In Case You're Interested... From MSNBC Today... The Great Debate: Does The NSA Make Us Safer

[WillyT]

Keith Alexander was there, as was Jane Harman...

Link: http://www.msnbc.com/thegreatdebate

[Uncle Joe]

1. No, it doesn't, the NSA's overreach only serves to threaten our democratic republic, undermine our

civil rights and ruin our reputation/brand around the world.

Elephants afraid of mice, that's what the U.S. has become.

Thanks for the thread, WillyT.

[WillyT]

2. Anytime... Uncle Joe, Anytime...

[Uncle Joe]

3. Peace to you, WillyT.

[woo me with science]

4. This headline, coming from our corporate MSM now, creeps me out.

I have long said I dislike this argument about whether the spying is *effective." Even if it had stopped a terrorist attack, it still would not justify trashing the Constitution and turning the United States of America into a surveillance state. The relevant issue here is that the PTB are growing fascism, and using terrorism as an excuse:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024189392#post15

That they can't prove greater safety from terrorism is ultimately beside the point. Even if the spying *had* stopped a terrorist attack, it still does not justify this trashing of our Constitutional protections. Life has risks. Making every citizen wear a personal camera and be accompanied by a government-appointed bodyguard might make everyone safer, too, BUT THE GOVERNMENT STILL HAS NO RIGHT TO DO IT. We are being propagandized to fear the danger of terrorist attacks, when we should be fearing the even greater assault of dismantling our representative, Constitutional system of government.

Even if a surveillance state DID make us physically safer, THEY STILL WOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPY ON US.

The Fourth Amendment does NOT say: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized....UNLESS IT MAKES EVERYONE SAFER."

We should NEVER concede increased safety as a good reason for abrogating Constitutional rights. If the corporate media can dupe the public into accepting the NSA's ineffectiveness at protecting us as the primary reason for opposing the NSA, instead of the reason we should be citing: that the spying is blatantly authoritarian and unconstitutional...

....then they can reverse the public's opinion merely by manufacturing evidence that the NSA *has* protected us. In the worst case scenario, I worry about desperate fascists who might try to *supply* proof of the grave dangers they keep telling us we face.