I predict that NSA will soon get (or already has gotten) heavily into mining Bitcoin, so as to gain control of the blockchain and with it the power to steal Bitcoins from anybody it doesn't think should have them.

Snowden started as a hero and wound up as a coward, refusing to face the consequences of his actions. Can you imagine Roark going into hiding after dynamiting his bastardized creations? If Snowden had the courage to stand in front of the nation as the hero he could and should have been, I'd be willing to bet that a number of top lawyers would have clamored to defend him pro bono.

Or imperial decree.

++ And then some

So could we say that El Presidente using tax payer money to provide free transportation to illegal aliens to come to the United States an accessory to a crime? In-so-far as Jeb's excuse for parents entering the United States illegally as a matter of love to be with their clildren, one might ask if they loved them so much why did they abandon them to a foreign nation where they became law breakers by just being here? The bottom line is Obama is working to pack the polls with illegal voters to insure that the bankrupt democrap party can stay in power and continue the march to destroy this country with Hillary, another proven liar,

Screw what the little king wants--and the corrupt control freak jackass he rode in on.

Respectfully, if you consider espionage an unlawful law, and one that can be violated at will, there is no point in having an organized society.

You cannot break an unlawful law....As a contractor he is also bound by ethical and moral duties that go above the people he works for.

So based on your statement, all the German citizens who turned in Jews are innocent since they were not soldiers. Bystanders of a murder are innocent. Oh I think not, you can be an accomplice, before, during and after the fact. Being a willing participant in actions that are a blatant violation of higher statutes does make one a criminal. and violating unlawful orders and unlawful rules does not make one a criminal, but instead an ethical person not willing to compromise their integrity.

As a matter of fact, yes I have heard of it.

In our original system of jurisprudence, the founders took the elements of English common law that they felt were just and built upon it. One of the things that they set out to do was to make the jury, and not the judge the king of the courtroom. The judge's duty, more or less, was to act as an advisor to the jury. The jury was to accomplish two things in a trial: 1) determine if the accused broke the law and 2) determine if the intent of the law was actually applicable in this particular instance. In other words, putting the law in the particular case on trial as well. The idea was to treat someone who robbed your wages differently from someone who stole a loaf of bread to feed his family. I strongly doubt that the framers envisioned a day when a judge would send a jury back to deliberate when he didn't like the verdict that they returned. That actually happened in New Jersey some years ago.

In conclusion, what I'm saying is that it's a jury's job to determine snow don't measure of guilt or innocence for breaking the law...not the President's.

Well stated, Winterwind

Heard of Jury Nullification? If the PTB have their way, you don't. You can get a "go to jail forever" card if you say the words in a courtroom and don't sit down and shut up.
Essentially, it says that if someone violated a law which you, as a juror, judge to be a "bad law", you may [and should] find the defendant in the case not guilty, even if he is guilty on the facts. We had such a case in Colorado - a juror refusing to find a defendant guilty because she disagreed with the law. She served a lengthy contempt of court sentence. It was argued to the Colorado Supreme Court and the recalcitrant juror won it. The lawyer who argued it, BTW, once ran for governor on the Libertarian ticket.

So, refusing to uphold a bad law is in many ways, equal to disobeying an illegal order. Refusing to obey a bad law is also related to, if not equal to, disobeying a bad order.

Just because something is a law doesn't mean you have to follow it. It was a crime in Nazi Germany to conceal and aid Jews and the rest of the laundry list of "undesirables" - and the people who broke it were heroes.

I think Snowden did the right thing in breaking a bad law, for a very very good reason.

Snowden was not a soldier.

I don't like what was being covered up any more than you do, but the fact remains, that he broke a number of laws.

Snowden = HERO in my book.

Reference UCMJ, and Nuremburg Trials.

UCMJ: Soldiers required to obey all lawful orders.

Inverse, Soldiers obligated to DISOBEY unlawful orders and report them up the chain.

"I was just following orders" proven to be no defense against soldiers violating law.

Snowden did the right thing in exposing the unlawful activities of our Government and he deserves a medal. I hope the next president pardons him and gives him one.

I'm not trying to say that Snowden didn't do it, but he deserves his day in court. Hell, Son of Sam even had a legal defense fund. It seems to me that HRH Obama has already tried and convicted Snowden by executive order. Once again, a very slippery slope.

Maybe we should change that term to 'Executive Decree'.