Pardon my disinclination.

[grantcart]

4. Your points are well taken.

One of the difficult parts of the entire recent controversy is that it is being said that it has been, in the past, a very valuable tool. Unfortunately we don't have access to the information that would show exactly what threats have been stopped. That leaves us with a tool that looks at trends in communications to isolate foreign terrorists on one side of the equation with nothing on the other side to show its value.

Now having said that other collateral items have come out that validate a reasonable discussion about the general problem of security and civil liberties.

1) You are right about Obama/Biden being trustworthy. It is interesting to note that Edward Snowden revealed the plan on the basis of theoretical (this could be done, that could happen) without any evidence that any individual American had been abused.

The problem is how would you feel with this type of power in the hands of a Michelle Bachmann/Ted Cruz type of administration. So I don't think raising the issue is without merit. What is the oversight involved? For me it raises more important questions about Congress than it does the President.

After this controversy dies down there will still be an enormous national security apparatus in place. Is Congress doing its job in providing oversight? If you are worried about the misuse of national security apparatus then vote out every Republican and ask questions of Democrats in power.

2) The other problem that it has revealed is the question of waste.

Edward Snowden a person of some intelligence, limited education and questionable judgment (his move to Hong Kong) makes in excess of $ 200,000 a year.

A surgeon working for the VA makes only $ 160,000.

One of the problems of using sub contractors for this type of work is that it is on a cost plus basis. Their profit margin is based on a percentage of their expenses. They are incentivized to increase expenditures.

Also there is a question about efficacy. We know that Al Queda adapts. The government says that once revealed the program is worthless. Certainly AQ has known for years that its communication is easily tracked and has adapted to it. We continue to make tanks for a WWII type conflict. Once these programs get institutionalized they are very difficult to stop.

Because there is so little transparency there is no outside pressure to question the efficacy of any particular program, unlike the defense budget where wasted expenditure on tanks and submarines that will never be used can be easily identified.

It may well be that the President has decided to focus on passing the immigration bill and in a politically paranoid environment that makes mountain ranges over mole hills (Benghazi) is limiting himself to getting the big things passed.

So while I agree with you that people on the internet who are equating the US to a totalitarian state are ridiculous it doesn't mean that all of the questions raised are without merit. I also suspect that the President doesn't mind that some of these questions are being raised.

I am not unhappy that DU is a place that raises questions. My advice to fellow BOGgers is to ignore those who are affected by ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) and enter into useful conversations with those who have legitimate concerns.

It is useful to note that President Eisenhower issued a warning about the entrenched Military bureaucracy on the eve of leaving the Presidency but didn't find it useful to launch a full scale reform effort in the 8 years he was President. Perhaps he would not have been unhappy to see a grass roots effort to question the amount of resources that went to the military during that time.