Any argument that you may make to suggest that there is any ambiguity in the 4th amendment, or any ambiguity in the separation of powers, is wrong.
Oh, but the typical mantra from your side is that the constitution is a "living breathing document"; subject to reinterpretations, clarifications and amending as modernity deems appropriate.
Funny how that argument can waiver so fluidly when you interpret it as supporting your point (which, by the way it doesn't in the case of the NSA; at least in the opinion of this judge).
You want to turn America into a shithole autocracy like Russia? Are you a Russian shill? Because only a complete fascist would support the NSA.
That is perhaps the most ridiculous false equivalency I've seen someone try to draw in this debate; ever. You either don't understand the definition of "autocracy" or you're completely blind the executive orders the current president has penned so many times, which much better fit the definition of "autocracy". But that's beside the point.
We are living in a time where the power to kill millions can be wielded by the tens. With the ease at which information is exchanged in this day and age, the modern battlefield is a completely different landscape than our forefathers could have possibly fathomed.
You can get angry at that.
Or even worse, you accept the propaganda that he gave away "state secrets,"
If he didn't give away "state secrets" - then what are you going on about? It's not propaganda, he has indeed given away state secrets. Those secrets are the very basis upon which we're debating his supposed "hero" status. Are you even following along?
If you want to live in a society where the government is not bound by the rule of law in any way
The notion that our intelligence agencies are using this information to silence or otherwise oppress law abiding citizens within our nation is not only intellectually dishonest, but it borders on plain conspiratorial lunacy. Seriously, you sound like a lunatic.
secret surveillance is an enemy of democracy
I'm sure you can figure out where you went wrong with that statement, so I won't even point out what's wrong with it.