Not sure when stating a fact is boasting. boasting would be more...

Not sure when stating a fact is boasting.

boasting would be more along the lines of:

"I've got a PhD and have contributed original research to a global discourse, publish regularly blah blah blah."

You said I should think for myself. I demonstrated that I had, in fact done that, by stating a fact and I challenged you to do likewise.

The thing about common sense is that it isn't common. Take religion for example. Every scrap of evidence and common sense tells us that there isn't creature who lives in the sky who created us and so on... but billions of people believe it. Common sense tells you that developing a hard drug habit is bad, but lots of people do it anyway.

Needless to say I have no faith in common sense.

To address your point. Is there a problem with knowing what your government is up to. No, in a true democracy it is vital that citizens get informed. That's traditionally been the media's role though the point could be made that the media isn't doing its job for one reason or another.

The issue is how the information came out. Here's a parallel: You get drunk and hook up with your best friend who happens to be the same gender as you. Not illegal. Embarrassing for you if it got out but not illegal.

You go to your psychologist and spill the beans and they are bound by law not tell anyone. You think you are safe, your identity is protected. You get home and find your psychologist has betrayed you and the selfies you took of the incident are all over your social medial pages....

Snowden broke the law, a law he agreed to before being employed, when he released information that he didn't agree with, that was not illegally obtained, according to law of the land that he promised he would abide by. That's what makes him a criminal, not the type of information he released, just how he released it.

so not only did snowden break the law, one could argue he lied about his intent to keep the secrets he promised to keep, which from the perspective of natural law is a worse crime to commit. It was his job to keep secrets and didn't do it, like the priest that informs to the cops, or the psychologist or the doctor or any other individual that is charged with keeping sensitive information hidden. Then rather than face the music, he hides in Russia?

If a hit and run driver killed someone and then hid in a foreign country rather than face the music would think that was "right"? If an identity fraudster ripped you off - making all your sensitive information public in the process, then ran off to hide under a rock forever, would you think nothing of it?

Snowden is no different. He took something that wasn't his, and gave it to other people, then ran away and hid before he could be made answerable. Does this seem right to you?

What happens if information he released was used in a plot by (whatever organisation) that kills civilians, information that would not have been made secret had he not stolen and released data. Would that be ok - or would he be an accessory?

I'm just not seeing how you think snowden is anything other than a common criminal and a coward. A thief and a Liar.