The thing about civil disobedience is that it is disobedient, and people ought to be willing to risk the consequences in order to bring about the changes they d

The thing about civil disobedience is that it is disobedient, and people ought to be willing to risk the consequences in order to bring about the changes they desire. It wasn't the concept of fundamental rights that made the human rights marches and so on work in the American south in the '60s, it was the brutality of the police response to the marchers. It is the consequences, and the willingness of people to do what is right despite those consequences, that is the agent of change. So, yes, the laws in place ought to be enforced, and if they are wrong, let the law be changed. Laws should not invite or be subject to invite arbitrary application, and in this case the matter under consideration is the very nature of what can be classified and what actually constitutes national security.