I Think Obama Doesn't Want A 911 On His Watch...

[Grassy Knoll]

So Legally he will do everything in his power to make sure history won't
repeat itself, There are so many people wanting Obama to fail, But don't
exactly see what is required to keep us safe, Is he doing it wrong? In many
minds he is, But in many minds he's not. If another 911 happens, Remember
It will be Obama's fault.

[dkf]

1. Better 911 than living in an authoritarian state.

That is a trade off I would make.

No we aren't there yet, but this program enables all the things history has warned us against.

[Llewlladdwr]

2. +1

I'm surprised at the number of 'progressives' who are perfectly happy having the Government all up in their business.

[Grassy Knoll]

11. I'm Surprised at how many "REgressives" Wants......

Obama to fail.

[Llewlladdwr]

41. I will always root for tyranny to fail.

I could care less whether it has a D or an R after its name.

[im1013]

77. +100!

[Grassy Knoll]

8. 3000 Americans Dead?........

VS what you call authoritarian state? WOW.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. In 2011 32,367 Americans died in car crashes. Do you advocate the end of the automobile?

To be even close to consistent you should be. That is a yearly figure. You: 'Oh, but trains are too slow, so the carnage is ok with me, I'm in a big hurry and need my private automobile, death death, who cares' WOW

[JaneyVee]

19. I'm guessing you're against gun control too then.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. Why would you think that? Can't you read?

The other poster was affecting shock that anyone would not want to shred the Constitution over 3000 deaths on 9*11. So I asked them if THEY also oppose driving a car, because so many thousands die from them. If 3000 is reason to destroy the Constitution, then 30,000 seems like reason to stop driving, does it not?
I am for gun control, restriction, you bet. I am against shredding the Constitution because of terrorist attacks AND I'm against ending automobiles because of roadway carnage.
Are you up to date and past your prejudgements and projections? Where you are coming from with that kind of bullshit is beyond me. Oh, you are the one who HATES Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley. I get it. Yeah, I like my Democratic Senators and you, well, you don't and so you think 'he likes guns'. What a pathetic display.

[JaneyVee]

29. Wow, so many strawmen in that argument it may be a fire hazard.

I like how you put 'HATES' in all caps, even though I didn't leave a single comment about the article. And "what a pathetic display" sounds exactly like what a self-proclaimed elitist would say when looking down on the help. Oh and "where I'm coming from" is the fact that you just used the same argument right-wingers use when talking about gun control. WAH WAH BUT BUT CARS!

[Bluenorthwest]

36. You come at me with accusations based on nothing and you call strawman?

What gibberish you are posting wah wah?
Understand, I'd melt down all the guns in the morning if your centrist Blue Dogs and Republican partners were not gripping to them like you grip your presumptions.

I support stronger gun control than Obama would dare ask for. So rave on.

[JaneyVee]

38. I didn't 'come at you' with accusations. I wrote 'assuming' based on the

the fact that you used a similar line of reasoning as right-wingers talking about gun control. You seem on edge.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. I don't know what right wingers say, that's your trip and your projection

you were rude to me. Assuming things about others and proclaiming your imaginings in public is a similar tactic to what the right wingers do. Most people ask a question. Right leaning people like yourself assume based on whatever they work up to base some assumptions on, an analogy, a hoodie and some Skittles and they just embrace their assumptions and act out upon them, no questions, just assumptions and actions. 'Well he sounded like one of them to me. Did you see how he was dressed?' You did not ask, you took it upon yourself to assume. That's how you carry yourself, that's up to you.

[JaneyVee]

91. I see the mix-up here, I forgot a question mark at the end of my sentence.

[DCBob]

85. good grief.. Republican logic.

[dkf]

10. People die to fight off oppressive authoritarian states.

[Grassy Knoll]

27. In What way does this compare to killing 3000 americans ?

[Progressive dog]

42. People die fighting for them too

Believe it or not, 150 years ago a part of this country actually fought and died to keep other people as slaves. I guess if you weren't one of those slaves it really wouldn't have been authoritarian.
The USA is still far from authoritarian.

[dkf]

48. Yes we are pretty far from being authoritarian and we need to keep it that way.

[Live and Learn]

60. America was created to ward off an authoritarian state.

Think somewhere north of 20,000 died in that war to ensure our rights including the right to privacy.

I really don't want the protections being offered these days. Can I opt out and let you who are willing to sacrifice your liberties do it without me?

[JDPriestly]

63. 3000 Americans dead versus the violation of the Constitution.

More than 3000 people die from smoking-related diseases each year.

Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the United States. Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million live with a serious illness caused by smoking. Despite these risks, approximately 46.6 million U.S. adults smoke cigarettes. Smokeless tobacco, cigars, and pipes also have deadly consequences, including lung, larynx, esophageal, and oral cancers.

http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/aag/osh.htm

That is from the Center for Disease control.

[malaise]

88. Between 30,000 and 40,000 are killed by guns

but there are no background checks being demanded for gun owners

[Lady Freedom Returns]

26. America is run by Majority.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/

Majority Views NSA Phone Tracking as Acceptable Anti-terror Tactic
Public Says Investigate Terrorism, Even If It Intrudes on Privacy

A majority of Americans – 56% – say the National Security Agency’s (NSA) program tracking the telephone records of millions of Americans is an acceptable way for the government to investigate terrorism, though a substantial minority – 41% – say it is unacceptable. And while the public is more evenly divided over the government’s monitoring of email and other online activities to prevent possible terrorism, these views are largely unchanged since 2002, shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

[frylock]

39. then you won't have a problem the next time a majority of americans vote a republian into the WH..

and that republican has these same powers.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

45. I can work to stop a Repuke from getting in.

But the Majority wins over the few.

If it did not, we would have Romney.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

72. It would not surprise me if another Bush became president. Or if a person with many Repub values

became president or vice-president.

Just think back and remember how close Lieberman came to being the vice-president.

You can, as you say, work to stop a Repuke from getting in. But we don't control Gerrymandering, campaign contributions by the super-rich (including the super-rich in foreign countries), electronic voting machines, or even how the courts (including the Supreme Court) may rule when elections are close.

In 2008, I used to think that electing and re-electing Democatic Presidents was a sure thing. With all that has happened in recent years, and the animosity that some in the Democratic Party have towards FDR-type Democrats and FDR-type policies, I no longer think that.

[Laelth]

83. When it comes to our Constitutional rights, the majority should not win.

Jefferson insisted on the Bill of Rights because he wanted to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. As for the President, you are right. Presidents are now chosen by a majority of the Electoral College, but the majority does not have the right to circumscribe Constitutional rights, no matter how scared they are of terrorists. The principal function of the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of the minority.

-Laelth

[Progressive dog]

52. Had a lot of Republican Presidents.

Don't really expect not to ever have another. If a Republican president should decide to torture again, would Obama not torturing make it more or less illegal?

[Bluenorthwest]

53. I'd take a look at the word 'acceptable' before getting too excited about that

It is a word meaning 'tolerable' or 'not so bad' it never means 'this is what I want' or 'this is what I planned'.
It means 'I accept it' not 'I support it'.
Also, right now majority supports legalizing marijuana, marriage equality and yet we don't get those things. Which majority runs marriage rights and pot laws? Where can I contact them?

[woo me with science]

65. And another poll this week said exactly the opposite. SO WHAT?

CBS Poll: Most disapprove of government phone snooping of ordinary Americans
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57588748/most-disapprove-of-govt-phone-snooping-of-ordinary-americans/

This is an issue of Constitutionality, not something to be decided by polls. I wrote a whole OP about this despicable authoritarian propaganda tactic: trying to turn our fundamental Constitutional rights into a matter of debate.

Don't entertain this garbage.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022981567

[backscatter712]

28. A-fucking-men! Time to live like Americans instead of cowards. n/t

[im1013]

78. +1,000,000!!!

[treestar]

49. How does it?

Has anyone looked into that. You are just presuming it leads to - what? No one has said what. If your rights were really gone, then you'd be in jail for saying things. This is no where near a possibility.

[ChazII]

56. Agree 100% n/t

[pnwmom]

66. It's not either/or -- one extreme or the other. n/t

[avaistheone1]

75. k&r

[graham4anything]

79. Wow, unbelievable. Words fail me. but I will try anyhow...NO NO NO NO NO NO NO new 9-11

It just is mind boggling.

And then a 9-11 happens and guess what- well, the president would be blamed

and then Jeb Bush/Rand Paul will come in and what rights would you get? (though maybe some would be fine with that, I for one
would not be).

Benjamin Franklin- an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Benny I bet would be on Obama's side.
Without a nation, there will be nothing left to save, because the USA cannot handle another seven years of zero commerce
because the first 9-11 took that away.
Before 9-11, we were thriving just months earlier.
9-11 stopped everything for 7 years

another 9-11 would most likely stop it forever

Sorry, I do not wish another 9-11, especially on those in the NYC area who lived thorugh the first one, and on those who did
not live through it.

Especially as they know everything already.

not to mention-soon as President Obama would get rid of this, something would be made to happen.

So, if the fix is in, why give them the detonator to ignite it?

and if the fix is not in, then there is nothing to worry about anyhow, being that one is posting on this international political board
with no restrictions except what is in the rules.

1984 was just a very bad year in American history, one of many bad years while Reagan/Bush were President.
how in the world did democratic voters vote for Reagan???
oh yeah, national security and the manipulation of the hostage situation(where NO ONE HOSTAGE died).

[DCBob]

86. huh??

are you on drugs?

[One of the 99]

92. Would you make that trade-off with the life of your child?

[dkf]

93. It's moot...I don't have kids.

But if the choice was to save my fellow citizens or save myself, isn't that what we expect of all police or military?

I would hope I was brave enough to do what is right for the greater good. I'm not sure I am that selfless though, but I ought to be.

[One of the 99]

94. That explains a lot.

It is easy to be ideologically pure when you have nothing to personally lose, to let the children of others die for your cause. That's the same type of logic that so many indulged in during the run up to the Iraq war. They were OK with it because it was other people's children who had to fight and die, not themselves or their own children.

[dkf]

99. If I had kids I would be more willing to sacrifice myself so they don't have to live like that.

That I do know.

[One of the 99]

100. But would you sacrifice them? nt

[Romulus Quirinus]

108. You ever drive your kid to baseball practice on public roads?

Then you made that decision for your kid.

[One of the 99]

114. Is there a point?

[Romulus Quirinus]

119. By participating in the public road system

you are essentially saying that you think 30k deaths on the road per year is worth the right to travel where you want in your own car, even if one of those 30k is your own child. (YOU MONSTER!)

[One of the 99]

123. Total nonsense.

Strawman argument.

[Romulus Quirinus]

125. How is it not comparable?

I don't see how it's a strawman.

[One of the 99]

128. Because it is not.

It's a strawman whether you admit to it or not.

[Romulus Quirinus]

129. Please, explain like I'm five. nt

[One of the 99]

130. No. I'm not here to explain things to you.

Especially when you're engaging in intellectually dishonest strawman arguments. If you don't understand what is being discussed in a thread, maybe you shouldn't jump in to it or at least have your parents explain it to you before you do.

[Romulus Quirinus]

134. Let's unring this bell. I think we are speaking past each other.

I'm saying that we choose to accept a certain level of death and destruction in order to indulge in the freedom to drive where we want in this country, and no one has a problem with that. Not you. Not me.

Why is it so strange to suggest that we be willing to accept the same level of mayhem, perpetrated by people rather than kinetic energy, in the name of keeping Big Brother in the realm of fiction?

[One of the 99]

137. It's still a strawman argument.

You're talking about accidents vs. terrorism. Two very different things. We don't accept accidents, we try to avoid them. We wear set belts, buy cars with air bags, obey traffic laws. It is not the same as terrorism and it is intellectually dishonest to suggest that it is.

[Romulus Quirinus]

139. One is equally dead either way.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. O_o

[One of the 99]

140. That's not the point

and you know it.

[Romulus Quirinus]

141. I'm sorry, I don't. :/ nt

[One of the 99]

142. Yes you do.

You just refuse to admit it.

[Romulus Quirinus]

143. Brother, I wish I did understand what you're thinking.

I really do.

[One of the 99]

144. Not hard to understand.

Just honesty and logic.

[Warren DeMontague]

110. Given recent events, I think crazy people with AR-15s are more of a threat to kids than terrorism.

And yet, heaven forfend anyone's right to walk into a Wal-Mart and buy one no questions asked should be impinged upon in the slightest.

However, it is VITAL that the PTB be able to monitor everything people do 24-7, so that they can keep us safe from Cancer Grannies who want to smoke a joint "terrorism".




http://aclu-wa.org/blog/mission-creep-patriot-act-and-war-drugs

[One of the 99]

115. Very true.

But that has nothing to do with the point I was responding to.

[Warren DeMontague]

117. Except a great deal of this crap has been done under the auspices of the Patriot Act.

It's a little specious to fall back upon the "it's being done to keep us safe from terrorism" argument when the evidence clearly shows that the Patriot Act, for instance, has been first and foremost used as a green light to continue pursuing idiotic shit like the drug war and the crusade to put medical marijuana patients in prison cells.

[One of the 99]

122. You have a good point.

But it still has nothing to do with the point that I was responding to.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

97. Ding Ding Ding

Thanks for summing up the lunatic fringe perfectly.

Give me ideology or give me death.

[thucythucy]

102. If another 9-11 happens

the authoritarian state will inevitably follow.

Look what happened after the last 9-11: the Patriot Act, warrant-less wire-tapping, water boarding, "watch what you say and do," not to mention the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and the exponential growth of the national security apparatus. A successful attack on the scale of 9-11 on Obama's watch would be the end of progressive Democratic hopes for at least a generation. "They let the terrorists win" would be the GOP slogan from now into the 2050s, trumpeted by the corporate media, repeated unto death by talk radio.

It's a dilemma: we absolutely need to thwart another major terrorist attack as a way of defending our civil liberties (not to mention the lives of potential victims), and yet in order to do so we seem invariably to compromise those very same liberties.

Of course, if we had a genuine opposition party interested in having a rational debate--instead of a right wing cabal desperate for any advantage in its quest for absolute power--we might be able as a society to think this through and arrive at some sort of adequate protection of both our national security AND our civil liberties. But as things stand now, it ain't gonna happen any time soon.

President Obama is definitely between a rock and a hard place on this one. Diminish the national security state by one iota, and if there IS a successful attack he'll get the blame--even if what he cuts has nothing to do with keeping us safe. In which case the outright and up front authoritarians take total charge, as they did under Bush/Cheney. Or leave the mechanisms of potential authoritarianism intact, and risk their further development as instruments of repression anyway.

In some ways this is analogous to what Democrats faced in the 1950s. After a decade of the "soft on communism" charge, the only way a Democrat could win in 1960 was to out cold warrior the cold warriors. Hence, JFK with his non-existent "missile gap," his belligerent anti-Castro rhetoric, his uptick in Vietnam.

So it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I wish I could see an easy way out of this, but I don't.

[leftynyc]

138. Question

Do you live somewhere where a terrorist attack is likely?

[MNBrewer]

3. Well of course not

I bet he doesn't want a Bay of Pigs, or a Pearl Harbor too. Did JFK or Roosevelt launch massive spying operations on us?

[BlueCheese]

4. Maybe FDR isn't the best example.

The internment of Japanese Americans was probably the worst federal civil liberties violation of the 20th century.

But I agree with your larger point.

[MNBrewer]

5. I thought about that as I typed his name

yet it was NOT a spying operation, was it?

[Bluenorthwest]

18. It is our history, part of the WW2 era civil liberties story is the limited duration

stated going in and respected going out. Yes, we had a US Office of Censorship. For four years. Then it went bye bye. We've had Patriot Act Crap for over a decade. With almost no discussion of any of it.
Big difference. So WW2 has many lessons for this time, a primary one being 'for the duration' not 'for all time, throughout the universe, in perpetuity'.

[OnyxCollie]

73. We also had an Institute of Propaganda Analysis.

And after the war, with nothing left to study but corporate propaganda, the Institute of Propaganda Analysis fell victim to corporate pressure, which had suggested its activities were "unAmerican."

It, too, went bye bye.

[Robb]

20. No, but it was notably both reprehensible and perfectly legal.

There's no shortage of leaders who do and have done whatever the law can be convinced to allow in the name of national security.

The invasion of Iraq was perfectly legal.

[Raine1967]

43. I disagree.

Legal? yes.
Perfect? No.

in the end this whole debate is about perfection, IMO. That's an impossible place to hold a rational debate.

[OnyxCollie]

71. It was done for economic reasons.

Japanese workers were exploited from the time they arrived in the US. Each "hoop" they were forced to jump through came from corporate interests being represented in government, as farm corporations profited with each restriction placed upon the Japanese. These include renting land at much higher costs, placing liens upon the crops, and expropriating the workers from the machinery itself.

The biggest profits came when the Japanese were interned. The US had entered WWII as crops sat unharvested in the fields. Farm corporations saw an opportunity: have government-subsidized dummy corporations harvest the crop (while taking the risk), and then sell it back to the farm corporations at a low price. Any shortage could be regained by simply charging the Japanese for the use of equipment the farm corporations already owned. (Just like contractors in Iraq!)

It is similar to the spying operation in that it targeted the entire population, providing no particular evidence that could indict even one person.

The military necessity hypothesis fall apart completely under analysis. (Just like the run up to Iraq!)

[thucythucy]

103. There was quite a vigorous (and sometimes illegal)

spy program under FDR-Truman.

For instance, during WWII the FBI, without a warrant, broke into the Soviet trade mission in New York City to photograph Soviet cable traffic. This was when the Soviet Union was our ally, remember. And the American Nazi Party and the German American Bund were both heavily infiltrated. The FBI bugged the room of an American woman who was suspected of being a German spy (and caught a young JFK on tape in the act of...well, you know...)

What's increased isn't the level or intensity of "spying" but the sophistication of the technology.

I don't doubt that if FDR had had computers and the WWW, he would have used them to the fullest extent he could.

[niyad]

6. he doesn't want an emergency number on his watch?

[kenny blankenship]

7. So he flew the NSA into the Constitution.

and did the bad guys' work for them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. For the record, he did not start it

this has been a bipartisan effort going back decades.

Not that it is good... we need another Frank Church... just for starters.

[former9thward]

37. For the record he became President and CIC on Jan. 20, 2009.

Everything after that which is under his direct control becomes his responsibility. We need a president who just says "NO".

[treestar]

46. That would be authoritarianism

Presidents are supposed to uphold the law, not just enforce only the ones they like.

[TheKentuckian]

74. The President is not compelled to run these programs, the law allows for them.

Those are very distinct things and it is way, way outside of the box of any known definition of authoritarianism not to continue Bush programs because he had the discretion to do so.


He isn't upholding anything, he is executing at his discretion in this regard.

The blame Congress bit only goes so far here. Yes, they damn well must reign in the Executive but hell if I voted for someone to keep the trains rolling with a few bits of polish that are phony as can be to the spirit of the words written on paper or screen.

Here you are pretty much into "the devil made me do it" territory. How is "it wasn't illegal, so I had to do it" a coherent statement?

[Floyd_Gondolli]

98. When does the war with North Korea start?

A few weeks ago you said it was imminent.

Quit dodging the question.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. He'd be a twisted fuck indeed if he wanted one, don't you think?

What do you think he wants on his watch? That's a better question.

[cherokeeprogressive]

21. LOL I was thinking "How profound" when I read the OP.

Doesn't want a 9/11 on his watch? Ya fucking think?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

13. they have always snooped for years

especially during the cold war.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Take my word on this,

not even at the height of Operation Shamrock, did we equal what it is being done right now.

And that led to the Church Committee. These days they are scared out of their minds.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

17. If you lived under McCarthy

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Yeah, but that was not done in secret

all this is.

And Red Scares are nasty, both of them.

Right now looking at all the background for where we are, including hearings and known NSA programs. It is through the looking glass. If they want to shut this country down, it's turn key. The phrase used by The Atlantic is not exaggeration. All the tools are in place. And most are either watever, or they have been doing this like forevah, or my favorite, we can trust the dems with this.

Let's just hope they never feel the need to shut the country down before all this is dismantled. The only way we will be truly protected is exactly that, dismantling.

For the record, we cannot trust god with this, let alone men.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

32. ther was a lot done in secret in those days

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Yes, but I am telling you, this is on steroids.

What is in common is ...the reds are coming...the terrorists are coming, hide!!!!

And if nothing else, the tools are such that they can afford not to go police state as we imagine on out asses.

[truth2power]

16. It's not that people want Obama to fail...

Had you considered that he's doing an adequate job of that all on his own? Unfortunately, of course. just sayin'

[kentuck]

23. Bush got re-elected with one on his watch?

Why should there be a different standard for Mr Obama, if I could play the devil's advocate?

[Dr Fate]

25. Exactly. If we have another 911, he would have to spy on us even more.

This is his way of avoiding that and keeping us more free than he would have to if we are attacked again.

I for one will take the half loaf as well.

[Electric Monk]

33. He has to spy on everyone because if he didn't he'd have to spy on everyone even more?

Go read the Aug 6,2001 PDB then say that again. It'll be even funnier the 2nd time around.

[Gravitycollapse]

30. Excuse me while I go vomit.

[woo me with science]

31. This spying is about corporate $$$$$ and power, not terrorism. nt

[Fearless]

35. The ends do not justify the means.

[think]

40. I can respect this theory

to a point.

The point being that the secret law government isn't a positive or equitable solution to the problem. End the secrecy that shrouds knowledge at the highest levels and at least let our congress people have permission to tell us when the NSA violates US law.

yes it is that bad....

[frylock]

44. a noun, a verb, and 9/11..

is this what we've sunk to here? threatening basic liberties with the spectre of another 9/11? fucking awesome.

[woo me with science]

68. Terra! Terra!

They are attempting to normalize the step-by-step elimination of the Constitution.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022981711

[BlueStreak]

47. More accurately, Obama doesn't want to run the risk of being smeared for reining in this program

if a major terror event were to happen.

This program won't prevent anything with regard to foreign terrorists. All that data collection is about giving police more power to investigate after the fact. And any terrorist worth his salt is careful to stay out of this database.

This is nothing but preemptive cover-you-ass by Obama. Because if a terror event were to happen, he knows and we know that there would be no rational discussion of how it could have been prevented. The right-wingers would be all over him for anything he might have done to limit this program.

But here's the thing. They are going to blame him anyway, so he should just go ahead and do the courageous thing. And he should sell it to the public.

But we all know he won't do that. He is the ultimate pragmatist. Ain't his problem in 3 years. Three years closer to totalitarian government? Well, we'll just have to deal with that.

[Cha]

51. Thank you for posting that, Grassy Knoll.. I know

damn well he's doing everything in his power to keep another terrorist attack from happening.

[jimlup]

54. I think there is some truth to this sentiment but ...

Frankly W. was drunk and asleep at the wheel and dreaming of missile defense and war fantasy with Iraq in the lead up to 9/11.

Could surveillance of the NSA scandal lead to actionable intelligence? Perhaps, I think we should consider revising our judicial standards and putting more oversight on the problem. Yes, allow intelligence surveillance but not blanket surveillance.

[flamingdem]

55. Yes, this is what I feel too

He's a very protective person by nature, and just think of what he hears about that we don't know.. as far as near misses, potential for problems..

[neverforget]

57. As long as it has a "D" next to his name, I'm cool with it. But when the "R"s are in charge again

no way. Then it's overreach and Unconstitutional. I like my spies with "D" because I can trust them unlike those other spies.....

[kickysnana]

58. The trouble with thinking of this only politically will be our downfall. This is our only chance.

Last edited Thu Jun 13, 2013, 04:21 AM - Edit history (1)

We here on DU knew about the Arabs taking flying lessons before 911. We knew the FBI knew and were doing nothing (Mossoui). We were told that there was a civil war in US intelligence and the people who wanted to win wanted what we have now. 911 did not happen because of poor intelligence it happened because intelligence went politically rogue and gave the Neo-cons their Pearl Harbor which all the rest hangs on. We assumed that Saint John who became head of security at the Twin Towers after his whole middle east department was abruptly closed, agents outed and contacts burned, was one of the losers

The President did not only not do anything to stop these monsters he helped and encouraged the expansion of their powers. As President we have to assume he knows these thing are gong on and he has decided to act a President not be the leader we really need at this point in our history.

What the corrupt intelligence agencies are doing will not make us any safer. It is only easier for people to get information to use against us globally or individually because Private Contractors are doing the looking and no-one is policing the private contractors.

Intelligence needs to be downsized, depoliticized, pulled back into the government and under the control of the American people through their President and Congress. Cut off the funding, put other people in charge, make it someones priority. It wasn't even a thought in this Administration to fix this and I am not entirely sure why but I am not going to give the man a pass because he has a D by his name and talks well.

It is that simple. It is that urgent or we are a footnote in history before we descend totally into the dark side of having gotten power and destroyed ourselves by using it badly and stupidly.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

59. It you can't get a sip from a fire hose, squandering money to build a spy Niagara Falls is wasteful.

What do these undemocratic trillion-dollar surveillance programs get for us?

"These programs falsely purport to get "novel intelligence from massive data." (In fact, NIMD is the actual, self-explanatory name of one such program). Few within the national intelligence community complained about the wrongfulness, illegality or ineffectiveness -- let alone the waste and fraud -- of programs that create billions in profit for private surveillance contractors, technology experts and intelligence operatives and analysts.

"But there's no evidence the NIMD theory has worked. Researchers long ago concluded that the NIMD-type promise of detecting and accurately stopping terrorists through massive data collection was simply not possible.

"Think about how Bush administration officials defended themselves from not following up on the incredibly specific intelligence warnings urgently going to Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet and National Counterterrorism Director Richard Clark in the months leading up to 9/11. Their common response back then was something along the line of: intelligence is like a fire hose, and you can't get a sip from a fire hose. There was apparently too much for top officials to even read the key memos addressed to them.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/11/opinion/rowley-nsa-surveillance/index.html

What do we get? Someone, a number of someones are going to get very rich. And they will get rich at the expense of others.

Eisenshower said in his farewell speech:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

[woo me with science]

69. Great post. nt

[JDPriestly]

61. This program violates the Constitution in my opinion. Therefore, in

my opinion it is illegal. And the reason it violates the Constitution is that it chills our exercise of our rights under the Constitution. This is a big no-no.

In United States and Canadian law, the term chilling effects refers to the stifling effect that vague or excessively broad laws may have on legitimate speech activity.

An example of the "chilling effect" in Canadian case law can be found in Iorfida v. MacIntyre where the constitutionality of a criminal law prohibiting the publication of literature depicting illicit drug use was challenged. The court found that the law had a "chilling effect" on legitimate forms of expression and could stifle political debate on issues such as the legalization of marijuana.[3] The court noted that it did not adopt the same "chilling effect" analysis used in American law but considered the chilling effect of the law as a part of its own analysis.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_%28law%29

[woo me with science]

70. [phone]

[Jamaal510]

62. Finding the right balance of security and personal freedoms

is tougher than many people on the sidelines think.

[pnwmom]

67. +1. n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

64. we could stop child abuse by putting digital cameras and microphones in every house in America

Given the micro-technology that is available today at minimal cost - we could really do this within a few years - if not right away. Certainly a lot more harm is caused by child abuse than by terrorism. Imagine a word where domestic abuse has forever been eradicated. Wouldn't this intrusion into privacy be small price to pay? After all people who are not doing anything wrong would have nothing to fear.

But then again, does anyone really want to live like that?

[MrSlayer]

80. What would he need one for?

The first one accomplished all the goals of the American based global fascists. Another one isn't necessary.

[ForeignandDomestic]

81. Exactly!

And to think all those years I was angry about Bush & Cheney invasions apon my civil liberties and a blatant disregard of the constitution, they were merely just trying to keep me safe, talk about a revelation!

[Laelth]

82. Indeed. I suspect the President is concerned about that.

I still think, strategically, that he and the Democratic Party would be better served by standing up for the rights of the people and the Constitution.

-Laelth

[madokie]

84. Any and all happenings that are perceived as bad is Obama's fault

On the other hand anything that can be seen as good is in spite of Obama.
Kind of a loose loose for him.
Personally I don't like some of the things he does but overall I think he is sincere in trying to help us wade through this swamp the 1% have created for us.
We must not forget that Obama is human and will trip up from time to time like the rest of us do. Its what humans do. No one person can be the president of this vast country without stepping on some toes. I've had my toes stepped on but I take in it stride without getting all beside myself over it.

[theHandpuppet]

87. While visions of mushroom clouds danced in their heads...

Would you like a cookie with that Kool Aid?

[DCBob]

89. Well of course.. who would.

I suspect a vast majority of those who are highly critical of Obama now over this issue would have done the same thing were they sitting in the Oval Office.

[Hydra]

104. If you and others did

They would be unfit for the office, having violated the oath they swore to uphold and defend the Constitution.

9/11 could have been prevented by normal police work and the laws that were already on the books. In fact, people tried and the people at the top blocked it.

We don't need more knives in the drawer to deal with a non-issue.

[DCBob]

106. And if you didnt..

Last edited Thu Jun 13, 2013, 06:52 PM - Edit history (1)

you would be even more unfit for office for having neglected one of the most if not the most important responsibilities of being President.. national security.

[Hydra]

107. And if I didn't

Then I'd have to be President Bush telling his advisor that he's "covered his ass" and can shut up now(pre-9/11 laws).

The idea that we need to break the law to save people is antithetical to democracy. Is rule of law such a burden these days?

[DCBob]

111. President Obama is not breaking any laws..

based on all the information that has come out so far.

[Hydra]

112. Uh, yes he is

4th Amendment does not allow warrants for 100+ million people, unless "probable cause" now includes drinking water. Violating the Constitution is violating the highest law of the land and his highest duty...

...And frankly, if he thought this was legal, he would have done it in full daylight. Hell, he killed a 16yo American boy for being related to someone who talked bad about us, so if he's not willing to tell us what they are doing here, it must really be something.

[DCBob]

113. I disagree.

[Hydra]

116. Feel free to disagree

But the law is clear. They didn't amend the Constitution to remove or alter the 4th amendment, so spying on Americans without probable cause and due process is illegal. No amount of "Defending the Homeland" negates that.

Keep in mind that "defending the homeland" leads to ugly places, like the Japanese internment camps, so I wouldn't rest too comfortably on that ground.

[DCBob]

118. see below..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022981244

[Hydra]

120. I just wasted 4 minutes of my life

The cornerstone of that OP was that the President has the authority to wiretap foreign entities as he so desires. That's not what's going on here- the FISA court was asked for a blanket warrant for large blocks of people they couldn't possibly have probable cause for entirely within the US. That's a 4th amendment violation as big as if I as President ordered every house in your city searched and any documents therein seized for possible terrorist links.

If you see no reason to keep the constitutional protections that were absolutely necessary for it to be accepted as the law of the land, by all means- I'm sure we'll enjoy things as they make the laws up as they go along and have the military enforce it for them.

[DCBob]

136. Time is a terrible thing to waste!

I suppose SCOTUS will eventually have to decide on the legality of this.

[MrMickeysMom]

90. He had better decide what influences our relationship with the rest of the world, then...

To those who wanted something to believe in, it was an honest conversation with the rest of the planet.

That's not going to happen when you have most of the economy supporting militaristic operations which do anything but to support imperialism with the world economy.

The have's and the have-nots... have you noticed where we got since Bush's LIHOP blunder of 9/11? Nothing to see here, Americans... nothing to fear if you've done nothing wrong.

What'd Bush say, now? .... It's a heck of a lot easier if he's the dictator? Heh-heh-heh-heh...

We must evolve, and this, "keep you safe" stuff had better be defined better than what is so vaguely implied in the OP.

[Autumn]

95. Yeah, because 911 was bush's fault.

The thing is, if Obama was handed a briefing, he would not ignore the fucking thing.

[datasuspect]

96. to paraphrase george carlin:

there's only one club (that runs shit) in this country and you ain't in it.

or something like that.

folks need to get real about shit.

the 2000 corporate coup never ended.

[Sheldon Cooper]

101. If Bush had simply heeded the warnings in the August 6th PDB, he may have prevented 9/11.

I trust Obama to heed warnings, but I don't think we need the level of intrusiveness that he's sanctioning.

[sibelian]

105. He doesn't seem to want anything on his watch, particularly.

Nice graphics, though.

[SomethingFishy]

109. Good. So when a daily brief appears on his desk that says "Bin Laden to attack US with Planes"

He can actually act on it instead of calling his friends and telling them they're getting the catastrophic event they needed to enace the PNAC plan..

[burnodo]

121. I don't want another 9/11

But it seems to me there must be a better way to go about it than an abject breach in civil rights.

[allin99]

124. and Bush didn't want another one..

so i guess we should never have been upset by the Patriot Act nor anything akin to it.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

126. but why now - only because there is big election coming up in 2014

surveillance has been happening for years yet the Republicans are pushing this now with the IRS scandal etc.

George Bush let the terrorists in. NORAD, the military, spooks etc. did virtually nothing to stop the attacks on 9/11. Yet they were spying on Amercan citizens.

[Grassy Knoll]

131. Yep, If you look around.....

a lot of Freepers and Ron Paul freaks have invaded this cool website, Divide and Conquer,
But some of my younger friends don't remember Bush, or the Patriot Act, It's all fake freak out.
It's the United States of Amnesia, to quote the late Gore Vidal.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

132. I think we should remind them of recent history

[Grassy Knoll]

135. Good luck with that.......

Fox news viewers are brain washed into thinking "Bush Protected Us"
how dare this black guy with a Muslim name keep us safe. It is the best
hypocrisy in the land of democracy, as it has been for decades.

[MichiganVote]

127. Sean Hannity is that you again?

NOBODY wants another 911 child and that has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. Duh.

[Grassy Knoll]

133. Really?........

Sean Hannity? A douche pickle who was for it under baby boots, and now
blames Obama?