tkahn6

If it was a question, it was rhetorical - and irrelevant.

Ok?

Um right, hence the original comment I made.

Yes it is easy to blow up shopping centers. Hence the Boston Marathon bombing. Hence the surveillance programs that ostensibly identify and investigate and stop potential bombers.

The existence of 'security theatre', the only example I can think of being the TSA, doesn't preclude the possibility that there are real threats.

I think the best solution would be to have the NSA and other security apparatuses stop or significantly scale down their surveillance programs for a few years.

Two scenarios would play out:

1) Nothing happens or a maybe Boston Marathon Bombing-style attack once a year at most.

2) Bombs go off in a major shopping center or movie theatre every week, perhaps a few in the Bay Area. This is similar to what happened in Israel in the 90s.

In the first case it would mean that the surveillance really was for nothing and the matter would be easily resolved.

In the second case, we would at least be in a position to make an informed decision about whether the surveillance programs were worth the security it gained us. I suspect people would have a different opinion about the surveillance programs if scenario two came to pass - because preventing the second scenario is ostensibly the motive behind them.

... do you think the EU isn't spying on the US?

It would be absurdly naive to think they weren't.

> uses the unreasonably invasive tools to save the day and is never brought to account for it by anyone.

Except that no one knows about it besides he and Fox, so how can he be brought to account for it by anyone?

Except that he tells Fox to destroy it precisely because it is so powerful and invasive.

> The problem is that it's still oversimplifying.

Except that in the exact movie I gave as an example, in the end the CIA explicitly is shown to be covering up the events of the movie and it is indicated that they will continue to do immoral things.

See my original comment about the reason why you find this theory so attractive.

Except, you know, all the movies where the antagonist is actually given a backstory or character development.

Example: Safe House where eventually the audience is shown that the reason Denzel Washington's character defects and turns on the CIA is because the CIA was doing clearly immoral things.

I know this narrative is attractive because it makes 'the masses' out to be sheep with you as the one that can see through it all, but it's the height of arrogance and you happen to be wrong.

The same Bourne movies where the government is portrayed as being nefarious and overreaching and the people they 'look up' in their databases are foreign or domestic spies?

So.. do you have any examples of this?

Because I have a counter example: A large part of the drama in shows like Law and Order on the legal side comes from the process of acquiring a warrant or prosecuting a case where it turns out that the evidence was acquired unlawfully.

No, I don't think that would be an appropriate headline in that case. But that is somewhat of a red herring/straw man since I am sincerely doubtful that was the first headline they put up. More likely that came a day or two after the story broke. And in that case, it would be appropriate.

If you want 'critical' reporting, I highly recommend Rachel Maddow or Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olberman or Glenn Beck. Pick whichever flavor you want.

He anticipated this point and explicitly acknowledged there are levels of opinion.