Because the vast majority of those people don't understand the repercussions of it. They think it allows the government to "catch the terrorists" on our soil. That's the way it was pitched.
The people in power are still immigrants to the internet and this sort of technology in general. The views regarding domestic spying will change as more technologically savvy people age and move into politics. That's why they're trying so hard to push certain legislation, before it's too late.
And it does. Some people are worried enough to think that is worth the price.
Maybe. Do you have any evidence? How many terrorists have been captured on American soil since 2002? How many were caught thanks to the Patriot Act?
/s
That's a broad claim. From everything I've read, there has not been much real success. Can you point me to some news reports where the spying actually helped catch real terrorists? The only case I know of is a Somali expat sending money home, which ended up in Al Shabab's hands.
And another one: https://theintercept.com/2015/04/29/tamerlan-tsarnaevs-path-...
More: https://theintercept.com/2015/02/26/fbi-manufacture-plots-te...
And more: https://theintercept.com/2015/02/25/isis-material-support-pl...
Then there's this: https://theintercept.com/2015/01/16/latest-fbi-boast-disrupt...
And this: https://theintercept.com/2015/06/25/fort-dix-five-terror-plo...
The way this works out in practice is that every agent sees an opportunity to advance their career by manufacturing threats. So they have their infiltrator agent or their informants stir the pot, see who's "really down for the cause," get as deeply embedded with the group as they can (going so far as to have children with members in some occasions), and gradually shift the group towards extremism, or if the group won't go along with it, whoever they can splinter off and radicalize.
Once this person has incriminated themselves enough, they get arrested and charged with terrorism.
I'm not going to cite any sources because you could easily find reasons to dismiss them. Certainly, I don't know of any listing of all arrests for terrorists accompanied by all the case details, so I'll certainly never be able to provide quantitative evidence of this very real trend. Also, I think that looking all of this up and finding it out piece by piece will be valuable for you -- it's very easy to dismiss a fully formed theory such as this comment, but it's more difficult to dismiss all the little pieces of evidence you build up over time. Maybe keep a document with all the incidences you find, to prevent yourself from dismissing every single one of them as "only about one case -- not a trend" and by induction, determining there is no issue.
[0] http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/03/opinions/terrorists-confidants...
We know they had intent to protect their powers. We know that they are willing to train and create terrorists in order to help make the point that terror is a real threat. We know they lie and can do so with out any punishments by our government.[2]
The real question is would they murder Americans to help keep that power.
I still find it hard to believe that they would be willing to kill Americans in order to keep these powers, but I am finding it harder to keep this belief.
[1] http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3df6d5019719473780ee1a652d1b2... [2] http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/nsa-director-alexan...
I'm not saying this is a wise or sensible opinion, but people still hold it - not everyone is just "ill informed".
If you're one of the people holding this opinion, you are wrong.
At the very least you're wrong about them being properly informed.
But if you identify with your current government (for whatever rationale), should you not fear subversive action?
Yeah but if I don't intend subversive action then I'm fine, so
You've just highlighted why the average American is scared of terrorists but not the NSA: 3000 people did die on 9/11. There is no evidence of the NSA targeting Americans, or nudging/sabotaging/blackmailing them.
The military could easily storm Washington DC, topple the government, execute every Congressman, impose martial law and announce the start of a new regime under the sole authority of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. You'd have to be pretty nuts to worry that's actually going to happen.
Also, referring to people who disagree with you as ignorant isn't generally the best way to change their minds.
1: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/20/martin-luther-king-...
Secondly, you're using the actions taken by a domestic law enforcement agency more than half a century ago as evidence that a foreign intelligence agency is going to blackmail Americans, neglecting the difference in missions between the two agencies, the changes in legal authorities since the 60s, the fact that multiple generations of Americans with differing cultural values have come into and left government service, etc.
Thirdly, calling someone ignorant is an insult. I'd suggest consulting the forum guidelines linked at the bottom of the page.
I only gave you one example. There are plenty but I don't think it's important. The motivation is there, for the protection of national security, to manipulate anyone who opposes the status quo. To thwart their efforts.
Martin Luther King Jr was pressured to kill himself. That he resisted this pressure doesn't mean that he wasn't pressured. We can quibble about definitions but I think a charitable reader is more than capable of understanding what I meant.
John Oliver went to the streets with the question, if people have ever send a naked photo of themselves with a cellphone or email, should the government have the right to collect and look at those photos?
None of the people agreed that the government should have that right.
No, those invading countries, killing people with drones, torturing people in concentration camps, creating even more animosity against the USA don't understand the full implications. Why aren't we talking about those implications?
Assuming I've understood your question properly, my suspicion is that there isn't an easy, one-line, (ideally rhyming) sound-bite defence against accusations of disloyalty.
When you question aggressive foreign policy you get accused of everything from "not supporting our troops" to being "soft on terror", take your pick.
It's a little like how Obama's drive to address economic inequality seems (to an outsider at least) to have collapsed because of repeated accusations of "class war". There was no snappy defence.
I feel like Rand and Ron Paul have been some of the few that have read that paper by the CIA on Blowback.
Are you kidding? Frankly, people never shut up about them. Even that famous "We Are All Americans" article after September 11th, 2001 went on about how the attacks were blowback for past American misbehavior.