If you want to paint someone as a villain, you're in the right room, but facing the wrong direction. What that was primarily an example of was elected officials throwing military men to the wolves to protect their own asses. Assuming that the senators were all cleared to receive the answers they asked for, they were certainly aware that the public was not. Asking that sort of question in open session was guaranteed to produce that result, and it was a demonstration of holding to an oath, not breaking one.
"Wyden and his fellow Democrat Mark Udall used the public hearing to press the intelligence chiefs on aspects of the top-secret surveillance infrastructure."
To those men, the words, "top secret" are not literary hyperbole. They refer to a specific class of information that these men are sworn not to reveal, regardless of situation, to ANYONE who isn't cleared by the system to receive it. There is simply no way they would do so in a public hearing, and the senators well knew it.
So aim higher next time, eh? The "adult supervision" you write of is in this up to it's lying, bloated neck, and not implicating them in the scandal means that they'll do the same thing again, as soon as your back is turned.