>>>to suffer from this extension of american jurisdiction.
>
>Dragan, I'm generally opposed to the extension of American power, but let's get real for a minute.
>During WWII all governments unapologetically opened and/or censored mail.
>When I was a GI in a combat zone, I was told that my mail was subject to being opened and/or censored.
>They were doing that to restrict information that might help an enemy.
>Anyone is his right mind can see why that was necessary.

To check the mail going from your own soldiers? Sure, every army does that. Don't really know how do they check live video feeds sent from Afghanistan (or Iraq), though. And all the emails and live chats - it would take more people to check upon all of that than there are soldiers and contractors (aka paramilitaries) all together.

So, you feel you're in a war? Funny, though, last time I was in one it didn't feel like one.

>As we see every day, there are people blowing other people up.
>These people have said that they want to blow me and my family up.

That's what the propaganda on both sides says, sure.

>Would you rather that some whack jobs like Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld start invading other countries again?

I don't see how unlimited surveillance prevents that. On the contrary, they have every tool available to just invent any charges they want, claim they can't name the sources, retrofit the story into any scenario they desire. They can print themselves a blank check to do whatever they wnat, say they have the evidence nobody can see, and paint anyone who doubts it a terrorist and make them vanish. This is raw unchecked power.

>Take a look at the people gaining increasing control in American politics and you'll see that that's likely to happen unless we stop these people.

I have taken a look and it's the same people.

>The internet and the telephone are both American products. The development of the internet was largely funded by US taxpayers. No one seems to complain about that extension of American power.

Nobody in the US complained about film being a french influence, or railway being british, or gunpowder and rockets being a chinese thing. But if these were all of a sudden used to spy on american citizens, would it not become a problem to you?

Take this more in the area where it belongs: communications. The privacy of mail is guaranteed pretty much everywhere (with military and other correctional institutions being the usual exception). I think even you have some laws against tampering with mail. Now you say that tampering with email and any other private communication between any two persons in the world (and this is the sore point - you're openly spying on millions of citizens of other sovereign countries) under the flimsy excuse of national security. Under whose jurisdiction? Or is it "let's be real, we're the bully in this hood and we can get away with it - nobody will fight us for this". Probably nobody will, but next time you ask yourself why the US aren't popular abroad, remember this.

And, BTW, I don't even think it's the US. It's whichever particular interests run it, buy the laws and lawmakers, prop presidents into their little orbits and select which ridiculous news to show and which to hide. Too bad you're letting your kids serve as their mercenaries, thinking they're serving their own country.

>No one HAS to use either of them. In light of all the disclosures, anyone who puts sensitive information out there deserves whatever happens.
>If the US government can use them to stop attacks then I'm all for it.
>
>Of course the tool can be abused.

This CALLS for abuse. There already was a case in the UK of a guy who put his wife on a suspect list, for simple personal reasons. He got caught, accidentally, because he was a moron to start with. How many people with access to your data are above that level, and how many of them can you trust not to use them against you (no matter how true the data are, which I doubt, and how innocent you may look to yourself - keep in mind that mentioning the Constitution too often may mark you as a potential terrorist)?

>Regarding starting a revolution - some people already have. They're called Al Qaeda.

They don't have a country in which to lead to a change of power, ergo that's not a revolution. Revolution either comes from within a country, or is named differently.