The actions from what we've seen so far are completely legal; what Snowden did is not. It's incredibly simple.
That's a completely unsupported assertion. Clearly what the NSA has been up to is compatible with a small secretive framework of laws and courts, but a large part of the outcry is due to the fact that this framework hasn't been publicly subjected to Supreme Court challenges, so the compatibility with the larger body of law and the constitution is fairly uncertain compared to things like normal law-enforcement procedures. (If PRISM et al had been thoroughly tested at the Supreme Court level, there would have to have been a decision as notorious as Dred Scott or Roe v Wade, and a corresponding movement to amend the constitution in order to overturn the Supreme Court. Neither has happened yet.)
Ah, innocent until proven guilty and all that!
I am not entirely convinced everything we have seen the US do in this case in legal in international terms. By pressuring countries to ignore the asylum process in order to carry out an illegal extradition is already crossing a line. If he was to be extradited it would be breaking international law.
And the US was one of the primary authors of these international laws, treaties and standards of human rights.
> If he was to be extradited it would be breaking international law.
What international law prevents a country from willingly deporting a foreigner?
In previous cases[2] where people are deported whilst seeking asylum the UNHCR has said:
> UNHCR denounced the move as a violation of the "non-refoulement" policy that prohibits the forced return of asylum seekers to areas where they could face danger – a cornerstone of international refugee protection.
> "We cannot accept that these asylum seekers were deported without a chance to explain their case,"
In my opinion, for the rule of law to stand, the asylum process must conclude before he gets deported.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-refoulement [2] http://www.unhcr.org/3fe98ef84.html