[I]f you want instant, reflexive support for the US government's police and military powers, MSNBC is the place to turn these days.

It's so much easier to debate people when you can pretend that they hold moronic position that they don't actually believe.

No matter the specific techniques involved, historically mass surveillance has had several constant attributes. Initially, it is always the country’s dissidents and marginalized who bear the brunt of the surveillance, leading those who support the government or are merely apathetic to mistakenly believe they are immune. And history shows that the mere existence of a mass surveillance apparatus, regardless of how it is used, is in itself sufficient to stifle dissent. A citizenry that is aware of always being watched quickly becomes a compliant and fearful one.

A lot of these people are Iraqis fighting for control of their own government. Maybe there's an argument to make that outside forces that go in and start bombing that country or invading that country are actually terrorists more so than the people in the country.

They're called 'facts', and my role is to amplify those, not cheerlead. And I don't care at all what you think of my motives.

The key question: will the NSA continue to monitor hundreds of millions of people without any suspicion? Under Obama's proposals: Yes.

For those suggesting criticisms of drone kills should wait until the election: that'd be reasonable if he stops killing until the election.