As the world joins in opposition to the U.S. attack on privacy worldwide, President Barack Obama has to face awkward meetings with world leaders of allied countries who were subjects of his surveillance. Some reports have stated that Obama personally approved the monitoring of Angela Merkel’s telephone three years ago. Now, the National Security Agency (NSA) is insisting that Obama did not order the monitoring personally. I am not sure what is worse: that Obama ordered interceptions of allied leaders like Merkel or that the surveillance state is so large that functionaries now have the discretion to order such surveillance. Merkel may not find it as more assuring that Obama didn’t order her monitoring than the notion such she is just another target delegated to discretion of lower level officials. It is also not clear if Mike Rogers is going to suggest that Merkel should also thank us for the monitoring.
NSA and the White House will only say that it is not currently monitoring Merkel’s phone calls as opposed to prior surveillance of our ally. The most chilling aspect of the response is the suggestion that this is just another delegated act from Obama. After all, he delegated the decision of which citizens should be killed on his unilateral authority under his Kill List policy. It is all part of our new Security State. Killing citizens, surveilling allied leaders, seizing the records of Americans from email and phone systems . . . it is all the new normal of delegated presidential authority. I have previously written about the dangers of the Imperial Presidency established by Obama. However, what is even more chilling is how absolute presidential powers become delegated absolute presidential powers. Such delegation not only gives presidents like Obama some deniability in scandals like this but allow for the expansion of such programs under a thousand faceless functionaries. Of course, the Administration is also pursuing a scorched earth policy against reporters and whistleblowers in the hopes of avoiding any future need to explain itself to anyone.
Even in the face of global condemnation, the cult of personality surrounding Obama continues to silence any significant opposition from Democrats. We have allowed the creation of a security state employing hundreds of thousands with hundreds of billions of invested public funds and giant annual budgets. It is a system that is designed to be used, not to remain dormant. We are not just the protected class but the targeted class of such surveillance. It is a system that runs on any source that could be a threat or reveal information of a threat — a standard that allows monitoring of friends and foes alike.
The Germans are of course upset because such surveillance happens to violate German law, but that has hardly proven a barrier in the United States. In expanding these programs, we appear to have transcended the rule of law to embrace a new model of a security state. We have gotten to the point that we not only treat our own laws as increasing discretionary but treat the laws of other nations as equally discretionary. Diplomatic principles are no more inviolate as civil liberties in the new world being fashioned around counter-terrorism. Once transparency has been achieved in the United States, it is inevitable that the world will then look unacceptably opaque to our security forces.
What is most striking from comments like those of Rogers is that we appear completely clueless or willfully blind to the view of our actions by other nations. Since we do not doubt our motivations, we cannot understand why anyone would be uncomfortable with our actions. As with drone strikes and assassination units, our view might change if other countries engaged in the same actions by ordering special forces to kill targets in the United States or unleashing drone attacks or seizing all of our phone records. As we break down legal walls and limits, we are returning the world to a diplomatic version of the state of nature. At that point, we will be left with the simple rule of “might is right.” It is the original law of the jungle and it is perfectly sustainable for the strongest amongst us. Having realized Nixon’s dream of an Imperial Presidency, Obama seems to have moved on to extending Teddy Roosevelt’s Big Stick policy to cover the world and the world leaders.
Source: National Post
Here’s a little humorous anecdote. When watching the movie ENEMY OF THE STATE (1998), they mention the NSA and it’s huge invasion of privacy methods LONG before any of this happened. They also spoke of a Congressional bill which pre-dated the Patriot Act. And YES Mr. Obama can be excused from not knowing what the RIGHT hand is doing “If this was somebody’s unilateral wet dream, then that somebody is going to prison.”:
@Personanongrata – You are so right! What country was so torqued off by the Tallin Estonia invention of SKYPE for it’s unique almost unbreakable encryption methods? They (Germany) tried their darnedest to break the encryption but failed just like Russia, USA, and PRC did too. But leave it to USA’s NSA to figure out how… (and they did via some really tricky maneuvers to purchase the company via Ebay and now Microsoft).
If Merkel wanted voice privacy SKYPE would have ONCE been the answer. However, not now. There are other methods she could use today if her BND spooks would inform her, which they wont. Why? Because there’s a reason why Mr. Obama or NSA is spying on her.
Just have Blouise put her way-back-machine-memory in play. Remember post-9/11 Blouise? Remember Erik Prince’s admission to Vanity Fair magazine? Remember those beaucoup rendition flights out of Germany? Just do some due-diligence open source intel research on Google and piece it together. Merkel is murky! Her own people don’t know who she is really loyal too. I’m sure Gerhard Schindler appreciates Mr. Obama’s (NSA) nosy nature on Merkel. It allows him to keep tabs on his CINC (Merkel) and maintain his own plausible deniability (i.e. “Mr. Obama I am outraged by this spying on my Chancellor…”(wink wink)).
And of course Mr. Obama (CINC) can not control the CIA (and maybe NSA too at times). What POTUS could ever do that? At one time we couldn’t even rein in the FBI under Hoover. The CIA was created under a strange mix of post-WW2 US Patriots and Oil Patriots (one of which is allegedly still in charge of things). It was to be a clearinghouse of intelligence operations. Somehow it evolved into a powerful paramilitary agency with it’s own enigmatic self-funding (wink-wink).
No one was supposed to know about the NSA but that got out eventually. It too was just a bunch of number-crunching egg heads who could break USSR and PRC encryption in their sleep. Now with it’s enigmatic CSS division it is TOTALLY something else.
Cheney tried to micromanage them both with his almost daily visits on the lead up to the Iraq invasion. At some point it occurred to him that to circumvent the true LOYALISTS in both groups was to introduce Douglas Fieth (i.e. Pentagon OSI?). They used these guys to do what the others wouldn’t (BTW which is not much). The OSI was also another alphabet-soup agency that allegedly secretly did things NOT on their mission statements. They did MUCH more than just Psyops. Donald Rumsfeld tried to obfuscate the OSI by using the “chicken little” comment and closing down the agency – which BTW is still operational only under a different name.
SPECIAL NOTE: There are OTHER terrorist groups other than Al-Qaida? Ever heard of any German left-wing terrorist cells?
What can you say about a woman that HATES dogs!!! Angela you should be ashamed of yourself! Putin is such a wise-azz… he put his Black Lab KONI right next to her chair when she visited Russia in 2012. Her discomfort was clearly evident. 👿 🙄
What Justice Holmes said.
And from ap’s post at 2:11pm:
“Feinstein describes the program as data collection. Leahy calls it domestic surveillance.”
Leahy is right.
ap,
re your post @ 1:22pm (and thanks for posting the link):
I wonder who has been putting pressure on David Cameron 👿
“However, it is far past the time when someone should rein in both agencies. Congress needs to pass a bill limiting the power and scope of the NSA.” -rafflaw
Agreed.
—
“Feinstein plans bill to codify NSA’s phone spying”
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Feinstein-plans-bill-to-codify-NSA-s-phone-spying-4931092.php
I don’t care what his excuse is! Obama had an obligation to know what the NSA was doing AND he had an obligation to control them. It is not an excuse for the president to say the intelligence apparatus is too big. These are executive agencies and they are his responsibility. No mere “functionary” including General Alexander should be allowed to control this kind of power.
On the issue of Alexander, Obama should have fired him as soon as he indicated that he felt journalists should be punished for informing the American public of the TRUTH!
I don’t care who started this. It is now Obama’s responsibility.
Personanongrata 1, October 28, 2013 at 1:52 pm
Appearances and Reality: Merkel Balks at EU Privacy
By Gregor Peter Schmitz in Brussels
…
=====================
That is really not authoritative, it is speculation.
The official document from the European Council, signed by 28 governments, is the reality:
(ACLU vs. Clapper, Alexander, Hagel, Holder, and Mueller – 6). You can be sure that about 35 governments are really pissed off because they do not like the specter of being blackmailed into doing things they would not otherwise do.
Appearances and Reality: Merkel Balks at EU Privacy
By Gregor Peter Schmitz in Brussels
Chancellor Merkel has put on a good show of being outraged by American spying. But, at the same time, she has impeded efforts to strengthen data security. Does she really want more privacy, or is she more interested in being accepted into the exclusive group of info-sharing countries known as the ‘Five Eyes’ club?
Merkel, meanwhile, stated: “Unlike David, we are unfortunately not part of this group.” According to the New York Times, Germany has sought membership in the “Five Eyes” alliance for years, but has been turned down due to opposition, including from the Obama administration. But this could now change, the paper speculates.
Link:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/germany-impedes-eu-privacy-efforts-despite-outrage-at-nsa-spying-a-930488.html
Since our host, Jonathan Turley Esq., is associated with George Washington University (GWU), and GWU has posted a history of the NSA, in addition to my comment just above linking to a document on the NSA website, perhaps the history of the NSA in that GWU archive is more appropriate to use for discussion in this thread (The National Security Archive, GWU).
I agree with Mike S. in that I don’t think any President can truly control the NSA and the CIA. However, it is far past the time when someone should rein in both agencies. Congress needs to pass a bill limiting the power and scope of the NSA.
Indigo Jones 1, October 28, 2013 at 12:12 pm
…
The NSA is peculiar. It was created by executive order …
…
=========================
The military NSA was created by the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Pentagon, neither by a President nor by Congress:
(Origin of NSA, PDF). But yes, it is peculiar.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/28/usa-spying-cameron-idUSL5N0II2WQ20131028
Britain’s Cameron says may act against newspapers over spy leaks
LONDON | Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:33pm EDT
Oct 28 (Reuters) – British Prime Minister David Cameron said on Monday his government was likely to act to stop newspapers publishing what he called damaging leaks from former U.S. intelligence operative Edward Snowden unless they began to behave more responsibly.
“If they (newspapers) don’t demonstrate some social responsibility it will be very difficult for government to stand back and not to act,” Cameron told parliament, saying Britain’s Guardian newspaper had “gone on” to print damaging material after initially agreeing to destroy other sensitive data.
(Reporting By Andrew Osborn; Editing by Ralph Boulton)
SwM,
I showed your link to Tex before he left. As you know, he is a huge Hillary supporter and is still smarting over the manner in which she was pushed aside to make room for Obama.
Any indication that she might be considering a run in 2016 perks up his mood.
She has a lotta room, even w/ those hips.
Mr. Obama, please return your peace prize
Look’s like somebody got a new contract
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/330763-hillary-clinton-urges-a-comprehensive-discussion-about-nsa-surveillance Hillary Clinton is starting to make some statements that are putting some distance between her and Obama and placing her to his left, Blouise.
The golf course shrink had to get George Bush in there. That guilt for being so supportive of Obama, volunteering for this guy when he could have been out helping the needy, is showing through that veneer of confidence.
“The golf course shrink had to get George Bush in there. That guilt for being so supportive of Obama, volunteering for this guy when he could have been out helping the needy, is showing through that veneer of confidence.”
Did I address you Nick? What happened to your promise to Professor Turley and your apology to him for your bad behavior? That happened only a few days ago and we see that the promise was yet another in a long series of lies from you.
The president was unaware that he was born in Kenya until he saw it on his birth certificate.
🙂