The difference of opinion over Edward Snowden that erupted between Senators Rand Paul and Charles Schumer ABC’s “This Week” reminds us of the old saw about the two guys who take a dispute to the rabbi. When the first one makes his case, the rabbi responds “you’re right.” When the second one makes the opposite case, the rabbi rules “You’re right.” And when the rabbi’s wife interjects that they can’t both be right, the rabbi responds, “And you’re right, too.”

If we get Rand Paul, he wants Mr. Snowden to have a fair trial and a reasonable sentence. He’s right as rain. Chuck Schumer thinks that if he comes home and presents himself for trial, he’ll get just that. He’s right as rain, too. Can they both be right? We say yes. We’re far less convinced than Senator Paul that there has been a massive violation of the Fourth Amendment. But we’re more than happy to submit that question to the American appellate bench and see what happens.

What Senator Paul is worried about is a general warrant. That is an abuse of power used by the English tyrants and their officers. They are similar in some ways to “writs of assistance.” They allowed the search of any house, for example. General warrants authorized an arrest without naming the person to be arrested. These kinds of abuses lay at the bottom of the American Revolution. It is a good thing that our senators and judges are on guard against them in the 21st century.

But it is not clear to us that the collection of metadata is the same as a general warrant or a writ of assistance. It is true the sweep of phone numbers onto a central data base transfers huge amounts of information onto a government computer. But it does not necessarily follow that the government is acting against un-named individuals. It is trying to identify the phone numbers with which very specific terrorists are in communication. If that’s the case, it does not strike us as a general warrant or a writ of assistance.

It is precisely — and conceivably only — by a trial that we can get to the bottom of this. Senator Schumer was offering good and patriotic advice to Mr. Snowden when he encouraged him to come home to face the music. The idea that some sort of leniency should be established before a trial strikes us as dis-logical. The trial is precisely for trying the facts. If the facts turn out to be that Mr. Snowden broke the law, then the sentencing process can determine for what kind of leniency, if any, the situation calls.