piece by Robert Zubrin arguing that everyone's interests would be best served by giving leaker Edward Snowden immunity in exchange for maximum testimony about the NSA under oath. Sample:Sure, it's not from a staffer, but conservatism's flagship magazine has published a
One must...ask the conductors of the chorus chanting "Death to Snowden" why they prefer to have the analyst talking to Russia, Iran, and North Korea rather than to Congress. Is it because the NSA regards the holders of America's purse strings as the greater threat? If so, it would appear that the agency's leadership has misplaced its priorities.
On the other hand, Snowden may be lying, or grossly exaggerating, in his accusations of deeply subversive anti-constitutional actions by the NSA. If so, he has done real harm to American freedom by chilling the public with unnecessary fear of a nonexistent panopticon state. Such falsehoods therefore need to be refuted. The NSA has issued denials. Unfortunately, however, because the agency previously lied to Congress and the public about the very existence of the domestic-spying program, those denials have no credibility. If the NSA is now being truthful, it needs to establish that by taking Snowden on in open confrontation.
Snowden and NSA leaders should be brought together face-to-face for questioning in public by a congressional investigatory committee, with both parties allowed to make their points and to counter the assertions of the other. If Snowden is lying, it will come out. If the NSA is lying, it will come out. If either refuses to appear, that party will be discredited.
Sounds good to me, though I'm trying to imagine who in Congress would line up to co-sponsor that bad boy.... Whole column here.
Read Zubrin's provocative Reason piece, “How Much Is an Astronaut’s Life Worth?”