I want to quickly record some thoughts on Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald that exceed 120 characters. So, in reference to the ongoing discussion on Twitter currently.
I think there is a danger on both sides of any debate of taking the wrong tack on something. As a liberal or progressive or whatever, I believe the US Constitution is a living document that needs to be reinterpreted from time-to-time. The authors had no way of knowing what the second amendment would mean in the age of assault weapons.
It's too easy for Conservatives to hold the US Constitution as the end-all and be-all of government. However, concurrently, it's also all too easy for social libertarians to stop looking at the Constitution as something clearly read and written in stone.
Clearly, as a progressive, I don't believe either side because they're both literalist readings.
I shouldn't have to keep saying this, but I don't morally support what's being done in many of these cases. And I am far from an expert. I'm on the side of civil liberties.
However...
I refuse to grudgingly admit that times change and the amount of information and how it is collected is going to change, too. Police have run dragnets for as long as there have been police. Phone taps have existed for as long as there have been phones.
And, in the Lavabit article we have Lavar Levinson saying, "I think if the American public knew what our government was doing, they wouldn't be allowed to do it anymore."
This has always and will always be true. That doesn't make it right. But, it is a truism as sure as the sun will rise.
There have been comments, posted here, that Greenwald and Snowden published things that were factually incorrect. Greenwald steadfastly refuses to back down. That's fine. But, there is evidence that what was written wasn't correct and The Guardian and The Post had to retract some of the story.
I don't think the much ballyhooed discussion on civil liberties was on the verge of happening before Snowden popped onto the scene. But right now there will be no discussion because both sides have dug in their heels and everyone else just stopped listening.
EDIT: I'm amending this to correct the statement "Retracted." The Guardian and the post... Um... "Redefined" the NSA's level of access without admitting that they initially reported something bogus:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/06/what-does-prism-do-how-does-it-work
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/12/microsoft-twitter-rivals-nsa-requests
