"Thisi is not helpful. Courts and judges have no say in what is right and wrong. You need to take a stand personally and not use the law as a proxy."
Helpful for what? For emotional outrage to support concrete political agenda? I'm looking for sane and balanced stuff here. I'm not saying what's NSA done is right, but I'm not saying what's wrong either. Because yes, I don't fully agree some of "liberty" definitions, and I fully don't know extent of situation.
I agree with some of notions - secret court is very dubious oversight and it must be improved (existence of this court is known for very long time, and no voter base has even cared about it), it is hard to buy for me as specialist that hoarding so much data really change anything of success of anti-terrorist efforts (but I can be very wrong, depends on workflow). However, I can agree with arguments from other side that communications allow baddies to move frighteningly fast. But if you allow this to frighten you (NSA actions reeks of desperation, so much data ain't practical), you can easily miss real threats.
"As you say, we live in a complex world. The law is not suitable to use to identify right from wrong."
I can hold my own views what is right and wrong, which is purely subjective matter. For public those things are different to each person. There's reason we have laws. Because what do you think is right might differ from mine POV.
For me "hero" would be person, who would expose really criminal activities (these isn't), while bracing true dangers. He wanted to make a sound political stand (same as Assange), because everybody following news knew that NSA were hoarding data. He must be treated fairly, he must be judged by laws he broke (or didn't - for judge to decide), but he won't get hero parade from me. But that's only and only mine opinion - you can have your own.