Under the lede “Snowden connected dots, gave us vision of how surveillance could be used”, columnist Gil smart observes:
“[New York Times columnist David] Brooks writes that Snowden ‘betrayed the cause of open government. Every time there is a leak like this, the powers that be close the circle of trust a little tighter. They limit debate a little more.’”…
“’Snowden betrayed the privacy of us all. If federal security agencies can’t do vast data sweeps, they will inevitably revert to the older, more intrusive eavesdropping methods.'”
“Then, the coup de grace: ‘He betrayed the Constitution. The founders did not create the United States so that some solitary 29-year-old could make unilateral decisions about what should be exposed. Snowden self-indulgently short-circuited the democratic structures of accountability, putting his own preferences above everything else.’”
“When one of the most prominent commentators at one of our most prominent journalistic institutions declares that exposing the reach of the national security state betrays the vision of the Founding Fathers, you know the country’s in trouble…” (more)
WATCHDOG: In today’s column, Smart proves himself every inch the match for Brooks in intellect and presentation.
We kidded a week ago that Snowden be given a medal and then shot.
More seriously, we agree with President Barack Obama who said last week that he welcomes a public debate concerning the appropriate extent of government intrusion on privacy. He may well be as concerned about the potential for abuse as is Smart. On the other hand, he has the responsibility to safeguard the nation.
We suspect the President would think well of Smart’s column.
As would most fools.
Holy crap. The watchdog must need chapstick after that Gil Smart ass-kissing session. This is utter nonsense. “We suspect the President would think well of Smart’s column.” Maybe, but hed throw up on himself if he read this one.