[nickpsecurity]

Exactly. The nation as a whole determined spying for averting war, competing, and so on is morally acceptable. They've kept it legal for decades. So, one American's opinion doesn't define right and wrong for whole country esp as many disagree with him. So, he was wrong for leaking legal stuff on top of it being criminal.

[cname]

> The nation as a whole determined spying for averting war, competing, and so on is morally acceptable. They've kept it legal for decades.

I'm sure you have a source for this assertion, but I don't recall ever having voted on or having any say at all in anything related to spying.

In addition to that, I don't know anyone who agrees with the idea that spying for competitive reasons is okay. I'm sure there are plenty of people that do, but I don't think I've ever met someone who's stated as much.

[nickpsecurity]

"I'm sure you have a source for this assertion"

Yes, did you vote in or fund politicians that were in favor of having intelligence services? If so, then you've voted for intelligence services given that will keep them going. If most of America did, then they likewise voted for intelligence services. I already know they did. :)

"I don't know anyone who agrees with the idea that spying for competitive reasons is okay. I'm sure there are plenty of people that do, but I don't think I've ever met someone who's stated as much."

Try this. Tell... "anyone" you know... to do a thought experiment. In this experiment, national schemes in economics and war have raged for thousands of years. Still happen. Many were prevented or reduced through information from intelligence services. Our competitive allies have them stealing our I.P., trying to win contracts, or trying to negotiate better positions in treaties. Our own spies have caught and reduced plenty of that. Our enemies have spies for similar and worse reasons up to and including killing a lot of us.

Now, with that backdrop, ask those people if they think we should have an intelligence service spying on those competitive "allies" and enemy nations. Mention that the alternative is to constantly be a victim of or behind those countries due to being in the dark with no spy agency. Which will they choose? I choose having a spy agency, using it for same purposes the rest do, and taking extra care to avoid it getting out of control or damaging.

[Nullabillity]

> Yes, did you vote in or fund politicians that were in favor of having intelligence services? If so, then you've voted for intelligence services given that will keep them going. If most of America did, then they likewise voted for intelligence services. I already know they did. :)

As opposed to voting for who, exactly?

> Try this. Tell... "anyone" you know... to do a thought experiment. In this experiment, national schemes in economics and war have raged for thousands of years. Still happen. Many were prevented or reduced through information from intelligence services. Our competitive allies have them stealing our I.P., trying to win contracts, or trying to negotiate better positions in treaties. Our own spies have caught and reduced plenty of that. Our enemies have spies for similar and worse reasons up to and including killing a lot of us.

Of course, it's easy to make up a world where it would sort of kind of make sense. That's not the one we're talking about, though.

[nickpsecurity]

"As opposed to voting for who, exactly?"

Early candidates running for the pacifist party, I guess, given I can't recall reading about anyone platforming against existence of intelligence gathering agency. Anyone who could or was running for office that believed America should be only major power post-Ww2 that didn't have spies. Enough votes that direction might have resulted in the dissolution of our intelligence agencies that were forming. And probably the dissolution of or great damage to our country later given the leaders would be acting blind. But you'd have a chance.

"Of course, it's easy to make up a world where it would sort of kind of make sense. That's not the one we're talking about, though."

We are talking about that kind of world. Are you saying there's no allies spying on us with potential economic/political results? Or that there's nobody that might threaten us? Both are ludicrous but such issues are at root of my claim that we need a spy agency. So, which do you reject?

[Nullabillity]

> Early candidates running for the pacifist party, I guess, given I can't recall reading about anyone platforming against existence of intelligence gathering agency. Anyone who could or was running for office that believed America should be only major power post-Ww2 that didn't have spies. Enough votes that direction might have resulted in the dissolution of our intelligence agencies that were forming. And probably the dissolution of or great damage to our country later given the leaders would be acting blind. But you'd have a chance.

So you agree that such a spy agency was, in fact, not voted in.

[nickpsecurity]

The forerunners were created in secret for use against enemies during the World War's under Presidents voted in. The people's voted-in Congress representatives that made them official with more authority. Then people kept voting-in even more that kept them over time with no major push to vote out intelligence agencies. Just reform their bad behaviors on occasion.

So, yes, they were voted in and maintained through the elected representatives. That's how a representational democracy works. There was also no pushback strong enough to affect an election and dissolve an intelligence agency. They'd be diminished or gone had that happened.

So, voters wanted the situation and it's here. They can make it go away but it's still here. So much for your hypothesis.

[MichaelBurge]

I think Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul wants to rein them in. I actually gave Rand Paul some money for this T-shirt:

https://store.randpaul.com/index.php/the-nsa-knows-contest-w...

Rand Paul had to drop out for lack of interest.