believe he'd have a snowball's chance in hell. You can argue that he's wrong about his chances, but all that would mean is that he's put himself through a lot of hassle and worry for nothing.

Personally, I tend to agree with Snowden — there are too many powerful people who want to destroy him for him to get a fair shake here. You are right that we could be wrong — but I don't see how that matters.

Well, it's certainly up to him to decide for himself, but I think third parties are quite free to form their own opinions about his credibility or integrity (which I rate at something like 6/10, in case you were wondering).

Yes, certainly! I just think it's irrational to discredit his factual claims on the basis that he is unwilling to stand trial. The truth of the statements "Snowden is telling the truth about our spy programs" and "Snowden is accurately assessing the potential for our justice system to offer him a favorable outcome" are not closely related.

I don't see it as a measurement of Snowden's honesty or integrity particularly. It could be that his judgment about the degree and nature of data collection is wrong. I try to avoid making guesses about people's motivations because there's really no way to measure that objectively and it's far too easy to project your own views onto the actions of someone else.

The charges against Drake were mostly BS (he didn't leak classified information). The infractions by Snowden are clear and the penalties are severe.

That doesn't invalidate the efforts of those who are not willing to take quite as extreme risks.

The issue of civil rights is judged independently of whether MLK took great risks.

So, he asks for asylum in the country where they just convicted their own whistle-blower after he's been dead for 4 years. And why is he dead? Well, he died in jail under very suspicious circumstances. This makes Snowden a naive utter moron.