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:
We needed to write an individual 1 small comment way
too finally thanks very much once again for ones attractive data you have mentioned
on this web site. It is critically open-handedhaving folks as you to permit easily juat exactly what
some individuals will often have marketed being an electric guide
to assist having making several bread for their personal
end, most significantly since you might have experimented with the idea should
you wished. These tips furthermore acted just luke a great way to fully understand some people have related interest
the same as this personal to find out a lot more in respect on this make any difference.
I do believe there are various more pleasurable situations at the start for people who begin studying
ones record post.
Boris & Natasha… ahhh that brings back memories of Bullwinkle and Rocky cartoons. I love the way Boris’ thick slavic accent says “moos’ and sqvirell'”.
I like your play on words with SNOWden and SNOWMAN. You are right! Maybe not a coincidence?
Surgery? Oh your talking about that Tony Mendez (and wife) stuff? Back in the day Tony saw what they did in the old Mission Impossible TV show and the DCI asked him could he do that. He and his wife have been doing it for a while now I think in DS&T. Ben Affleck just did a movie about him. You know that work of fiction about exfil’ng 6 EMBASSY employees from Tehran. Yeah right EMBASSY employees.
I think Tony also helped develop some surgical techniques too that plastic surgeons can do too.
I’ve never had a Cuban Cigar nor a Mojito! Man are you lucky. What do you live in Miami or something? There’s a great TV show I know you would like – shot in Miami mainly. I think they are going into a new season this summer. It highlights the exploits of OSINT-fame Michael J. Wilson (that’s an alias BTW [duh]). The director is Matt Nix. (He’s obviously Michael Steele BTW – already outed himself in various YouTube videos)
Boris,
Whatever the reason ol’ General P got busted straight out of the Palm Beach cocktail circuit all the way down to the Shit on a Shingle crowd. It was nicely done and I believe shows the 7th floor does have a sense of humor.
Here’s hoping Snowman … oops, that was real old school … Snowden doesn’t need surgery soon … all kinds of folk standin’ around his bed as the sedative wears off.
As for Cuba … what a history … I have no desire to visit and will be quite content with the cigars and Mojitos in a back room of your choosing. X marks the spot.
Natasha
http://www.encount.com/images/staff/b_n_2.gif
ROTFLMAO!!!
Well I hope you don’t think that “cover story” about Mr. Undisciplined Dick and Paula Broadwell was real! That was just smoke-n-mirrors to create some more rabbit holes for us gullible types. Dickie-boy probably has E.D. developed from his hyperglycemia (pre-Diabetic). Unless he was using the little blue pills I don’t see him and Paula doing the nasty. I think that was a work of fiction to give him an easy-out over the Bengazi Scenario (and other more classified embarassments).
Kieth is no more military than his predecessors. The last one went on to 7th floor (CIA executive staff) as DCI. I guess he’s more serious minded than the one that was worried about Furbies toys from PRC on the desks of the puzzle palace employees. Now that was just silly. Unless someone else knows more about that incident.
I like to have a Cuban cigar one day. Does Mr. Obama still say they are illegal for Americans to purchase? I wonder why. Fidel is not in charge any more. Another promise broken by Mr. Obama. I would love to go to Havanna on holiday but we Yanks still can’t. Jay-Z and Beyonce may get the DoJ hammer dropped on them for going recently. He was smokin’ Cubans too! Well I guess if you hob-knob with Warren Buffet you are waaay ABOVE the law.
Being Machiavellian and having ethics are not mutually exclusive.
For a prime fictional example, see “Game of Thrones”. Lord Vayrs is Machiavellian but has ethics – he serves the Empire first. Littlefinger acts in what appears a Machiavellian manner but in truth it is Randian and has no ethical basis what so ever other than what brings the actor (self) pleasure – he serves no one but himself. The later is an ethically empty stance in the end.
sonoft’
Well, the 7th floor, as you call them, does have a record of forcing out those they don’t like and it doesn’t hurt to note that Gen. Alexander is more than just a little too powerful and perhaps just a little too military, like his good bud, Petraeus.
Petraeus was easy ’cause he had an undisciplined dick but Alexander isn’t that easy soooo ….
See ya in the back room … you bring the cigars
Sorry if this is a double post. The first one got eaten by the WordPress monster…
You know it’s my raison d’être to impress you and get you to chat with me. Taking your breath away will have to suffice. Enlighten me as to which parts did that? You know it’s my MO to be a know-it-all blowhard. If I knew what I was talking about in half the stuff I say (post) I might be dangerous to somebody. However, the powers that be know I’m just a tiny minnow in a huge sea of big fish. You know the kind you catch and release once you realize what you’ve caught? (LOL)
It is when a person thinks that the SCOTUS has an ulterior motive for doing so. But I see your point. I also agree with the rest of your paragraph. I just am from the old school “back room deal/cigar filled room/” kinda’ guy. Do I have ethics? Maybe not as much as you do. Am I a bit Machiavellian? At times I see the merit in being like that. Is Mr. Obama being Machiavellian? Maybe. I’m really not that ethical enough to judge him. You really wouldn’t want me on your jury trial. I’m the type that is easily manipulated by people with hidden agendas. Why? Mainly because I just want to see where they are headed and I play along. If no one really gets hurt I usually knuckle under. That’s why I say my ethics are questionable. Occupational hazard I guess.
You want an interesting research project that will possibly blow your mind? Google: Christopher Boyce and build your own personal dossier on him (and Andrew Daulton Lee), FBI dad, TRW, CIA, Russians, drugs, Mexico, his incarceration, escape, capture, and his eventual freedom. Snowden sounds like the SAME deal only updated for 21st century. I think John O. Brennan thinks we forgetful Americans are going the way of George Santayana’s warning.
OK who’s Naomi Wolf and where can I find her posting? And it’s not ALL of us. Only the one’s stupid enough to be talking to al-kaka members Habib and Hadji on a telephone or Internet chat room. But in the REAL sense it may be another ethnic group with names like Bebe or Arik we really need to worry about (Sorry Mike no offense :-] )
I loved all Oliver Stone’s movies! Of course being King Tin-Hat I would (LOL)
You know it’s my raison d’être to impress you and get you to chat with me. Taking your breath away will have to suffice. Enlighten me as to which parts did that? You know it’s my MO to be a know-it-all blowhard. If I knew what I was talking about in half the stuff I say (post) I might be dangerous to somebody. However, the powers that be know I’m just a tiny minnow in a huge sea of big fish. You know the kind you catch and release once you realize what you’ve caught? (LOL)
It is when a person thinks that the SCOTUS has an ulterior motive for doing so. But I see your point. I also agree with the rest of your paragraph. I just am from the old school “back room deal/cigar filled room/” kinda’ guy. Do I have ethics? Maybe not as much as you do. Am I a bit Machiavellian? At times I see the merit in being like that. Is Mr. Obama being Machiavellian? Maybe. I’m really not that ethical enough to judge him. You really wouldn’t want me on your jury trial. I’m the type that is easily manipulated by people with hidden agendas. Why? Mainly because I just want to see where they are headed and I play along. If no one really gets hurt I usually knuckle under. That’s why I say my ethics are questionable. Occupational hazard I guess.
When you say “internal”, what organization are you referring to? CIA? NSA? All alphabet-soup? If so how would a 29-year old DS&T geek play into that struggle? Maybe you mean Snowden is just a pawn being played by the “7th floor”? Possible. I just hope he knows where the bodies are buried as an insurance policy.
You want an interesting research project that will possibly blow your mind? Google: Christopher Boyce and build your own personal dossier on him (and Andrew Daulton Lee), FBI dad, TRW, CIA, Russians, drugs, Mexico, his incarceration, escape, capture, and his eventual freedom. Snowden sounds like the SAME deal only updated for 21st century. I think John O. Brennan thinks we forgetful Americans are going the way of George Santayana’s warning.
OK who’s Naomi Wolf and where can I find her posting? And it’s not ALL of us. Only the one’s stupid enough to be talking to al-kaka members Habib and Hadji on a telephone or Internet chat room. But in the REAL sense it may be another ethnic group with names like Bebe or Arik we really need to worry about (Sorry Mike no offense :-] )
Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 13m
Must-read NYT article on one of the key facts from NSA revelations: the ugly marriage between Silicon Valley & NSA http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/technology/silicon-valley-and-spy-agency-bound-by-strengthening-web.html?pagewanted=all …
SOTB, Naomi Wolf has written what you just said about Snowden being a useful operative to let us all know we’re all under surveillance. A little to Oliver Stonish for me.
“F*ck.” (ap)
Big time
The promise of privatizing government functions was that the operation of the markets would lead to economy and efficiency that government employees could not match.
It has been apparent to many for some time that free markets do not always provide solutions let alone effective or efficient solutions.
Mark Thoma writing in the Fiscal Times discusses 7 ways that market sometimes fail.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/06/18/7-Important-Examples-of-How-Markets-Can-Fail.aspx#page1
In particular he mentions the problem of government contracting:
“6. Government Contracting. A “principal agent problem” is present whenever a person making decisions (the agent) for someone else (the principal) has the incentive to deviate from the best interests of the principal and full oversight of the agent is not possible. For example, managers of large firms may give themselves perks instead of maximizing value for shareholders. The rise in government contracting over the last few decades “from a little more than $200 billion in 2000 to about $440 billion in 2007” brings about principal agent problems, and lack of effective oversight gives ample opportunity for consultants to line their pockets rather than maximize value for taxpayers. In many cases, we’d be better off if the government provided these services itself.”
Thoma’s reference to a Harper’s interview with Allison Stranger is also an eye-opener.