Prove it. Prove that their actions are unconstitutional. It is often claimed, but the proof never seems to come. Where is the final court decision that says so? Where is the final court decision that says the Congress, the Executive branch, and all prior court decisions are wrong? Or is it "proved" by assertion only, proof by rhetoric?

As is common on Slashdot your histrionics are popular, but it is pure demagoguery. Who are these "millions" whose "well being" you claim are at risk? Hmmm? Who? How is their “well being” at risk?

And what freedom is in danger of not “surviving?”

Your entire post is rubbish and it is a mark of how rare thoughtful moderation is that it is so high.

Quoting the news is trolling? I think somebody doesn't understand moderation.

Since it sounds like he really hasn't been in touch with her it looks more like he dumped his girlfriend. Why hasn't he invited his girlfriend to Russia?
He has stated that the only reason he took his "cushy job" was to steal classified documents:
      Snowden to newspaper: I took contractor job to gather evidence
Snowden couldn't be found in the airport for long stretches of time. Perhaps he was resting in a Russian supplied suite?
The simple truth is we know next to nothing about Snowden's living conditions in Russia, other than he is being protected by the FSB, who has no doubt had many chats with him, and his spokesman is on the FSB's public committee and a friend of Putin.

You'd have a great point if there was any reason we could trust Snowden, a man who lied to friends, family, girlfriend, coworkers and the government to steal top secret documents and flee the country. The fact that he as leaked top secret documents doesn't make him trustworthy.

Obviously.

Now can you pretend that George Washington was a spymaster that ran a spy ring that spied on both the British and other colonists, and that Benjamin Franklin opened the mail of other colonists for intelligence purposes to aid the war effort? Well, you don't have to pretend, they actually did it.

You seem to "know" a lot of things that aren't true.

The gathering of phone metadata by NSA may be disagreeable, but it isn't a "general warrant." Since a court is supervising it and Congress has authorized it, you seem to be on weak ground as to what is constitutional. I disagree with you since you are making a variety of fundamental errors, including the suggestion that I would rather be living in North Korea.

I'm still waiting for this list of "fundamental freedoms" that have been lost.

You should look into the history of privacy in the Constitution. It is just one more thing you don't have a good handle on.

The Right of Privacy

Hmmm, looks like a (-1 inconvenient question) mod.

Let's look at what I wrote:

No moon or cheese there, and you have no answer for it, hence the name calling by you. Ta ta.

And you'd be wrong. Pay up. (Donate to charity of your choice.)

Civil rights prosecutions or lawsuits often take place against private individuals or organizations.

So you don't have an argument? Just call names? Typical.

Snowden said he wrote emails that he can't produce despite taking almost two million documents. You can't explain that away since you are directly challenging him.

And yet it occurred to him to steal documents on intelligence operations by Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, Sweden, and other places? All this while intending to make the claim that he was a "whistle blower" on the US? And he forget the whistle he claims to have blown, repeatedly, while there? That doesn't wash.

Maybe because they don't exist? Or they discuss classified programs that are still classified?

I expect that the NSA has done that in the proper forums for discussing classified matters: in meetings with the administration, in closed sessions of Congress, and before the courts in closed hearings.

Which "general consensus" is that? The one on Slashdot? Do you really need me to answer that for you?

Yes, Genn is a very busy man.

Glenn Greenwald enraged that Muslims with terror ties under surveillance

Nice try.

Since you want to limit this to the intent of the Founders, could you quote the section of the US Constitution that establishes the right to privacy? (Without resorting to the "penumbras" the judges relied upon.)

It isn't so much that I have been debunked as mod bombed. It isn't that I'm an authoritarian, it is that you misunderstand the Constitution, the law, and the views of the Founders. You are apparently a part of the "Americans must die bravely from terrorist bombings in shopping malls or we aren't free" crowd. Like many on Slashdot you probably confuse liberty with license, a topic you should probably look into as it was understood by the Founders.