[fukusa]

>Those who disagree with surveillance often don't understand the full implications

No, those invading countries, killing people with drones, torturing people in concentration camps, creating even more animosity against the USA don't understand the full implications. Why aren't we talking about those implications?

[richmarr]

> Why aren't we talking about those implications?

Assuming I've understood your question properly, my suspicion is that there isn't an easy, one-line, (ideally rhyming) sound-bite defence against accusations of disloyalty.

When you question aggressive foreign policy you get accused of everything from "not supporting our troops" to being "soft on terror", take your pick.

It's a little like how Obama's drive to address economic inequality seems (to an outsider at least) to have collapsed because of repeated accusations of "class war". There was no snappy defence.

[smileysteve]

Or being an "isolationist".

I feel like Rand and Ron Paul have been some of the few that have read that paper by the CIA on Blowback.

[13thLetter]

> Why aren't we talking about those implications?

Are you kidding? Frankly, people never shut up about them. Even that famous "We Are All Americans" article after September 11th, 2001 went on about how the attacks were blowback for past American misbehavior.