CitizenKeith

This is a complex question. I think in retrospect we may exaggerate how well the media performed their watchdog role in the 1970s; the Post and the Times were more the exception than the rule. Also, there was a mass movement in those days, and the press like all other institutions had to respond. Today the abuses are perhaps less obvious and directly harm fewer people, and so the mass movement isn't there. Finally, I think the spectre of terrorism makes a better shield for government misconduct than did the spectre of "radical" american citizens.

One of the easiest decisions of my entire life. No way were we going to compromise with those b******s. Maybe this is harsh, but if you're not prepared to go to jail, you have no business breaking into draft boards in the middle of the night.

I was persuaded by other Commissioners that this episode should be documented for its historical value, and also that stepping forward and the attendant publicity would help advance the political dialog about privacy, due process, and government power. I'm not really that comfortable with publicity, but I was persuaded by those arguments.

Thank you. There were a lot of heros in those times, most of whom no one remembers. Google Bill Davidon for one example, or Mick Doyle for a quiet hero that's still fighting the good fight.

For me it's no different than any other form of civil disobedience, whether it's Thoreau refusing to pay taxes for the Mexican war or John Raines riding a bus with black people in Alabama in 1964. Some laws are just, or at least not unduly unjust, and some aren't. Snowden is a long subject, but there are more similarities than differences. He saw something that he believed to be both illegal and wrong that the sworn guardians of the constitution were pretending not to see. The man is a hero and deserves an immediate pardon; Clapper is the one who should be in jail for lying to Congress.