> So I'll put forward a controversial, but hopefully true point: If you believe in the Rule of Law, then Snowden should be tried, and probably will be found gui

> So I'll put forward a controversial, but hopefully true point: If you believe in the Rule of Law, then Snowden should be tried, and probably will be found guilty, for a fairly clear breach of the law. There was a time when it was illegal to leave East Germany for West Germany. If the border patrouls catched you doing that they were allowed - by law - to shoot you. When you were catched and didn't get shot you were judged by the judges of East Germany because you broke the law ('Republikflucht', i.e. "desertion of the republic", see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republikflucht http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republikflucht). The law was quite clear here, but most people don't accept that you should be shot or put on trial for trying to leave your country. There are many others examples, from history (think about a certain time in german history for the most famous example) or current: North korea, China and so on. So, the question I put forward against your point is: The USA can judge him as long as they want, but does he have to go back and accept their judgement? because of "rule of law"? I'd say no, but the debate is still open.