This is a false statement since the NSA does have oversight.
>Snowden shouldn't spend the rest of his life in jail, which is what would invariably happen would be go to trial in the US.
This, too, is a false statement and conjecture.
>This is a false statement since the NSA does have oversight.
Which is itself a statement that is very much up for dispute. Maybe we should add the word "effective" before "oversight"
Let's see what the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has to say:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/23/4651448/nsa-report-reveals...
> This is a false statement since the NSA does have oversight.
This is a worthless comment. Of these two scenarios, which do you find more likely?
A. Your parent comment knows just as much as you do about whatever "oversight" is notionally exerted over the NSA, but chooses to describe it as "zero" for rhetorical reasons, such as for example a functional equivalence to what might happen in the case where the NSA actually outranked everything else in the country.
B. Your parent comment actually believes that in the US government org chart, the NSA is at the very top.
I lean toward scenario (A), in which case your response has all the value of "does not, infinity!" In general, saying "what you said is incorrect because you're wrong" just makes you sound even more uninformed than the guy saying "but that's wrong!" If you've got something to back yourself up with, use it, don't just assert that it's there.
> This, too, is a false statement and conjecture.
Wow! Do you see any problems with simultaneously describing something as "false" and as "conjecture"?
The available anecdata clearly proves they don't.