As bad as you think things are now, they can get much, much worse for the West. The West managed to avoid a horrific fate so far, but there are others waiting. Major social stresses lay ahead with the plummeting birth rates, the growing spiritual vacuum in the West, changing population patterns, and other challenges. That is before the question of nuclear war breaking out among the growing number of nations so armed, or many other dangers lurking. We live in interesting times, and they are likely to grow more so.

As long as it remains limited to national security cases - people in direct contact with an enemy in an armed conflict - the difference remains substantial. If the practice migrates to other areas of the law, then there is trouble.... big trouble. I doubt that will happen in a direct fashion since it is a pretty big cultural gap to cross, but eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty.

Congress authorized the military action against al Qaida with the Authorization for Use of Military Force in 2001. It is settled law that a Congressional authorization of that type is legally equivalent to a declaration of war. So no, the courts didn't "shit all over the bill of rights." It is simply that you have some catch up reading to do.

The problem is that you don't get to pick when what you view as a "credible" enemy shows up. If you compromise security ahead of time, its too late when it does show up.

The problem with Snowden wasn't just that the security check he had was badly done, but that he deliberately lied and took advantage of the situation to steal as much as he could - apparently. Based on history that sort of betrayal isn't that common.

There also seems to be evidence that the Russians didn't know everything since they are makings some adjustments based on Snowden's revelations. If they knew it all before, they would have done it before. Snowden provided them a blueprint they could access, as well as the operational methods. And they won't have the constraints of the US Constitution to inhibit them.

The security needs of the US and UK require signals intelligence of one sort or another. If you abolish the current agencies, they'll be replaced by another performing the same function. It would be quite remarkable to actually dissolve a major government agency - it so rarely happens at all, let alone without replacement.

NSA doesn't have police powers.
CIA doesn't have police powers.
DIA doesn't have police powers.
NRO doesn't have police powers.
NGA doesn't have police powers.
Shall I continue?

That is only likely to happen if you do it in an unlawful manner. Can you point to anyone that was arrested for going to the agency Inspector General or to Congress as the law would allow?

Not for that, no. If you riot or trespass while doing it, sure, the same as anyone else.

I hate using this word, but it seems appropriate: Duh. Control of your borders is one of the defining aspects of being a country.

There is very little chance you will be shot by the US border patrol if you aren't violent. If anything the reverse is true, the US Border Patrol agents are regularly fired upon and don't get the support to end the violence on their terms. That is part of the reason why there are so many areas of the US border that are becoming dangerous for Americans, even miles inside the border. On the other hand, the East German border guards could and did shoot on sight if you were found in the forbidden zone trying to leave the country - assuming you were detected in the 5km restricted zone before the border area. The Fortifications of the inner German border had watch towers with clear fields of fire ever few hundred meters, obstacles, mines, booby-traps, and dog runs. The US border doesn't have more than a remote resemblance to that.

There is apparently an enormous understanding gap on your part. I'm not sure if it's bridgeable since it seems to be largely willful. The East Germany secret police were agents of political and social repression. There isn't an equivalent in the US. We may end up with one if people continue being confused and do stupid things. It seems to me that there is a limit to the amount of national stupidity that Liberty can support. Other nations have lost their liberty before. The US has a buffer, but not a magic charm.

You have fantasies of oppression. The East Germans had the real thing.

No, many of them bought Thompson submachine guns and BARs - Browning Automatic Rifles.

You may be cheering for the police to be outgunned, but if you've ever been outgunned it isn't an experience you wish to repeat - and they generally don't. (And the infamous North Hollywood shootout is why many police departments traded in their shotguns for rifles in the current era.) And since the police are an arm of government, they are able to buy better weapons if they care to. Just think of it as an upgrade from Police Weapon 2.0 to 3.0.

We aren't living in the book 1984, and al Qaida isn't a plot device. Liberty, the US Constitution, the American people, and the West are still worth defending. If you stop defending before they stop attacking, the result will simply be more dead people and damage to the liberties Americans enjoy. Or do you have some theory about how they will give up their goals of a Muslim world if we stop defending ourselves? Or have we simply reached the point referred to in this quote?

      "... when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners,
      they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.” Samuel Adams

Perhaps the culture is moving past being decadent to debauched. Time will tell.

The "militarized" part of the police tends to be mostly limited to the SWAT team. Few police forces in the US are under centralized control, they almost all belong to either the city, state, or county, with some at the state level. If you don't like what a particular police force is doing, take it up with the local jurisdiction controlling it. It is rarely going to be the Federal government.

The UK was in genuine danger of being starved into submission by German U-boat attacks in WW2 that were sinking merchant shipping. It only reversed that because it was able to break the German codes and avoid or sink the U-boats. It was devastating for Germany to have its codes compromised. It would have been devastating for Britain not to have broken the codes. The current flavor of "information wants to be free" "patriot" would reveal the information that Germany's codes were compromised, and its messages were being read. The result would have been the starvation and surrender of the British isles, the transfer of the British government to another part of the Empire, some form of Nazi triumph, a much longer war, several genocides completed, and many more people dead.

Probably well over 100,000 documents of highly classified information on UK and US intelligence operations and methods were stolen and given to third parties. This is the same general type of information that was dealt with regarding the German Enigma codes, in some cases literally, since it is exposing encryption methods that the US and possibly UK can break - information that they shared in WW2.

I don't mean to insult you, but I think you show both incredibly limited insight and humility to say that what they are doing falls only into the category of "UK CLAIMS" it is damaging. How can it not be damaging for a government to have revealed what encryption systems it can break? How is it not be damaging for it to have its intelligence methods and operations exposed?

You should be clear that genuine damage to the security of a nation is a separate question of whether or not you personally approve of that damage. You should also consider the fact that there are likely to be consequences to it. It may take time, perhaps a couple of years, maybe more, maybe less, but there are likely to be consequences. You may find that you have been hasty in your approval.

On an off topic, I read today that a prominent nuclear expert thinks Iran could have enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in about one month if they surged, and Iran has recently announced a significant increase in the number of nuclear related sites. I also recall that about 10 years ago, maybe more, they had formed a brigade of suicide bombers to attack US facilities and military personnel around the world.

Actually it is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to rule on this question, which a number of appeals courts have. So far they have found that the power for the President to authorize this falls under Article II powers for national security purposes.

Although it is possible that due to the Supreme Court's ruling the interpretation of the law may change, it is entirely possible that it won't. One good thing that could come out of it is that it could help provide the broader public an opportunity to develop a better understanding of the law in this area. Many people have mistaken ideas about how the 4th Amendment actually works and blame the police, courts, and government in general for not complying with their mistaken ideas. Not every search requires a warrant, for example. That is long settled law. We'll see what happens.

Hopefully this won't be another case of the Obama administration in effect "taking a dive" to move the law in a direction desired by its more radical members.

Easy. The US is using its national intelligence agencies to obtain intelligence on terrorists trying to kill people. The intelligence agencies themselves don't have police powers. The suspect in this case is accused of assisting a terrorist group. East Germany's secret police had both an intelligence function and police powers. Their primary purpose was to keep the East German Communist party in power. The secret police were referred to as "The Sword and Shield of the Party." You could be arrested and imprisoned for such things as making jokes about the nation's leadership, wanting to form a new political party, being a member of an unapproved church, trying to leave the country without permission (could get you shot on the spot), and many other possible infractions. It isn't a small gap between them.

Joe McCarthy was a legislator with quite limited power, and he was done with long, long ago.

The real problem isn't that Snowden "embarrassed" the US president and government agencies, but that he stole enormous amounts of classified information from the US and its allies and passed it on to third parties. That is simple enough to understand as the basis for a criminal charge. Lavabit obstructed an investigation into a crime, and is paying the price. You approve of the crime. Maybe you think that there is no problem with that, but the government of the UK thinks it has suffered enormous damage to its security. I think you've got a pretty big credibility hurdle if you want to claim it was nothing.

The US doesn't have secret police because it isn't a dictatorship despite your secret this and secret that. It isn't a small point. And you should be clear that courts handle confidential matters all the time. That isn't new either.

The FBI originally only wanted the metadata. They had apparently provided that information in the past, so why not this time? It's great that you have your own personal theory of law, but that isn't what's on the books, or how the courts see it. It was a legitimate investigation according to the law. You just happen to agree with that law being broken in this case.

You should keep in mind that not all of the fallout has settled from this yet, and you might very well come to regret that it ever occurred before its done. Fate can be perverse.

According to the reports, the first time the FBI went to Lavabit they only wanted metadata for one account, something Lavabit had apparently provided in the past. They didn't comply with that request, which led to several rounds in court and ultimately a much bigger demand given what could be described as Lavabits previous repeated willful noncompliance and obstruction. You can either look at the situation as Lavabit sabotaging themselves, or that they were making promises that they couldn't legally keep and remain in business. You don't get to launder money just because you promise that to your customers. You don't get to defy court orders if you want a nation of laws.

They are still limited since it seems that they don't harvest everything for an indefinite period, and yet are drowning in data that they can't process and ciphers they can't crack in real time.

Leaky boats don't float, at least not very well.

The billing database is certainly extremely useful, but still limited if you don't know what was said. Talks over coffee or beer are beyond them.

The ACA was an over-reaching, overweening, scheduled train wreck.

The US lost aircraft in that area as well.

There is more to come involving Snowden. It would be a mistake to consign what has been revealed to the past. It is starting to look like the future.