Of course I did. My stand is this: what the US needs now, possibly more than any time before in its history, is for the full extent of the surveillance and other activities by the NSA and other IC members to be revealed to the public. What happens next year in the Senate Intelligence Committee is much less important.

How are you so sure they know as much (or the same info) as Snowden/Greenwald et al. will eventually release? If they don't, there is no value in getting kicked out of the committee, as they may get insights that we aren't going to get from whistleblowers.

How do you know they aren't playing Lincoln to your Thaddeus Stevens?

If you're referring to Lincoln vs. Thaddeus Stevens on slavery, then I'd respond that things may have turned much better, particularly for Americans of African descent, if Stevens had got his way.

I do appreciate the strategic thinking behind your suggestion that Snowden or Greenwald may eventually reveal what they are obliquely referring to. My personal opinion is that Greenwald led with his strongest story -- I don't think they have much more. But I have nothing to back that up. But clearly Wyden and Udall have a whole lot more.

In the end, I'm the type of person who believes that their oath to the constitution supercedes any strategic concerns.

We will need Lincoln and Stevens to win this war, much like both (idealists and principled operators) were essential to defeating Slavery.

"In the end, I'm the type of person who believes that their oath to the constitution supercedes any strategic concerns."

What if they think the best way to defend the Constitution is to behave strategically and marshall their power for the best possible outcome. That seems reasonable to me.