BY MICHAEL S. JOHNSON

There are those who believe that National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden is a patriot. I think not.

It is just too vast a leap of faith to believe that his thievery and treachery were of noble intent, done to protect the Republic and my privacy, and that he exhausted all other avenues to his end before decimating our national security and running off to Russia.

So it was with some satisfaction that I listened last weekend to Sunday talk show guests House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers of Michigan, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Diane Feinstein and former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell, who made these observations:

• It is probable that Edward Snowden had help, most likely from the Russians,  in stealing data that from NSA computers. The volume was too great and the “sophistication of its content” too extensive for Snowden to have done what he did by himself.
• It is conceivable, from statements Snowden has made, that even before he was hired by the NSA he intended to steal the data. In other words he sought  work precisely for the purpose of pilfering state secrets.
• Snowden’s thievery had little or nothing to do with concerns about the privacy of American citizens, or foreign heads of state for that matter. Most of what he took was military and not civilian data.
• The damage Snowden did was the “worst in the history of our intelligence community” and the cost of fixing what he broke will run into the “billions and billions” of dollars for American taxpayers.

I rest my case.

One can argue that the Snowden/Washington Post/Guardian disclosures of classified information have launched a worthwhile and public dialogue about privacy and the government’s intrusion into it. They also exposed activities engaged in by the intelligence community that were heretofore unknown to the public.

The debate is ongoing and worthwhile, but not of the consequence his admirers would have you believe. The debate is not about whether the government should snoop or not snoop.

In fact, the Sunday gab fest guests told us that since the program has been in place there have been no abuses of it, other than young employees checking up on their girlfriends or boyfriends. And they were fired. There have been no political or security abuses. On the other hand, Morell and Rogers both agreed that the benefits of the data collection have been enormous. I believe that to be the case. I believe terrorist acts have been prevented and terrorist networks have been badly damaged. I believe lives have been saved. It makes sense. The intelligence professionals said that had the NSA program been in place prior to September 11, 2001, the attacks on the United States on that day could have been prevented.

Hopefully, what will come of the debate are mid-course corrections in the collection, storage, access and use of data, and a better grasp of the trade-offs we are willing to make to secure ourselves from harm while preserving and protecting our civil liberties. The more you snoop, the better able you are to thwart terrorism and other threats, but the more you snoop the more you expose your civil liberties to abuse or curtailment. So you have to make trades. You have to find that balance between security and privacy. We are just beginning to comprehend the complexities and consequences of that reality.

As to the disclosure of secret programs, it is important to remember that they were secret to the general population, but not to the people who, in a democratic Republic, we charge with the responsibility of overseeing government activities. I seldom agree with Majority Leader Harry Reid, but he was right in admonishing his members to quit complaining about their lack of knowledge of NSA programs if they don’t participate in the closed-door briefings to which they have easy access, or they put no faith and trust in those colleagues assigned to monitor classified programs on their behalf.

The last people who should be entrusted with monitoring those activities are the people Snowden empowered to engage in what has become an irresponsible Chinese torture leak-a-thon of the classified information – Barton Gellman at the Post and Glenn Greenwald at the Guardian, both so biased they can hardly contain their righteous indignation.

No one wants to minimize the threat to our privacy that new technology raises, particularly among those who find fun and profit in exploiting it, from clandestine government operatives to delusional narcissists, to profit-craving search-engine corporations, all driven by that new-normal philosophy turned cliché– the end justifies the means. The threats are real and reason enough to guard our civil liberties with great vigilance.

In that vein, President Barack Obama has acted expeditiously, endorsing changes in procedure that were among 46 recommendations from an advisory panel he created to respond to the NSA revelations. His actions observed that fine line between rewards and risks on both sides of the great expanse between security and civil liberties. He is attempting to preserve the assets and resources used to protect us, while limiting access, expanding oversight and controlling use of them. But what he has proposed sounds highly problematic and a breeding ground for unintended consequences, and when you put Attorney General Eric Holder in charge, what could go wrong? Eh?

Some good may come of our modern-day Benedict Arnold. The fact that there is always some good in bad and some bad in good dates back to ancient Chinese philosophers. But to suggest Edward Snowden is any less a traitor or scoundrel because of it, is like saying Al Capone was a good citizen for demonstrating the folly of prohibition.

Editor’s Note: Mike Johnson is a former journalist, who worked on the Ford White House staff and served as press secretary and chief of staff to House Republican Leader Bob Michel, prior to entering the private sector. He is co-author of a book, Surviving Congress, a guide for congressional staff. He is currently a principal with the OB-C Group.