You don't know what you are talking about. Lets go through it.

If you are referring to Iraq, that is pretty much pure rubbish. Iraq has been a functioning if troubled democracy since soverignty was restored to its government. There have been a number of elections, and the head of government has changed peacefully. Iraq still controls the majority of its territory, and the region controlled by ISIS is an extention of the territory it controls in Syria. ISIS is not all that different from the Taliban and al Qaida, and it is in essence an offshoot of al Qaida. Al Qaida was active in the 1990s, so your claim there is rubbish as well. The people of Iraq are far better off than they were under Saddam. You're piling rubbish to a whole new level.

Yet more rubbish. The proper members of Congress were briefed regarding enhanced interrogation, and legally those techniques did not constitute torture despite your opinion. American citizens that take up arms with the enemy to make war on the United States can be killed like any other combatant. Maybe you could examine all the trials and warrant serving that occurred on US Civil War battlefields. Hint: that didn't happen. Confederate soldiers were shot down without warrant, arrest, trail, or conviction. That's because it's war, not an action of the criminal justice system. Your confusion on this point results in more rubbish.

No "boots on the ground," .... you mean like the 170,000 soldiers that were in Iraq, and around 100,000 in Afghanistan? You're confused again.

Unfortuantely you've got it wrong again. The Congress has passed multple laws authorizing NSA activity, and the President has his own Article II powers that don't rely on Congress. The NSA's actions have been authorized, they apparently are within the limits of the Constitution. Since there have been several elections during this period it would seem that democracy in the US continues unimpaired. So, in short, more rubbish.

Just over a week ago the Russian ambassador to Denmark threatened Denmark with nuclear weapons. Please find me a comparable example of the US making a similar open threat involving nuclear weaopns anytime recent.

Russia threatens to aim nuclear missiles at Denmark ships if it joins NATO shield

Nothing. The NSA exists because nations like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union existed, China, Russia, and North Korea still publicly threaten the US and other nations with nuclear weapons (and Iran hoping to join the club), and terrorist groups exist. If you think NSA exists because of "dishonest" politicains in the US you competely misunderstand the issues.

Although you are quit bright, at times you express some really bad ideas. This is one of them. Politicians are accountable to their constituents, and ordinary law enforcement will do fine, thank you. Keeping the military and intelligence agencies apolitical in a democracy is a good thing unless you have a taste for coups.

Let's be very clear that the real situation is that you wish that much of what NSA does is illegal and unconstituional. Unfortunately the law, courts, and Congress are against you. Your wish is just that, a wish, and it isn't coming true any time soon.

So you openly advocate having the national intelligence agencies spy on politicians to find incriminating evidence that makes them vulnerable, but you disparage the Stasi? Hmmmmm......

Ah yes, the "NSA" scene from Good Will Hunting. Overall it is a great movie, but that scene in nothing but polemic. The narrative is based on rubbish that most anyone with critical thinking skills should be able to identify.

You find that "persuasive," somehow, do you?

Not surprised I guess, you apparently think the NSA wants to be "popular." Hey guys! Who is the most popular secret agency!! That kind of defeats the purpose of being "secret" doesn't it?

How Much Does Campaign Spending Influence the Election? A Freakonomics Quorum

I hope you weren't scarred for life by John Kerry's loss.

You believe nonsense.

How Much Does Campaign Spending Influence the Election? A Freakonomics Quorum

And the evidence for this is ???? Completely lacking? And once again we come back to the point of there something on the order of 30,000,000 businesses in the US. And you think they come to some sort of agreement and collude on picking political leaders? You don't think there might be some evidence of this sort of massive effort, do you? How are the many contradictory goals and philosophies reconciled? You don't suppose that even if this was happening that the many different efforts would tend to cancel each other out?

Is there a list somewhere of which corporation "owns" each member of Congress? Who does IBM "own"? Microsoft? AT&T? Hormel? Chipolte? MacDonalds? At most they have influence, but not control. If they really did have control then you wouldn't see burdensome regulation or laws passed, like Sarbanes-Oxley.

I'm not sure where you get your ideas, but you might want to start looking for a better source, and maybe expose yourself to a wider range of views.

Do you have any idea how many businesses and corporations there are in the US? Apparently not. Maybe you should look that up and figure out how that many entities are going to come to a single position. It's nonsense.

"+5 Insightful"? That's about right for Slashdot on this topic. At present the Darwin Awards are for individual achievement, but I can see the possibility of a day coming when it will become a collective, national, or societal achievement.

Not that I would deny that corporations attempt to influence government policy and the laws that are made, but .... Could you explain how you think corporations "control" which politicians get elected? Corporations don't vote, it's illegal for them to try to control the votes of their employees, and they have limitations on how they spend money for political purposes. Do they do it through mind control? Mass hypnosis? Could you explain? It looks to me like you are exaggerating their influence, not to mention a few other things.

Since different corporations have different interests and goals, how is that reconciled if they control everything? How does that work if a very powerful corporation in one state disagrees with a weaker national corporation? What if different industries disagree on things? Is there a "congress of corporations" where this is all hammered out before they command the politicians to do their will? And who is it that gives the commands? What if they can't come to an agreement? Do you have any evidence of this sort of collusion?

How do you think the corporations control government agencies? Is it Sears, Walmart, or IBM that controls the FBI? Does Ford control the Social Security Administration, or is it Du Pont? Who controls the State Department? Ikea? AT&T? Go Daddy? I think there are a few holes in your theory.

There's no need to "google "disinformation"" since you've just demonstrated it. There is nothing claiming that NSA stopped the program. You just made that up, it's a straw man you use to spread FUD.

Sadly your comment is all too typical of the quality of comments in discussions of this subject matter. But hey! At least your lying FUD is popular, whereas the truth seldom is.

How do you think that will work out in the long run, basing positions and policy stands on lies and misinformation? I'm betting not well if practiced too widely.