Posted on Jun\u00a08,\u00a02013<\/h4>\n\n<\/p>\nBy Peter Z. Scheer<\/p>\n
President Obama defended the government\u2019s massive surveillance programs Friday, saying they \u201chelp us prevent terrorist attacks.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI came in with a healthy skepticism about these programs,\u201d Obama said during an exchange with the press<\/a> in San Jose, Calif. \u201cMy team evaluated them. We scrubbed them thoroughly. We actually expanded some of the oversight, increased some of safeguards. But my assessment and my team\u2019s assessment was that they help us prevent terrorist attacks.\u201d<\/p>\nDespite what he called, \u201cthe modest encroachments on the privacy that are involved,\u201d Obama came to the conclusion that \u201cit was worth us doing.\u201d He added: \u201cSome other folks may have a different assessment on that.\u201d<\/p>\n
Isn\u2019t it a pity the president didn\u2019t have an opportunity to make such a case before the public, perhaps a national election during which the voters could weigh his arguments and make their own assessment as to whether such \u201cmodest encroachments\u201d on one our most cherished liberties were worth it? The president must have been too busy in 2012 to think of it. His team was reportedly engaged<\/a> at the time in a mad dash to put down some limits on the use of drones to assassinate foreigners lest Mitt Romney win the election and that awesome power be placed, like so many others exercised by this president and the one who came before him, in someone else\u2019s hands.<\/p>\nLet\u2019s be clear what we\u2019re talking about here: Although most of the companies mentioned in the news have denied this, it was reported this week<\/a> that the National Security Agency and the FBI have direct access to the communications and files stored on the servers of the biggest technology companies. This news broke just after we learned that the government probably has access to the phone records of all Americans. Which is, in turn, on top of the recent revelations that the Obama administration has used its power through the Justice Department and the IRS to spy on reporters and block the formation of conservative political organizations. Of course lets not forget that the president also maintains a secret \u201ckill list\u201d of assassination targets. <\/p>\nThis week the New York Times wrote<\/a> that the president, who once promised a restoration of civil liberties, had \u201clost all credibility.\u201d That\u2019s a nice way of saying don\u2019t trust that man, and with the aforementioned list of sins, I\u2019m forced to agree. Obama said his would be a transparent government, but, as the paper\u2019s editorial board pointed out, it is only because of conscientious leakers and news outlets willing to publish what they discover that we know anything about the president\u2019s many controversial and secret activities, which, whenever he is discovered, he claims are for the benefit of the people. Indeed, Obama has been more ruthless than even George W. Bush in his pursuit of whistleblowers and leakers, locking away individuals who expose graft, torture and war crimes, while simultaneously presiding over press intimidation. Obama says he\u2019s looking for terrorists. So why is he reading the Associated Press\u2019 e-mails?<\/p>\n\u201cWhen I came into this office, I made two commitments that are more important than any commitment I made: Number one, to keep the American people safe; and number two, to uphold the Constitution,\u201d he said in San Jose. It seems the president put those in order of importance, as he sees it. Ben Franklin, you might have heard, would disagree. He\u2019s the goof who said, \u201cThey that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.\u201d<\/p>\n
The president said Friday, \u201cthe programs that have been discussed over the last couple days in the press are secret in the sense that they\u2019re classified. But they\u2019re not secret in the sense that when it comes to telephone calls, every member of Congress has been briefed on this program. With respect to all these programs, the relevant intelligence committees are fully briefed on these programs. These are programs that have been authorized by broad bipartisan majorities repeatedly since 2006.\u201d<\/p>\n
That may be, but these programs were never authorized by the American people, directly, and since we\u2019re talking about a pretty fundamental breach of the Constitution, isn\u2019t that a reasonable expectation? Are the Senate and House intelligence committees truly adequate representation for more than 314 million people?<\/p>\n
The freedoms and rights enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are sacred and rare in this world. That is why it takes such monumental political tests to amend those documents. Not a Patriot Act. Not a president, a couple of committees and some secret judges. It is to be done in the light of day with the consent of the governed.<\/p>\n
As a senator, Barack Obama was vehemently opposed to the abuses of power by the Bush administration. He rejected<\/a> the \u201cfalse choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.\u201d If President Obama changed his mind about that, it seems to me there was a perfectly appropriate time to say so, and that would have been, at the latest, before the 2012 election.\n<\/p>\n ![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.truthdig.com\/images\/eartothegrounduploads\/AP406794849581-barack-obama-300.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
AP\/Evan Vucci<\/p>\n
<\/span>\n<\/div>\n
By Peter Z. Scheer<\/p>\n
President Obama defended the government\u2019s massive surveillance programs Friday, saying they \u201chelp us prevent terrorist attacks.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI came in with a healthy skepticism about these programs,\u201d Obama said during an exchange with the press<\/a> in San Jose, Calif. \u201cMy team evaluated them. We scrubbed them thoroughly. We actually expanded some of the oversight, increased some of safeguards. But my assessment and my team\u2019s assessment was that they help us prevent terrorist attacks.\u201d<\/p>\n Despite what he called, \u201cthe modest encroachments on the privacy that are involved,\u201d Obama came to the conclusion that \u201cit was worth us doing.\u201d He added: \u201cSome other folks may have a different assessment on that.\u201d<\/p>\n Isn\u2019t it a pity the president didn\u2019t have an opportunity to make such a case before the public, perhaps a national election during which the voters could weigh his arguments and make their own assessment as to whether such \u201cmodest encroachments\u201d on one our most cherished liberties were worth it? The president must have been too busy in 2012 to think of it. His team was reportedly engaged<\/a> at the time in a mad dash to put down some limits on the use of drones to assassinate foreigners lest Mitt Romney win the election and that awesome power be placed, like so many others exercised by this president and the one who came before him, in someone else\u2019s hands.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s be clear what we\u2019re talking about here: Although most of the companies mentioned in the news have denied this, it was reported this week<\/a> that the National Security Agency and the FBI have direct access to the communications and files stored on the servers of the biggest technology companies. This news broke just after we learned that the government probably has access to the phone records of all Americans. Which is, in turn, on top of the recent revelations that the Obama administration has used its power through the Justice Department and the IRS to spy on reporters and block the formation of conservative political organizations. Of course lets not forget that the president also maintains a secret \u201ckill list\u201d of assassination targets. <\/p>\n This week the New York Times wrote<\/a> that the president, who once promised a restoration of civil liberties, had \u201clost all credibility.\u201d That\u2019s a nice way of saying don\u2019t trust that man, and with the aforementioned list of sins, I\u2019m forced to agree. Obama said his would be a transparent government, but, as the paper\u2019s editorial board pointed out, it is only because of conscientious leakers and news outlets willing to publish what they discover that we know anything about the president\u2019s many controversial and secret activities, which, whenever he is discovered, he claims are for the benefit of the people. Indeed, Obama has been more ruthless than even George W. Bush in his pursuit of whistleblowers and leakers, locking away individuals who expose graft, torture and war crimes, while simultaneously presiding over press intimidation. Obama says he\u2019s looking for terrorists. So why is he reading the Associated Press\u2019 e-mails?<\/p>\n \u201cWhen I came into this office, I made two commitments that are more important than any commitment I made: Number one, to keep the American people safe; and number two, to uphold the Constitution,\u201d he said in San Jose. It seems the president put those in order of importance, as he sees it. Ben Franklin, you might have heard, would disagree. He\u2019s the goof who said, \u201cThey that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.\u201d<\/p>\n The president said Friday, \u201cthe programs that have been discussed over the last couple days in the press are secret in the sense that they\u2019re classified. But they\u2019re not secret in the sense that when it comes to telephone calls, every member of Congress has been briefed on this program. With respect to all these programs, the relevant intelligence committees are fully briefed on these programs. These are programs that have been authorized by broad bipartisan majorities repeatedly since 2006.\u201d<\/p>\n That may be, but these programs were never authorized by the American people, directly, and since we\u2019re talking about a pretty fundamental breach of the Constitution, isn\u2019t that a reasonable expectation? Are the Senate and House intelligence committees truly adequate representation for more than 314 million people?<\/p>\n The freedoms and rights enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are sacred and rare in this world. That is why it takes such monumental political tests to amend those documents. Not a Patriot Act. Not a president, a couple of committees and some secret judges. It is to be done in the light of day with the consent of the governed.<\/p>\n As a senator, Barack Obama was vehemently opposed to the abuses of power by the Bush administration. He rejected<\/a> the \u201cfalse choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.\u201d If President Obama changed his mind about that, it seems to me there was a perfectly appropriate time to say so, and that would have been, at the latest, before the 2012 election.\n<\/p>\n AP\/Evan Vucci<\/p>\n <\/span>\n<\/div>\n<\/p>\n