Are Any of the NSA Apologists Well-Intentioned?

[Free Bird]

It's clear that folks like Burr and Christie only want to keep the programs in place to have more control over people and to increase government power, etc. But, are there any that genuinely think that this program is helping people and want to do the right thing? Someone like Rubio or Collins comes across this way.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Np, of course all the NSA supporters go home every day  and think MWAHAHAAH MORE GOVERNEMNET POWER

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Of course not. The FBI had Zacarias Moussaoui in custody and knew he wanted to hijack a plane and fly in into the WTC. They didn't need any special unconstitutional powers to prevent 9/11. They just needed to do their damn job.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/21/national/nationalspecial3/21moussaoui.html

[Bacon King]

It's clear that folks like Burr and Christie only want to keep the programs in place to have more control over people and to increase government power, etc. But, are there any that genuinely think that this program is helping people and want to do the right thing? Someone like Rubio or Collins comes across this way.

Members of Congress on the relevant committees regularly receive briefings on the NSA's activities from the NSA itself. It's safe to assume that the NSA may not be entirely honest and forthcoming in these briefings so a lot of Congressmen who support their programs do so because they've received a very rosy picture of what's actually happening

[bedstuy]

I'm an NSA apologist and I'm "Well-Intentioned."

The NSA is basically a great investment in terms of national security.  Good intelligence is critical to getting a good bang for your buck in terms of defending this country.  And, electronic intelligence is much easier than human intelligence, although both are important.

And, the downside is pretty small.  The NSA isn't allowed to just investigate people for petty crimes.  They're after information that has national security significance.  As far as I'm concerned, there's no legitimate reason for an individual to keep something private if it's relevant to national security.  If you have information about terrorism, you should be reporting that immediately.  Why should we respect someone's right to keep the details that could thwart a terrorist attack private?  I've never seen the argument there.

[Brewer]

It's clear that folks like Burr and Christie only want to keep the programs in place to have more control over people

Boy, you really think you're living inside a House of Cards episode, don't you?

[SWE]

Is anyone who disagrees with me well-intentioned? I say no.

[Free Bird]

I'm an NSA apologist and I'm "Well-Intentioned."

The NSA is basically a great investment in terms of national security.  Good intelligence is critical to getting a good bang for your buck in terms of defending this country.  And, electronic intelligence is much easier than human intelligence, although both are important.

And, the downside is pretty small.  The NSA isn't allowed to just investigate people for petty crimes.  They're after information that has national security significance.  As far as I'm concerned, there's no legitimate reason for an individual to keep something private if it's relevant to national security.  If you have information about terrorism, you should be reporting that immediately.  Why should we respect someone's right to keep the details that could thwart a terrorist attack private?  I've never seen the argument there.

The problem is that it's indiscriminate. Get a warrant to use the technology based on other evidence. How is it constitutional otherwise?

[bedstuy]

I'm an NSA apologist and I'm "Well-Intentioned."

The NSA is basically a great investment in terms of national security.  Good intelligence is critical to getting a good bang for your buck in terms of defending this country.  And, electronic intelligence is much easier than human intelligence, although both are important.

And, the downside is pretty small.  The NSA isn't allowed to just investigate people for petty crimes.  They're after information that has national security significance.  As far as I'm concerned, there's no legitimate reason for an individual to keep something private if it's relevant to national security.  If you have information about terrorism, you should be reporting that immediately.  Why should we respect someone's right to keep the details that could thwart a terrorist attack private?  I've never seen the argument there.

The problem is that it's indiscriminate. Get a warrant to use the technology based on other evidence. How is it constitutional otherwise?

What specifically is unconstitutional?

I don't see a problem with something like the metadata program.  They're just preserving the data to look through when they have a target of their investigation and a warrant.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'd like to think I'm well-intentioned, but you never know.

[RFayette]

I used to be a libertarian, but right now, I really don't care much anymore about civil liberties.  Especially the phone wiretapping stuff.  If it catches terrorists, great.  Otherwise, I don't really see what harm it does to me or any other law-abiding citizen.  More protection with virtually no cost seems like a winner to me.

Also, I agree with everything bedstuy said, which is usually the case regarding foreign policy/related issues, though nothing else.

[SATW]

It's clear that folks like Burr and Christie only want to keep the programs in place to have more control over people and to increase government power, etc. But, are there any that genuinely think that this program is helping people and want to do the right thing? Someone like Rubio or Collins comes across this way.

I can't even respond this bit of ridiculousness.

[Goldwater]

Is anyone who disagrees with me well-intentioned? I say no.

This (normal)

[Free Bird]

I'm an NSA apologist and I'm "Well-Intentioned."

The NSA is basically a great investment in terms of national security.  Good intelligence is critical to getting a good bang for your buck in terms of defending this country.  And, electronic intelligence is much easier than human intelligence, although both are important.

And, the downside is pretty small.  The NSA isn't allowed to just investigate people for petty crimes.  They're after information that has national security significance.  As far as I'm concerned, there's no legitimate reason for an individual to keep something private if it's relevant to national security.  If you have information about terrorism, you should be reporting that immediately.  Why should we respect someone's right to keep the details that could thwart a terrorist attack private?  I've never seen the argument there.

The problem is that it's indiscriminate. Get a warrant to use the technology based on other evidence. How is it constitutional otherwise?

What specifically is unconstitutional?

I don't see a problem with something like the metadata program.  They're just preserving the data to look through when they have a target of their investigation and a warrant.

Pesky 4th Amendment. You said it yourself. Why keep all the data when you can collect it specifically with a warrant once you have an actual target? THAT would make it constitutional, not blanket collection

[Free Bird]

Can any of you name one reason this program should exist? How is it constitutional? Has it stopped ONE attack? Clapper himself said to Leahy that it didn't.

[bedstuy]

I'm an NSA apologist and I'm "Well-Intentioned."

The NSA is basically a great investment in terms of national security.  Good intelligence is critical to getting a good bang for your buck in terms of defending this country.  And, electronic intelligence is much easier than human intelligence, although both are important.

And, the downside is pretty small.  The NSA isn't allowed to just investigate people for petty crimes.  They're after information that has national security significance.  As far as I'm concerned, there's no legitimate reason for an individual to keep something private if it's relevant to national security.  If you have information about terrorism, you should be reporting that immediately.  Why should we respect someone's right to keep the details that could thwart a terrorist attack private?  I've never seen the argument there.

The problem is that it's indiscriminate. Get a warrant to use the technology based on other evidence. How is it constitutional otherwise?

What specifically is unconstitutional?

I don't see a problem with something like the metadata program.  They're just preserving the data to look through when they have a target of their investigation and a warrant.

Pesky 4th Amendment. You said it yourself. Why keep all the data when you can collect it specifically with a warrant once you have an actual target? THAT would make it constitutional, not blanket collection

The phone company needs to keep the data so the NSA can go back and look at it.  If they don't hold onto it, once you get a warrant you can start looking at their calls, but you can't go back into the past.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I'm not a huge fan of PRISM (more due to my suspicion of incompetence rather than malign influence in the system) but it hardly strikes me as the worst thing the intelligence services do. The NSA looks like an angel compared to say, the CIA's shenanigans.

[bedstuy]

I'm not a huge fan of PRISM (more due to my suspicion of incompetence rather than malign influence in the system) but it hardly strikes me as the worst thing the intelligence services do. The NSA looks like an angel compared to say, the CIA's shenanigans.

I see that concern.  I think the better way to handle this stuff is better oversight and more clear limits on what the jurisdiction of the NSA happens to be.  I don't want the NSA looking through phone records and emails under the guise of foreign intelligence and counter-terror, and then handing those records to the DEA or FBI to go after people selling drugs.  Maybe we could just make a rule, any evidence gained from the NSA cannot be admissible in court unless the case involves national security. 

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Are Any of the NSA Apologists Well-Intentioned?

Are any NSA workers or "apologists" ill-intentioned?  I haven't heard of anyone getting hurt by the program... unlike every other government program I'm familiar with.  For the volume of negative press and internet rants they get I have yet to see one of their poor victims step out of the shadows and demand redress for a specific wrong that was done to them.  Backing up the hard drives at Gmail is hardly what I would call the crime of the century.

[Orser67]

OP, I'd be interested to hear exactly how you separate well-intentioned and not well-intentioned.

I think I'd have an easier time grasping this question if it was about, say, a bridge being built, where the question is whether the Congressmen who got an appropriation for it actually believe it will help the country or are just doing it because it helps their political standing. I don't see why someone would support NSA spying unless they actually felt like it was the right thing to do.

[Lief 🗽]

come on folks, it's 2015: let's all drop this edgy, teenage anarchist anti-NSA nonsense and just agree that no one should care that their porn searches are in some database somewhere where no one will ever see them.

[VPH]

come on folks, it's 2015: let's all drop this edgy, teenage anarchist anti-NSA nonsense and just agree that no one should care that their porn searches are in some database somewhere where no one will ever see them.

Honestly, this. I think it's a damn good investment. In exchange for the government having a record of my number calling another number at some point (who cares?), I'm glad to be secure. The NSA is a solid agency, and with a bit more oversight, can do a wonderful job keeping us safe.

[Maxwell]

I don't like digging through peoples intentions. So yes, a lot of NSA apologists are well-intentioned. And truthfully, reforming the NSA would be better than the whole LET'S GET RID OF THE NSA movement, because it is an incredibly useful program that doesn't have to violate the constitution.

[SATW]

come on folks, it's 2015: let's all drop this edgy, teenage anarchist anti-NSA nonsense and just agree that no one should care that their porn searches are in some database somewhere where no one will ever see them.

amen.

[Thunderbird is the word]

oh where the  where you red avatars during the Bush administration? Jesus Christ