[rhp]

Nobody wants to see a car bomb go off in Times Square, but the problem with this line of reasoning is that it requires an unrealistic amount of trust that the government won't take this power to extremes. It's just human nature that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power will corrupt absolutely -- especially if left unchecked. In the case of these revelations, how can something be kept in check if its mere existence is kept secret by those who abuse it?

[edwardunknown]

I'm just happy someone found a productive use for Facebook.

But right, it can't be kept in check because it will bleed out into other areas of law enforcement. Then we hit back. But I do think people's thermometers are good enough to know when something like this is warranted and when it's not. When you remember that we are at war, on our own soil, this is a very minor thing. But if one major attack happens though it will create a panic and then we'll see major changes to our way of life. And a lot of the same tough guys here from New York and San Francisco will be the ones demanding it.

[pyre]

Right. Their argument is invalid because if some hypothetical future even happens, you predict that their attitude would change.

[edwardunknown]

"Hypothetical": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foiled_Islamic_terroris...

And those are the ones we know about, Obama doesn't spike the ball on that stuff quite like Bush did.

And if you think there wouldn't be global ramifications for blowing up the New York City subway line you're not thinking clearly.

[flyinRyan]

So in 20+ years we have 12 cases? And how do we know any of these cases are actually true? Because the people who benefit from wiretapping us claim it's true? The cases I follow have all been clear cut cases of entrapment (where the victim still went to jail!).