[isaacremuant]

It's not a pet theory when there's proof they have engaged in it through five eyes. We're not saying it respects the constitution or its intent. We're saying it's what happens.

Black CIA sites weren't legal either, nor was torture.

[lern_too_spel]

> It's not a pet theory when there's proof they have engaged in it through five eyes

What proof? You would think after all the leaks there have been, some proof would exist. Instead, you cling to a conspiracy theory based on a misunderstanding of an agreement.

[isaacremuant]

The fact that you immediately went for "conspiracy theory" discredits you more than you think it discredits me.

They're all conspiracy theorists when the government is accused of wrongdoing and the "proof" demands and moving goalposts happen all the time. Helped by the lack of transparency and all encompassing powers of agencies and governments.

Your arguments boil down to repeating narratives and things like "X is illegal so it doesn't happen" which just shows how naivety is part of your bad argument repertoire. I'm sure black CIA sites and coup d'etats didn't happen if I can't prove them to your liking... And if I somehow satisfied you, there's some justification that make them lawful and correct.

Give me a break.

[lern_too_spel]

The fact that you fixated on "conspiracy theory" means you don't know what the term means. It means that a large group of people must be working together to make something happen, yet none of them have said anything.

If the Five Eyes participants worked as you have stated instead of as the leaked agreement documents say they work, you would expect Snowden to leak that first because it is obviously illegal. He did not. Why not reduce the number of people required to keep quiet in the conspiracy by having the US spy directly on its citizens? Every question you might ask about your conspiracy theory makes it sound even more ridiculous if you bother to ask it.