Services people need to live should start out as government run companies, and either stay government owned or be heavily regulated to ensure the "quest for profit" doesn't kill people. A perfect example is the US medical system. It's the best in the world if you are rich, but for the bulk of the people they may as well be living in Somalia. They privatized the electrical grid in California, and prices went up while reliability went down. If it's important, keep public control of it. Everything else you can allow private control.

Your ability to do your job requires trust. If they think you are spying on them they won't trust you. Ensure you don't say or do anything about anything you see, or your job will get harder.

Russian intelligence already knows who the bloggers are, they control the network. The goal here is intimidation.

There are two states in law, Guilty and Innocent. But that's inconvenient so let's make up a new one, "Don't care". The great thing about Don't Care is you can lock people up for as long as you wish because they're not Innocent. And they don't get a trial because they're not Guilty. Maybe this example will explain why "Enemy Combatant" is a bad idea.

Illegal means the government can't do it without consequences. Clearly warrant-less wiretapping and spying are legal in the USA.

So how many Georgia's and Ukraine's are required for independence? The real question is where do you draw the line in order to maximize the benefits for the rich and powerful in Russia.

One way to stop this, prove to them that what they are doing doesn't work, and show them something that does. If you assume that these people actually want to defend America and are doing all these horrible things because they think this is the best way-

We need mandatory disclosure of all Fisa warrants after 90 days. If they need it kept secret past that they can get a real judge to sign off on it. And any time the government asks a corporation for your data or meta-data you get notified unless there is a court order involved.

I LIKE the idea of outsourcing domestic spying. It means the people spying on us will filter out the irrelevant stuff. Like if you're a politician and your kids are sexting their friends, or if the mayor is sleeping with his secretary kind of stuff that's useless for intelligence work. It also means if your government gets out of control there will be someone out there who might intervene (in theory).

A strict reading of the Constitution looks to outlaw searching anyone anywhere without a warrant, not just searching Americans. Might want to watch that slippery slope there, fella.

If the (current) President of the USA is willing (and able) to ignore the Constitution of the USA, why do you think the next President would follow a mere law?

We already know this bill won't work. The executive branch can stop the spying at any time, just by giving an order. Therefore we know the executive branch LIKES the spying on everyone, and will work to keep it going. So if they are supporting this bill then this bill can't have any real limits on the spying.

Shooting back into Russia isn't an option, as the Russians would use it as an excuse to send in the army in "Self Defense".

The Ukrainian government told them it was safe to fly there.

It's an active war zone, you can assume everything flying is hostile.