You can make an exact comparison. Not too terribly long ago I saw protests holding up poster sized pictures of prisoner abuse from Abu Gharib and Guantanamo Bay, which is roughly like holding up a poster-sized picture from the 1989 massacre. Nothing happened to these people in spite of the fact that these pictures are deeply embarrassing to the US government and intensely inflammatory in regions of the world where we don't want to be inflammatory.
As much as I give Snowden credit for exposing what can be dangerous autocratic programs, I also must point out that Snowden was not just some random protester. Snowden violated a government secrecy oath that he signed, which is a crime and this fact is printed rather boldly on the contract. Nobody forces you to sign these oaths. You can always say "I'm sorry, I can't sign this, I quit" and walk out and get another job.
That's part of what "the rule of law" actually means. In a nation with the rule of law, the law applies objectively to everyone: crooks, politicians, and yes even do-gooders. If the law is wrong you can vote for representatives to change it, but until then what's written is the law. If the law says it's illegal to hop on a pogo stick, then anyone hopping on a pogo stick gets arrested even if they're on their way to feed starving orphans.
(Secret courts are another matter, and I think those are un-American and should be shut down. But they are used far less in America than in China, and when they are used and the fact becomes known there's generally quite an uproar.)
Also-- personally I find the NSA and CIA less alarming than Facebook and Google. Three-letter agencies operate with at least some democratic oversight and the intel they gather does tend to be used primarily for legitimate intelligence and national security purposes. Unfortunately we do not live on planet fluffy bunny hugs and we need an intelligence service and a military. Facebook and Google operate with zero oversight whatsoever and sell their surveillance services to the highest bidder. Private surveillance operations are completely lawless.
Would you do something truly immoral, because "rule of law"? An example: Every new born child with Apgar score below 8 should be killed. Would you really do it? Would you stick to the rule of law?
> Snowden violated a government secrecy oath that he signed, which is a crime and this fact is printed rather boldly on the contract.
He broke the contract, but you can make a case that the contract was in violation of constitution.
If I were ordered to do something that deeply immoral by the state I might pretend I was going to comply, but only long enough to pack a "go bag" and get myself and my family out of the country. You picked an incredibly extreme example. Not only would I run out of unwillingness to do what was asked but also because living in a country that does that kind of thing is fundamentally unsafe.
I agree that what Snowden did was generally positive and important, but I also agree that he broke the law as written. If I were Snowden's lawyer I would argue exactly what you've argued-- that he acted to expose programs contrary to the US constitution and that therefore his security contract was not valid since a contract to engage in illegal activity is not enforceable. It's likely that the case would make it to the Supreme Court.
No nation is perfect and no system is perfect. I was responding to claims of moral equivalency between the USA and China. In the USA Snowden-like cases are rare. In China you have private citizens who have not signed secrecy oaths being arrested all the time for mere political activism.
> If I were ordered to do something that deeply immoral by the state I might pretend I was going to comply, but only long enough to pack a "go bag" and get myself and my family out of the country.
explain these to those killed in Vietnam or Iraq. Immoral? You mean paying your tax to fund those wars started purely based on a lie, e.g. WMD in Iraq? That is pretty immoral to me. oh, btw, last time when I checked, your tax is still being used to keep the Guantanamo Bay open, immoral or not?
First of all, exactly zero people pay taxes to fund the GWOT. When the wars started, taxes were lowered, not raised. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been funded by debt, not funded by taxes like they should have been.
Second, the whole "WMD is a lie" is largely a matter of semantics. Under federal law, any bomb is a WMD; any grenade is a WMD; any rocket with > 4oz propellant is a WMD; any missile with an explosive charge > 0.25oz is a WMD; any mine is a WMD; any large caliber firearm with a bore > 0.5" in diameter (except shotguns) is a WMD. Of course, chemical, pathogenic, and radioactive weapons are also considered WMDs. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2332a, 921(a)(4).
What evidence do you have that the Iraqi army under Saddam didn't possess grenades?
Certainly, a grenade isn't what most people thought President G. W. Bush meant. I won't dispute that there's a lot of spin involved.
But there's a big difference between spin and a lie.
> That's part of what "the rule of law" actually means. In a nation with the rule of law, the law applies objectively to everyone: crooks, politicians, and yes even do-gooders.
As much as I give Snowden credit for exposing what can be dangerous autocratic programs, I also must point out that Snowden was not just some random protester. Snowden violated a government secrecy oath that he signed, which is a crime and this fact is printed rather boldly on the contract. Nobody forces you to sign these oaths. You can always say "I'm sorry, I can't sign this, I quit" and walk out and get another job.
That's part of what "the rule of law" actually means. In a nation with the rule of law, the law applies objectively to everyone: crooks, politicians, and yes even do-gooders. If the law is wrong you can vote for representatives to change it, but until then what's written is the law. If the law says it's illegal to hop on a pogo stick, then anyone hopping on a pogo stick gets arrested even if they're on their way to feed starving orphans.
(Secret courts are another matter, and I think those are un-American and should be shut down. But they are used far less in America than in China, and when they are used and the fact becomes known there's generally quite an uproar.)
Also-- personally I find the NSA and CIA less alarming than Facebook and Google. Three-letter agencies operate with at least some democratic oversight and the intel they gather does tend to be used primarily for legitimate intelligence and national security purposes. Unfortunately we do not live on planet fluffy bunny hugs and we need an intelligence service and a military. Facebook and Google operate with zero oversight whatsoever and sell their surveillance services to the highest bidder. Private surveillance operations are completely lawless.