The argument:

All heroes deserve freedom.

Edward Snowden is a hero.

Therefore Edward Snowden deserves freedom.

The analysis:

Firstly, why do all heroes deserve freedom? What makes a hero? What if, part of the reason a hero is a hero is because he sacrifices his right to freedom? Why do all heroes deserve freedom, but not all humans deserve freedom? I begin this analysis by assuming that freedom here means freedom of body and mind. I also have to define freedom, and make a philosophical argument over whether or not Edward Snowden deserves to suffer in the present for action he committed in the past, and weather he can be judged as the same person before and after his actions. Purely as a syllogism, the argument is logical, and the conclusion necessarily follows. Also, note that the syllogism uses the term "deserve" so that any conflict with literal U.S. law will have no effect on its validity. Despite that, the premises themselves remain so subjective that any real world application fails entirely. Take, for example, the term hero. As soon as one person wants a state of events that another person disagrees with, it becomes impossible to please both of them simultaneously. We can simplify the dilemma, and make the happiness of each dependent entirely on the state of events, so that change will please the first character, and displease the second, and vice versa. Say some third character greatly facilitates the change so desired by the first character. In becoming the first character's hero, he has ruined, essentially, the life of the second character. The same is true of most real world dilemmas that put people against one another; pleasing one side will harm the other. Certainly, there are those who find Snowden's actions laudable, but just as certainly there are others who saw the government's surveillance program as the only way of protecting American citizens against the many threats of the modern world, whose livelihood might have hinged entirely on the functioning of that surveillance system. So is our definition of heroism dependant entirely on viewpoint? Or is there some heroic quality that objects against injustice in any scenario? Perhaps, it is neither, and our notion of heroism is entirely utilitarian; that if more people find surveillance wrong than people who support it, Snowden is a hero. Either way, the meaning of the most vital term in either premise is based almost entirely on personal knowledge. The zone of exchange in this case becomes a zone of conflict, as the issue of Snowden's guilt or heroism is so very polemic. As a result, such a seemingly arbitrary statement immediately triggers a doubt reaction. Sure, the syllogism is valid and the logic is sound. But it is erroneous to try to apply such rhetorical absolutes to an issue that is so morally complicated. And what is Snowden's position within our system of laws? Our laws seem to function on the assurance that when someone commits a crime, they give up the responsibility of freedom. Essentially, they are unable to commit that crime again, and an "error" is removed from society. Could Snowden possibly expose the government twice over the same issue? How could his "crime" be committed again? At this point, the damage is done. The U.S. recoups nothing by imprisoning Snowden, so what would imprisonment serve for? A show of power, surely. But depending on the truth of the above syllogism, that show could be either tyrannical or just.