I'm not advocating no "spying" of domestic groups or individuals (I put quotes around that just because it's an imperfect word for what we are discussing). I'm advocating rules that limit spying to cases where there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to believe "spying" is necessary to prevent violence and that require it to be authorized and overseen with great caution and care.

   The interest of people in being protected from violence is a fundamental interest and I don't advocate ignoring that.

  It's simply wrong to say that right-wing groups have not been taregted for domestic "spying." The KKK has been heavily infiltrated and only half in jest people have said every third person at a KKK meeting is an agent or CI. There have also been "militia" groups infiltrated in the recent past (and some of these groups bear striking resemblance to the bumbling Islamic  groups targeted more recently in that they were made up of big talking incompetents easily set-up by infiltrators).

  I'm not opposed to that sort of spying. If a person or persons come forward with CREDIBLE information that people are meeting and discussing committing violent acts then we need to act.

  What I am opposed to is to "spying" on people simply because they have racist, anti-government, virulently discriminatory religious or ethnic views, misanthropic attitudes fostered by environmental or animal rights beliefs etc. etc.

  Will limiting "spying"  cause us to miss some peope who do ultimately commit violent acts? Yes it will and I do not discount that or attempt to "de-legitimize" arguments that prevention should  be the paramount if not exclusive objective.

   I just don't agree. It's fair to say that in determing the costs of unfettered domestic spying is too high relative to the benefits, I don't place as high a value on each and every life as do some other people. I will state that this is a moral dilemma and no one should blithely reach my conclusion based on partisan sloganeering.

  I don't agree with Franklin's: "Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." I think all law-abiding people deserve both. I just don't think it's possible to achieve everything that is "deserved" and that when deciding how much liberty to sacrifice in pursuit of security we need to be cognizant of the dangers of handing such powers to the government-- even a government that is not willfully abusing power-- and the very limited, if not false sense of, security actually achieved.

So I don't think it's wrong to remind us that any of us could have been in that line of fire.

It's a simple fact.