The NSA electronic surveillance is going to hopefully be reduced under the courts.

Other nations will continue to use electronic surveillance on Us interests and citizens. Snowden did not focus on what other nations were directing at the US.

President Obama was not given access to an iPhone because the device could not be made secure. Don't you think a host of countries are actively trying to hack devices of US officials?

On another issue, do you have any problems with Snowden, a US citizen, offering to provide security aid to foreign nations for asylum?

However, that they whiffed an easy one doesn't mean they haven't nailed a bunch of others. This is my problem: There's been no public assessment of the efficaciousness of the program nor an assessment of the threat, assuming there is one. Maybe there can't be given that it has to be at least somewhat secret.

But there has been a discussion of the efficacy of these surveillance programs. I've posted several links to Senators Wydan and Udall as well as articles that state that there is no evidence that these metadata programs has lead to the arrest or discovery of any terrorist plots. The NSA released a list of about 50 plots they claimed were discovered or foiled by the metadata programs. There are many articles that go though those 50 cases and explain them in detail. None of them relied on the metadata programs. In most cases the tip came from outside the program and a wiretap warrant issued against just those suspects could have achieved the same objective without recording the metadata of millions of innocent phone and internet users.

I really don't have time to search my comments for those links or do a search to find them or related articles. But in Judge Leon's decision he states, “the Government does not cite a single instance in which analysis of the NSA’s bulk metadata collection stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the Government in achieving any objective that was time-sensitive in nature.”

6 degrees? Try 1 1/2 max, since the court cases, specific city of Montgomery, NAACP & MIA, boycotts and people involved were all tied together.

The main point stands - only 1 person's name remains universally known from the boycotts - Rosa Parks. The lawyers, while essential for both strategy & execution, are 2nd tier in the story. From Fred Gray:

The Montgomery Bus Boycott & Browder v. Gayle

A Commentary by Fred Gray (Legal counsel for Rosa Parks and Aurelia Browder)

 

I immediately went over to [Rosa Parks'] house. She told me what had

happened and asked me to represent her. * * * Later that same evening, I went to Jo Ann Robinson’s house and we discussed the incident. During the course of our discussion, we outlined a strategy for action. We concluded [that] if we were going to have a bus protest in Montgomery...we must have it now. * * *

......The timing of the boycott was planned to coincide with the trial of Mrs. Parks on December 5, 1955. * * * The trial...took all of thirty minutes....We vigorously defended Mrs. Parks; however, Judge John B. Scott found her guilty and fined her ten dollars and costs....This case was important because it triggered the Montgomery

bus protest.* * *

...I arrived at Holt Street Baptist Church about 6 p.m., an hour before [the first mass meeting to discuss a resolution] calling upon all African‐ Americans in the City of Montgomery to refrain from riding the buses until we could return to them in a nonsegregated manner....Not only were there thousands of African‐Americans

crowded in and around Holt Street Baptist Church, but also a few whites....Such a feeling of unity, success, and enthusiasm had never been before in the City of Montgomery, certainly never demonstrated by African‐Americans...... The same bus company...owned the buses in Mobile [which] employed the same

seating arrangement we were requesting in Montgomery. Thus, as a practical matter, there was no logical reason why the bus company should have rejected our seating proposal. * * *

The Lawsuit to Integrate the Buses, February, 1956:

In the back of my mind, I always knew the matter was going to be resolved in court, and not in an Alabama court, but in federal court. Within two weeks after the protest started, I began talking to the leadership of the

MIA about a new case. I started the research, and talked with other lawyers, including Clifford Durr, Robert Carter, and Thurgood Marshall. In Browder v. Gayle we asked the [federal] court to declare the segregation statutes unconstitutional and to issue an injunction....I did not include Rosa Parks as a plaintiff in this case

because I feared a question would arise in the federal suit about whether we were trying to circumvent and enjoin the criminal prosecution of Mrs. Parks....I wanted the [federal] court to have only one issue to decide – the constitutionality of the laws requiring segregation on the buses in the city of Montgomery. I had

completed much of the advance preparation for the suit by the time Martin’s home was bombed on January 30, 1956....

The bus protest was ongoing, but it was a hardship to many people. I knew that we had to give people something to hang onto to that they would continue to make the sacrifice of staying off the buses. * * * This was the first time I met Thurgood Marshall [and] Robert Carter....We would work together on many other cases

in years to come [and he] gave me advice throughout the movement. He later retained me to assist him in [NAACP v. Alabama] and he assisted me in the arguments in the United States Supreme Court in Gomillion v. Lightfoot. Since Browder challenged the constitutionality of a state statute, a three judge federal court was

convened. The panel consisted of Judge Richard T. Rives...Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr....and Judge Seybourne Lynne. * * *

[On June 19, 1956 the court ruled] that the city ordinances and the state statute were unconstitutional. The ruling provided the impetus needed to keep the protest alive....The court used Brown v. Board of Education...as precedent for declaring segregation on city buses unconstitutional [but our people] still had to remain off the buses until the case was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Later, during the trial of a case filed by the City to stop the car pools which sustained the boycott, a television newsman informed Mr. Gray that the Supreme Court had affirmed the decision in Browder].

We were all elated that the three‐judge district court decision had been affirmed. We knew that segregated seating was wrong, and we believed it was unconstitutional. Now the highest court in the land had upheld our position. * * * Browder v. Gayle showed to the emerging civil rights movement the political usefulness of litigation strategies. * * *