"This is a domestic crime tool, not only for terrorism."

Indeed, the primary realpolitik answer that you wont hear from anybody in the beltway till theyve had a few and have a cigar in their hand is that technology has so changed the landscape of threats and potential threats that actions that used to require nation state financial, logistal, etc support can now be accomplished by a single non-state actor, hence, we really "need" to collect it all.

The reason this scares the intel community so much is because generally, with some exceptions, if a foreign country sends actors over we tend to know about it due to how deep our tendrils are and the fact that we are setting ourselves up as the main repository of data for even foreign govs to access. (The point being we know what they access and look at), but if all of a sudden we feel like it could be anybody then you get an intel community thats in hypervigilante mode and that mode will wear you out fast, its a mentally degraded state for anything other than actual fighting.

im guessing some modifications to the way threats are quantitavely measured is in order, but no one really wants to do that these days. Ive heard rumors over the past few years of an increasing trend to get rid of all the salty old greybeards who tell truth to power... What we will end up with is a beltway full of people who are either too naive to know better and just tout the line, or a bunch of kissass mortage-payers who would condone genocide if it made sure their kids go to a ivy league college. Which essentially what William Binneys says happened when they scrapped his lower cost program designed to at least attempt to protect privacy in favor of a billion dollar blank check for another less effective solution.

The bottom line is that by attempting to collect it all before they fully understand how to parse the data, they actually weakened American security in all its various forma.

I am curious though when you say come up with a market solution. The problem is that markets simply dont work like you were taught in college economics. For example, the market profitted from the weakening of American security because the more expensive program put more dollars into a few VA counties. I would like some sort of example of how the markets will ever be anything other than opposed to actual progress if it makes them less money.

Therein lies the problem, weve allowed our own "representative governemnt" to become completely detached from the people due to their attachment to "markets".

Does anybody in DC even remember what their oaths were anymore? to protect and defend THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA from enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC...

Id say our real enemies, the ones threatening the Constitution (as opposed to safety) are domestic, and they wear suits and ties and not burkahs, and quantifiably so.

>Does anybody in DC even remember what their oaths were anymore? to protect and defend THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA from enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC...

Every time I hear Obama say "my number one job as president is to keep Americans safe" I can't help but cringe and wonder what the hell happened to us. These oaths truly don't mean anything anymore, if they ever did.

To be fair, the whole reason we got rid of the Articles of Confederation and instituted a strong central government with strong President was the previous federal government's inability to put down domestic insurrection.

People talk about Thomas Jefferson and the tree of liberty but the fact is that TJ lost the ideological debate of his time.

Actually, though Jefferson may have lost the debate, I think that history has proven him correct.

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/sites/default/files/content-im...

"I learn with pleasure that republican principles are predominant in your state, because I conscientiously believe that governments founded in them are most friendly to the happiness of the people at large; and especially of a people so capable of self government as ours. I have been ever opposed to the party, so falsely called federalists, because I believe them desirous of introducing, into our government, authorities hereditary or otherwise independant [sic] of the national will. these always consume the public contributions and oppress the people with labour & poverty."

Indeed, the very issue that we are discussing is the fact that the authorities have become independent of the national will (or have otherwise subverted the national will).

Also, there is much debate about why the Articles were replaced, and I don't really like your simplistic view of the matter, it was a very complex time and arguments for and against were extremely varied, but your point is taken.

I would also venture to say that it is the lack of accountability for those who violate the Constitution in all three branches that has further encouraged a slide down the slippery path where far too many people want to imagine the Constitution as a "living document" instead of a static reference only modifiable my amendment, as it truly should be.

I would also point out that I consider the SCOTUS compromised now too.

“On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” - Thomas Jefferson

Also a side note is that the only oath I have ever sworn was to the defence of the Constitution, so I am biased. (I think in a good way)

> Actually, though Jefferson may have lost the debate, I think that history has proven him correct.

The original point was about Obama saying his top priority is keeping America safe. Whether or not TJ was right goes to what should be his top priority, not what it is under the document that defines the scope of his responsibilities.

> I would also venture to say that it is the lack of accountability for those who violate the Constitution in all three branches that has further encouraged a slide down the slippery path where far too many people want to imagine the Constitution as a "living document" instead of a static reference only modifiable my amendment, as it truly should be.

That's a double-edged sword, because a strict textual interpretation of the 4th amendment doesn't get you where you need to be re: surveillance. Remember, the whole "expectation of privacy" is a "living Constitution" bolt-on. What the 4th amendment's text actually lays out is basically a protection against what would be trespass if done by a private person: http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/4/essays/.... All of the things explicitly mentioned in the amendment are things in which people have property interests. You have no property interests in the records AT&T keeps about what you do online--extending the 4th amendment to that requires reliance on the whole "expectation of privacy" framework that simply did not exist when the Constitution was written.

> “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

You're begging the question. What is the "spirit manifested in the debates?" 55 delegates debated the provisions of the document, and they had 55 points of view. Whose "spirit" should we give credit to? The literal text is the best evidence of the compromise that actually came out of that process.