Its strange because a whistleblower has to run from US government as he is 100% sure (rightfully) that there is no chance of having fair trial or policy change despite the revelations and its implications.
And he has to run to Russia, a country that has much much worse human rights records (at least publicly, it is possibly that US government privately is much worse in human rights).
I think the people of the USA should ask their government what is the legal way to expose government wrongdoing, _to the extend Snowden did_, without being prosecuted and having to run for his life? I am afraid, currently no such law exist.
It's a fairly typical case of shooting the messenger and this is the generalized fate of whistleblowers the world over, be it in corporations, governments or other institutions. The first response is to squelch the source by any means available. If there is change it usually is much later.
Not fair in the sense that the current law exists to not protect whistleblowers like snowden. The law is by default against him and there is no legal way to expose the government to the extend snowden did.
As to Federal judge's my understanding is that (might be wrong) most of these appointments are political in nature. And at least in case of supreme court the judges tends to align with their ideological bias and their interpretation of laws often wildly differs. Don't quote me on it though, just my understanding.
There were well-defined legal channels available to Snowden to communicate any concerns he had about the existing programs. By all accounts, he did not take advantage of any of them.
Did you see the interview that USA Today conducted with NSA whistleblowers Thomas Drake and William Binney when Snowden's leaks were first published? They specifically addressed the myth that there are effective mechanisms in place to report and rectify misconduct. There are none, and these very intelligent, very principled men agreed that Snowden took the correct course of action in exposing all of this.
As dissenters within the agency, they have a more accurate idea about how all of this works in practice than nearly anyone else.
Feel free to show examples of said "well-define legal channels" which Snowden could have used to show the depth of NSA's activity as he did, where the discussion is open for public debate.
Also this has been going on for so long, why didn't anyone else from NSA use said well-defined legal channel to expose NSA activity or at-least put them up for scrutiny.
I can think of 3 reasons:
1) There is no well-defined legal channels to expose NSA illegal activity, to the extend Snowden did.
2) NSA only hires people who are morally corrupt.
3) NSA employees are genuinely concerned about their safety and well-being if they want to expose NSA.
