Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald and NSA reporting provided an overwhelming benefit to US public

Let me start by introducing evidence that proves the defenses and sources are all either categorically false, meaning objectively untrue or irrelevant to the debate. The Patriot Act gained approval by congress soon after 9/11, it is not true oversight exist in the NSA. Moreover, every few Congressional leaders have access to the NSA documents or programs or the legal interpretation of the FISA Court. See Alan Grayson"s op-ed in The Guardian he says unambiguously, even members of the house are unable to obtain document, he writes: " I've requested classified information, and further meetings with NSA officials. The House Intelligence Committee has refused to provide either. Supporters of the NSA's vast ubiquitous domestic spying operation assure the public that members of Congress can be briefed on these activities whenever they want. Senator Saxby Chambliss says all a member of Congress needs to do is ask for information, and he'll get it. Well I did ask, and the House Intelligence Committee said "no", repeatedly. And virtually every other member not on the Intelligence Committee gets the same treatment." [1] Grayson goes on to add: Edward Snowden's revelations demonstrate that the members of Congress, who are asked to authorize these programs, are not privy to the same information provided to junior analysts at the NSA, and even private contractors who sell services to foreign governments. The only time that these intelligence committees disclose classified information to us, your elected representatives, is when it serves the purposes of the "intelligence community". [2] Alan Grayson is a member of the house but the Intelligence Committees surely has full, unfettered access to NSA activities, operations, and procedures, right? No, again not true, not even the highest ranking members of the Senate. The chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Diane Feinstein, a long time defender and champion of NSA programs and surveillance called for a full review of the NSA spying on US allies, including German chancellor Angela Merkel. Feinstein released in a statement: "A total review of all intelligence programs is necessary" so that lawmakers "are fully informed as to what is actually being carried out" by the nation's spy agencies. [3] So, it is true a few congressional leaders have access to these programs, primarily members on intelligence committees, but how can anyone argue that any resemblance of oversight exists, especially when the highest ranking members of the Senate Intelligence Committee is quoted in public that even she is often mislead or intentional not informed on NSA intelligence. By the way, your source the Las Vegas Sun mentions this, and even provides another instance of the NSA bypassing congressional oversight, to whom? Diane Feinstein the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. In addition, Mike Udall and Ron Wyden, both members of the Senate Intelligence Committee knew about these programs but under current law the even members of congress are barred from disclosing information to the public. Here is a Washington Post piece on both that issue as well as a information that FISA court decisions are interpretations of the law are kept secret. [4] To your other points about these programs saving lives or preventing terrorism like in the instance of 9/11 is also false. First 9/11 was in no way due to failure, here is the New York Times discussing the now infamous Bush National Security report issued on August 6, 2001: On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning"s "presidential daily brief" " the top-secret document prepared by America"s intelligence agencies " featured the now-infamous heading: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal. [5] I can"t think of a better case to illustrate that the pre-9/11 intelligence gathering system working appropriately, prior to the invasive and indiscriminate collection programs of the NSA. Not only that but as Ron Wyden and Mike Udall release a joint press release stating clear and without reserve these programs do not and will not thwart attacks like 9/11. Here is what Mike Udall and Ron Wyden wrote in a press release found on Udall"s senate website: "After years of review, we believe statements that this very broad Patriot Act collection has been "a critical tool in protecting the nation" do not appear to hold up under close scrutiny. We remain unconvinced that the secret Patriot Act collection has actually provided any uniquely valuable intelligence. As far as we can see, all of the useful information that it has provided appears to have also been available through other collection methods that do not violate the privacy of law-abiding Americans in the way that the Patriot Act collection does. We hope that President Obama will probe the basis for these assertions, as we have." [6] The rest of Cons arguments are irrelevant. Where in the premise of the debate did I mention WikiLeaks? Julian Assange released the Iraq and Afghanistan War logs several years about, and Glenn Greenwald defended them but WikiLeaks worked with the New Times and others. So I cannot figure out why you would bring up WikiLeaks. By the way, according the Pentagon"s internal investigation of WikiLeaks they concluded it could find a single case where someone was harmed by the leaks. [7] Moreover, if you examined my earlier citations, what makes the NSA programs as invasive and indiscriminate is due to the fact they don"t require any oversight. NSA contractors were able to access anyone online activity, for whatever purpose they desired, including but not limited to instances where analyst spending their time tracking the online activity of girlfriends to make sure they were not cheating. [8] So far my opponent contribution has been either found to be false or irrelevant to the debate. You do not have to take my word that Glenn Greenwald reporting from Edward Snowden"s releases, this has been the judgment of congressional leaders, journalist, major newspaper, as well as the other most well-known whistle blower Daniel Ellsberg"but don"t take my word for it, here is what the Pulitzer Prize judges said after awarding Glenn Greenwald"s reporting a Pulitzer for Public Service: The Pulitzer judges wrote that the Post had won "for its revelation of widespread secret surveillance by the National Security Agency, marked by authoritative and insightful reports that helped the public understand how the disclosures fit into the larger framework of national security." They wrote that the Guardian had won "for its revelation of widespread secret surveillance by the National Security Agency, helping through aggressive reporting to spark a debate about the relationship between the government and the public over issues of security and privacy." [1] Alan Grayson, Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com... [2] Ibid. [3] Diane Feinstein rebuke of the NSA foreign intellectual programs here: http://www.washingtonpost.com... [4] Washington Post piece on current restrictions on senators and secret FISA as well as Patriot Act interpretations: http://www.washingtonpost.com... [5] New York Times report on the Bush intelligence report one month before 9/11 attacks: http://www.nytimes.com... [6] Press release from Mike Udall"s official Senate page: http://www.markudall.senate.gov... Pentagon official talking with NBC revealing the WikiLeaks website has so far found no evidence that the disclosure harmed U.S. national security or endangered American troops in the field, a Pentagon official told NBC News on Monday. [7] http://www.nbcnews.com... [8] Story on NSA analyst using their position to stalk girlfriends: https://www.techdirt.com... [9] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Quotes from judges on the Pulitzer panel that award Greenwald a Pulitzer for Public Service