Someone on here said it well: This country was not founded as a “safe” nation, it was founded as a free one. I suppose they don’t have to be mutually exclusive propositions—and I loathe any attempt to erode personal freedoms—but let’s play devil’s advocate for bit. What if Obama or Bush, or any leader, genuinely disliked the idea of privacy invasion but had been secretly briefed on some serious potential threats, and had to make a choice: either increase surveillance or face the very real risk of a major attack, perhaps with a nuclear device this time. Hundreds of thousands of lives could be at stake. I’m not suggesting this is a simple either/or scenario, just speculating on what could be driving decisions at the highest level.
