The Instigator
Carson_KS
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The United States Government Should Substantially Curtail Its Domestic Surveillance

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,206 times Debate No: 81075
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (0)

 

Carson_KS

Pro

I will be arguing that the United States government SHOULD curtail their domestic surveillance meaning to reduce.

Definitions:
Curtail: meaning to reduce
Domestic: within U.S borders
(Sources for these definition can and will be brought up if the opponent asks)

Rules:
1.) Round One is for acceptance
2.) A forfeit of concession will not be allowed
3.) All arguments and sources shall be posted in the round. If challenger does not have enough characters, send them in a outside link.
4.) Debate resolution, definitions, and rules can not be changed.

Debate Structure:
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)
Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)
Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)
Debate Round No. 1
Carson_KS

Pro

To start off, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this argument. I will be styling this round as if it were a real debate speech. If you would like to see my evidence, tell me in the comments and I will provide evidence for each argument stated.

Contention 1: Inherency
First, the court will ask if the persons whose home or property were being searched expected a degree of privacy. The court will ask if that expectation of privacy was reasonable. If the police have to enter onto your property in order to get a look at the evidence or other property that they wish to use in court, they generally have to have a search warrant to do so. Law enforcement officers are allowed to take photographs from the air above your home, or can eavesdrop on your conversations in order to get enough information to get a warrant. Police officers or other law enforcement agencies must apply for a search warrant before conducting a search of the person or premise in issue. If the search warrant allows the police to search the bathroom of a home for illegal drugs, then the police should confine their search to the bathroom. However, police can search beyond the scope of the search warrant in order to insure their safety. If the police show up at your door and ask you if they come inside to search for drugs and you consent to the search, then the police do not need a warrant. In general, the police are allowed to search and frisk you if they have a reasonable suspicion that you are armed during a traffic stop. This is not an illegal search and seizure.
To sum up my inherency argument, it is saying that there are little gaps in the current "system" for search warrants, and police are taking advantage of those little gaps.

Contention 2: Significance & Harms
The battle over surveillance has less to do with invasions of privacy and more with the sense that government decided it can do whatever it wants with impunity. If the "metadata mining" reveals a pattern of curiosity, then it is a simple matter to reach into the grab bag and pull out everything any particular individual has said for a long period of time. The FISA Court approved "programatic" surveillance by interpreting relevant to mean all. What makes the NSA dustup disturbing is the feeling within government that government can act with impunity. Judges chose consciously to turn a bling eye when their colleagues were insisting on scrutiny of actual government practices. The "head in the sand" attitude of the Judiciary is a dismal record that does not fit judicial independence. Undue difference has undermined the independent role of the judiciary. No judge wants to feel responsible for the deaths of innocents. But direct responsibility for death lies with those who contribute to the act. The judge has an ethical responsibility for abuses by government of which the judiciary is apart. Pleas for Executive carte blanche power are exactly what judicial independence was developed to avoid, and what many statements in various declarations of human rights are all about. The way if unreviewed Executive discretion is the way of tyranny. Globalization has resulted in a net gain in power for executives. Such an imbalance poses a growing threat for protection of individual rights by domestic courts. Judicial globalization providers a parallel approach to restore the balance. Judicial separation of power justifies borrowing on non-democratic transnational judicial dialogue with reference to international law. It gives national judiciary a unique expertise on once aspect of foreign affairs, and so is a further exception to the usual presumption that the judiciary is the least qualified branch. From a democratic point of view, restoring the balance is a predicate for any well-ordered form of democratic self-government. Democratically free people do not make war. Bonds and shared value sew them together. Liberal values dispose them toward peaceful negotiation. As we promote freedom we will decrease world's wars. We have already seen decrease in world violence with increase in democracies.

Contention 3: Solvency
The Freedom Act, will make modest changes to the Patriot Act. We still have a major problem in the US of massive NSA snooping, and that's really left unresolved. Nuclear weapons continue to proliferate. Life appears endangered. Countries that govern themselves do not go to war with one another, do not build WMD's, or sponsor terrorism. Democratic countries form trading partnerships and are more environmentally responsible.

I have an advantage but I will sum it up. My INDIA ADVANTAGE is basically saying that we are influencing them. So if we increase our surveillance then India will see that and they will do the same. This will make Pakistan mad and will start a war with India. This war will contain nuclear weapons. When other countries see this war happening they will jump in and potentially another world war will nuclear weapons.

With that I am now open for my opponents arguments, and or questions.
TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Con

Hello, I would like to thank all readers, so let's jump right in.

FIrst, I would just like to talk about the debate. Although I hate these discussions, I have little choice. First, this round is severely skewed for me: My opponent is the one with burden of proof and he should have presented an actual case to argue against during this round. My opponent's inherency argument doesn't go anywhere. He hasn't even identified a problem in the status quo. All he has done is tell the readers about the current rules regarding warrants and some negative things about the FISA court. I would like to make an aside here concerning one incorrect thing in his inherency argument: right now, police cannot search outside of the warrant zone. The only legal places to search are within the designated areas. Back to my main point however: If you look at pro's significance and harms section there is nothing there of value. The only thing present is a description of why NSA surveillance is bad. But why is any of this irrelevant. Without the solution to the problem (a plan) it isn't. And if you look at his solvency, it isn't actually solvency. In order to have solvency you need to be vindicating and justifying that a plan will success, yet there is no plan here.

If we're being Frank this round is being run terribly right now. Not only has my opponent failed to provide a plan, or anything signifying to me what he plan might be if he decides to run one. But he has also failed to follow his own rules. THe first round explicitly states that all sources should be in the round. there were none so there is a time skew on my side, because I couldn't check any of his facts for the first day and a half. There are 10k characters allowed and there is no reason that my opponent couldn't have outlined his entire plan, not just a vague and worthless summation of an andvatage for a non-existant plan.

Even though my opponent has BOP he seems to believe that I have to make a case for NOT curtailing surveillance. I again assert his responsibility on the BOP. It would seem the round was set up so that pro could get out extra evidence in the second round without giving me any target to attack, then shift the debate on my side, to make me prove that surveillance shouldn't be reformed, and then dumping evidence on my in the next round, where I can only respond once, however perhaps this isn't the case, I can't be absolutely certain, that's just my perception.

Never the less, I have to make some sort of response here so I will


Contention 1 is the counterplan:

CP text: Congress should make the NSA inspector general subject to senate confirmation, require a NSA civil liberties &privacy officer, change the jurisdiction of the PCLOB to include all intelligence activities, institutionalize privacy concerns in performance reviews, have the DNI annually report in a public forum on privacy and civil liberty matters, create panels of cleared external reviewers for consultation by the DNI regarding new programs to encourage executive restraint in the area of the plan.

This is the only response possible to muster...keep in mind he could just make a plan that circumvents this CP.
Debate Round No. 2
Carson_KS

Pro

My inherency is topical to the debate because it is saying that there are little gaps in the current system for warrants and the police are taking advantage of the gaps extending surveillance. When in your house, the could tap your phone, computer and that's surveillance. So my inherency is topical.

Next my plan. My plan is:

The United States Federal Government should uphold the case American Civil Liberties Union v Clapper that the collection on metadata by or for the use of the NSA is unconstitutional.

Now onto my opponents arguments:

All he did was ramble about how bad my "evidence" was a failed to provide a decent sized evidence card. I don't think a few sentences counts as a card. I can not go against my opponents evidence because there is none.
TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Con


Intro and why you're voting CON right now

My opponent is obviously new at this, but that's ok. At first I was a bit peeved but really the only person he is hurting here is himself. First, let's talk about the rules. My opponent has made some very wacky nonsensical rules which keep him from winning this round. So in the first round, under the "Debate Structure" tab he mandates that round 2 have no rebuttals from con. Rebuttal means a response to my opponent's arguments. In round 3 he says that there shall be no new arguments, and again, in the final round, there are to be no new arguments. Here's the problem, (as he concedes) he has the burden of proof, which means, that until I know what his plan text is I cannot argue against him. I am here solely to negate. Because he doesn't give his plan text or advantages (which he easily could have done using the rest of his like 8k characters) I lose all offense and defense, such as kritiks or disadvantages, how am I supposed to hit a nonexistant target? I simply had to blindly throw out a counterplan.

Here's where is gets bad for him: If he isnt allowed to bring out new arguments in the 3rd or 4th rounds, how is he supposed to explain and prove his India advantage? He can't, which means there is quite litterally no advatage to doing the plan and the Pro burden of proof goes unfulfilled, which means you're already voting con on presumtion, right now. Also, what give him the ability to only give his plan NOW? You're plan is The Only Stable Advocacy in the round, only giving it now is not only abusive but is a new argument. Furthermore there is a disctinct advantage to voting for con, the counterplan, which goes 100% conceeded, and remains so becuase no new arguments can be made past the second round.

Therefore I will now expand upon my CP


Congressional Oversight Counterplan

Counterplan text: Congress should make the NSA Inspector General subject to Senate confirmation, require a NSA Civil Liberties & Privacy officer, change the jurisdiction of the PCLOB to include all intelligence activities, institutionalize privacy concerns in performance reviews, have the DNI annually report in a public forum on privacy and civil liberties matters, and create panels of cleared external reviewers for consultation by the DNI regarding new programs to encourage executive restraint in the area of metadata collection by or for the use of the NSA.


First, enacting the counterplan's instiutional changes is better than simply tearing down our metadata collection[1]: This is from Rosenzweig in 2013 Senior Legal Research Fellow in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation

"The perception of illegality at the NSA has outrun the reality by a fair bit...our current system of intelligence oversight generally works.
It is incumbent on this Committee and those in Congress with knowledge of how our intelligence apparatus operates to defend that system as effective and appropriate...The goal then is the identification of a suitable legal and policy regime to regulate and manage the use of mass quantities of personal data...We should therefore favor those reforms that create delegated or calibrated transparency (enough to enable oversight without eliminating essential capabilities...most of the more effective possible changes lie not in significant legislative tinkering, but rather in interstitial structural and operational reforms that improve the audit and oversight process without fundamentally altering the capabilities of NSA or the IC organizations...Make the NSA Inspector General, a presidential appointment, with Senate confirmation; Require statutorily, the appointment of an NSA Civil Liberties & Privacy Officer; Change the jurisdiction of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to include all intelligence activities, not just those with a counter-terrorism focus; Create panels of cleared external reviewers for consultation by the DNI regarding new programs; Institutionalize privacy and civil liberties concerns by making it a factor in performance reviews; and have the DNI annually report in a public forum on privacy and civil liberties matters."

And, Oversight Solves: This is from Kriner in 2009 Assistant Professor of Political Science at Boston University[2]:

"legislative oversight conducted by congressional committees has been one of the most powerful tools in Congress's arsenal to exercise a check on the executive branch and defend its institutional prerogatives. Particularly in times of national exigency - both military and economic - the need for Hamiltonian "energy" tilts the pendulum of power toward the executive branch. The very same collective action dilemmas and cumbersome institutional machinery that encourage such a shift to the executive also hinder Congress's capacity to police the executive branch and retain a check on delegated powers by acting legislatively. Instead, Congress has repeatedly turned to the oversight and investigative powers of its committees to police the executive branch...when Congress wields its oversight powers forcefully, it can lead to genuine changes in public policy...many of the most potent symbols of congressional power in our system of separated institutions sharing power have emerged not from the chamber floors, but from Congress's committee rooms. In a diverse range of cases from investigations of misconduct by executive agencies to Iran Contra, from Watergate to Whitewater, Congress has used its bully pulpit again and again to expose executive wrongdoing, challenge presidential policies and even to bring presidential administrations to the brink of political disaster."


Buut, in case my opponent wishes to abandon his rules Here are more arguments, if he doesn't or conceedes don't consider these


India - Pakistan ADV

Indo-China disputes do not escalate[3]:

"neither China nor India have an interest in overt or uncontrolled hostility. Both will work for their respective long-term interests within the rules of the present global order, with China having greater deliberation and speed than India. It is most unlikely that China will attack India, even in the Northeast. Any military action by China towards any of its neighbors, especially a democracy like India, will erode the carefully crafted image of its "peaceful rise" and will only serve to reignite the Tibet issue. It would also provide a diplomatic opportunity for the U.S. to justify its continued militarily presence in Asia."


Democracy Disadvantage

Surveillance Reforms Spill Over to the Middle East, creates more legitimate democracies[4]:

"Sending the signal that the United States is cleaning up its act on these fronts is a necessary step for reviving U.S. credibility on democracy promotion in the Middle East. Without some progress on these measures, anything else that the new administration tries to do on democracy promotion...How the United States reintroduces itself to the world—keeping its national security policy in line with the highest human rights standards—will set the framework for how U.S. actions on the democracy promotion front are perceived throughout the Middle East.
"



Middle Eastern Democracy will be exploited by populist leaning Islamist forces which causes terrorism and an emboldened Israel which will first strike Iran[5]:

"Islamists are in the best position to exploit democratization today, and their entry into public life is inevitable given the lack of alternatives...Given the populist credentials of Islamists, the rise of Islamist governments may transform the political and foreign policy orientation of traditional allies. This possibility should be of concern considering the credibility problem Washington faces in the region...45 Israel might exploit regional instability by taking preemptive action against its neighbors, engulfing the region into all-out war. Iran can enhance its position as the region remains in a state of strategic flux. Israel’s nuclear capabilities and Iran’s nuclear ambitions raise the stakes in any impending instability. This all could erase any possibilities for a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...It is imperative that Washington realistically account for the complexities inherent in its pursuit of a democratic Middle East, especially in authoritarian states divided along ethnic, sectarian, and tribal lines."



An Israeli first strike of Iran will destabilize the Middle East, drawing in the US and Russia, causing planetary extinction[6]


"the attack will cause a violent reaction from Iran. Millions of "human wave" Iranian militias will storm into Iraq, and just as Saddam stopped them with chemical weapons, the U.S. will stop them with nuclear weapons, resulting potentially in hundreds of thousands of casualties. The Middle East will explode, and popular uprisings in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other countries with pro-Western governments could be overtaken by radical regimes. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, and a nuclear conflict could even lead to Russia's and Israel's involvement using nuclear weapons...The nuclear threshold will have been crossed by a nuclear superpower against a non-nuclear country. Many more countries will rush to get their own nuclear weapons as a deterrent. With no taboo against the use of nuclear weapons, they will certainly be used again. Nuclear conflicts will occur within the next 10 to 20 years, and will escalate until much of the world is destroyed."



Citations

[1] http://www.newrepublic.com...

[2] http://www.bu.edu...

[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

[4] https://www.tcf.org...

[5] http://connection.ebscohost.com...

[6] http://antiwar.com...




- TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Debate Round No. 3
Carson_KS

Pro

My inherency is topical to the debate because it is saying that there are little gaps in the current system for warrants and the police are taking advantage of the gaps extending surveillance. When in your house, the could tap your phone, computer and that's surveillance. So my inherency is topical.

Next my plan. My plan is:

The United States Federal Government should uphold the case American Civil Liberties Union v Clapper that the collection on metadata by or for the use of the NSA is unconstitutional.

Now onto my opponents arguments:

All he did was ramble about how bad my "evidence" was a failed to provide a decent sized evidence card. I don't think a few sentences counts as a card. I can not go against my opponents evidence because there is none.
TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Con

lol wut??

concession, vote neg
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by steven01 1 year ago
steven01
lol carson loses
Posted by Carson_KS 1 year ago
Carson_KS
Wow, accidentally posted same thing
Posted by Carson_KS 1 year ago
Carson_KS
Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears

increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its

provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries

that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do

not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely

to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or

to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better

and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible
Posted by Carson_KS 1 year ago
Carson_KS
Zeese, 2015 (Kevin, lawyer and privacy advocate, "Modest changes to US patrit act left major

problems unresolved," RT, June 1, http://rt.com...-

usa/)

Kevin Zeese: [Yesterday] the Senate basically decided to go forward with the USA Freedom Act, which will make some

modest changes to the Patriot Act. The main change will be that the metadata will no

longer be stored by the federal government or the NSA, rather it will be stored by the

telephone companies, and then if the NSA wants to get access, they have to apply, and

get a warrant from a judge to do so. So that is an improvement on a portion of the Patriot Act. We still have a major

problem in the US of massive NSA snooping, and that"s really left unresolved. I supported

Rand Paul"s effort, the Republican from Kentucky, to try to stop the Patriot Act from being renewed, and real rethinking of how we deal with

this kind of intelligence gathering in the US and around the world; it is not just snooping in the US, but around the world as well. Unfortunately,

I think the Senate is going to go forward with a modest change, a slight improvement. I guess you can look at that in two ways: it is a

slight improvement, it is the first time the Patriot Act has lost any power, but it does also institutionalize

the practice of this kind of snooping and provides now a new way of handling it and it combines

corporate and government working together, which is always dangerous in the US.

B) Democracy is key to solve multiple existential risks

Diamond, prof of pol sci, 95"prof of political science and sociology, Stanford. Senior research fellow at Hoover. (Larry, Promoting
Posted by Carson_KS 1 year ago
Carson_KS
courts, whether on the basis of international or national norms." Yet is separation of powers analysis helps

identify the problem, it also suggests the solution." If globalization has comparatively empowered executives in

particular, it follows that fostering " rather than prohibiting " judicial globalization provides a parallel

approach to help restore the balance." In this way, judicial separation of powers justifies judicial

borrowing on both non-democratic and non-democratic grounds." From a non-democratic perspective,

transnational judicial dialogue with reference to international law and parallel comparative questions

gives national judiciaries a unique expertise on once aspect of foreign affairs, and so is a

further exception to the usual presumption that the judiciary is the least qualified branch of
Posted by Carson_KS 1 year ago
Carson_KS
B) Supreme court action is key to restore global democracy " judicial

independence is internationally modeled and checks tyranny caused

by rising executive power

Flaherty, 2008 (Martin S., Co-Director for International Law and Justice, Leitner Family Professor in International Human

Rights, Fordham Law School; visiting Professor, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton

University, "Globalization and Executive power," Internationall Human rights Colloquium at Georgetown Law, Spring,

http://www.law.georgetown.edu...)

That "old-time" separation of powers should be enough to turn back any trend toward deference." The balance of this essay, however, offers

one more which is at once more original and potentially the most powerful." Call this separation of powers in a global context " or "global

separation of powers" for short." The premise is straightforward." It assumes, first, that globalization generally has

resulted in a net gain in power not for judiciaries, but for the "political" branches " and above all for

executives " within domestic legal systems." In other words, the growth of globalized transnational government networks has yielded an

imbalance among the three (to four) major branches of government in separation of powers terms." Such an imbalance, among other

things, poses a significant and growing threat for the protection of individual rights by domestic

courts,
Posted by Carson_KS 1 year ago
Carson_KS
n515 It makes sense that this courageous judge (who also ruled against the

Government in a major Guantanamo case n516) would extol the independence of the federal Judiciary, but perhaps those of us outside the club can be forgiven for seriously challenging his

assessment. Meanwhile, critics are voicing the belief that recent appointments to the FISA Court will be even more deferential to the Executive. n517 To repeat, there is nothing "new" in

the killing of innocents for religious or political vengeance. n518 This violence has always been with us and unfortunately will continue despite our best efforts to curb it. Pleas for

Executive carte blanche power are exactly what judicial independence was developed

to avoid, and what many statements in various declarations of human rights are all

about. The way of unreviewed Executive discretion is the way of tyranny.
Posted by Carson_KS 1 year ago
Carson_KS
question, qualified immunity, failure to state a claim under due [*401] process, and Executive freedom from the Bill of Attainder Clause. n511 V. Conclusion The "head in

the sand" attitude of the U.S. Judiciary in the past decade is a rather dismal record that

does not fit the high standard for judicial independence on which the American public has come to rely. Many authors have discussed these

cases from the perspective of the civil rights and liberties of the individual. n512 What I have attempted to do here is sketch out how the undue deference to the

Executive in "time of crisis" has undermined the independent role of the Judiciary. Torture,

executive detentions, illegal surveillance, and now killing of U.S. citizens, have escaped judicial review under a variety of excuses. n513 To be clear, many of the people against whom these

abuses have been levied are, or were, very dangerous if not evil individuals. Khalid Sheikh Muhamed and Anwar al-Aulaqi should not be allowed to roam free to kill innocent civilians. But

hundreds of years of history show that there are ways of dealing with such people within the limits of restrained government without resort to the hubris and indignity of unreviewed

Executive discretion. The turning of blind eyes by many, albeit not all, federal judges is a chapter of this history that will weigh heavily against us in the future. [*402] No judge

wants to feel responsible for the deaths of innocents. But direct responsibility for

death lies with those who contribute to the act. Meanwhile, the judge has an ethical

responsibility for abuses by government of which the Judiciary is a part. To illustrate the threat, one

federal judge resigned from the secret FISA Court in "protest because the Bush administration was bypassing the court on warrantless wiretaps." n514 To be fair, his public statement

before Congress included the thought that the judges were independent but not making fully inf
Posted by Carson_KS 1 year ago
Carson_KS
Now that it is publicly known that the NSA has been

routinely gathering information on U.S. residents, the assertion that the statutes "rebut . . . any general assumption, unsupported by specific facts, that the executive will instinctively

abuse its targeting discretion" rings extremely hollow. n488 This is not to say that the judges holding that view were knowingly complicit in government

misdeeds, but they certainly chose consciously to turn a blind eye when their colleagues were

insisting on scrutiny of actual government practices. [*397] 2. Judicial Review of Killing U.S. Citizens The final case that I wish to

highlight here is the "targeted killing" of Anwar Al-Aulaqi, a U.S. citizen who expatriated to Yemen and became a major jihadist figure on the Internet. n489 When it was leaked in the press that

Anwar al-Aulaqi had been placed on the U.S. government's kill lists, his father Nasser al-Aulaqi filed suit to assert his son's rights to due process. n490 His lawsuit also asserted that the U.S.

targeted-killing policy violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, as well as treaty and customary international law. n491 While asking for an injunction to stop the government from killing his

son, he sought a declaration that the policy was illegal and disclosure of the criteria used to determine whether to target a U.S. citizen. n492 The D.C. District Court started with the

observations that this "unique and extraordinary case" presented "[s]tark, and perplexing, questions" such as: "How is it that judicial approval is required when the United States decides to

target a U.S. citizen overseas for electronic surveillance, but that, according to the defendants, judicial scrutiny in prohibited when the United States decides to target a U.S. citizen overseas for

death?" n493 Yet, the court dismissed the case, holding that Nasser al-Aulaqi lacked standing to bring the constitutional claims on behalf of his son. n494 The court also bl
Posted by Carson_KS 1 year ago
Carson_KS
n431 Do they do so? They would have us believe they are too busy to bother with us little people. But it is also clear that if the "metadata mining"

reveals a pattern of curiosity, then it is a simple matter to reach into the grab bag and

pull out everything any particular individual has said for a long period of time. n432 Indeed,

some instances of unauthorized snooping into content have been acknowledged and one FISA judge has described the NSA as having

repeatedly misrepresented its activities to the court. n433 The FISA Court has approved "programmatic"

surveillance by interpreting the word "relevant" n434 to mean basically all electronic communications,

which can be monitored for suspicious patterns. n435 "And under the 'reasonable suspicion' standard, there [*388] is no judicial review when

someone decides to look into the content of those communications." n436 Frankly, I'm not so sure that privacy of information is really that

important, except to the extent that I need to be able to protect my bank accounts from being raided. What makes the NSA

dustup more disturbing is the feeling within government that government can act with

impunity
No votes have been placed for this debate.