[flerchin]

You're not wrong about the propaganda talking points.

>Most of the people around the world don't have any problems with iran, russia, china and mexico. Maybe we should look into why we have conflicts with people all over the world.

In fact, most liberal democracies are at odds with Russia, Iran, China, and nearly everyone is concerned about Mexican Drug Cartels.

[kodah]

We can simultaneously acknowledge that we have an adversarial relationship as a country with Iran, Russia, and China and that it's not an excuse to extract data from the people.

I'm not even sure what this crap about Mexico is.

[flerchin]

Yes totally. National adversaries are not an excuse to forgo the Bill of Rights.

[janalsncm]

Historically speaking, it has been the main excuse at every turn.

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the civil war.

People were imprisoned for handing out isolationist pamphlets during WW1 (that’s where we got the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” gem).

Germans and Japanese were imprisoned without trial during WW2.

The FBI illegally spied on pretty much any domestic political organization (and even infiltrated many of them) from the 50s to the 70s.

Now we have pervasive NSA spying on Americans and third parties facilitating the circumvention of any privacy laws we thought we had.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Nobody is forgoing the Bill of Rights. Courts have determined that it is compatible with the Bill of Rights.

[flerchin]

That's an evolving situation, and a plain reading of the 4th amendment makes this whole process look not compatible.

[cheeseomlit]

Then the courts are wrong, as they often are when it comes to constitutionality. Domestic dragnet surveillance is a very obvious violation of the 4th amendment.

[janalsncm]

In what sense are they “wrong”? You don’t agree with them. But theirs is the final word on the matter until a new court or new law comes around. The interpretation of the Bill of Rights has varied greatly over the last 250 years even though the words have stayed the same. The law isn’t based on our ideas of what it is, the law is based on what is enforced.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Id be interested in why courts believe that it is not. Is it because it's at the level of signals rather than correlated to people?

[cheeseomlit]

Multiple revelations including Snowdens reveal that the data is not uncorrelated/anonymous, if it were I'd imagine it'd be of little use for intelligence purposes. Maybe I am too dismissive/cynical but I don't put much stock in what the courts decide or why on issues like this, they're all under somebody's thumb from what I can tell. They're the same folks that brought us such hits as "corporations are people and money is speech", call me crazy but I don't think they're making their decisions based on high-minded constitutional principles

[uoaei]

Legality has nothing to do with any notion of "should".

[oilchange]

> In fact, most liberal democracies are at odds with Russia, Iran, China

What's a liberal democracy? Oh you mean our vassals are at odds with the countries we are at odds with? I find that odd.

What is the "liberal democracies" problem with russia, iran, china and the mexican cartels. Take ireland for example. What's their beef with russia, iran, china and the mexican cartels?

Oh they have no beef. It's just that they have to follow orders. We say jump and they say how high. Maybe one day, these liberal democracies will be liberated and regain their sovereignty. Hey maybe russia, iran, china and the mexican cartels can help liberate them.

The thing about propaganda is how silly it gets.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

It's extremely insulting to call friends and allies vassals.

[FormerBandmate]

It's how Russia sees the world, which is why the Soviet Union failed. Really impeded trade relations in the eastern bloc

[guerrilla]

I think it's extremely insulting to call vassals "friends and allies."

[oilchange]

The truth hurts.

An influential and prominent bureaucrat once said america has no friends or enemies, just interests. Think about it.

Isn't it more insulting to call countries you firebombed and nuked "friends and allies". Imagine if china firebombed germany and currently occupies it. Would we not laugh if china called germany their friend and ally? Imagine if russia nuked japan and occupied it. Would we call them besties for life?

Edit: You still haven't answered what ireland's problem with iran is? What's ireland's problem with russia and china. And what issues do they have with the mexicans.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

> america has no friends or enemies, just interests.

Who said that and where and when did they say it?