Snowdon is a dummy

revelette wrote:

So all spying should just be done away with because in the process of it, we might be spying on innocent people? That might seem hyperbolic but it seems to me the end of the matter to what you all are saying.

No, no one is say that at all. And, yes, that's an hyperbolic reaction to what we are saying. Targeted spying has always been part of government. We're headed to a global McCarthyism/Hooverism/Stazism/etc and that's not a place we need to go.

I disagree with Frank's assertion that it's too late to do anything about it. It wasn't too late to stop the nuclear arms race and it wasn't too late to stop other instances where the desire to protect ourselves from whatever enemy (i.e., boogie man) we were being terrorized by.

I remember right after 9/11 everyone was saying how we didn't connect the dots. I also remember the Iraq war debate and everyone was saying that instead of wars we should track down terrorist. If we don't use surveillance tools, how are we supposed to do that logistically

Actually "progressives" were against warrantless wiretaps and things of that nature, not against all surveillance.

Second, I was talking about foreigners wiretapped outside the US. Please name three recent incidents where American 'progressives' have spoken up for the privacy rights of non-Americans who don't live in the US. When I e-mail or phone my parents and sisters in Germany and Switzerland, their privacy counts for nothing to the US --- and that increasingly includes US 'progressives'.

When I e-mail or phone my parents or sisters in Germany and Switzerland, their privacy counts for nothing to the US

[...]

[...]

[...]
The Guardian informed the White House, the NSA and the office of the director of national intelligence that it planned to publish the documents ...

When I e-mail or phone my parents or sisters in Germany and Switzerland, their privacy counts for nothing to the US --- and that increasingly includes US 'progressives'.

Name three progressives who for privacy issues outside of the US when Bush was president and are not now then you might have a point.

Or maybe we are self centered and thoughtless for everyone but ourselves.

I seem to remember it always being phrased, "American citizens" when it comes to civil liberties and security issues. I think because it is only citizens who are covered under the constitution.

I think because it is only citizens who are covered under the constitution

There are international laws regarding privacy?

The US ignores international laws.

whether by dint of what governments (or terrorists) will do;

revelette wrote:

I seem to remember it always being phrased, "American citizens" when it comes to civil liberties and security issues. I think because it is only citizens who are covered under the constitution.

Liberty, of which privacy is an important part, is a basic human right. By international law, America has an obligation to respect human rights, regardless of the humans' nationality or residence. The constitutional rights of American citizens are just icing on the cake.