The surveillance controversy is not and never has been over whether the Government should be able to intercept the communications of Terrorist suspects. The law (FISA) has always allowed such interception since its inception and virtually nobody opposes that. Nor was there controversy about whether the NSA could intercept foreign-to-foreign communications, as they did here. The controversy was and is whether they should be able to engage in surveillance of American citizens in violation of the law -- i.e., without judicial oversight and/or beyond the parameters the law allows.

And I do not understand why people don't seem to care about that. Any ideas?

All clearanced members of the NSA have taken the National Security Agency Security Oath that is full-binding for life, both in peacetime and wartime.

The Constitution of the United States is "The Supreme Law of the Land."

The security and defense of that Law supersedes any and all other laws by any means necessary.

In effect, any law that conflicts with defense of the Supreme Law, is regarded as "no law."

It is national security that takes the highest priority and nothing will deter the NSA from that directive.

Even if it means violating the Constitution itself?

No branch of the Executive has the power to ignore the law based on their own interpretation of the Constitution. By definition that violates both the Spirit and the Letter of the document they claim to hold so dear.

Any law that conflicts with NATIONAL SECURITY is regarded as "no law," even if it means, paradoxically, defending the Constitution against itself.

National Security can best be thought of in terms of the Law of Self-Preservation, nature's highest law expanded to include all that is our National Body.

Although I was shit-canned out of the Army, as one who WILLINGLY took the Oath, which is still fully binding on me for life, I will only repeat that:

It is national security that takes the highest priority and NOTHING - NOTHING! - will deter the NSA from that directive.

The old "burn the village in order to save it" argument.

The old "burn the village in order to save it" argument.

Or so no one else can have it.

Who exactly will "have it"?

Who exactly will "have it"?

no one else