Yeah you are right. There is no doubt that revealing the truth is a disobedient act and must be severely punished in order to restore peace and public blindness. Now watch TV and go to sleep and feed the economy, will ya?

There's an irony in how aggressive people are in downvoting any comment which doesn't toe the "Snowden is clearly right" line loudly.

Dissent, ironically, must be crushed on this issue it seems.

It's not like you're making an argument, you just call what some would consider doing the public a service "torquing off that government in the most flamboyant way possible". If you're gonna dissent, argue... but don't be silly, and then pretend the reaction to that sillyness is an argument ;)

You might note I'm not the author of the comment you're referring to.

The opposite argument to saying he did the moral thing is to say he did the immoral thing, not to say "serves him right for upsetting the people paying his salary"

I would argue other wise, on two counts. What I said was that I have no sympathy for him biting the hand that feeds.

Second, I think that the situation has been vastly over complicated by attempts to colour matters as some sort of grand moral crusade. Snowden is not a white knight, nor is he a traitor. He's a man who did what he thought was right. I disagree with his methods, and think that his actions (leaking to journalists rather than going through the appropriate oversight channels (or even just dropping a USB drive off at his Congressman's office, with a break down of what it all means)) negates any sort of 'moral right' that the community has been ascribing to Snowden.

The moral crusade is against the NSA, not for Snowden. There's a distinct difference between the two.

Yes, a Constitutional one and an unconstitutional one.