I'm not particularly interested in the Snowden play-by-play and backstory, but I think it's probably good for his cause.
The story would already be dead if he was extradited or simply disappeared quickly after the leak. Instead the US is getting daily "Where's Waldo" stories in the New York Times along with stories about the relationships between the US, China, and Russia. Having all of these angles from which to write about the story is giving it legs; and the longer it stays in the public's mind, the better.
The best thing about these leaks is the discussion it's making. Hopefully people will become more informed from it (but the number of "ARGHHHH MY FOURTH AMMENDMENT" style comments instead of more specific comments is disheartening).
This is actually so surreal. I don't think the US is ever going to try that hard to get him back to try him, but the entire spectacle / Assange-style "THEYRE GOING TO KILL HIM FOR TREASON" around this guy, along with the supposed strain on relationships this is going to make is stranger than fiction. What is happening
Odd. I was actually somewhat relieved to see people actually caring about their fourth amendment rights in a way that they haven't in far too long.
In all honesty, I think that Snowden's continued media presence is actually hurting his cause. Between the smear campaign by the current administration (and press) and the casual comments he's made that has lost people on his cause, he might be keeping the story going, but the story is shifting more to one of ad hominem, and less of one on the issue at hand.
The populace at large is terribly bad at keeping issues like this in pragmatic focus. Too few realize that even if Satan himself had been the one to leak this information, that we're all better off for having known it; and I'd hope that it would give some Americans pause enough to consider the actual implications of the Constitution; whether or not the government can govern through the consent of the governed, for example, if they have secret governings, or whether or not the non-delegation clause of the Constitution should actually allow for the NSA (staffed with officials we can't vote in or out) to write laws, when the Constitution specifically enumerates that law-making power resides in Congress alone.
So while ultimately, all that boils down to is ARGHHHHH MY FOURTH AMENDMENT, it's also an opportunity to have a larger discussion on what that fourth amendment actually means, and what other parts of the Constitution might come into play, and whether or not it's fair that the government has extended its power to such the degree that we can have 300 different "agencies" like the CPPABSD (Committee for Purchase From People who are Blind or Severely Disabled -- they regulate how many coke and vending machines other government agencies should purchase from strictly blind or severely disabled sources), each of which is allowed to write laws that do not pass Congress, do not pass the house, and aren't subject to the oversight of the citizenry. The FTC, FDA, EPA, NTSB, etc., have all arguably affected each of our lives in some non-trivial ways, and those officials are just there, persisting, whether we like it or not.
Snowden's continued media presence is advancing his cause.
For common people to care, we need a victim. A victim creates a story that the media can report on. The moment we lose our victim, people stop caring. Discussions on what the fourth amendments mean will not capture the hearts of the people for a month or half a year to make changes possible.
For example: If you want to rally the gov to legislate a law to make people to seat belt on buses. Discussion of scientific reports or statistics of seat belts in the press will not go very far. In contrast, a story about a 5 year old that lost both her leg will go a long way.
> "the number of "ARGHHHH MY FOURTH AMMENDMENT" style comments instead of more specific comments is disheartening"
I'm put in mind of how the Federal Circuit always manages to put a pro-patent spin on even the Supreme Court decisions that are clearly intended to overturn what the Federal Circuit has done. Arguing against the details and trying to dismantle things piecemeal just doesn't seem like it will work. They've got their own resilient web of special definitions and interpretations that allow them to justify what we try to prohibit with plain language.
The story would already be dead if he was extradited or simply disappeared quickly after the leak. Instead the US is getting daily "Where's Waldo" stories in the New York Times along with stories about the relationships between the US, China, and Russia. Having all of these angles from which to write about the story is giving it legs; and the longer it stays in the public's mind, the better.