As reported, Snowden understood that he would be “made to suffer for my actions.” He indicated he would “be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant.”

Snowden stated that his sole reason for making public the top secret documents was to “inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them.” He acknowledged he had  “a very comfortable life, ” which included a salary of “roughly $200,000, a girlfriend,… a home in Hawaii, a stable career, and a family he loves,” nevertheless, he said he would be “willing to sacrifice all of that because I can’t in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they’re secretly building.”

As the reporters for The Guardian, Greenwald, MacAskill and Poitras said, “For him, it is a matter of principle. ‘The government has granted itself power it is not entitled to. There is no public oversight. The result is people like myself have the latitude to go further than they are allowed to,’ he said.”

Even if Snowden had the noblest of intentions, which he said or implied either directly or indirectly he had. And even if he really struggled with his conscience as to what to do – that is whether to remain silent and, as a result, stuff all his high ideals and elevated character, as well as his patriotic thoughts and ideals. And even if he were to terminate his “privileged” and comfortable life style, where he could continue to enjoy the good life well into his retirement years, which he did. And even if he were to follow his integrity by being honest with himself and, as a result, do just what he did do, which was to sacrifice all of the things that many a man spends a life time to acquire, all done in order to follow his conscience and do what he thought was right – he still broke the law when he broke the oath of secrecy that he took before he started working for the NSA. As a result, he was charged with espionage.

There were other more lawful means he had available to him to vent his anger at how the NSA was run short of sharing some of the agency’s top-secrets with the public. One way that immediately comes to mind is discuss his concerns with his superiors.

But wait, there’s more here than meets the eye!

Though I think Snowden is very bright, judging the way he answered questions when I listened to his video recorded interviews, nevertheless, there’s a naive quality to his thinking. What he has done is come to a premature closure in his reasoning as to why he thinks as he does. What he failed to fully understand is what governmental safeguards have been put into place to help maintain one’s anonymity, where the person’s privacy is maintained until a certain threshold is met. When that brink occurs, determined by the number of phone calls directed at a suspected known terrorist phone number or some other index used which would indicate further action need be taken, then what Snowden fears is routinely happening now, could potentially occur then. But before that action could occur, a search warrant would need to be obtained.

It is my understanding that the government is doing everything possible to establish guidelines which  would help minimize any of the American citizen’s freedoms from being violated. Besides, Congress was made fully aware of the practice that Snowden fears is a violation of our Constitutional rights, even though it received bipartisan support.  In this instance, it seems as though Snowden may find himself  being on the wrong side of the argument.

What we must remember is that freedom and security are mutually exclusive concepts