Snowden is irrelevant. The NSA is the one claiming "direct access". Their credibility is what matters.
Cole's point (that you attacked) is that personalizing the debate into a discussion of Snowden's crebility involves distracting from the important matter at hand. In this he is absolutely right. Either you understand this and are a shill, or you do not understand this and are an unknowing dupe who is getting played.
As long as Snowden keeps himself in the story by giving interviews and making claims not substantiated by materials already released, he and his credibility are directly and specifically relevant.
Snowden's claims are directly substantiated by the NSA document which specifies that the NSA has direct access to data from most email service providers.
Yes. Something is clearly amiss, which is why the focus on Snowden is -- as Juan Cole pointed out -- an irrelevant distraction seized on by those who wish to pull attention from the real issue at hand.
I also wonder at the technical naivity of those who believe that the NSA document must be wrong because Google and Obama have issued narrow statements in support of the FISA process. Because if we had to place bets, my guess is that (1) the NSA is either archiving all of the underlying data flowing across US backbone pipes and using this to reconstruct databases such as Google email archives, or (2) it has access to private SSL keys that let it decrypt content transmitted across SSL, or (3) it has automated the process of issuing FISA requests to the point where the process offers no sensible check on the abuse of power or protection of individual privacy.
Cole's point (that you attacked) is that personalizing the debate into a discussion of Snowden's crebility involves distracting from the important matter at hand. In this he is absolutely right. Either you understand this and are a shill, or you do not understand this and are an unknowing dupe who is getting played.