China doesnt lack government intrusion, but it does lack NSA intrusion. If youre trying to evade an organization known SPECIFICALLY for total informational awareness and espionage, it makes total sense to go to the country with the single largest and most robust firewall against that particular threat. If Snowden had gone to the UK or any other close ally, he would have been traced and found within hours. He wouldnt be able to do anything without the NSA knowing it. Snowden knows what the NSA’s capabilities are, and he knows where their reach is weakest: China. Thats why he went to China. Not to sell them secrets (which he could do from anywhere), but to receive protection from the NSA behind the Great Firewall of China.

Read my sentence again:

You may think, like Bumble did, that “the law is a ass,” but that’s your opinion in these cases rather than an absolute truth about which reasonable people cannot differ.

You are misunderstanding my point. My point is that whether you are correct that those who consider the NSA data program to be a constitutional and reasonable one are mistaken or stupid, that opinion of yours about them (and its constitutionality) is not an absolute truth about which reasonable people can’t differ. You are the one who is acting as though the program’s unconstitutionality is an absolute truth—that it is absolutely unconstitutional and that anyone who doesn’t see it that way is obviously incorrect and/or stupid.

Where is absolute truth? What is reasonable? What limits are imposed upon the federal district? When we concede an inch of liberty we give up a mile of security. Can not differ??? I differ greatly. I do not tith to DC; they steal billions.

Ah, but that is the question. I do not respect what courts may rule or congress or BHO may address when they rule against the rule of law as set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which are simple to understand. http://tinyurl.com/eugz4

That’s okay, I sincerely respect your opinion, and 99% of the opinions expressed in the comments on your blog. http://tinyurl.com/6zr6jly I don’t have to feel it, I have to hear it.

You’re arguing apples and oranges. You don’t seem to understand what I’m saying.

I haven’t addressed the question of whether I believe the courts have ruled correctly on these issues, or are staffed by brilliant people or idiots. I have merely said what the courts have ruled.

Our legal system functions by precedent and the rule of law. I was addressing what that precedent and law was and is.

Read the decisions and see that, so far, the courts have reasoned that the 4th amendment does not bar this kind of data collection. Again, I don’t have time to look up the exact language right now, but if I recall correctly it hinges on the definition of “unreasonable” and whether data collection of data that is already with the phone companies, etc., and not just in the individual’s possession, constitutes a “search and seizure.”

You may think, like Bumble did, that “the law is a ass,” but that’s your opinion in these cases rather than an absolute truth about which reasonable people cannot differ.

No disrespect intended, but courts are staffed by mortals, not angels, and are known to be less than infallible. The Dred Scott decision readily comes to mind along with many SCOTUS decisions over the centuries. I care not for courts or congress or the inhabitants of the oval office. I care for the rule of law. I know right from wrong. I am capable of parsing the plain language of the Constitution. I don’t need Bill Ayers or Bernardine Dohrn to tell me which way the wind blows. 😉

4th: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

This does not require a law degree from the Ivy League to understand. If the courts do not understand this plain language, the courts be damned.

Who’s saying it’s okay? On the contrary, I’ve indicated I’m very suspicious of the idea that government can be trusted to refrain from accessing and abusing the data.

I’m talking only about whether it’s been considered legal by the courts. The courts are making the distinction, not me personally.

“Agreed; just wrote much the same a little while ago here.”

So its okay for the USPS to report to the NSA the origin of the mail I receive on my front porch or the send to address of the correspondence I put in the mailbox as long as they don’t open the envelopes? I submit that government agencies that will “sweep up transmission data records” will not refrain from opening the envelopes, scanning the contents, and resealing the envelopes.

Agreed; just wrote much the same a little while ago here.