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:
“Does SCOTUS inaction mean that they don’t agree with your constitution argument about the PA?”
No. It means that every time someone has challenged it, they have been denied standing. There is more than one way to stifle dissent.
As for the “Get Out of Jail Free” Card? I’m going to call plain old bullshit on that one. No man is above the law, not even the President. One of the biggest screw ups of the 20th Century was Ford pardoning Nixon. Even Ford later admitted it was a mistake. But it wrongly created the impression that “if the President does it, it isn’t illegal”. WRONG. We were founded as a country governed by the Rule of Law, not the Rule of Men. Jefferson would probably vomit blood upon hearing “No POTUS has ever bagged another POTUS. It’s just not according to Hoyle.” Madison would just spontaneously combust.
It’s exactly “according to Hoyle”.
Criminals are criminals regardless of if they hold a public office or not.
“Mr. Obama killing Americans is a bit too out of context. If an American is dumb enough to commit terrorist acts in CONUS or abroad against USA, he/she puts themselves in self-jeopardy.” — sonofthunderboanerges
No. Not even close. The commission of any alleged crime by an individual puts that person at risk of arrest, indictment, trial, and conviction (or acquittal) in a public judicial proceeding defined by the Constitution. The executive branch of government may prosecute the case — wherein it bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt — but it may not decide the case or carry out its own lethal sentencing based on “secret law” and “secret evidence” in “secret proceedings.” Failure of the government to carry out its sworn defense of the Constitution has lead to:
The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama
Try to keep up with the actual trail of bloody mayhem perpetrated by the U.S. government in the Middle East over the past two decades by U.S. presidents Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. For his part, Barack Obama has simply taken the slaughter of innocent bystanders to extreme lengths not even imagined by his perfidious predecessors.
An accusation does not constitute demonstrable proof of anything, just a suspicion. “Guilty until posthumously proven innocent” may work for Barack Obama, but such an abysmally low “standard” of “justice” still leaves the innocent dead persons … well … dead.
President Obama conspired to have an innocent 16-year-old American boy murdered in Yemen for the “crime” of — in the words of Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs — “not having a responsible father.” President Obama and whomever else conspired to bring about that murder of a fellow-U.S. citizen ought to stand trial for their crime.
And just to anticipate the usual lame retort by apologists for American presidential manslaughter: “But he has only killed a few people by mistake,” I would answer by asking:
“How many crimes of Negligent Homicide does President Obama get to claim before he must restrict himself to only the Murders he actually intends to commit?”
Just give me a number. We can start with that.
In the “Don’t these people ever read they shit they spew?” department, Robert Scheer of Truthdig has a column out on The Terror Con that deserves a read. For my two cents, a couple of snippets pretty much tell the tawdry tale:
Personally, I wouldn’t know about a panicky public anxious to divest itself of hard-won freedoms, but if anyone wants an example of panicky pundits ready, willing, and eager to throw in the towel, I give you Thomas Friedman and Bill Keller. I mean, have these two incorrigible blowhards got a lot of confidence in this great superpower empire of ours, or what?
And as for what these guys know about the future and “weapons of mass destruction,” one word suffices to discredit them for all time: “Iraq.”
Gene H – “The Patriot Act itself is a prime facie unconstitutional document in many regards and using it as a basis for legality is suspect at best.”
Wasn’t it passed by the House and Senate? When is SCOTUS going to overturn it? Does SCOTUS inaction mean that they don’t agree with your constitution argument about the PA?
Gene H. – I agree that is rather suspect for Mr. Obama to not complete his promise to prosecute that arrogant b*stard VPOTUS-46. But I can understand some under-the-table backroom deals of the real world. Like how Winston Churchill sacrificed Coventry UK (and it’s citizens) to protect ENIGMA intercepts at Bletchley Park from Hitler.
Giving POTUS-43 a “Get out of jail free card” was just Presidential courtesy I think. No POTUS has ever bagged another POTUS. It’s just not according to Hoyle.
Mr. Obama killing Americans is a bit too out of context. If an American is dumb enough to commit terrorist acts in CONUS or abroad against USA, he/she puts themselves in self-jeopardy. I think you forgot about how POTUS-36 authorized hits (by nerve gas) against American soldiers going over to the enemy during VN WAR. I’m sure in practice Mr. Obama would rather do a rendition back to CONUS to prosecute under due process. However, if he/she proves to be a hard target than I’d think he’d have John Brennan send in the preds or send in ST-6 or Academi to finish the job.
He’s not talking about killing Americans like Brad Pit and his wife. He’s hypothetically talking about like Americans like the very rich George Soros if he goes all Doctor Evil and holes up in a Budapest castle surrounded by laser-equipped sharks (LOL). George is the most influential American (and Hungarian) person in the world. If he goes terrorist then he would be a hardest target ever. With his secret handlers in ***** he would be a most formidable target that could never be rendered back to USA for prosecution. They would have to send in the mechanics to fix it.
“I can’t think of any high crimes and misdemeanors John Boehner (Speaker of the House) is willing to bring up against Mr. Obama. Why? Because unlike Dubya he hasn’t committed any, IMO that is.”
Except for perpetuating the crimes of the previous administration, failing to investigate let alone prosecute anyone from the previous administration and claiming the ultra vires power to kill American citizens without due process in direct contravention of the 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th Amendments.
Yeah. Obama has done plenty that is not just impeachment worthy, but arrest worthy.
The Patriot Act itself is a prime facie unconstitutional document in many regards and using it as a basis for legality is suspect at best.
@Gene H.
1, June 18, 2013 at 1:43 pm
FIRSTLY, I’d like to say I missed our communications. I was beginning to think I was persona non grata around here. I really enjoy chatting with you.
I said: “Firstly, TRANSPARENCY (in a social behavioral sense) does not mean what you think it means. It doesn’t mean you can SEE everything I do when I do it. It means that I will explain to you what I did AFTER I did it. It means accountability, openness, etc. It doesn’t mean that you will be able to violate operational security and look over my shoulder during NSA listening to suspected terrorist chatter.”
You said: “Gibberish legally speaking. The 4th Amendment doesn’t state that your rights can be violated so long as someone explains it to you afterwards. Not to mention, if they – meaning the government – hadn’t been publicly exposed in the media, the chances of getting any explanation of a process “approved by secret courts” is a number so close to zero as to be indistinguishable.”
I agree that I wasn’t speaking in legalese I was just dumbing it down a bit. Who best to do it than a big dummy like me (LOL). I agree with your line of reasoning. But I still don’t see how presidential transparency means Mr. Obama has to show his poker hand whenever the US public desires it. He has to have some secrets to protect us from the bad guys. I mean why was the NSA created in 1952 by Truman. The very existence of the NSA was a secret for quite a while to the American public.I think we wanted to keep secrets from USSR which had high profile undercover KGB agents in USA at the time. But we had more than one Communist enemy at the time.So secrets from our enemies is critical to run a nation.
“Also, the difference between personnel interpreting data and a machine interpreting data to spy on you is a difference without distinction.”
Agreed
“As for “it’s his job to protect us!”? To a degree, certainly, but when the cost of that protection is civil liberties and treating the Constitution (as Bob, Esq. likes to say) like urinal puck, then the cost of that security is too high and the admonishment of Franklin applies.”
Franklin was a very crafty person when it came to espionage. However, I think Mr. Obama and urinal pucks overlook the Patriot Act and any of it’s recent spin-offs.
“Obama should be impeached for this and the Bush Administration should be brought to trial for their role in creating this tyrannical police state monstrosity (among other things like treason and war crimes).”
I can’t think of any high crimes and misdemeanors John Boehner (Speaker of the House) is willing to bring up against Mr. Obama. Why? Because unlike Dubya he hasn’t committed any, IMO that is. President Andrew Johnson really did but Mr. Clinton kinda’ did but neither was removed from office. So the 50 reportable cases that the surveillance program prevented means not so much to you? You know that’s the 50 they can tell you about. There’s got to be more.
“Our Founders did not back the Declaration of Independence, fight the War of Independence or draft an enact the Constitution so we could trade the unjust tyranny of the English monarchy for the tyranny of an unjust “serial monarchy” disguised as a Presidency. Obama nor Bush are/were the King of this country but you sure couldn’t tell by their prime facie unconstitutional actions.”
I agree with you about Dubya. However, Mr, Obama is just exercising the rights afforded him under the Patriot Act (extension) that Dubya started. Mr. Obama is using it for DIFFERENT more valid reasons than Dubya did. Dubya had a different target in mind than Mr. Obama.
Like someone up there said “Is Iran’s oil” the real goal here? I think that was true under Dubya’s Administration. It may still be true today but I don’t think Mr. Obama has come on board with that secret agenda by people more powerful than him. I personally think that’s who he is really targeting with this surveillance system. I think Mr. Obama knows that attacking Iran would issue in a World War. He needs to prevent that if he can. He wants globalization but not at the cost of a pointless World War. I’ll leave the rest to others imagination… :-/
Max-1 – I think it’s called the Patriot Act… Also protecting the Constitution protects us. And I always say he’s not going after you. He is going after the bad guys (terrorists) and anyone who is stupid enough to routinely communicate with them electronically. The surveillance system doesn’t work the way you think.
When someone decides you are the enemy, ANY information they have about you is information AGAINST YOU. It doesn’t MATTER whether the information involves wrongful or unlawful behavior or not; a quick course in divorce law shows that beyond any doubt. I met a woman who had screamed once in a car while parked at her in-laws’ house. That was being used in her divorce trial to prove that she was an unfit mother. I asked her, “Did the kids hear you?” She said, “KIDS? What kids? This happened before they were BORN!”
Michael Murry – “…The age-old canard of the despot: “If you have nothing to hide then you can’t object to the government watching everything you do or say,”… So, you see, even to the extent that you try and make an argument for despotism with spurious dialectics, you undercut it at the same time with the same device.”
Huh? Where did I say that? I don’t agree with that line of reasoning. I’ve always said that you should not be communicating with al Kaka or any other t-group on your phone or Internet. If you are you deserve to loose your privacy. If it’s by accident than you can be forgiven maybe once. But if you are calling Bad-Guy-Hadji every week to talk about “that thing we spoke about last week? You know the thing that goes boom?” well come on!
But the people that really give me agita are the ones that film a national disaster minutes before it happens and start dancing and high-five-ing. Those guys I want to listen to their phone calls and Internet. And that’s what I think Mr. Obama is doing.He’s just not going to tell you that as you could be one of them (or you know them as friends and family). These bad guys have last names that are common in USA (especially in California near you).
No I wouldn’t want the government to monitor me on everything. I would like to go to bathroom is private (LOL).
Blouise – “Yep … that’s what I’m hinting at when I write that 70% of the intelligence budget flows to private contractors.”
So true. That’s what Snowden was. And there are plenty more like Academi and others. However, there are checks and balances (ugh sorry). There are contractor audits and they are answerable to IG. They are also answerable to DNI just like any other IC. That also includes Congress. You have to understand that these guys are EX-everything, they are not amateurs nor newbies. They just left alphabet-soup-world for more money. Corporations pay waaay more than GS salaries. A CIA Special Agent can make anywhere from Salary:$74,872 – $155,500 (source CIA.gov). I think Erik Prince at Academi thinks that’s chump change (but I could be wrong). However, they are now reporting $350,000,000 a year revenue with 1,000 employees (source Manta).
BarkinDog – In 1963 JFK said “Ich bin ein Berliner” and that was totally correct. Only a person who doesn’t speak fluent German think otherwise. When BHO used the word “transparent”, he meant ACCOUNTABLE or OPEN. He didn’t mean you get to check his hand whenever you want. Only terrorists want to see his hand (a Poker metaphor). Hmmmm….
Sprite – Yes you are right. Terrorist (usual suspects) don’t usually get caught by Echelon/Prism etc. They are too savvy for that. The ones that DO get caught are the so-called FRIENDS that live here in USA that think they enjoy privacy due to our perceived incompetence or apparent lack of coordinated intelligence gathering. I can only think of one foreign intelligence service operating in USA that is that arrogant (as well as stupid). And no the words you used I think are not automatic keywords to catch you on. Like I said before you have to be talking to a “known” bad guy or someone “they” are presently watching. The list is probably huge. But you could accidentally be talking to one in an innocent conversation That has to be decided by the watcher I’m afraid. But you’ll never know about it.
When you walk around a city street do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy from facial-recognition cameras? No? Well get used to it. But you’ll never know it unless your face is a twin of a known bad guy or girl. And again it’s a computer not usually a human unless follow-up is needed. And I think they are usually at airports and such. not sure.
Michael Murry
1, June 18, 2013 at 4:37 pm
The National Surveillance Agency has some really nifty ideas for finding a needle in a haystack:
First, add tons of additional hay to the stack.
LOLLOLLOL.
All the odd numbered ideas are simply repeat idea # 1…….
Also: (SPECIAL NOTE: it probably NEVER hits on one-word keywords. It must be a combination of keywords that someone like you would probably never use UNLESS you were actually guilty of something).
So, (not being guilty of anything) I can say or text things like:
That meeting in the boardroom was so tense, I thought I was in a pressure cooker.
The movie we saw last night was a total bomb. Save your dinars.
Where I live, it seems all the farmers spread manure/fertilizer on the same day. The air is suffocating.
And other similar nonsense… .
I find it hard to believe that any serious terrorist actually text plans or chat about strategies over the phone. My guess is they knew about the NSA program long before we did.
You know, Obama’s presidency was Orwellian from the start. His Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech was a prolonged meditation on what qualifies as a just war…
BarkingDog,
And Obama is teaching us the value of his Harvard education…. Sticking it to us one claws at a time….or is that clause….
nick,
And who is going to complain?
Make no mistake, all these Constitutional issues JT raises are legitimate and deeply serious but come on, we’re talking about Foreign Intelligence services operating on home soil against non-foreigners which is waaaay outside their charter to begin with. Let’s factor in that already 70% of the intelligence budget is flowing to private contractors and what do we have?
Is this a breach in National Security or just one huge criminal enterprise exposed?
So much for “A Constitutional Scholar…”
When Jack Kennedy fudged his Deustch and said that he was a donut the Germans laughed. When Barak Stassi Obama said that he was “transparent” the Germans stuck out their tongues and muttered Sieg Heil.