Snowden hate... I don't understand it... ?

[stevenleser]

99. I think my response to William Pitt's OP works here as well...

No, it's much more nuanced than that. The timeline makes that clear.

The NY Times exposed Warrantless Wiretapping by the NSA at the end of 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 If Snowden had scooped the NY Times and exposed warrantless wiretapping before that, he would have been celebrated because Warrantless wiretapping violates FISA and is against the law.

If he had tried to talk about Warrantless wiretapping between when the NY Times exposed it until January 2007, along with the hundreds and thousands of us that did so, including me, it would have not even registered.

If Snowden had tried to talk about NSA Surveillance between January 2007 and January 2009, the answer would have been, yeah, OK, we know, we now have a Democratic congress that is working to force the Bush admin to put various changes into effect. And they did. The Bush admin stopped Warrantless wiretapping in 2007 and congress passed a number of laws regarding FISA warrants in the 2007-2009 congress.

In fact, congress and the white house have been refining the process since Obama took office and the courts have been issuing rulings. Here are just some of those:

March 2 2009, FISA Court Forces NSA to Obtain Court Approval for Every Metadata Search

July 3, 2009, FISA Court Orders Weekly Reports by NSA on Section 215 Telephony Metadata Program

Sept 3, 2009 FISA Court Lifts August Restrictions. Allows NSA to Search Section 215 Telephony Metadata.

April 10, 2010 Federal Judge Rules the Government Illegally Spied on Plaintiffs in Al-Haramain

Dec 2012 House Intelligence Committee Holds Hearing "FISA for the Future: Balancing Security and Liberty
"

Feb 2013 Supreme Court Dismisses ACLU's Suit Against Spying, Clapper v. Amnesty International

The President was refining the NSA's surveillance program throughout his administration, to the point that up to one and a half weeks before Snowden leaked his information, the President was talking about that at this speech at the National Defense University. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/remarks-president-national-defense-university to wit:

Meanwhile, we strengthened our defenses -- hardening targets, tightening transportation security, giving law enforcement new tools to prevent terror. Most of these changes were sound. Some caused inconvenience. But some, like expanded surveillance, raised difficult questions about the balance that we strike between our interests in security and our values of privacy. And in some cases, I believe we compromised our basic values -- by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.

So after I took office, we stepped up the war against al Qaeda but we also sought to change its course. We relentlessly targeted al Qaeda’s leadership. We ended the war in Iraq, and brought nearly 150,000 troops home. We pursued a new strategy in Afghanistan, and increased our training of Afghan forces. We unequivocally banned torture, affirmed our commitment to civilian courts, worked to align our policies with the rule of law, and expanded our consultations with Congress.

Today, Osama bin Laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants. There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure. Fewer of our troops are in harm’s way, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. Our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world. In sum, we are safer because of our efforts.

Now, make no mistake, our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth. But we have to recognize that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11. With a decade of experience now to draw from, this is the moment to ask ourselves hard questions -- about the nature of today’s threats and how we should confront them.

And these questions matter to every American.

For over the last decade, our nation has spent well over a trillion dollars on war, helping to explode our deficits and constraining our ability to nation-build here at home. Our servicemembers and their families have sacrificed far more on our behalf. Nearly 7,000 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice. Many more have left a part of themselves on the battlefield, or brought the shadows of battle back home. From our use of drones to the detention of terrorist suspects, the decisions that we are making now will define the type of nation -- and world -- that we leave to our children.

So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us. We have to be mindful of James Madison’s warning that “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. But what we can do -- what we must do -- is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger to us, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all the while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend. And to define that strategy, we have to make decisions based not on fear, but on hard-earned wisdom. That begins with understanding the current threat that we face.

So the changes and discussion were ongoing without Snowden. The only thing Snowden accomplished was sensationalism and embarrassing an administration and President that/who had thought long and hard about this and tried to balance the requirements of privacy and safety. He didn't quicken the pace of change, no change is going to happen any sooner because this is what the President and congress have determined is necessary after a lot of thought and review.