I asked in my previous comment, "Do you further, or alternatively deny that alerting those people to the fact that the FBI knows about them would harm the FBI's ability to stop them from harming people in the US?" Can you answer this?
I have another question: do you believe your/the public's judgement is going to be the best method by which to determine the efficacy of a counter-terrorism strategy, even assuming the program can be communicated in such a way so as to not compromise it's ability to be effective?
Was I supposed to assume that "somewhere in the world" meant something different?
"I asked in my previous comment, "Do you further, or alternatively deny that alerting those people to the fact that the FBI knows about them would harm the FBI's ability to stop them from harming people in the US?" Can you answer this?"
Sure: yes. Yes, the FBI will be impeded when they are held accountable for their actions and when their actions are not secret. This is no different from warrant requirements, Miranda rights, the second amendment, the right to an attorney, etc. A democratic society where civil rights are valued gives up some law enforcement power in order to preserve its democracy and civil rights.
"I have another question: do you believe your/the public's judgement is going to be the best method by which to determine the efficacy of a counter-terrorism strategy, even assuming the program can be communicated in such a way so as to not compromise it's ability to be effective?"
When you are asking to use my tax dollars to fight terrorism, you had better be able to convince me that (a) there are terrorists to fight and (b) that you are effective at doing so. Otherwise I want tax money spent building better schools, paying for universal healthcare, paying for scientific research, paying for competent public defenders, etc. Sorry, but you cannot scare me with hypothetical terrorists.
Since you are a fan of asking pedantic questions, I have one for you: do you believe that the war on terror will ever end, or do you believe that it will always be necessary to violate basic civil rights in the name of fighting terrorists?
That's not what I asked. Can you answer the question I asked?
> Otherwise I want tax money spent building better schools, paying for universal healthcare, paying for scientific research, paying for competent public defenders, etc. Sorry, but you cannot scare me with hypothetical terrorists.
The US is a representative democracy, so this is exactly what you are putting money towards, as is the intent when conceived. We don't live in a direct democracy because of precisely the answer to the question I had asked - the layman is incapable of safely guiding a government due to the layman's general ignorance. Representatives are selected among the layman population and then these representatives are educated and given the ability to make decisions on behalf of those who elected him/her. Your tax money is not yours to decide what to spend it on directly. You indirectly decide by electing someone. Oftentimes this upsets people mostly because it puts in perspective exactly how little control over their government any one individual has, but that's how it's designed.
No one gets to be king, not even you.
And to answer your question: no. There will always be people who want to hurt the US and the people who live in it. Obviously it's a constant struggle between those who care more about keeping us safe and those who care more about maintaining freedom for the citizens of the US, but that's a good thing. The struggle will never end, neither side will ever stop fighting, and the US will (hopefully) be better for it. Your extremist view is unhelpful and frankly not relevant. You remove yourself from the conversation by taking such an outside stance.
No, we do not just select people who then learn how the government works. We select people who will carry out our will. If you want more funding for scientific research, you vote for someone who works to expand that funding. We need to know what the government is doing in order to have an effective vote. Your idea of representative democracy is a sham -- the government acting in secret is not compatible with any form of democracy. There are limited exceptions during times of war, but we are not at war (not formally), domestic surveillance is not in this category, and even military secrets are supposed to be declassified after some period of time (so that we can review past decisions).
Of course, you leave no room for ever declassifying details of the counterterrorism program in your argument. You openly admit that the "war on terror" will never end.
When even the criteria for targeting people is a secret, there is no balance being struck. All your talk about representative democracy and striking a balance is meaningless in the context of such secrecy. This is not an "extremist" position, it is just liberalism -- the same political philosophy on which America was based.
It is an extremist position (and one that will get you absolutely nowhere, like it or not) to demand the FBI disclose information about ongoing investigations.
I don't think that's the position the parent is taking. As it stands now, the FBI does not disclose information about investigations, even long after they are completed.
No, but (a) that is irrelevant to the issue of NSLs, which are a purely domestic matter, (b) we are spending real money on fighting these hypothetical enemies, and (c) we have yet to be shown evidence that this money is being used effectively.
"Do you further, or alternatively deny that alerting those people to the fact that the FBI knows about them would harm the FBI's ability to stop them from harming people in the US?"
The FBI is not supposed to be conducting foreign operations. They jurisdiction ends with the borders of this nation and its embassies.
"This should be an argument of degrees and to what extent, not an argument about the existence of a threat in the first place,"
You are basically admitting that when it comes to the war on terror, nothing is temporary. We will always be fighting the war on terror. What rights we give up in the name of fighting terrorists will be permanently lost.
This is a matter of civil liberties. The secret list of suspected terrorists has come to include journalists, political dissidents, anti-war protesters, and so forth. Being on the list means losing your privacy rights, being harassed while you travel even within US borders, and potentially being assassinated by the government.
We need to able to judge this program and decide if it is something we want in our society. Secrecy is incompatible with that.