Specifically, he had a blog critical of US Mid-East policy, and made the mistake of going through JFK on his way home to Canada. He was "asked" to come to a secure area, and complied, then he was "asked" to agree to detention without explanation, at which point he demanded (and was refused) a lawyer. Within a few days he was in Syria, where most "interrogation techniques" prohibited by US law are routine. He spent the next year in a windowless unlit cell not much bigger than a shipping crate, except when he was taken out for beatings and torture to extract information he never had. They didn't even think him violent, they just thought he knew people who knew people who were. Think there's anyone like that at any of the links Gaps publicly requested...?

We can debate whether certain definitions should include connotation, but anyone who thinks none of the words in this threads subject line set off Echelon alarms is kidding themselves. They checked it out, and because most intelligence agents are capable and sensible people, probably concluded quickly it was just plain old nonconformity rather than a threat. But why make it harder for them just for pointless online complaining? I don't want a free trip to Syria that badly. I don't like to gamble unless the reward is commensurate with the risk, and the payoff here is negligible yet the potential negative consequences (however unlikely) dire. The only thing changed because of this thread is the NSA or someone probably read a few days worth of a few peoples email.

Short form: Whether any of us like it, the "s" word has been a red flag for US intelligence (and most people) for at least a century. Since one of the reasons Echelon was created was to detect and monitor such red flags, yes, it drew attention no rational person wants. Intelligence agencies do their job well, but I'm not risking mistaken Gitmo detention for idle giggles. Perhaps the real question is "If you have such faith in the authorities' judgment and integrity, what's the point of this thread?"