At the same time, he also leaked information on legimate surveillance programs. Not everything he reported was a crime. It's not exactly a black and white issue.
You're missing the point. Whether or not you like the NSA, it shouldn't be shocking that they're spying on other countries, that is part/all of its intended purpose. Maybe they shouldn't be, but that's not really Snowden's place to decide.
The NSA is spying on American citizens (and doing so without telling them) is likely illegal, and that's the big revelation that Snowden released. But he also released lots of secret/confidential information on legitimate foreign intelligence operations, and even if you're ok with that it's not like that's something that should/can just get a free pass. There's a difference between leaking things because you believe they are illegal, and leaking things because you don't like them. One is protected, the other is not. Snowden essentially did both.
> There's a difference between leaking things because you believe they are illegal, and leaking things because you don't like them.
Exactly that's what I meant: You shouldn't just leak illegal things (because the state itself defines most often that whatever it does is legal).
So we only have a moral compass left and it's understandable that those are different for each person. If Snowden thinks that "secret/confidential information on legitimate foreign intelligence operations" is not ok if the target is an ally, then that's his moral judgment and he can leak it.
If you disagree, you imply that now that most of the spying on citizens is legalized (post-facto), it's cool.
Or - Godwin's law to the rescue - now that the Reichtstag decided that secretly killing jews is fine, leaking is a moral offense ;)
