There are two issues here. The first issue is the author telling us that yes, there are real threats and that these systems have made the country safer. I fully

There are two issues here. The first issue is the author telling us that yes, there are real threats and that these systems have made the country safer. I fully agree with him here. The second issue is whether these systems can continue functioning in a free society. Here we part ways. He wants to convince me by stressing that his personal experience is such that it's obvious. Once again, I have no doubt that he's telling the truth. The problem is that a democracy doesn't run on magic people having special knowledge that the average citizen is denied. Sure, we need secrets, but we can't have so much information under control by the people that have the power to imprison us. It just won't work, terrorism or no terrorism. (Although short term and on a small scale, sure, you can get away with it) You can see the problem with this ends-justifies-the-means thinking when you think of all the other uses such a system could have helped. How can the government use this only for terrorism, and not murder trials? Why not civil cases? The problem isn't that the world is full of conspiracy-weaving ill-informed people; it's that this relationship of government to the people is non-functional over the long term.