| > "Filtering through emails, phone, etc. is a good way to catch these." There has not been evidence that the benefits of doing the search outweigh the costs to a free society. For an example quote from this case, p62 of the court opinion: "Given the limited record before me at this point in the litigation - most notably, the utter lack of evidence that a terrorist attack has ever been prevented because searching the NSA database was faster than other investigative tactics - I have serious doubts about the efficacy of the metadata collection program as a means of conducting time-sensitive investigations in cases involving imminent threats of terrorism." If you have any evidence that the NSA domestic telephone metadata gathering has been effective at catching enemies of the US, then I'm sure the courts would love to hear from you. Since the government has not presented that information, I am certain that you do not have any evidence that "filtering .. is a good way to catch these." > "if it is not used and a terrorist incident occurs, people will be held responsible for NOT using it" Well, yes. That's why we have laws and court cases - to define where those limits are. If someone shoots and murders someone else, then there can be the cry "let's ban all guns!", but the 2nd amendment prevents that. If a newspaper wants to print secret documents which show that the president "systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress", then the 1st amendment can prohibit the government from getting a prior restraint injunction. This is all about giving a reason for why the NSA or other organization is NOT responsible - because doing so would be against the law. |