Contrast this with things like NSA: no end date, literally global scope, etc. Surely you can see how these things are different.

What if what they're not telling us is that FISA collection orders and analysis has kept people from nuking Manhattan a half-dozen times?

There is no number high enough to make me think getting rid of government secrecy is a bad idea. The reason is that there are other methods to deal with these kinds of problems. If other countries want to nuke us, it's probably a better idea to find out why they want to nuke us then to become a police state.

>What if what they're not telling us is that FISA collection orders and analysis has kept people from nuking Manhattan a half-dozen times?

What if they've also kept the big fight between Godzilla and King Kong from us? This is nonsense, they have not stopped anything like that. Pretty much everything terrorists have actually tried to do, they've succeed (or were foiled by their own incompetence). The cases where the government actually managed to "stop" a terror attack were very clear cases of entrapment. If they're actually out there like Jason Bourne saving the US in the last second all the time, why would they chose to show us clear cases of entrapment as their success stories?

But if you really believe they're keeping us safe, then I'd like to give you a great offer on my anti-Godzilla rock. Godzilla has not so much as inconvenienced me on the way to work since I have this rock. I'm willing to make you a great deal on it, $1B. That's less than you're paying for the other charade.

What will your next step be, when you learn that the answer to your question is "Religion"?

The saddest part is, we appear to have learned literally nothing since our handling of native Americans. It's disgusting.

You're engaging in wishful thinking.

If you truly believe there are a group of people for whom religion is enough to make them want to kill, then the solution would be education and financial investment. Middle class people make poor martyrs. The idea that the only thing that can be done is murder them is sickening.

There are many religious people who openly explain that freedom is evil, and everyone should convert to Islam or face death.

You're essentially claiming that I am brainwashed, and you know the real truth instead. I'd like to claim the opposite.

The problem with your argument is that it basically allows the government to do anything it wants, and then claim that there is secret information that proves that what they are doing is necessary to save lives.

In my view, there is a need for government secrets. Diplomatic cables need to be secret. The names and locations of informants and spies need to be kept secret (I will not deny the need for such agents). During times of war, the locations and planned movements of troops must be kept secret. On the other hand, the existence of diplomats, the existence of spies, and the existence of the military absolutely should not be kept secret.

Whoa, you've just gone all straw-man on me. Stop presuming and just answer my question. Somewhere between "nothing happens" and "vaporizes the whole planet" is a consequence that makes the loss of privacy an acceptable option. Where is it?

I didn't make an argument one way or the other.