Why is it true to say? I doubt there would have been more terrorist attacks. They definitely would have mentioned at least one such planned attack that was stopped as it is in their best interest to change public perception.
> They definitely would have mentioned at least one
> such planned attack that was stopped as it is in
> their best interest to change public perception
Any details at all on plots that have been found and stopped via surveillance would lead to changes in behaviour of bad actors.
eg: Except that the government has claimed that they have foiled attacks and those claims have been shown to be bullshit.
So, given that they have made these claims and they are false, what conclusions should we draw?
A. The government gave us false information to reassure us that their blanket information gathering programs work, they cant tell us operational details or made some other mistake(even though operation details of various programs leak like a sieve.)
B. Their argument is specious, and someone made a list to prop up a program they do not have evidence for.
Just trying to understand as Point A and B lack the same evidence.
There is no need to argue for balance in the discussion to protect our government, they clearly can operate these programs without our approval or understanding.