More Like This Please

From Mr. Charles Pierce:

...

If you're not driving drunk, why do you care about roadblocks? If you're not doing drugs, what do you care if they test you? See how it starts? Now we're all the way to, if you're not contacting terrorists, what do you care if the NSA collects your data? And this last part of the slide was undertaken in secret, by a secret court. And this is the Snowden Effect in action. Without the revelations, the president would not have made the preposterous public claim that the rubber-stamp FISA court qualified as "oversight" by any but the most laughable definition. There then would not have been the pushback against that silliness, and then there would not have been the FISA court itself responding that it was not a rubber stamp which, I am sure, is part of what intrigued the Times enough to produce this story which brings us all the way back around to how preposterous the president's original claim was.

Unlike the Supreme Court, the FISA court hears from only one side in the case - the government - and its findings are almost never made public. A Court of Review is empaneled to hear appeals, but that is known to have happened only a handful of times in the court's history, and no case has ever been taken to the Supreme Court. In fact, it is not clear in all circumstances whether Internet and phone companies that are turning over the reams of data even have the right to appear before the FISA court. Created by Congress in 1978 as a check against wiretapping abuses by the government, the court meets in a secure, nondescript room in the federal courthouse in Washington. All of the current 11 judges, who serve seven-year terms, were appointed to the special court by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and 10 of them were nominated to the bench by Republican presidents. Most hail from districts outside the capital and come in rotating shifts to hear surveillance applications; a single judge signs most surveillance orders, which totaled nearly 1,800 last year. None of the requests from the intelligence agencies was denied, according to the court.

Whether he likes it or not, this is the "national conversation" that the president said he wanted. Edward Snowden, world traveler, international man of luggage, made it impossible to avoid.

If we want to have this conversation -- and we should -- then for Chrissake have this conversation.

First,  in your own head, figure out the resolution. Figure out exactly what it is we should be debating.  As an exercise, here are some examples of what high school debate topic looks like:

• (2013-2014) Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement toward Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela.
• (2012-2013) Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment in the United States.
• (2011–2012) Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth’s mesosphere.
• (2010–2011) Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey.
• (2009–2010) Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States.
• (2008–2009) Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States.
• (2007–2008) Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its public health assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa.
• (2006–2007) Resolved: The United States federal government should establish a policy substantially increasing the number of persons serving in one or more of the following national service programs: AmeriCorps, Citizen Corps, Senior Corps, Peace Corps, Learn and Serve America, and/or the Armed Forces.
• (2005–2006) Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially decrease its authority either to detain without charge or to search without probable cause.
• (2004–2005) Resolved: That the United States federal government should establish a foreign policy substantially increasing its support of United Nations peacekeeping operations.
• (2003–2004) Resolved: That the United States federal government should establish an ocean policy substantially increasing protection of marine natural resources.
• (2002–2003) Resolved: That the United States federal government should substantially increase public health services for mental health care in the United States.
• (2001–2002) Resolved: That the United States federal government should establish a foreign policy significantly limiting the use of weapons of mass destruction.
• (2000–2001) Resolved: That the United States federal government should significantly increase protection of privacy in the United States in one or more of the following areas: employment, medical records, consumer information, search and seizure.

Second, having figured out for yourself what the debate topic will be, recognize that in any conversation that is not an amen-chorus, by definition there will be people whose opinion differs somewhat from yours.  Please stop spitting acid into the eyes of people whose opinion differs somewhat from yours.  Here is an example of what spitting acid into the eyes of people whose opinion differs somewhat from yours looks like:

@WarrenIsMad @AdamSerwer Like many Obama progressives today, you sound like a toxic love child of Sarah Palin & Dick Cheney.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) May 20, 2013

Stop it.

Please just stop it.

On the other hand...

Third, if the principal reporter for this story continues to reserve the right to use his position as the  principal reporter for this story to spit acid into the eyes of people whose opinion differs somewhat from his over and over and over again, then I reserve the right to assume that is the conversation he wants to have.