So their precious committee appointment is more important than their oath? Really, if that's all that's holding them back, then I've lost any respect I have for them. As things stand, they've been able to do very little to "fight these things" even sitting on the committee.

What we need right now is to know the full extent of the damage. And they swore an oath to protect the constitution. Any fool can see what an existential threat this is to our constitution and country.

Their committee appointment is important to us, not just them. It's better to have a few allies on these committees, even if their hands are tied, than to have none at all. They've done more than most have been able to do, including calling out NSA lies.

I strongly disagree, but I respect that we're on the same side here, so I'll very carefully consider your logic. But in return, I'd ask you to carefully consider my argument, which is that we need to know the current damage right now far more than we need allies in the Senate IC in the future.

Unless americans are willing to do anything abuot it, which, so far, they haven't been, what more do you need to know right now?

As a country, we have already made clear that the majority are okay with roughly anything that is justified on the alter of terrorism.

Do you really think there is something they can reveal that will change this?

If so, what is it? IE What do you think is the galvanizing thing they could ever reveal that would make the tradeoff you suggest worth it.

If what they can give us "right now" won't win us the war, we lose a valuable resource to win the war over the long term. Afaik, these are two of the few principled people with power in the legislature .. let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

Just assume the worst. That's as close as you can possibly get to knowing everything right now for sure.

I just hope that Snowden thought to take a copy of Clapper's (any anyone else responsible's) internet browsing history, or at least is creative enough to forge some terrible blackmail material and leak it, just to do to them what they're doing to us.

Perhaps they believe that gaining the necessary amount of public attention and support requires these things to be revealed slowly and to consume many news cycles. I would argue that the pace things have been proceeding at has been perfect for those who generally don't pay attention to get a sense of how important an issue this is.

If this had all been released at once, it would have been much easier to sweep under the rug, and those who generally reflexively defend their political parties might not have had to really confront the issue. They could be proceeding this way secure a better chance of victory.

This is why I think Snowden is such a sharp guy, because of the fact that he has been releasing documents slowly and methodically as opposed to a mega-dump wikileaks style disclosure. The basic problem is that a large share of the American public (such as my mom) get their information from exclusively one source. In my mother's case it's CNN, where there hasn't been very much coverage of this other than the odd report here and there. For instance looking at CNN right now the main headline is an article about this most recent school shooting, and the NSA revelations are a small print link jumbled in with lots of other unrelated articles.

I think you're confusing Snowden and Greenwald here.

The way I read it so far (please do correct me if I'm wrong) is that Greenwald received a very large dump of information from Snowden and that Greenwald is dictating the pace and selection of the releases.

I don't think you even read the post you replied to ..

Of course I did. My stand is this: what the US needs now, possibly more than any time before in its history, is for the full extent of the surveillance and other activities by the NSA and other IC members to be revealed to the public. What happens next year in the Senate Intelligence Committee is much less important.

How are you so sure they know as much (or the same info) as Snowden/Greenwald et al. will eventually release? If they don't, there is no value in getting kicked out of the committee, as they may get insights that we aren't going to get from whistleblowers.

How do you know they aren't playing Lincoln to your Thaddeus Stevens?

If you're referring to Lincoln vs. Thaddeus Stevens on slavery, then I'd respond that things may have turned much better, particularly for Americans of African descent, if Stevens had got his way.

I do appreciate the strategic thinking behind your suggestion that Snowden or Greenwald may eventually reveal what they are obliquely referring to. My personal opinion is that Greenwald led with his strongest story -- I don't think they have much more. But I have nothing to back that up. But clearly Wyden and Udall have a whole lot more.

In the end, I'm the type of person who believes that their oath to the constitution supercedes any strategic concerns.

We will need Lincoln and Stevens to win this war, much like both (idealists and principled operators) were essential to defeating Slavery.

"In the end, I'm the type of person who believes that their oath to the constitution supercedes any strategic concerns."

What if they think the best way to defend the Constitution is to behave strategically and marshall their power for the best possible outcome. That seems reasonable to me.