Not really. People who are that paranoid don't vote, because they're sure it'll get them on a list.

Every time I talk with my mom in Arizona, I make sure to throw in a few statements for the NSA... Wouldn't want them to get bored.:flipbird:

But, which part of what I said isn't actually happening?
Other than the specific content of the calls, which we don't know.

It's an article of faith that these methods are being used responsibly.

Almost all of what you said isn't happening. But if it's helpful to consider, you make a similar leap of faith just driving down the highway. The chances that you'll be shot by local cops in a case of mistaken identity is much greater than being tied into international terror because you said you hate Bush on a international phone call.

My friends are still all present and accounted-for.

If you remove the clearly speculative phone-call aspect of it, which parts of what I said aren't happening?

I can't prove a negative. Which parts of what you said ARE happening?

Just define what you meant by "almost all" . . .

Do you happen to be friends with former ambassador Wilson? This administration penalizes dissent or opposition. That's why I don't trust unsupervised phone survailance. You may not disappear, but Zey Haff Vays uff making you pay.

Well my guess is that only one of the things you mentioned is happening.

That wasn't exhaustive, it was a counterexample intended to show you're cherrypicking...not hard to do on either side.

This is a general, speculative point. We know that when "terror suspects" are involved, it is considered a case where the due process of law goes out the window, and we feel that is justified for the greater good.

My line of thought is: how flexible is the definition of "terror" . . .

Also: given a power such as this, how likely is it that it will be abused? If so, how long before it is abused? And in that case, will it be too late for us to be able to determine the difference, the veil of secrecy having been established by our current actions?

Spex, a special prosecutor was appointed to specifically to look into your theory, and it didn't even turn up any blowjobs. Never mind that Amb. Wilson is still with us, and untortured (he looked really good in that Armani at the Correspondents Dinner).

My opinion is that as long as people are alert to, and concerned about, violations of civil liberty, those violations are much less likely to occur. The real threat comes from the corners where we aren't pointing our flashlights.

We don't even know what's in those corners. Our best bet is to be educated, active, thinking, concerned people and then hope for the best.

Where does knocking someone as "paranoid" factor into that proactive plan?

EDIT :::answers own question::: The determination between real an imagined threats helps us respond where response is actually warranted... Weeding out the loonies helps to prevent others from being dis-credited?

If your dog barks at people he doesn't know, he is good as a watch dog.
If your dog barks at everything, he is useless as a watch dog.

The brightest flashlight also casts the harshest shadow and blinds your night vision.

I got a million of these