President Barack Obama assured the American people yesterday that the NSA warrantless surveillance programs are entirely “transparent.” He then promised to extradite and prosecute the man who told the public about it. None of that causes any pause for the White House or its supporters. It makes perfect sense. Indeed, it helps explain how Obama promised the “most transparent” Administration in history and proceeded to expand a secret security state. It turns out that “transparent” simply means something different with Obama, just as the noun “war” is left to his definition. It turns out that transparent means that the government can see it — and see us. Total transparency in our new fishbowl society.
Obama’s interview with Charlie Rose is indicative of how disengenuous this discussion has become. Democratic members have joined Obama in carefully parsing language to avoid the obvious rollback on privacy. They have focused on the question of whether the government is “reading” the content of emails and calls as opposed to gathering a wide array of information on who you are calling, how long, and from where. They ignore the obvious danger in such databanks in giving the government the ability to follow citizens in realtime. It is part of the effort, discussed earlier in columns, to redefine privacy in a new surveillance friendly image. After doublethinking privacy, Obama has moved on to doublethinking transparency. It is no easy task, particularly to convince a free people:
to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself.
Despite the fact that civil libertarians have scoffed at the distinction, Obama continues to pretend that the only danger is actually reading such calls and emails.
To add to the obvious evasion, Obama continues to refer to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), or secret court, as if it were a real court or had some meaningful powers of review. Obama told Rose, “That’s why we set up the FISA court.” Of course, he did not set up the FISA court which has been around for decades and widely ridiculed as an absurd rubberstamp for the intelligence agency. Only a couple applications have been denied in the history of that “court.” When I had occasion to got into the court as a young intern with NSA, it set in place a lifelong opposition to it as an insult to the very concept of legal process. For Obama to cite this “court” as the guarantee of transparency is nothing short of insulting. This is the court that classifies (at the demand of Obama’s Administration) the very legal interpretations used to justify massive warrantless searches of citizens.
Obama then returned to the same evasive approach to the programs: “We’re going to have to find ways where the public has an assurance that there are checks and balances in place … that their phone calls aren’t being listened into; their text messages aren’t being monitored, their emails are not being read by some big brother somewhere.” First, Obama is saying that he will ask a rubber-stamp court to read any communications as if that is an assurance of any kind. Second, he is again falling to even acknowledge the wide array of information that they are collecting without such an order. Third, we do not have to fear of “some big brother somewhere.” We know where to find big brother. He is the one assuring us that he has a secret court to guarantee transparency.
In the meantime, Obama wants to put the man in jail for life so told the public about the secret program. That is not part of the new transparency or any part of the new privacy of the Obama era.
This type of logic was explained before as Orwell “doublethink”:
The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.
Here is the full interview and is guaranteed to make you stop worrying about the police state:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/18/nsa-surveillance_n_3460106.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D331395
“Obama repeated earlier assertions that the NSA programs were a legitimate counterterror tool and that they were completely noninvasive to people with no terror ties – something he hoped to discuss with the privacy and civil liberties board he’d formed. The senior administration official said the president would be meeting with the new privacy board in the coming days.”
So Obama is telling us (quoting the Huff Post author) “that the NSA programs…were completely noninvasive to people with no terror ties.”
And I will tell you that that is complete and utter BS. (Americans have turned on their fellow Americans and when the full truth is known, it will be completely clear that one of the programs is as invasive as it gets. It’s terribly invasive… and it’s directed at Americans with absolutely no connection to terrorists. The only terrorists are the ones who are running this program and participating in it. We have a subset of authoritarian types who are terrorizing those whom they have deemed to be “troublemakers.” It’s ugly, evil, runs counter to both the rule of law and Constitution. Forget about probable cause or due process of law. It doesn’t matter to the a$$holes who are running this treasonous program.
Let the privacy and civil liberties board do its work… and we might get to the ugly truth about what’s taking place in this country.
nick spinelli 1, June 18, 2013 at 11:28 am
lottakatz, Yes, “Mother.”
======================
You asked for it: “O In The Sky” (a follow up to “W In The Sky”):
Love it…. Looks like Obama is reneging on his promises…… Herein after to be referred to as Herr Obama….. George W. O’Bama….. A difference you can believe in…..
If Obama thinks the FISC (which JT went to betimes as an NSA intern) is transparent, why then is he (through his minions at DOJ) not allowing one of its major rulings to go public:
(FISA Court Rules Domestic Spying Violates Constitution). The FISC says NSA activity violates the 4th Amendment, so Mr. O, give it up bro.
Just like in the so called War on Drugs, useless government functionaries can now justify enormous amounts of public funds to continue the War on Terror. While the infrastructure in America is crumbling from neglect the government continues to allocate millions, if not billions, to spy on loyal Americans who have absolutely no connection with the War on Terror.Right on blogger Blouise
Leave it to chollierose to interview bho; pro-war statist self-important jackass. Hmm, who was I referring to? Just about anyone associated with msm is a watercarrier for the warfare-military-security state, and taxation without any semblance of representation.
To me the 4th amendment is pretty clear. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
I consider my phone usage part of my “effects” and thus covered by the 4th amendment. So the question remains, did they issue a warrant to look at my “effects”, and if they did, what was the probable cause?
I think it obvious that there is no probable cause to collect the “effects” of every person that has a phone. The last court case concerning the collection of phone records was thrown out because of the secret nature of the data collection. Plaintiffs could not show that their data was being collected. Well, the cats out of the bag now. Every once in a while our Supreme Court actually reads the constitution and applies its principles to a case. When a case involving this data gets to the court, will they vote for our 4th amendment rights or perpetuate our terror society?
He is just as untrustworthy now as he was when he originally ran for office. It is only now that people are beginning to allow themselves to realize this.
If the standard for an impeachment was how President Clinton was accused of lying to Congress over a sex scandal involving he and a woman, why is something like this attack on the freedom of the American public not even mentioned? I forget, he is off limits.
lottakatz, Yes, “Mother.”
“NSA spying flap extends to contents of U.S. phone calls
National Security Agency discloses in secret Capitol Hill briefing that thousands of analysts can listen to domestic phone calls. That authorization appears to extend to e-mail and text messages too.” CNet)
O.K. 1. metadata spying is illegal 2. govt. surveillance goes well beyond metadata 3. the “law” concerning FISA is being interpreted secretly
Obama responds that he must take care of the American people. That isn’t his job. He takes an oath of office which he has repeatedly broken. Having a president who will violate his oath of office and repeatedly break the law is not in any way, shape or form, “taking care of the American people”. It is the opposite of that.
The propaganda is that Obama is our father on earth. He is “taking care of us”. There is nothing to worry about because he is not only our father, he is a benevolent father.
This type of message seems to resonate with people and has been typical of Obama’s media presentation as a savior. I’m trying to show what his people are using to suck people in and deny any form of critical thought to our population. James’ post above lays things out quite well.
OK lawyers, if I have a device that accesses each message for key words and patterns of speech, purchases etc. am I not in fact ‘reading your mail, listening to your phone conversations’ by virtue of controlling the device? Is there some legal principle that describes that?
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). National Security Agency (NSA) is a cryptologic intelligence agency of the United States Department of Defense responsible for the collection and analysis of foreign communications and foreign signals intelligence.
I am a citizen of the United States and reside in Ohio… nothing foreign about my person or place … check and balance my eyebrow.
The only thing I can figure is that they don’t have enough to do outside the country and so have turned on us in a mad feeding frenzy to justify overblown budgets and employments. What is commonly called “The Gladiator Complex”.
james knauer:
“I do not see any wording in the 4th Amendment, nor in any part of the Constitution, which states, “shall be made null and void when we get to the digital age.””
and you are right but I imagine you and others see a lot of stuff that isnt in there that has been promoted by progressives for the last 120 years.
You cannot have it both ways. Either the Constitution is or it is not. You cannot pick and choose which part of big government you like. Either follow the Constitution for everything or use it, in the words of Bob Esq, “as a urinal puck.”
Wow. I guess the multitude of cameras on the streets utilized by government agencies is not spying on us, they are just watching us like a parent would!??? It is time to call BS when BS is what it is. Ignore the man behind the curtain time in their minds.
Or remember the Feb. 27, 2000 episode of 60 Minutes:
(A Tale of Coup Cities – 4). Remember that program aired 13 years ago, looking back into the 90’s, then recall that according to Moore’s Law computing power doubles about every 18 months.
Assume ECHELON was up in 1998 and was then able to do what those whistleblowers said it could.
1998 – 2013 = 15 years (180 months)
180 months / 18 = 10 doublings (Moore’s Law).
10 doublings means 20 times more computing power since 1998.
If they could listen then, why could they not do so now 20 times easier?
He must have hired George Orwell’s grandson as a speechwriter.
Rationalism and the rest of the European Enlightement have run their course. We got civil law, and now we have the technology to use civil law as a means of social control. We no longer need informed rational debate within the confines of civil law.
Democrats are just taking a cue from the Republican playbook: talk about freedom and local control while implementing opposite policies. Just look at petty dictator Scott Walker: the campaigned on removing policy items froom the budget process, and now there’s an all-time high of nearly 100 policy items in the current budget. He campaigned on local control, then cut school funding while making it illegal for local municipalities to raise property tax to make up the difference. He campaigned on fiscal responsibility, but his new tax cuts are about to create a structural deficit. He campaigned on creating jobs, then turned away $1 billion from the federal government to create intercity rail.
Which I mention not to indulge in a partisan screed, but to point out that we Americans now need to look to authoritarian regimes for our lessons in what our political “leaders” are up to. People scratch their head over how a regime like North Korea’s can inflict so much suffering on their own people, but looking at Scott Walker turn away federal money for Medicare expansion, along with his other actions, it becomes clear that oppressive regimes just pursue policy at all costs.
So Obama is transparent. He’ll talk about transparency while doing the opposite, and people don’t see the contradiction because they don’t know enough about government to know what transparency might mean. It’s like somebody who thinks “Mark Twain likes dogs” and also that “Samuel Clemens likes cats.” The two propositions aren’t contradictory in the sense of “an married bachelor,” and so they can go together, no doublethink required.
It works because this regime rules by ignorance, not rational informed debate.
Remember this from 2008?
“Exclusive: Inside Account of U.S. Eavesdropping on Americans”
“…. Another intercept operator, former Navy Arab linguist, David Murfee Faulk, 39, said he and his fellow intercept operators listened into hundreds of Americans picked up using phones in Baghdad’s Green Zone from late 2003 to November 2007. ….
Faulk says he and others in his section of the NSA facility at Fort Gordon routinely shared salacious or tantalizing phone calls that had been intercepted, alerting office mates to certain time codes of “cuts” that were available on each operator’s computer.
“Hey, check this out,” Faulk says he would be told, “there’s good phone sex or there’s some pillow talk, pull up this call, it’s really funny, go check it out. It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, ‘Wow, this was crazy’,” Faulk told ABC News.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5987804&page=1#.UcBzcuc3tnt
One sees a new bill of rights emerging for online participation, one which begins by doing away with the utterly false claim, “we no longer have privacy, get used to it.”
I do not see any wording in the 4th Amendment, nor in any part of the Constitution, which states, “shall be made null and void when we get to the digital age.”
It starts with a core notion of privacy, one which is grounded, one which does not give way to technology of any sort.
We then demand warrants and proof. The words “prove it” today have turned into an insult.
Congress must advocate for privacy, not shun it. Those who claim “you no longer have any privacy” need to be removed from office. This is not an inevitable truth of the digital age.
Congress must mandate strong encryption to a person. ISPs must opt out of warrantless searches and be prepared to defend themselves in court over the protection of their user’s privacy.
The tech is here today (and has been for a while) to implement privacy and still allow the government to get the information it needs.
We do not have to give up our privacy. It is being demanded of us, and we must resist. One form of resistance will be a shift to the always-on cloud of devices that is growing by the hour. These secure networks will bypass the ISP where much of the illegal spying takes place.
In the meantime, we are stuck with fumbling not terribly easy to use encryption. It’s bloody 2013. Why isn’t strong encryption as ubiquitous as cable modems? Cuts into the eavesdropping bidness, that’s why.
We must say no, and loudly.
“When I had occasion to got into the court as a young intern with NSA, it set in place a lifelong opposition to it as an insult to the very concept of legal process.”
Obama and any other person with a respect for traditional American jurisprudence should see it that way too.
Obama is either deliberately lying or does not understand the definition of “transparent.”
Doublethink is saying something that can’t be seen is transparent, conflating invisible with observable.