The Top 5 Claims That Defenders Of The NSA Have To Stop Making To Remain Credible - EFF

[Maedhros]

38. Thank you for providing a link.

A lot of what Bush did was completely without warrants and almost no Congressional oversight or legal authority. This is pretty well documented. Here is one source that explains the broad strokes: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/304753-hoyer-draws-distinction-between-bush-and-obama-surveillance-programs-

Fair enough, although I would apply the caveat that secret courts interpreting secret law to apply to secret policy really isn't effective oversight. Also, Wyden and Udall have done a good job of demonstrating that Congressional oversight of the NSA does not happen - though not as good of a job as Clapper did himself, by flat-out lying to the Senate.

As for whether the collection of phone metadata with court approval is unconstitutional... that's a matter of opinion.

Generally it's the opinion of the Left that gathering and storing data on the entire population in the absence of any suspicion of a crime is bad. Generally it's the opinion of the Right that this is necessary to Keep Us Safe(tm).

People like to pretend that determining constitutional questions is just a matter of looking at some government action, then opening up the U.S. Constitution to the appropriate section and checking the "rules." In reality, nothing is that simple. Applying broad 18th-century principles to the modern world can be very, very tricky and incredibly subjective.

I think there are enough intelligent people analyzing the NSA surveillance situation and reaching valid conclusions regarding its threat to democracy in the United States, though. A number of former Federal justices have opined that it may be unconstitutional. I wouldn't be surprised if the current Supreme Court found it constitutional, but then again they are paid shills for the Right.

It's also naive in the extreme to think that, after an attack, the country would forgive a president who had refused to use all the legal authority he had in order to keep the country safe. Presidents don't have the luxury or indulging their consciences in that way.

BUT IT DOESN'T KEEP US SAFE. Your argument is based on a false premise.