I don't believe in the system, I just don't see how the NSA's program suppresses dissent. There's no punishment for dissent, so how would it be suppressed? I'm sure they can and do listen in on people who want to overturn Citizens United or replace the government with a monarchy or whatever, but if there's no punishment that follows, then how does anything get suppressed?

While not directly connected to the NSA, it's plausible the prosecution of Aaron Swartz amounted to suppressing dissent. It's hard to say what the root cause was prosecutorial overreach or a real effort to suppress a powerful political organizer. Either way, he became a target for his ideas and activism.

>There's no punishment for dissent, so how would it be suppressed?

Surely you're joking. The United States government is eager to punish dissent to a lethal degree.[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

First, I assumed "suppressing dissent" meant domestic dissent.

Second, planning terror attacks is not "dissent." I mean, if this guy is your poster boy for the goals of NSA surveillance, then you're arguing that it is about fighting terrorism.

You think he was punished for dissent? He was punished for actively working to kill people. That's a bit beyond merely "dissent".