These results are sorted by most relevant first (ranked search)
"The only part I disagree with is "even worse". You have the ability to remove your government if it breaches your trust, but I, or any other citizen of a foreign contry have no such recourse, as likewise you have no such recourse against my government. Arguably, that makes it "even worse" for your government (or mine) to act "illegally" outside your (or my) court's juristiction. (I use "" because if it's outside the court's juristiction technically it's not illegal I guess) I can do nothing if your government decides to spy on me - I can't use the courts, I can't vote your government out of office, I can't seek to impeach your president. You can do all those things."
United States History - Country Studies
I have no respect for the man George W. Bush. I do, however, respect the office he was elected to and the process and theories of government that placed him in the Oval Office.
How can you trust a government who so openly perpetrates these things on the rest of the world *not* do do it to their own people if they feel they need to?
Why so many essays on sexual topics
I'm also still confused about why the Echelon arrangement of the Brit/Aussie/Kiwi/US spooks spying on each others' citizens wasn't employed. Seems like this could all be automated to the point of bending skillfully around any law that doesn't explicity forbid the exchange of domestic intelligence with foreign governments. That leads to the question of why we're so jumpy of a different means to an identical end.
SparkNotes: The Enlightenment (1650–1800)
OK, How about the other take on this. If 'All' the people involved in the illegal order to monitor whatever is now or was being monitored weren't doing their Constitutional duty (i.e. protect and defend .. against all enemies foreign or domestic) then why do we hear about this grave violation of law from our 4th branch of government. If this isn't political (but rather a point of law) why didn't one of those trusted to carry out the order (and who believed it was illegal) turn the whole chain of command over to the authorities. There is the FBI, the CIA, the DOD, the Congress, the Courts, so; why the press. Oh, and Who turned the press on to this, (or was there a cost to revealing super secret information to those without clearance). Or, was it 'just to difficult' to find the correct authority. I've read Franklin, Paine, et. al. and I want to live in a free country, but; is this issue only just binary question. Isn't there a grey scale at least?
NSA and Bush's Illegal Eavesdropping - Schneier on …
It's not even a matter of necessarily what is done exactly, but also the precedent that is set. The government of the United States is far bigger than any one individual, and the precedent will have repercussions on future policy in future administrations, as well as to how the United States is viewed internationally.
NSA and Bush's Illegal Eavesdropping
"How can you trust a government who so openly perpetrates these things on the rest of the world *not* do do it to their own people if they feel they need to?"