[sexobon]

Originally Posted by tw

We know that terrorist attacks were routinely averted without spying; that may 'violate civil rights' and other nation's [nations'] integrity and interests. ...

We also know that terrorists are adaptive and smart enough to exploit any limitations we impose upon ourselves. So are drug cartels, human trafficking organizations, global MBAs ... etc. [I threw MBAs in there just for you.]

Originally Posted by tw

... Nobody can yet honestly say whether Snowden is a traitor or a hero. Too many facts are unknown; and maybe for years. ...

Maybe not for years. Maybe we could find out in months by putting him on trial and letting the discovery process work. Heroes welcome that process, traitors shun it. If he's found to be a hero, he'll be exonerated. If he's found to be a traitor; but, later proved to be a hero, he can be pardoned. If we had to wait until all of the possibilities played out before even beginning the process, every petty thief claiming to be a Robin Hood would be walking free.

Originally Posted by tw

... But we do know that major attacks are easily averted with less intelligence gathering and more intelligence in the leadership. Most failures to avert such attacks are found in leadership; not in insufficient spying. ...

We know that our top general leadership, which also appoints subordinate specializing leaders, is derived from a popularity contest, not an intelligence contest. Increased spying is a compensating mechanism used by people capable of adjusting to this fact as oppose to people who can't and just complain about it. The cognoscenti know the mechanism works, just not as well as having more intelligent leaders. Adults can accept not being privy to how and when it has worked in the interest of continued success, others just poo poo the whole idea because they're not privy.

Originally Posted by tw

... We must still publicly decide the limits of electronic spying. That (and not Snowden) should be an entire discussion that so many are still trying to avoid. ...

They should both be an entire discussion. The limits of electronic spying needs to be discussed for all the reasons given in this thread. Snowden et al. needs to be discussed to protect altruistic citizens from their own government. Adults can handle both conversations:

On the issue of leaking classified information - We have specialized courts for everything from contesting traffic violations to immigrant sanctuary status. Even the hard-nosed US military can take someone who has refused to fight, find them to be a conscientious objector and simply separate them from service. Perhaps we need specialized courts for those claiming whistleblower status. Courts that can not only adjudicate; but, recommend directly to the President whether or not a pardon is warranted even if the law was broken. This would help maintain confidence in the integrity of our security methods for those whose lives depend directly upon them (e.g. military personnel) and the population at large which can pressure the President to act on the court's recommendations.

The alternative would be going back to compartmentalized information if the government decides the compromise of shared information is potentially more dangerous to national security than the limitations of compartmentalization in preventing terrorist attacks. This would also make it once again more difficult for those with altruistic motives to uncover government abuse of power.

On the issue of government monitoring - After a reasonable time period following recent events, the government should poll the American people via the US Census taking apparatus using a questionnaire covering "hypothetical" monitoring methods. The questions would cover monitoring methods previously used, currently used, others currently available, and viable wish list methods for which the technology may not yet even exist without disclosing which category each falls into. Next to each method would be three pair of Yes/No check boxes. One each for: 1) Do you object to the government using this method on you? 2) Do you object to the government using this method on people in other countries? 3) Would you want our enemies to know if we did this (public disclosure)? The results of the poll could be made public since it contains hypothetical capabilities and the world already knows the US government doesn't always fall in line with the majority of Americans. People can vote for elected officials who endorse it.

Less criticism and I told you so(s) and more constructive criticism with proposed solutions is what we need. A) A Whistleblower Court that can take defendants into protective custody least intrusive on their civil liberties until final disposition of their cases. B) Three criteria polling on government's potential monitoring methods administered via the US Census taking apparatus. That's my . What's yours?