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

[LuckyTheDog]

48. A couple things

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).

Not really. Some of the most breathless criticism of the NSA program comes from the right -- or, at least that has been the case since Obama was elected. Much of the criticism from the right is based on the false idea that the NSA is actually recording phone calls, not just collecting billing data. And, like I said, I would like it if the Congress, the courts of both put an end to this. But I don't see an upside for the president if he ended it unilaterally. ANY attack on U.S. soil or against U.S. interests would then be blamed on Obama's "weakness" in refusing to do "what needed to be done."

Also: I do tend to get impatient with people who jump immediately to the assumption that something in unconstitutional and base all further comments on that premise. Usually, I get that from right-wingers who try to say "the Constitution is written in plain English and is easy to understand." The reading level of the text is not the issue (as I am sure you know). Things like the vast amount of often contradictory precedents and legal theories make applying the ideals in that "simple text" into a very complicated thing.

So, while I could be persuaded that the NSA data collection is unconstitutional, I do not side with those who say Obama is willfully violating his oath of office - as if that was a matter of obvious fact, and not opinion. There are legal arguments to be made on both sides of this question. I expect the president and is lawyers think what they are doing is defensible. I object to the program mainly because I think it's intrusive and probably expensive and ineffective. I also see the potential for abuse. So, whether or not it's technically constitutional, it should be stopped.

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

Even if you are right, it hardly matters. As I said above, if the U.S. is attacked, any U.S. president has to be able to say that everything possible was done to prevent it. If it is later shown that the president left anything on the table, then whatever he did not do will be blamed for the attack. The political enemies of this particular president would not hesitate to lie about the cause of any attack or to politicize it for the purpose of impeaching the president.