This is the most massively flawed line of reasoning I've ever heard spewed and I'm not even remotely shocked someone thinks this way.
To follow this argument:
-Because two presidents-- both of whom have been heavily criticized for their subversion of the law by way of highly controversial interpretations of rewritings of the law-- have deemed this program okay, that we should not question (and somehow moreso because they're from different parties, as if there's a difference)... it is... I don't have words for that. Willful ignorance?
-And then to continue on her reasoning, we should not question this program because it might... make people uncomfortable? They won't like it? Morale will fall in a country already losing faith in its government because of things like this program, so keep in place because public forum on it would make things worse? Am I fucking insane or did she make that argument in earnest? And at this point to call any government agency oversight "overly cautious" would be a blessing above all else, considering we're discussing a section from the fucking PATRIOT Act. A damn sight of cautiousness would have helped with that.
Well that's good to hear at least. There's no way someone can continue to support it on those grounds then because I was certain someone would make that--
Oh. Well isn't that a nice little bow for my cynicism.