Care to elaborate? Or just make snide comments without any factual content.
By definition, Snowden is a Whistle-Blower.[1][2][3][4]
Fact checks of Snowden's claims have largely been found to be very accurate.[5][6]
[1] http://whistleblower.org/what-whistleblower
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower
[3] http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/Enforcement/whistleblowers.htm
[4] http://www.whistleblowers.gov/
[5] http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/09/...
[6] http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/0...
Yes, US foreign relations were damaged as part of the release - but how can anyone claim it's OK to subvert US companies efforts to do business in good faith with foreign customers? Or to wire-tap our closest allies? What about the fallout in pursuit of Snowden where US government officials technically invaded the sovereign nation of Bolivia (the Bolivian President's plane)?
Bringing it home, how is it OK to wire-tap our own elected officials? Or the entire city of Salt Lake? Parallel construction which put people in prison without a fair trail? Purposefully weakening or subverting security protections for every citizen?
Yes, it stung. However it was necessary, and absolutely in the public's best interest. These surveillance programs are very much out of control and scope. There is no sane argument to the contrary.
You are making the argument that Snowden should have done nothing, when in fact that is the least moral thing to do in that situation.
The US is not some how "weaker" because of Snowden - it's weaker because of it's flagrant disrespect to all other nations in the world, especially our allies.
I never made such an argument. In fact, I have repeatedly stated what I think he should have done - reveal information about some obviously unconstitutional domestic surveillance - there's obviously no shortage of choices there.
Whether the US is weaker or stronger does not have anything to do with the question of whether Snowden broke the law. It might affect the judgment about whether he was justified in breaking the law, but that's something for the judge to decide during sentencing, or the president to decide when pardoning him. It's not an excuse for refusing to stand trial.
He has stated many times he will come back and stand trial, so long as it's a fair public trial in civilian courts (because he was/is a civilian).
The US Gov't is unwilling to provide this more fair trial.
And the issue isn't that some evidence is classified, but that all evidence Snowden would want to present is classified. Even his motivation is based on works that are claimed to be classified.
If Snowden can't present a single piece of evidence in his defense that isn't classified, I don't think he's got much of a case. Last I checked, the constitution isn't classified.
You can't have a fair trial where 99% of the evidence is not allowed to be submitted.
The US has Whistle-Blower laws for a reason, yet the US Government is not allowing them to cover his case.
Until a guarantee of a free trial, he has stated he'll remain where he's at. And that's entirely reasonable.
Which the US Government is not allowing. We've looped back to the beginning here... and you still don't understand, don't accept, or don't know the entire narrative.