Greenwald's bombshell news continue

[JDPriestly]

115. Perhaps not. (Unless you truly believe that all men are created equal and endowed by their

Creator with certain inalienable rights . . . an idea advocated by that old fool Thomas Jefferson.)

But, immigrants who become citizens of this country ARE entitled to due process.

And besides, due process is only a part of the issue here.

The First Amendment guarantees

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

Study free speech issues and you will learn that our Supreme Court has stated that speech may be regulated according to time, place and manner. Free speech must not be chilled based on its content. Surveillance, in my opinion, does chill speech based on its content. I am not going to be shy about sharing ragout recipes just because the government is watching what I say. But if a Republican were in the White House and in charge of the NSA, I as a Democrat might be wary of what I say about that Republican now that I know that I and everyone else on the internet am and are under surveillance.

Amendment IV states:

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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

That is pretty clear. Seems to me that the internet is the modern equivalent of our papers and effects. That has not been decided by the Supreme Court, and considering its current conservative, corporate make-up might not be decided as I think it should be considering the social use of the internet (which is rapidly replacing US mail for purposes of personal correspondence).

Then, go to the Cornell website and read the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh amendments. It is impossible to guarantee the right to counsel or to a fair trial if the government is using surveillance to track all communications of all people. For one thing, placing lawyers under surveillance along with all other citizens prevents individuals from consulting with their attorneys through means other than in person. And if the government is willing to place attorneys' e-mails, etc. under surveillance, what is to keep them from placing everything attorneys do to, for example, investigate a case, under surveillance. God help you if you need to be able to trust a defense attorney when you have been unfairly accused in the future.

It's tough enough to defend yourself pre-surveillance. And in many cases it won't make any difference. But there will be cases in which a defendants is truly deprived of a right to counsel because lawyer and client are intimidated from speaking freely with each other. It's too complicated to explain here, but this is very true. You only need to think about the many situations that defendants face to know that.