If you're not doing drugs, what do you care if they test you? See how it starts?

[kpete]

If you're not driving drunk, why do you care about roadblocks? If you're not doing drugs, what do you care if they test you? See how it starts? Now we're all the way to, if you're not contacting terrorists, what do you care if the NSA collects your data? And this last part of the slide was undertaken in secret, by a secret court. And this is the Snowden Effect in action. Without the revelations, the president would not have made the preposterous public claim that the rubber-stamp FISA court qualified as "oversight" by any but the most laughable definition. There then would not have been the pushback against that silliness, and then there would not have been the FISA court itself responding that it was not a rubber stamp which, I am sure, is part of what intrigued the Times enough to produce this story which brings us all the way back around to how preposterous the president's original claim was.

Unlike the Supreme Court, the FISA court hears from only one side in the case - the government - and its findings are almost never made public. A Court of Review is empaneled to hear appeals, but that is known to have happened only a handful of times in the court's history, and no case has ever been taken to the Supreme Court. In fact, it is not clear in all circumstances whether Internet and phone companies that are turning over the reams of data even have the right to appear before the FISA court. Created by Congress in 1978 as a check against wiretapping abuses by the government, the court meets in a secure, nondescript room in the federal courthouse in Washington. All of the current 11 judges, who serve seven-year terms, were appointed to the special court by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and 10 of them were nominated to the bench by Republican presidents. Most hail from districts outside the capital and come in rotating shifts to hear surveillance applications; a single judge signs most surveillance orders, which totaled nearly 1,800 last year. None of the requests from the intelligence agencies was denied, according to the court.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/in-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html

Whether he likes it or not, this is the "national conversation" that the president said he wanted. Edward Snowden, world traveler, international man of luggage, made it impossible to avoid.


Read more: The Snowden Effect, Continued - Esquire
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Today_In_Snowdenland

[Lint Head]

1. When did you stop beating your spouse?

[Savannahmann]

2. Speaking for just me.

I've never liked the idea of proving innocence.

[EdwardSmith74]

3. I don't have a visit with my GP for another six months. I would LOVE to have a joint right now.

Unfortunately, I don't have any connections. I guess I'll have to make do with flavored tobbacy instead. I'd still love to have a joint.

(sigh)

[kentuck]

9. Move to Colorado.

[closeupready]

4. I don't do drugs, not even weed, but I turned down an interview

at a big company years ago when I was informed that they have a mandatory drug testing policy - and this was simply a paper-pushing job.

I was informed by the agency that 'this is a first', that nobody had ever before refused to go interview on that basis. But that's the way I am.

[uponit7771]

5. agreed, why shouldn't we rethink single payer....the gov will have medical records out of the wazoo

[treestar]

6. Not everyone gets tested, just people doing jobs that we'd care about it if

someone was under the influence.

Come to think of it, aren't we denying liberty to someone on behalf of our safety?

[Mnemosyne]

7. A kid I know was tested to wash cars at a dealership. It was bullshit. nt

[bluestate10]

8. See how it starts? No.

I don't take drugs that are classed as illegal. I have no issue with being tested, nothing would be found.