I've said this before, but privacy activists need to get in bed with the hardcore conservatives on this one. Surveillance could be used to impose more aggressive policing of taxes, it could be used to track gun purchases and use, it could be used to track anti-abortionists, it could be used to spy on religious groups, etc. Is the NSA spying on state and local governments? Could surveillance be used to get a "47%" type soundbite to torpedo a future conservative candidate?
Couching this debate in national security terms is a losing proposition, because conservatives tend to want to defer to the federal government in national security situations, and liberals are just ecstatic to finally have a President who isn't seen as "weak." And hanging out with the libertarians is pointless, because they do not and never will have any voting power in the U.S. But there is tremendous potential here for an appeal to the frothy Tea-party base of conservatives because there is a lot about NSA surveillance that is contrary to their interests, or at least they would understand so if the message were cast in their language.
And another thing is that if Snowden had been studiously careful not to overstate the situation, or allow Greenwald to overstate the situation, there would probably be a lot more uproar by the semi-interested citizenry.
PRISM was advertised as being a $20 million backdoor into people's email and social media that would allow any ol' NSA analyst who felt bored to literally watch peoples' thoughts form in their minds.
It turned out to be a $20 million program to automate an existing manual process, with at least some measure of oversight controls (including non-governmental oversight).
Google, Facebook, and other companies were forced by Snowden's or Greenwald's lie to push back hard. WaPo revised their claim slightly to adjust, which caused the media to focus on the claim being 'walked back'.
Clearing up that issue, in the process muddied up the whole issue, and at the same time Snowden's credibility was taking shots about his salary, releasing hacking details to China, etc.
Snowden has done a lot right from the P.R. aspect but by damaging his credibility right from the get-go, he's allowed it to turn into the geopolitical equivalent of a he-said/she-said... which is not something most people have the gumption to care to try to resolve on their own. Especially in politics, where we essentially expect all sides to lie anyways.
Another thing that probably didn't help was all the involvement from Russia, Hong Kong, and China, but especially WikiLeaks and Ecuador (who are only one step up from Venezuela nowadays). It is very hard to try to line yourself up as a concerned American citizen when you're sitting in a Russian airport, being coached by Assange, and trying to flee to 'Chavez's little brother'. To the extent that any change must necessarily be driven by the will of the people, that whole thing was a mistake.
Snowden's credibility is irrelevant. The credibility of the documents he revealed is the only thing that matters. Those documents are credible because the US government has treated them as classified, implicitly admitting that they are accurate. If snowden was proven to be the greatest liar in the history of humanity it would make those documents no less credible.
Also, any association with china, russia or ecuador is irrelevant. Again, it's about what the US government is doing, and those countries have no bearing on those actions. Sure, they probably do the exact same spying on their own citizens, but even that is only tangentially relevant.
> The credibility of the documents he revealed is the only thing that matters.
That's essentially my point WRT Snowden. The very documents he leaked were inconsistent with his story. Now everything else that was leaked the government can claim that the people are missing the context of, and about a million other debate/propaganda techniques that come into play when you are able to show that the messenger himself has biased their reporting.
> Also, any association with china, russia or ecuador is irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant, and I explained why already. The impetus for change will have to come from the people. By fleeing and making it Assange vs. the U.S. (again) Snowden has made it that much less likely that the American people will see the situation in terms of an assault on them personally, and more likely that they will see it as an assault on America by unpopular foreign governments.
What you are saying would be true if it didn't matter what the people thought, but public opinion actually counts for a lot, even in America.
The thing about hardcore conservatives is that they're perfectly happy to use all that security state apparatus against people they don't like, such Muslims, people who work in abortion clinics and so on. I've run into a surprising number of people who advocate militarizing the border with Mexico on the grounds that 'it worked for East Germany.' Realistically, most of those people were untroubled by the Patriot Act etc. until Obama took office, so I don't think they're reliable allies.
I do think a Congressional review is in order, but my prediction is that nothing much will happen until the US is fully out of Afghanistan in 2014. At that point the AUMF may be rescinded, which would also make it a good time to review the Patriot act. With the mid-terms coming up the GOP might try a campaign based on liberty as you describe, especially since their base is likely to be pissed off about immigration reform, not having a victory celebration for leaving Afghanistan etc.
Couching this debate in national security terms is a losing proposition, because conservatives tend to want to defer to the federal government in national security situations, and liberals are just ecstatic to finally have a President who isn't seen as "weak." And hanging out with the libertarians is pointless, because they do not and never will have any voting power in the U.S. But there is tremendous potential here for an appeal to the frothy Tea-party base of conservatives because there is a lot about NSA surveillance that is contrary to their interests, or at least they would understand so if the message were cast in their language.