We're having a discussion Jeff, no need to get emotional, if I want to get personal I'd simply insult you.
You've decided any evidence that hurts your political view must be false, no matter where it comes from.
Present the evidence.
Which is fantastic for never having to question your political outlook, but not exactly truthful.
If you look at my posts you'll see a history that disparages the concepts of "Left" and "Right" as means to keep a populace divided and ineffective.
And when you falsely claim the NSA is broke the law, you remove all that pressure. There would be no law to change if it was already illegal.
Where did I say "the NSA is broke the law"?
I think this is an attempted position of moral superiority that you can attempt to use to justify apathy whist offering condescension to those who are defending democracy. Have you ever written a letter to political representatives that could be interpreted as applying that pressure?
My position here is, if you examine history after 9eleven you will see that W's emergency powers were not granted by the authority of the AG, who was pressured to sign whist in hospital but refused (a defender of democracy from that perspective). Instead the signatory was W's personal lawyer, which is not only illegal, it bypassed SCOTUS.
I am uncertain if those acts are illegal, they are in dubious legal territory and probably not constitutional as these laws are by-passing many of the foundational concepts that modern democracies are founded on. All forms of surveillance required a special kind of warrant with more onerous conditions than a normal warrant. These were rare and so no one missed them when they were removed to provide warrant-less wire taps.
But it sure feels good to spout that outrage, doesn't it?
You seem to be referring to the neuro-peptide addiction that seems to be going around. I've kicked that habit a few years ago, so it no longer affects me. The amoral superiority you rest upon is the same chemical addiction. How is it working out for you?
And it's way easier than providing enough pressure to actually change the law.
Considering that I've lobbied government for over 25 years, I'm one of the people that creates that pressure. If you had any lobbying experience you may realize that is what is required. I have analyzed and lobbied on the very terrorism acts we are discussing that provides these authorizations for the US, UK and, Australia. I'd read Canada's if I could understand French and by the time I'd done all this there was little point reading the NZ version.
Additionally I've continued to do this for the accompanying device surveillance act and intelligence laws that complement these laws. So I have some experience in these matters that is relevant, which is why I made the comment.