Edward Snowden’s misplaced idealism

[struggle4progress]

By David Ignatius
Wednesday, June 12, 7:20 PM

... What worries me is that Snowden is challenging the rule of law. The NSA Internet surveillance program he decided to reveal is legal, in the sense that it was passed by both houses of Congress and is reviewed regularly by the intelligence committees. It is overseen by judges who sit on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. In 2008, that court ruled against a company that challenged the law.

Perhaps Snowden would argue that Congress and the courts ­haven’t been aggressive or diligent enough in their oversight, and that the NSA has dangerously misused its surveillance authority. Or maybe he would argue that he’s answering to a higher moral code, or that Congress and the courts are wrongly interpreting the Constitution. These claims will be tested in the coming debate, but we should be wary about endorsing any contention that it’s okay to violate laws because you’re acting on higher authority.

Snowden’s case is similar to that of CIA dissident Philip Agee. He published a revelatory memoir in 1975 called “Inside the Company: CIA Diary,” which outed the names and code names of scores of operatives with whom Agee had worked. He wrote in the introduction: “When I joined the CIA I believed in the need for its existence. After 12 years with the agency, I finally understood how much suffering it was causing. .?.?. I couldn’t sit by and do nothing.” Agee died in 2008 in Cuba, where he had sought refuge.

The CIA claimed at the time that it had suffered great damage from Agee’s revelations, but it’s still very much in business. Indeed, you could argue that the agency is far more aggressive and willing to use deadly force today than Agee ever envisioned. In that sense, we should be skeptical both of the efficacy of whistleblowers and of claims that unauthorized disclosures (as by Agee, or now Snowden) will cause irreparable harm. Usually these turn out to be overstated ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-snowden-exposed-policies-approved-by-congress-courts/2013/06/12/815c8aa4-d2d7-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html

[pscot]

1. What bothers me is that such egregiously intrusive actions

have been given the color of legality by a Congress too feckless or stupid to uphold their oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States.

[dkf]

2. I don't think it is legal til I've seen a Supreme Court review.

[struggle4progress]

3. It hurts me to say it, but: Good fuggin luck with the current court! The SCOTUS of Earl Warren's

time are long gone, and their heroic legacy has been battered over the years by the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush appointees on the subsequent Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts courts

The conservatives still seem to hold a majority -- and they are quite deferential to authority. I expect the court won't grant certiori on appeal from a lower court that has ruled in favor of the law, and if they're forced to handle a case, you can expect they'll find the rubberstamp dual oversight by the Congressional Intelligence Committees and the FISA courts entirely adequate