I think this guy who blew the whistle on the US snooping might be a Chinese agent.

[Riccardo]

Yep

To be fair, the government has stopped a few terrorist attacks here in New York City. And I'm glad they did.

Having said that I'm more concerned about getting run over by a reckless driver than I am about the possibility of being killed by a terrorist.

Never going to stop everything. And as a cyclist I'm in your boat - drivers don't seem to like bikers much

[Eagle Road]

To be fair, the government has stopped a few terrorist attacks here in New York City. And I'm glad they did.

Having said that I'm more concerned about getting run over by a reckless driver than I am about the possibility of being killed by a terrorist.

Understand what you are saying IE, but I am a bit leery about anybody (or agency) that get's to write their own resume'.

If I'm the CIA, and I need an image boost, I could always yank some bastard out of Guantanamo and say we have the goods on him going to blow up some building, but, by god, we caught him.

Just like cops NEVER plant any drugs in a car to "up" their arrest count?

[The Ref]

Tell me one thing, just one thing you cannot do today that you could do 20 years ago. Just one that has any link to electronic or digital surveillance.

This whole NSA exposure is one big DUH to me.

A person would have to be three shades of stupid, which describes more than a few posters on here, especially the lawyers, if you think that what you do online or on your phone can't or won't be monitored.

There's hardly a street corner or doorway entrance that doesn't have a camera monitoring the comings and goings. Still, your freedom is not impacted in any significant way. And make no mistake, this privacy issue is at its core a perceived lack of freedom.

A bunch of dim witted town criers getting their panties in a bunch is the heart of this issue.

[Eagle Road]

[QUOTE=The Ref;1706988]Tell me one thing, just one thing you cannot do today that you could do 20 years ago. Just one that has any link to electronic or digital surveillance.



It isn't about what I could or couldn't do twenty years ago, it's the consequences of those actions, I among others, no longer feel that the Constitution is the security blanket it once was.

Here's one for you, as an American citizen twenty years ago, if someone pointed a finger at me and said terrorist, I would still have due process, do I, under ALL circumstances, still have that today?

[Melchior]

No one is saying this is something new. Most people are just arguing that it's very dangerous for the government to be able to spy on its own citizens (without probable cause) with little to no meaningful oversight. Whether it affects you or not is meaningless.

Also, as Eagle Road pointed out, the fact that we still don't have a uniform system for prosecuting suspected terrorists means that you can be denied due process for reasons that would be "classified" if called in to question. It's nuts.

[Eagle Road]

No one is saying this is something new. Most people are just arguing that it's very dangerous for the government to be able to spy on its own citizens (without probable cause) with little to no meaningful oversight. Whether it affects you or not is meaningless.

Also, as Eagle Road pointed out, the fact that we still don't have a uniform system for prosecuting suspected terrorists means that you can be denied due process for reasons that would be "classified" if called in to question. It's nuts.

Bingo!

Something else that Ref needs to think about, I, myself will not be around (I hope) long enough to see what is going to unfold, so I am not worried too much about what someone records me saying or doing, I also live a somewhat boring life.

But I do fear for all hell what this will expand into and what my children and their children will inherit.

Ref, if you where to "disagree" with those in power, at what point are you deemed a Patriot vs a Terrorist?

[IronEagle]

I just re-watched the video of Snowden.

A couple observations...

He has no upper lip.

2nd, watch his eyes and jaw when he's asked about what he could have done if he wanted to help foreign governments or make money.

Also he talks about his actions in the third person.

Got a feeling a lot more is going to come out about this. Or maybe not since it's all secret.

I think the big scandal here is WTF is the government is doing farming sensitive intelligence work out to private contractors? I interviewed with one of them many years ago. It was interesting.

I mean, I can understand farming out building aircraft, ships, avionics to private contractors. But farming out intelligence to corporations makes no sense to me.

[Maniac]

Most people are just arguing that it's very dangerous for the government to be able to spy on its own citizens (without probable cause) with little to no meaningful oversight.

How is it "very dangerous"? Illegal maybe - but I don't see extreme danger in it to American citizens.

[IronEagle]

How is it "very dangerous"? Illegal maybe - but I don't see extreme danger in it to American citizens.

I don't think it's illegal. Maybe it's unconstitutional but the laws passed by Congress and signed by Presidents seem to allow this. You'd have to get a case to the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the laws.

I think for a lot of people, it's only very dangerous if the President is somebody you disapprove of. That's my reason for my comments about hypocrisy.

My opinion is the big problem here is that so much is classified that we have no idea of the scope of things or what is really going on.

[JuTMSY4]

I don't think it's illegal. Maybe it's unconstitutional but the laws passed by Congress and signed by Presidents seem to allow this. You'd have to get a case to the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the laws.

I think for a lot of people, it's only very dangerous if the President is somebody you disapprove of. That's my reason for my comments about hypocrisy.

My opinion is the big problem here is that so much is classified that we have no idea of the scope of things or what is really going on.

Well, either the President has a duty to only enforce constitutional laws (e.g. Obama not enforcing DOMA) or the President's enforcement of any law is implicitly constitutional (John Yoo School).

[IronEagle]

Well, either the President has a duty to only enforce constitutional laws (e.g. Obama not enforcing DOMA) or the President's enforcement of any law is implicitly constitutional (John Yoo School).

My point is the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality is the Supreme Court, not the President or Congress.

This graphic is funny.

[3rd & Inches]

My point is the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality is the Supreme Court, not the President or Congress.

This graphic is funny.

impolite IE

[Maniac]

just to be clear, i don't find it acceptable but not on the grounds that it's "very dangerous" to our democracy.

i also don't find torture acceptable or holding people indefinitely without charging them acceptable.

the drone thing doesn't bother me. better than getting soldiers killed.

[The Duck]

My point is the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality is the Supreme Court, not the President or Congress.

This graphic is funny.

And the column to the right is "D +38" and "D -13".

Mother Jones seemed to miss the big picture: that we've become a nation of party-worshipping sheep.

[The Duck]

Nothing but "good guys" in Washington ... nothing to worry about ... move along.

Scary shit. But these threads are making it crystal clear how we got where we are.