>Evil and effective are not mutually exclusive. So, we have instituted this massive security apparatus/surveillance state for groups of people who are largely

>Evil and effective are not mutually exclusive. So, we have instituted this massive security apparatus/surveillance state for groups of people who are largely incompetent, ineffective boobs? But, we don't know that they are incompetent boobs? Any way you slice it, it smells and begs the question: why are we doing this? And, in this particular case, it's a little too convenient that they are taking such public and hyper-publicized action on "threats" that do appear to be easily foiled. Because a.) the plotters allowed themselves to be intercepted even with so much recent publicity around our programs (btw, so much for the number one argument that whistleblowers like Snowden help the enemy) and b.) simply closing a few embassies nullified the threat. And, oh, BTW, let's make sure that our PR machine (read CNN and others) repeatedly mention that we all have the good ol' NSA to thank. Sorry, I just don't see how this goes down easily for anyone. >The real question though is if prevented attacks would have been prevented anyway without this evidence, or in general if the price is worth paying. In this case, I don't believe there was an imminent threat. I think it was propaganda. But, on a broader level, I think your questions are valid for those inclined to believe we should trade freedom/privacy/etc for security (i.e. most Americans). But, surely the answer is in large part a function of whether and how many "effective" threats are really out there vs. just evil people. So, your "real question" is unanswerable at this point on a general level. We don't know who the threats are and, in fact, they are intent on keeping this secret for "security reasons". It is the quintessential bogeyman. We must simply trust that these threats exist and are of a scale that warrant the massive security apparatus/surveillance state that we have erected.