Sure, but I think the commenter has a point. Let's assume everything works the way it's supposed to. Ideally, when something like this happens it makes perfect sense for the US government to take notice of the fact that a law has been broken, bring charges, and take this to court. If the system continues to work the charges will be contested on the grounds that the action was in the interest of the public and that the leaks document a violation of the constitution. The govt drops the charges, and heads off to repair the completely fucked effects of the patriot act, etc.

So I agree it's naive and even unreasonable to expect the US not to file charges. I also agree that there's plenty of evidence that our justice system fails to operate even close to the way it ought to with respect to cases of this nature so I'd sure as shit get out of town if I was in this situation too.

[edit: Very much agree with replies to this comment suggesting none of this is likely to, or can possibly happen today.. I'm just saying the nature of the machine is to act as if it's not broken, which with respect to our approach to intelligence-related disputes, it obviously is.]

The charges will be contested how? The secret courts and the secret interpretation of the Patriot Act are secret and the State holds them to be State Secrets, and thus you cannot contest the charges, and thus the Constitutionality of the law is never challenged, and thus the law stays on the books, to be fully enforced.

If this is not a definition of corruption, I don't know what is.

Unfortunately, Bradley Manning's case shows that there's a fair chance that Snowden would never get a trial...

Apples and oranges: Snowden would be tried in a a civilian court, not a military court; he is not subject to the UCMJ.

Why? The people at Guantanamo bay are not employees of the US military either...

And no American citizens are in Guantanamo Bay either...

Do you mean something else, because even ignoring the stark differences between Manning and Snowden, and the military and civilian courts, Manning's trial, last I heard, had started.

I didn't know that. It did take a bloody long time, though.

It did. But then again, it's a complicated issue. On one hand, I want it to be handle promptly. On the other hand, I don't want it rushed.

No, I don't think it does in this case actually.

Well, I think he's being charged for revealing information about how the US Government violates the Constitution, specifically the 4th Amendment.

Let's be clear: in the United States of America, the Constitution is the Law. The first 10 Amendments constitute the Bill of Rights, and the first paragraph of http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.htm... clearly shows why they were included in the Constitution:

"During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens.