>Since the NSA's vast data-gathering programs were revealed in June, the president has repeatedly said he would encourage a national conversation on the need for U.S. surveillance while respecting people's right to privacy.<p>Let me build a straw man of what I think will be the argument:<p>"If you're against mass surveillance[1], your position isn't reasonable. We must protect our country. Protecting our country requires watching for people who want to do us harm. If you love America, you should let us protect the nation, and that requires the practices our agencies do. We guarantee data will be used only following the correct procedures and safeguards[2]. We cannot tell too much about the programs or the groups and individuals who want to harm us will use this knowledge to put those who serve the nation and all American citizens at risk."<p>[1] Of course the term won't be "mass surveillance", but some Luntzian/Orwellian expression: "protecting our communications"<p>[2] <i>We will establish the procedures and safeguards.</i>