:roll: Dude. Whether or not they broke the Constitution (they didn't, as described in the Supreme Court Case
United States v Graham) has absolutely zero impact on whether or not Snowden is a traitor for releasing all that he has. Opposition to the Metadata program does not require support of a guy who happens to release it along with releasing a whole bunch of other stuff as well.
Spied on everyone without authorization? Firstly, the metadata program didn't cover the communications of all U.S. citizens, secondly, it didn't collect content or even individually identifying information, and thirdly, it was authorized by all three branches of government and both political parties, not once, but
repeatedly. There is literally no greater level of authorization that a collection program can receive.
Do you intend to defend Snowden putting our troops in Afghanistan in harms way by releasing the methods by which we collect against the Taliban?
Do you intend to defend Snowden putting our national security at risk by releasing how we conduct cyber network operations against China?
Do you intend to defend Snowden releasing how we collect against North Korea? How about Russia? Hey, has Russia done anything lately that really, really, surprised our executive branch? Gosh, if so, you don't think that our sudden inability to collect against them has anything to do with that surprise, a lack of situational awareness leading to inept policy decisions, do you?
You want to argue against the metadata program, I get that. I'm sympathetic to the argument (simply because something might be Constitutional does not make it right). But that's a separate question from whether or not Snowden is a traitor. His actions define that, not whether or not you oppose one of the
many collection programs that he's exposed.