"the many lawful avenues to express legal, moral, or ethical qualms with U.S. intelligence activities" don't exist. That's just talk. Previous NSA whistleblowers tried to use them and got nowhere. Thomas Drake had his life destroyed for trying to use these "lawful avenues". All the previous NSA whistleblowers agree that Snowden did the right thing. He did the only thing he could, given the circumstances.
First, Drake's life was hardly "destroyed". He was investigated, charged, and then then allowed to plea out to a misdemeanor.
Second, Drake didn't simply escalate his concerns through channels; he also spoke directly to the media. His media contact occurred contemporaneously with the largest NSA leak story to have occurred prior to Snowden, the investigation of which was ordered directly by George Bush.
You clearly have made no effort to learn more than brief metadata about what path Drake's life took. You are too quick to be contrarian.
Also, I believe I debunked this last time you incorrectly conflated Drake with a completely unrelated leak. Drake did not pass anything classified to the media. He was raided, but never charged with anything other than retaining a document that had an ambiguous classification. His charge was so trivial that if Hillary's email transgressions were pursued with half as much vigor as his, she would be eating through a tube in Guantanamo by comparison. And I say that as someone who does not think the email scandal is more than a dumb but inconsequential mistake.
He did not plea bargain. They could not deliver on a single charge out of their trumped up indictment. They were on a witch hunt, had the wrong guy, and found out much later.
Edit: I'll just link to my old post last time we discussed this.
I wish you'd stop defaming Drake. Sometimes you make what sound like well-researched assertions of fact when you are actually more interested in combating rageviews than getting the story right.
