I never got this sense, let alone thought of it as clear. Can you explain?
"If MLK decided to break a traffic law in order to speak out against segregation, he surely would accepted the punishment for this violation of the law."
Would he? And even so, would he do it because he thought otherwise his actions would be unjustified?
> In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.h...
Basically, as I understand it, the idea is that the law is valid. It has been passed according to a democratic process. (Here, democracy might not be as important as the plain need for government to ensure law and order. I'm not sure.) If you were threatened by a random robber, MLK would not say you would not be obligated to give up your belongings or accept that the robber shoots you. But the government is different, because it is valid/necessary/whatever. Breaking the law and fleeing is wrong, but breaking the law and accepting the punishment for just ends is respectful of the rule of law.
I understand Gandhi even less. He was pretty fanatical about non-violence, going so far as to say the Jews should have offered to kill themselves in the holocaust in order to catch the world and the German's people's attention. (To be fair, at this point he was pretty old and maybe going crazy.) But he definitely urged Indians to break the British law and accept the punishment. The British rule certainly wasn't valid according to democratic ideals. I'm pretty sure Gandhi would say you should allow the robber to shoot you.
There are reams of paper that could be easily filled by 'laws' that were passed in a 'lawful' fashion, but that were contradictory to the Constitution of the United States, thereby making their effect a nullity at best. The Constitution is there to uphold the rights of the citizenry, but also to empower the government to uphold the law, while at the same time restraining the government such that it cannot violate the citizens' rights in doing so. See recently, Prop 8, DOMA, et al.
American Jurisprudence[1] tells us that laws in violation of the Constitution are not laws at all, and further, that no one is obligated to obey them, nor are any courts obligated to uphold them just because they were otherwise lawfully passed.
The assertion here is that the collection of private data by our government is in violation of said Constitution, and the legality of that law will likely hinge on the Supreme Court's decision on whether or not that data is indeed private or not. Thus far, we know that at least parts of the program in play have been deemed unconstitutional, and it seems that the NSA is performing them anyway. But as the government is empowered to govern through the consent of the governed, how can we have consented to a program we know nothing about? If its only discussion is done in secret?
In that regard, if we assume good faith on all parties, then we can say that at the very least, somebody needed to bring it to the attention of the public, and that person could also reasonably concede that the government in violation would have no subsequent authority to imprison or punish them, except falsely - for which I can't see even the most ardent civilly disobedient person willing to subject themselves to.
In summary though, I agree that civil disobedience is a term faultily applied here, but for perhaps the polar opposite of your reasoning.
I think this is just more evidence that it's not really the democratic process per se. It's the fact that the government is maintaining law and order. It's the fact that breaking of laws, even unjust and unconstitutional ones, contributes to a weakening of social order (and, in the extreme, anarchy).