> "U.S. surveillance laws failed to counter terrorism"
> "The patchwork of U.S. surveillance laws has proven ineffective at countering terrorism"
Where is the proof? I can not find it in the article.
> "The patchwork of U.S. surveillance laws has proven ineffective at countering terrorism"
Where is the proof? I can not find it in the article.
The claim is that "sacrificing liberty is providing us more safety" __not__ "our sacrifice of liberty has been ineffective at providing more safety." The latter statement comes from the lack of proof from those that carry the requisite burden. The former claims were made when liberty was initially eroded. Now that we have had time and calmed down people are asking "was it worth it?" and no one has provided a compelling "yes, here's (with evidence) why".
The problem is that this article, and the resopnses to it, are focusing on the wrong thing: The efficacy of violating ones consitiutional rights should have no bearing on wether or not that violation is legal.