[dgrealy]

Well think about it ... if the investigation or justice proceedings were not completed, or the investigation didn't yield prosecution, thier names would not, and should not be revealed. So which is it? You want full transparency which would cause people to be unlawfully persecuted by the public? Or do you want a functional investigative justice system which protects the identities of the not-proven-guilty?

I ask you with complete sincerity - think it through.

[voxic11]

He wants the Constitutional requirement, and the tradition of the separation of powers, to be fulfilled by having a Judge review and sign off on the search. That is all he wants, you are the one imagining insane things.

[dgrealy]

How you are getting that I want anything different? Also, don't go around calling people insane.

[Steko]

> How you are getting that I want anything different?

Then perhaps you're under the misunderstanding that a judge has signed off on the NSL's. That is not the case, these are warrantless searches.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United...

[dgrealy]

Go ahead and downvote me, but NSA has a different process than warrants for a reason. There is signoff which satisfies the constitution. Secret court, secret panel. It is secret for a reason and the court is overseen by congress.

However personally I would prefer these cases to be declassified after a reasonalbe amount of time, where it is possible to protect the innocent.

[Steko]

Again you seem to misunderstand: a NSL is not the NSA going to a secret court, it is the FBI not going to any court.