Centerfield

Jon, the warrant in FISA cases is not all that "hard" to get in the sense that the court generally approves most of them, but it is extremely time-consuming to get. It requires particularized probable cause for each one and findings which must be signed by the Attorney General. It's a LOT of work which must be done by the people who really should be spending more time analyzing the actual terrorist calls than filling out paperwork to make the Democrats happy.

And there is not a single bit of evidence that the NSA program listens to "strictly domestic" conversations". So far as we know, they all involved calls which had some international component, either into or out of the United States.

Barone is right on point. Democrats, as a whole, want a return to the rules followed during the Clinton Administration. Barone does not say Democrats are "against security" because you're all a bunch of extremists. He says you want to go back to the pre-9/11 way of life and way of thinking about security. And, for the most part, you do.

He doesn't say your arguments are insane or irrational. He doesn't say you want the terrorists to win, or that you're unpatriotic. He says, simply, the facts. You are against these programs. In your reply, you admit that you're against these programs, but argue that you have good reasons for that.

That's fine, but don't act as if his pointing out what he views as the results and consequences of your policy choices and values tradeoffs is just the same as calling you n@mes. It's very legitimate debate.

As a voter, I don't want "evidence" and "coherent explanations" about secret programs, the disclosure of which eliminates their effectiveness. Frankly, I think the Clinton Administration "clipper chip" proposal (which would have made all encryption devices illegal unless they had a government-approved "back door" in them) was a far greater threat to individual liberties than anything the Bush Administration has done. The constitution allows a great deal of leeway to the commander in chief in fighting external threats. Border crossings, whether in person or by post, have always provided constitutional grounds for warrantless searches.

Don't act like those of us who support the Bush Administration are against "civil liberties".

Don't act like those of us who support the Bush Administration are against "civil liberties".

Pat,

John didn't make the claim that you're against "civil liberties", but I am. From the War on Terrorism to the War on Drugs, the Bush adminstration has REPEATEDLY curtailed civil liberties, and you've defended this administration each and every time this happens.

And I like how you put "civil liberties" in quotes. How about you tell us how you "really" feel about civil liberties, Pat.

Isn't it nice of nic to provide some true content-free BDS? Complete to ad hominem?

Now it appears that voters are willing to turn over Congress to a party most of whose representatives voted against allowing the National Security Agency to surveil without a court order al-Qaida suspects when they place calls to persons in the United States and against allowing terrorist interrogations under rules supported by John McCain.

Jon, what part of that is inaccurate?

The "court order" Ds wanted for Al-Qaida wiretaps was a FISA warrant (not hard to get, and secret), strictly for domestic conversations (surely a minority of Al'Qaeda traffic given their nature). SCOTUS has already decided warrantless foreign wiretaps are constitutional.

Better go read the FISA statutes as pertains to warrant requirements. As Pat notes, they're stiffer than you think and not terribly well adapted to modern technology. Especially to internet and cell phones.

And I sure didn't see any interrogations "supported by John McCain," except to the degree that the President had no choice within the law.

McCain supported ALL interrogations within the limits of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, as passed, by ceasing opposition, supporting the act, and voting in favor. Which act 162 House Democrats and 33 Senate Democrats voted against. Last I looked, that was a pretty darn solid super-majority of Congressional Democrats. That Democratic "Nay" tally included the NO votes of Senators Clinton and Obama.

If you think your civil liberties have been abridged or your civil rights restricted in any manner whatsoever, pray do tell us how. Be specific.

As for the rest, yeah, sure is a lotta straw being slung there. By you.

Pat argues:
> It's a LOT of work which must be done by the people who really should
> be spending more time analyzing the actual ... calls than
> filling out paperwork to make the Democrats happy.

That's what J.Edgar, Kissinger and Robert Kennedy said, too. Are you happy with Kennedy's work?

> Barone is right on point. Democrats, as a whole, want a return to
> the rules followed during the Clinton Administration

Yep! That's why Dean won the 2004 Presidential primary and no Congressional Democrats supported the Patriot Act.

> He says, simply, the facts. You are against these programs. In your
> reply, you admit that you're against these programs, but argue that
> you have good reasons for that.

I'm against all these programs? Really? Nice to be told that, after I wasted so many posts and comments arguing for most of them. Coulda saved so much time.

protecting liberty or partisan agendas?

a greater threat to my liberty

world peace needs global cooperation

Tully grubmles:
> Better go read the FISA statutes as pertains to warrant
> requirements. As Pat notes, they're stiffer than you think and not
> terribly well adapted to modern technology. Especially to internet
> and cell phones.

From Sec. 214 of the Patriot Act,
> ... or other facility to which the pen register or trap and trace
> device is to be attached or applied;

Note, not just a pen register, but a trap or trace device for newer things like the Internet or cell-phones. There are, in fact, thorough and thought-out rules on Internet surveillance since the Clinton Administration, and I can explain their implementation in detail. I'm less conversant with cell-phone mechanisms, but I'd be astonished if it isn't similarly covered.

> McCain supported ALL interrogations within the limits of the Military
> Commissions Act of 2006, as passed, by ceasing opposition, supporting
> the act, and voting in favor. Which act 162 House Democrats and 33
> Senate Democrats voted against. Last I looked, that was a pretty darn
> solid super-majority of Congressional Democrats. That Democratic "Nay"
> tally included the NO votes of Senators Clinton and Obama.

The interrogation rules per se within the bill might be an improvement on the current state of affairs. But only a small one. And there were one or two other provisions, weren't there? Just a little matter of suspension of habeas corpus for accused terrorists?

Here's what Obama had to say about it. The third para, BTW, is:

> I realize that soon, we will adjourn for the fall, and the campaigning
> will begin in earnest. And there will be 30-second attack ads and
> negative mail pieces, and we will be criticized as caring more about
> the rights of terrorists than the protection of Americans. And I know
> that the vote before us was specifically designed and timed to add
> more fuel to that fire.

Later:

> Now, let me be clear - for those who plot terror against the United
> States, I hope God has mercy on their soul, because I certainly do
> not. And for those who our government suspects of terror, I support
> whatever tools are necessary to try them and uncover their plot.

I'm rather proud of his statement. I think he's right.

I'll give Barone credit for being fairly specific and accurate in his first paragraph. The hack Republicans just say "Dems don't wanna listen to terrorists".

But the whole gist of the article, regardless of specifics, is to imply that Democrats don't care about security and people are idiots to vote for them. Simple as that, as if it is simply incomprehensible why someone might be tired of this crew after six years, a war that shows no end in sight, proposals to ban gay marriage.

I resent his suggestion that the ONLY reason people want to vote Democratic is because they are tired. Maybe they want to vote for them because they are sick of the duplicity and incompetence of this administration. Oh, I forgot, it's only because of the MSM that people think things are bad. Actually, Iraq is in a golden era and things are wonderful at home. And, of course, absolutely NO reason to be concerned about the Bush surveillance programs.

Jon, my last "you" was referring to the Democrats in general, since you were expressing your support for their positions.

Am I happy with J. Edgar and Kennedy's work? No, but then they didn't follow existing law in much of what they did. Nor did they limit their activities to wiretapping international calls where at least one party was located outside the United States. Are you suggesting you have any evidence that the Bush Administration has, even a single time, used these powers to look at political enemies?

I'm not sure what you mean with your comment about the pen register and trap and trace devices provision in the Patriot Act. That doesn't at all address my comment about the difficulty of obtaining a FISA warrant. They just aren't easy or quick to obtain. Even to use the 72-hour, then get the warrant provision requires a substantial amount of paperwork, as the Attorney General must personally sign off on such a decision. And if the warrant application is not finished and approved within 72 hours, everything collected thereby must be erased. That's fine where we're mostly tracking Soviet-era spies, not when we're being attacked by a slew of Islamic fanatics who have absolutely zero compunction (unlike, again, the Soviets) about taking large numbers of innocent civilian lives.

As for Obama, he says very pretty things. Now, which parts of the Patriot Act does he want to change (the Patriot Act renewal which Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Majority leader, vowed to defeat), and why? And Obama repeats the usual wonderful words about the great writ of habeas corpus, without noting that never before has anybody, anywhere (so far as I've been able to determine) applied it to foreign nationals arrested on a battlefield or while trying to infiltrate, through subterfuge, our country. The seven century history of warfare is that spies are shot, without much due process at all.

And then Obama tries to link the lack of habeas review with stoking the jihad movement, as if there are a bunch of innocent muslims running around in Guantanamo whose bigg*st complaint, when released, will be "but they didn't give me my day in court", when they don't use courts in their home cultures at all, at least not the sort of courts we have.

So again, I ask for specifics of what you find so appaling. Dismantling the Clinton-era "Gorelick wall" between sharing inf*rmation between foreign counter-intelligence and the law enforcement side of the FBI? Putting rules, for the first time ever, on "sneak-and-peek" search warrants?

Marc...

And the gist of almost every single Democratic commentator about President Bush and the administration month after month for the last 6 years has somehow not been "they call us unpatriotic and want to take away our civil liberties"? Please.

What portion of Americans do we suppose is genuinely concerned about protecting the civil liberties of those who are not American citizens?

My impression is that when it comes to enjoying and protecting civil liberties, a solid majority of American citizens is concerned only insofar as rule changes would infringe upon their existing civil liberties. In my experience, many or even most Americans are satisified by the notion that the protections promised by the constitution apply only to members of our nation: legal citizens.

And as (I think it was) Pat points out, border crossings physical and electronic have been viewed legally for some long time as reasonable activities to scrutinize more closely.

When these points have been highlighted, I find that most citizens are far less troubled by claims of infringed liberty. I continue to find it curious that lately the most vocal complainers about the decay of "our" civil liberties either neglect or obscure such points.

I have leaned pretty strongly towards the protection of our civil liberties for some time now, and I'm comfortable with the notion that the constitution is a "deal" and its tenets hold sway for members who are party to the deal, n@mely American citizens. I am comfortable with all of our other efforts to be as moral and humane and fair as possible in the legal treatment of other folks who are guests in our country, whether they happen to be invited or uninvited. But I don't believe that they enjoy the same guarantees of liberty that club members (American citizens) do. The liberties that non-members enjoy are granted at the sole discretion of clubmembers, and subject to change without notice. That's the deal.

All this is an important root of ongoing conflict between partisans, related to the debate about who deserves to be a club member. My understanding is that legally speaking, various guarantees of liberty apply only to club members. So let's take a moment right now to acknowledge that those who complain about infringements of liberty committed against non-members are in fact implying a pretty big "ought", maybe even without noticing or highlighting it. Such folk tend to assume that all the liberty guarantees which club members enjoy really OUGHT to be extended to everyone, or at least to everyone whose feet stand on American soil. I'm pretty sure that's not what our laws say.

More content-free diversion.

Um, Jon? You are aware that pen registers were ruled as being outside of any constitutional protection almost thirty years ago, and involve ZERO actual content interception? YOU specified "domestic conversations. ("Look, Buzz, a spaceship!") You're pointing at something that doesn't remotely apply to what you said. Red herring. Diversion.

The section you're really looking for as relates to internet is 216, not 214. That's the internet applicability "allowed" under the Patriot Act, and is the very same usage that the courts and law enforecement had already been following for years.

We voters clearly don't deserve our rights, since we want evidence and coherent explanations and thought and regular updates from our leaders about giving them up.

Please attempt to justify that ranting hyperbole using something resembling facts. Once again, if you think your civil liberties have been abridged or your civil rights restricted in any manner whatsoever, pray do tell us how. BE SPECIFIC. If you think some previously existing right is being denied to anyone, pray tell us how. BE SPECIFIC.

Brian, I have sorely missed your well-thought out and reasoned responses to various posts! Welcome back!

Thanks, Heather, it's nice to be up and around.

And perhaps the break has served me well. I believe the mind benefits from periods of stepping back, taking stock, digesting, etc. Periods that may at the time seem like boredom, alienation, frustration,and wheel-spinning confusion may turn out to hvae been crucial precursors to later insight. Sort of like how fields on occasion need to lay fallow in order to restore fertility. Important things are going on below the surface. Hard to see or appreciate, but crucial.

Pat,

It's pretty funny that here I am treated as if I am the embodiment of the Democratic Party including, apparently, Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky, while on other blogs I am chastised for being some sort of insincere moderate (or conservative)for arguing against liberal positions. All I was saying is that people have legitimate reasons to vote Democratic and that it's arrogant of Barone to imply that the only reason is fear or unwillingness to face the terrorist threat.

Marc,

I had a professor in law school in Louisiana who was originally from New York. He said when he was up there, he was considered on the right wing by his circle. Then he moved down here, without changing his views, and was promptly labelled to be close to a pinko commie...

As for Barone's article, I would suggest that a better approach then complaining about the tone would be to actually refute the underlying argument by describing just how you and others propose to fight the terrorist threat. His article strikes me as being well within the proper limits of political rhetoric. Barone's really speaking about the middle, who have in some number shifted their support from the war and the Bush administration to the Democrats. I don't think the Democrats have really converted all those folks, they're just kind of tired.

Tully asked:
> The section you're really looking for as relates to internet is 216,
> not 214. That's the internet applicability "allowed" under the Patriot
> Act, and is the very same usage that the courts and law enforecement
> had already been following for years.

Exactly! That's why I'm failing to see where this FISA problem arises.

> If you think your civil liberties have been abridged or your civil
> rights restricted in any manner whatsoever, pray do tell us how. BE
> SPECIFIC.

Personal privacy violations:

o Well, the only one I KNOW about was the govt getting my call records from AT&T.

o Of course, I have no way of knowing if they've gone after my financial records. It's not impossible - I did have a Pakistani coworker for awhile, and I'm mean to TSA agents.

Other peoples' civil rights violations:

o Way too long - I'll try to get out a post on them later.

Did you know Kissinger used wiretap data from coworkers to make his way to the top of the White House heap? Some speculate Nixon might not have fallen for surveillance temptation without Henry to help corrupt him. Doesn't power corrupt EVERYBODY?

Pat,

My point is that Barone is doing the same thing that the left did when Repubs started winning elections-complaining about the electorate. Obviously, you disagree, but I think there are plenty of reasons to be tired of Republican rule (other than Iraq and civil liberties)and I don't think arguing that the electorate doesn't know what they are talking about is very instructive. But even if Barone is right, that's democracy. And, realistically, the GOP isn't in trouble simply because Democrats are complaining about cvil liberties--in fact, I would bet that is a very minor issue with most voters.

My point is that Barone is doing the same thing that the left did when Repubs started winning elections-complaining about the electorate.

Tht is a good point. And he didn't even wait to lose the election, which I thought was traditional...

Jon:

Well, the only one I KNOW about was the govt getting my call records from AT&T.

Do you "know" about that from press allegations or from actual evidence? Making the assumption that it's true, how does that constitute a "violation" of your civil rights or civil liberties under US Code and the Constitution? And lastly, do you care enough or assign the allegation enough credence to have changed carriers, or protested to the company? If anyone there "violated" any of your rights or liberties, it was the carrier--unless they did it under legal compulsion.

Way too long - I'll try to get out a post on them later.

So all you offer is a second-hand press allegation that a private company might have provided the company with your call records? And if they did, might have done so without any compulsion? But there's a whole long list of stuff you're not mentioning? Heh. How specific of you.

Did you know Kissinger used wiretap data from coworkers to make his way to the top of the White House heap? Some speculate Nixon might not have fallen for surveillance temptation without Henry to help corrupt him.

Last I looked, Kissinger and Nixon were NOT IN OFFICE. And they're not the folks you were tossing allegations at. They're dead news. Well, Nixon is anyway. Kissinger's still above ground. But he's not running the government. So what the hell's the point of that statement? That power corrupts, and therefore anyone in power must be corrupt. Bad logic, my friend.

Pat responded:
> I'm not sure what you mean with your comment about the pen register ...

That was a response to Tully.

> ... habeas corpus, ... never before has anybody, anywhere
> (so far as I've been able to determine) applied it to foreign
> nationals arrested on a battlefield or while trying to infiltrate,

Yep. But how about the rest? How about the ones that the Northern Alliance delivered to us and told us were bad guys? Shouldn't we give them at least a adversarial hearing with the evidence against them instead of taking their word for it, or worse still, just letting them rot until remembered?

Yes, the President has been acting legally wrt Guantanamo. But I keep needing to bring up the occasional gap between legal and right, which, judging from the tenor of his speech on the subject, he seems to agree he's on the wrong side of.

Back to the substance, you may think the President's right and Obama's wrong, but the evidence to call Obama's actions obstructionist, as Tully isn't there. The US could proceed perfectly well with interrogations without the bill he voted against.

> The seven century history of warfare is that spies are shot, without
> much due process at all.

More straw. Nobody in the group is accused of espionage, and we never execute spies without due process to look at evidence first.

It was an off-base and tangential "reply" to me, one that notably did NOT back up the claim it was applied to. Specifically intercepted content. Pen registers don't intercept content, and you alleged content interception of domestic conversations. When asked for specifics, you point at pen registers!

Shouldn't we give them at least a adversarial hearing with the evidence against them instead of taking their word for it, or worse still, just letting them rot until remembered?

The muddled grammar aside, I note that every single Gitmo detainee has had a combatant status review hearing. You may not like the types of hearings they've had, you may disagree on how they were held, but they've had them. And a coupla hundred or so have been released and repatriated as a result of those hearings. Several of those released have been killed or recaptured fighting against Coalition forces in Afghanistan, blowing up Coalition facilities, etc. Two more were arrested in Russia for plotting terrorist acts. The Suadis had 29 of those returned in jail on local charges, and released them for Ramadan. Wonder how many they get back? They've been re-educating them about proper Islamic conduct, and a few may be tired of the "schooling."

You're essentially arguing for those still held to have access to US criminal procedure and US courts. The major factor that has prevented them from having traditional military hearings and/or tribunals has been the legal actions taken by liberal legal groups to force them into the regular criminal court system, rather than allow them to be tried by military tribunals. Which was addressed by the Military Commissions Act. They're now ALL in line for tribunals, complete with legal representation. They're NOT in line for access to the full rights and privileges of US citizens in criminal trials. Obama and Clinton voted against the Commission bill. Does that mean they want to bring them into the US court system? Or that they're against them having those formalized trials at all?

Back to the substance, you may think the President's right and Obama's wrong, but the evidence to call Obama's actions obstructionist, as Tully [would say, it] isn't there. The US could proceed perfectly well with interrogations without the bill he voted against.

Muddled grammar again aside (I filled in the missing words) I note that YOU are the first one to use the word "obstructionist." Pat didn't call Obama "obstructionist." Neither did I. Don't invent other's arguments for them. They can make their own. You complain about straw men, yet you keep building the pile! I also note that the act Clinton and Obama voted against actually bounded and limited allowable interrogation techniques. Can I say that means Obama and Clinton are in favor of the now-disallowed techniques? Please.

Generally speaking, what I'm seeing here is exactly what Pat spoke of re: Obama--you complain about straw men, then throw some out there. He asks for specifics, I ask for specifics, and we get more rhetoric and tangential diversion, but no specifics that address the original points. Then you start playing relativist with "legal" versus "right." More rhetoric, leading nowhere but into the philosophical fever swamps. And around and around we go....

Methinks this is all looking rather circular at this point.

But Marc, objectively speaking, what has changed in the last 6 months or so, substantively? Iraq has gotten a bit worse, the Foley thing stirred everybody up for a bit, but on the real fundamentals, what's changed that has made the national preference polls show a noticeable decline in popular support for the GOP? I don't think all that much has changed, and the Democrats certainly haven't suddenly found a coherent and decent voice on terrorism and the war and other issues, so to me voter weariness explains a lot. The Foley affair was just sort of the last straw that really made more people groan and be just fed up with all of it.

Isn't it nice of nic to provide some true content-free BDS? Complete to ad hominem?

Tully, for someone who is a co-creator of the hopelessly partisan, vehemently anti-war Stubborn Facts blog, you have a lot of nerve attacking my comments as "ad hominem."

Civil liberties is an issue that comes up over and over again on this blog, and it's always interesting to see the same cast of characters on this blog consistently fall on the side that claims that Bush isn't violating any civil liberties.

I've been consistent on civil liberties. You don't hear me making excuses for Clinton's repeated violations of civil liberties (i.e. implementing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, implementing the Federal Violent Crime Control Act, prosecuting the War on Drugs, intervening at Waco, having federal agents seize Elian Gonzales from his home in Florida, etc), but God forbid that either you or Pat admit that Bush is ever wrong in civil liberties.

In the past, I've written rather extensive posts on this blog in regards to civil liberties. I've cited the Constitution. I've cited the Federalist papers. I've cited libertarian sources. I've even cited conservative sources.
But none of that has really amounted to much, because you and Pat always come up with some b:zarre rationale to justify the means you want.

Tully, you, Pat, and Simon have been partisan bullies at this blog from the start, and it's about some time that someone called you on it. Your partisan tirades against those who oppose Bush on the war or on civil liberties has grown tiresome over the last couple of years.

I'm willing to return to a former level of calmness the instant the pro-war/pro-bush bloggers at this blog stop using partisan hackneyed phrases such as "cut and run" and stop referring to those who oppose the war as "partisan Democrats", "liberals", "nutroots", "a cancer", or people who just "hate Bush."

Tully grumbled:
> Do you "know" about that from press allegations or from actual
> evidence?

There are multiple sources (admittedly anonymous) on this one.

> YOU are the first one to use the word "obstructionist." ..

Whoops! You're right. Sorry. Heat of battle and all that.

> Making the assumption that it's true, how does that constitute a "violation"
> of your civil rights or civil liberties under US Code and the Constitution?

It constitutes a violation of my privacy rights. Congress must've felt that way, too, or they wouldn't've passed the law forbidding carriers to hand my records to all and sundry.

> And lastly, do you care enough or assign the allegation enough
> credence to have changed carriers,

I would change if I had a choice in POTS service.

> If anyone there "violated" any of your rights or liberties, it was the
> carrier--unless they did it under legal compulsion.

...NSA took the initiative to ask. Thus, I'd say NSA appears to be guilty of corrupting the guilty telcos and abettance. Sure sounds illegal to me. People just chose to legally pursue the carriers because they're alot easier to sue successfully. Notice, I hold both parties responsible.

> ... and therefore anyone in power must be corrupt. Bad logic, my friend.

Of course that's not how it goes. You know as well as I that the more power we give the government, the more corrupt it becomes. When we give the government lots of power to look at our records and listen to our conversations, historically, the corruption rate has been extremely high.

Of course we don't know what's happening now. The public didn't know about Henry until years had passed. Did that mean Republicans were right to trust Henry with that kind of power?

What do you think the chances are that no corruption is going on now, taking advantage of the broad access to records, conversations, and other data?

Jon,

Answer: You "know" about it from press allegations, not from any definitive source. You know I don't take anonymous sources, Jon. That USA Today story has already been corrected, redacted, and discredited in many ways for major factual errors. I'm not going to take any of it as proven when so much of it has been shown demostrably false. And, if it actually happened, it's still not a violation of any constitutional or civil right as described. The courts are clear on that. It may (can't tell without verified facts) be a violation of statute, or a civil wrong by the company. To make that case, cite the statute. N@me the specific violation, or you're just saying "I don't like it." Fine. But that doesn't make it a crime or a violation of civil rights.

I would sincerely suggest that you consider the very history you've been expounding. Does the government have more power or less power to look at our records or spy on us than it did in, say, 1965? 1944? 1930? 1924? Etc. When was our government less corrupt than it is now? When was it less violative of civil rights than today? You betcha we should watch 'em like a hawk, always, but in historical terms it's been getting steadily better, not worse. While I actually share your concerns about keeping the feds in line, I don't share any apocalyptic hyperbolic vision of impending doom.

nic, that's a fine rant. You should frame it and put it on your wall so you can admire yourself at leisure.

> You know I don't take anonymous sources,

OK, fair enough. I tend to believe ones with multiple sources, so I guess we draw the lines of likelihood there differently. We'll see how the court cases go.

> ... it's still not a violation of any constitutional or civil right.

Just because you chose to ignore what I wrote doesn't make it any the less a human and constitutional right. E.g:

> > Personal privacy violations

> I don't share any apocalyptic hyperbolic vision of impending doom.

Your turn in the straw bucket.

> When was our government less corrupt than it is now?

I believe the judgement of history is likely to place the Bush administration as a upspike, corruption-wise, certainly from the Carter and Clinton Administrations (Monica and all), and maybe even from H.W..

LOL. Sorry, I remember the Clinton and Carter years. I even remember the Nixon years. (Heck, I once shook Nixon's hand, but that was before Watergate...) Maybe you're using some new definition of corruption that for some inexplicable reason only applies to the current administration.

> I don't share any apocalyptic hyperbolic vision of impending doom. Your turn in the straw bucket.

Can't a guy even hyperbolize someone else's hyperbole? Man, we need some graphic smileys around here. I'll try to do better.

Just because you chose to ignore what I wrote doesn't make it any the less a human and constitutional right. E.g: Personal privacy violations

I didn't ignore it, I just don't buy it as anything but hyperbolic emotional rhetoric without actual evidence to back it up. You still haven't shown that there's been any actual violation. Multiple sources? A thousand anonymous people saying something false does not make it true. Where's the proof? Has the FBI come knocking on your door about your Xmas call to Aunt Minnie in Beirut? Once again, for the umpteenth time, be specific. Cite the law or the Constitution, point to the right, and show that it's actually been violated. I personally feel that I have a "right" to a big lottery payout, but I'll still have to show them a winning ticket to collect.

Even if we take as a given that the telcos turned over anything, any wrong against you would be theirs, not the governments, unless the government illegally coerced them into doing so. The courts said so long ago, decades before THIS administration. Calling a rock a stick doesn't make it one. What part of that are you missing?