> Where it gets to be a concern is revoking a guy's visa because he's defending a terror suspect Indeed. This is the kind of thing that punches a hole in the "

> Where it gets to be a concern is revoking a guy's visa because he's defending a terror suspect Indeed. This is the kind of thing that punches a hole in the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument. He obviously had something to fear - getting his visa revoked. So by the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" logic he had to have something to hide, and that thing had to justify the negative consequences that befell him. From the CIA/NSA perspective I am sure it just looks like he is someone who consorts with terrorists. They don't consider anybody has a "right" to visit the US in the first place, so removing that "right" cannot be a "harm". Thus there is zero loss from taking a conservative approach and just cancelling his visa. But it is most certainly a harm, probably a severe one to somebody like a prominent lawyer. So this kind of disconnect is exactly why we can't accept "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" kind of arguments.