Loyalty to humanity as a whole should (and seemingly has, in his case) override more parochial considerations. The "national security" of the US nation is far less important than the individual humans who live in it, and Snowden has done the latter a great service.
Perhaps Ecuador cares about human rights?
http://www.cpj.org/blog/2013/06/new-ecuadoran-legislation-se...
Russia: "Snowden, the U.S. has requested that we detain you. We could hand your over to the U.S., but we'd be happy to offer you political asylyum here, or we could let you leave for Ecuador in a few hours and tell the U.S. we couldn't find you in time."
Snowden: "I'd like to leave for Ecuador, please."
Russia: "Well, then, all you have to do is tell us everything you know about programs X, Y, and Z. We're very interested in these programs, and anything you can tell us about U.S. surveillance of Russian government and military activities."
Snowden: "I don't know anything about those."
Russia: "Well, OK, I guess it's prison for you then."
Snowden: "No, wait--I'll tell you everything I know."
And boom: intelligence jackpot for Russia.
What he has done is not confined to "whistleblowing", if indeed any of it is. He apparently stole massive amounts of classified information, much of it on programs that by any reasonable definition are legitimate, albeit potentially embarrassing. He's now flying around from one U.S. strategic competitor to another, apparently unconcerned that what he stole could end up in the hands of those who do not wish the U.S. well. Feel free to describe him as being a hero to the world or whatever, but his protestations to have done all of this for love of country are starting to ring quite hollow.
Why, because he doesn't behave in a way that comports with your definitions of love of country?
IMO, the truest patriot is one who cares enough about his country to call out its faults. That he doesn't want to be "Gitmo-ed" or suffer "extraordinary rendition" to a place where they "interrogate" you by shoving a broken beer bottle up your ass is pretty orthogonal to patriotism, if you ask me.
And seriously: It would have been completely illegal to send Snowden to Gitmo or any other nation. If you're worried that the President is willing to do things that are blatantly and obviously illegal and unconstitutional, as opposed to in the gray areas of national security, and that no one in the Congress or the judiciary could or would do anything about it, then hey, get that impeachment petition going. But really this is all just hn hyperventilation.
If Snowden thought he was a true whistleblower, he should have followed the law, which describes exactly how he should have communicated his concerns. If that had failed, go to Congress and testify. But sneaking off to HK with (apparently) a bunch of unrelated information was not a "brave" or "patriotic" thing to do.
What if one of those laptops has the names of undercover agents on it? I'm not saying it does, I'm just trying to understand the scope of your argument.
Fair. But who voted for anyone running the NSA? When did we decide that the national security programs of the United States should operate without the consent of the governed?
Sure, we could expect that someone from the NSA would brief the President or congress on the happenings of surveillance. It seems like a huge priority. But I lean towards Hanlon's Razor and thus towards believing that there are multiple layers of people between the people who make these decisions and the President--layers of people who are balancing their job security (after all, who would hire someone fired from the NSA for overstepping the 4th amendment) and their job description (after all, who do we blame when terrorist attack?). It's simply the stupidity of the system rather that malicious individuals within it.
Maybe other programs would wiggle their way through the bureaucracy without his notice, but the fact that he hasn't made a big show of publicly terminating these particular programs suggests that he is responsive to the concerns of the public. Unfortunately the concerns of the public don't appear to line up with yours at the moment.
And to get back to my point, they don't line up with Snowden's either. Which is too bad for Snowden, but it doesn't give him the right to do whatever he wants with the classified information he was trusted and paid to protect.
Again with this "all leakers and disssidents must throw themselves upon a pyre" attitude. Snowden never said he was going to needlessly kill himself (passively, or otherwise).
The C&D to the Bitcoins Foundation is no surprise either. It's in the cross hairs of the US government and it can't be allowed to exist. Read the book Cypherpunks and you'll find out why. I'm sure those in power know the book well.