>Yes, some state agencies can break that law, that's why you've got the checks and balances system. Nobody served time for breaking the rules. They act like th

>Yes, some state agencies can break that law, that's why you've got the checks and balances system. Nobody served time for breaking the rules. They act like they're obeying their interpretation of the rules now, but since we know they lied for years and nobody was punished it would be silly to believe them. Do you think the checks and balances of the US system did their job in this case? >Countries like China fall short in all departments. I'll agree that they censor more. I'm not convinced that their checks and balances against illegal surveillance are better, since I see no believable evidence of US checks and balances working in this department. >And the Snowden leaks couldn't have happened in China, Snowden flew to China before letting the leaks drop. Could a Chinese national not leave the country and drop a leak? Why is this impossible? I'll buy that news coverage would be more censored, but that isn't your claim. >so presenting it as proof that Western countries are as bad is what's silly. This doesn't follow regardless, if it did then any leak of any abuses whatsoever couldn't be used as proof simply because it was allowed to be published. Is this the only metric we judge governments by? >so I probably know how the world works better than you ;-) Relatively novel experiences can be useful, but it would be foolish to mistake them for wisdom.