You can't make the 'necessary for terrorism' argument
when the surveillance directly subverts the domestic
government.
You can't make the 'necessary for terrorism' argument
when the surveillance directly subverts the domestic
government.
Mostly semantics (depending on how one defines "terrorist" and "ties").
Only if you assume that the voter is rational and informed.
Nothing says that terrorists, or their supporters, never represents the will of at least a sufficient part of the people to gain representation.
In fact, we have many prominent examples where terrorists or people with close associations with terrorist groups have been elected to public office. Some you might sympathise with, others not so much: IRA's ties to Sinn Fein, which has seats in the UK parliament, for example. Or the ANC, whose armed wing used to carry out bombings targeting civilians. Or Hamas. Or most prime ministers of Israel (most of whom were parts of terror organizations like Irgun or Haganah in their youth).
That's a good question. I would say that nothing does. But that's the wrong question.
Imagine that the NSA found a conversation between a member of Congress and a foreign intelligence agent. However, because that Congressperson supports the NSA, they leave it alone. On the other hand, they see another member of Congress talking to the same intelligence agent. This Congressperson already hates the NSA, so the NSA won't lose any supporters by checking them out.
Then, because of the information revealed about the second Congressperson, they lose their next election, and the next Congressperson is perhaps more friendly to the NSA. The NSA looking at Congress can distort decisions made about the NSA.
I feel nervous about the NSA spying on Congress for exactly the same reason I would feel nervous if the NSA were spying on the FISA court judges. It's a separation of powers issue.