Eugene Robinson: "I Just Wish Our Government Would Stop Lying - We Can Handle The Truth"

[kpete]

I don’t believe government officials when they say the National Security Agency’s (NSA) surveillance programs do not invade our privacy. The record suggests that you shouldn’t believe them, either.
We can handle the truth on NSA spying
by Eugene Robinson


It pains me to sound like some Rand Paul acolyte. I promise I’m not wearing a tinfoil hat or scanning the leaden sky for black helicopters. I just wish our government would start treating us like adults — more important, like participants in a democracy — and stop lying. We can handle the truth.

..................

I accept that the administration officials, Justice Department lawyers, federal judges, FBI agents and NSA analysts involved in the phone surveillance and other programs are acting in good faith. The same is true of members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, who are supposed to be providing oversight. But honorable intentions are not enough — especially when we know that much of what these honorable officials have told us is false.

The biggest lie of all? That the American people don’t even deserve to be told what their laws mean, much less how those laws are being used.

...............
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-we-can-handle-the-truth-on-nsa-spying/2013/07/04/76ef2c92-e408-11e2-a11e-c2ea876a8f30_story.html?hpid=z2

[xchrom]

1. du rec.

[tridim]

2. I agree, but I don't agree that "we can handle the truth"...

Not even close.

People not being able to handle the truth is why Faux Newz and organized religion exist and thrive.

[Jackpine Radical]

13. well, SOME of us can handle the truth.

The same ones who saw through the WMD, who opposed NAFTA, who understood what happened to Gore 2000 & Kerry 2004…

As for the rest of us, I tend to think of them as being stuck at a developmental stage where they require certainty & a belief that Daddy/God/Generalized Authority knows best. They're gonna be what they are until we figure out some way to help them progress through more stages of cognitive & moral development.

[HooptieWagon]

26. Correction: We'd be outraged if we knew the truth.

Which is why it's kept from us. A whole lot of political careers and corporate $ could be at stake if the truth got out.

[marions ghost]

3. Agree completely --we are treated like children by the govt

Gene also says:

"Also untrue is President Obama’s assertion that the NSA surveillance programs are “transparent.” They are, in fact, completely opaque — or were, until Snowden started leaking the agency’s secrets.

By what authority does the government collect data on our private communications? We don’t know. More accurately, we’re not permitted to know.

A provision of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to seek warrants “requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.”

Seizing records that pertain to an investigation is not the same thing as compiling a comprehensive log of billions of domestic phone calls. How has the law been stretched — I mean, interpreted — to accommodate the NSA’s wish to compile a record of our contacts, associations and movements? The government refuses to tell us."

[KoKo]

7. That was a good read...and hopefully other's will pick up on what he says..

Reading some of the comments on the article at WA PO shows that many more are awakening and moving off of Snowden as the issue. That's hopeful.

[skepticscott]

8. Most people ARE children

Why do you think politicians always tell people what they WANT to hear, rather than what they NEED to hear? Because that's what gets them elected. People don't want to be told that sacrifices are necessary, they don't want to be told that things are going to get worse. They want happy talk.

[DeSwiss]

4. Eugene, ''handling the truth......''

...has got to mean incarcerating the perps or it's all a wash. And you know, and I know that ain't gonna happen. Wall Street and DC don't do time, generally speaking.

- Nice thought tho......

K&R

[uponit7771]

5. ummm, no...not really, if the "government' told the truth and it wasn't as bad as the MSM said it wa

...than most people wouldn't believe them anyway.

[heaven05]

6. ???

Most amerikans don't want the truth. "Can't handle the truth!!!!!!!!". Couldn't help that one. 47% CANNOT, will not accept the truth. That's the percentage that voted for ROMSHIT! 9% don't know what to believe. The rest may be able to handle the truth, but a majority of those can't handle what it would take to make the truth fashionable again. My take on this whole mess called Amerikkka, right or wrong.

[flpoljunkie]

9. Thanks for the post, kpete, and thank you Mr. Robinson!

[The Straight Story]

10. What the NSA really thinks about FISA and warrants within the US

What the NSA really thinks about FISA and warrants within the US

Yet the Fourth Amendment is clearly not always at issue when NSA or another intelligence agency acts, and the FISA surely never sought to encompass all activities of the NSA within its coverage. Rather, the definitions of the term "electronic surveillance" contained in the statute have always affected just a portion of NSA's signals intelligence mission. Indeed, by far the bulk of NSA's surveillance activities take place overseas, and these activities are directed entirely at foreign countries and foreign persons within those countries. All concerned agree, and to my knowledge have always agreed, that the FISA does not and should not apply to such activities. When NSA undertakes surveillance that does not meet any of the definitions of electronic surveillance contained in the FISA, it does so without any resort to the court and without reliance on a showing of probable cause.

...

Because of the way the definitions of "electronic surveillance" contained in the current statute are constructed, the answers to several questions are relevant to the determination of whether a FISA order is required in order for NSA to engage in electronic surveillance. These questions concern the nationality of the target, the location of the target, the means by which the target is communicating, and the location from which the surveillance will be carried out. We believe that the truly significant question on this list is the one that gets to the heart of the applicability of the constitution- the location of the target of surveillance. The other questions reflect a common sense approach to 1978 technology that worked well in 1978, but that today appears to have unintended effects.

...

The legislative history makes clear with respect to that definition that when the communications of U.S. persons located in the United States are targeted, the surveillance is within the scope of FISA irrespective of whether the communications are domestic or international and likewise irrespective of where the surveillance is being carried out. 2 The same legislative history regarding that first definition of electronic surveillance makes equally clear, however, that the statute does not regulate the acquisition of communications of U.S. persons in the United States when those persons are not the actual targets of the surveillance. 3

We think these principles, clearly and artfully captured in parts of the legislation and in the legislative history, should extend to all surveillance under the FISA. The need for a court order should not depend on whether NSA's employees conducting the surveillance are inside the United States or outside the United States, nor should it depend on whether the communications meet the technical definition of"wire communications" or not. These factors, never directly relevant in principle but once relevant in the context of yesterday's telecommunications infrastructure, are today utterly irrelevant to the central question at issue - who are the people requiring protections.

...

In addition to changes to the definition of electronic surveillance, other changes in the bill are important as well. First, and most crucially, the Government must retain a means to compel communications providers to provide information to the Government even in the absence of a Court Order. The Bill would authorize the Attorney General to require such cooperation, and would also insulate from liability those companies that assist the IC in preventing future attacks on the United States.

More here:

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/speeches_testimonies/26july06_dirnsa.shtml

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023146819

[kentuck]

11. Eugene is wrong.

The American people cannot handle the truth.

[winter is coming]

12. The issue isn't really whether we can handle the truth. It's whether the NSA can.

They're afraid that if we knew what they were doing, we might want to put a stop to it.

[LuvNewcastle]

15. That's it.

If Americans knew the extent to which they've been manipulated by the people in power, there would be mobs with pitchforks and torches all over the place. Every time I learn a little something about the 1%, it's never good. The secrets they're protecting have to do with their wealth and standing in the world, not any kind of secret knowledge that the public can't or won't accept. They aren't protecting us from the boogeyman. Those people are no more essential than the King of France or the Czar of Russia.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

19. Google Peterloo

[LuvNewcastle]

21. Thanks for the suggestion.

People have made terrible sacrifices in the past so that others could have better lives. That's why it's so important that we don't lose what those people gave their lives for.

[rhett o rick]

14. I find this statement very incomplete.

"I accept that the administration officials, Justice Department lawyers, federal judges, FBI agents and NSA analysts involved in the phone surveillance and other programs are acting in good faith." What the hell does "good faith" mean? The implication is that they are acting on behalf of the 100%. That's not possible. The 1% have conflicting goals from the 99%. So are they acting on good faith for the 1% or the 99%? While some may be looking out for (acting in good faith) the 99%, I'd wager that most are foremost looking out for themselves. And since most have strong ties to the 1%, I believe that most are looking out for the 1%. Now in some cases they might help the 99% in areas that dont directly impact the 1%, but overall they are acting in good faith to strengthen the 1%. I think the evidence of this is what has happened to the 99% in the last three decades.

Do Americans "deserve" to know the truth? I am not sure they do. If they have their fingers in their ears, eyes closed, and humming the theme from the Dr. Phil show, do they "deserve" the truth?

Most Americans are blissful in their ignorance and want to stay that way.

[Eddie Haskell]

16. "The consent of the governed is not consent if it is not informed."

Last edited Fri Jul 5, 2013, 03:38 PM - Edit history (1)

Sometimes, I wonder if Americans want to be informed. It's so much easier to plead ignorance; besides our government doesn't care if it has our consent. When Congress has a 10% approval rating and a 90% re-election rate, why should they?

Stupid is as stupid does.

[ctsnowman]

17. K & R

And to all the people posting about people "can't handle" the truth. I suspect that many people know the truth and have opted out of the system. That's why St. Ronnie was elected in a landslide with 27% (IIRC) of eligible voters.

[L0oniX]

18. Try lying to your spouse and see how long it takes to regain trust. Does the gov think...

it will take less time for us to regain trust if the lie is a small one? After the crowning all time lie of WMD's in Iraq ...only a fool would trust this government ever again. 100's of thousands needlessly died because of that lie. It is unforgivable.

[dickthegrouch]

20. Protections for Free Speech should only encompass the truth

There should be an absolute prohibition in politics and public life of anything except the truth.

There are no degrees of truth. Spin and innuendo are not truth. Give us the truth or get out of politics (this is not aimed at kpete, it's aimed at the GOP and all those supposedly god-fearing Christians out there who can't resist bearing false witness at every opportunity).

[felix_numinous]

22. This is the time to stop lying

when it's obvious the public has moved way past the old platitudes and propaganda of recent years. I am sure that all the publicists are running around in circles trying to put a lid on all future leaks. The usual damage control that has worked so well in the past has run out.

It's become obvious -- for whatever reason 911 occurred-- not only was the Patriot Act written before, but according to Wesley Clark the Pentagon had a plan laid out to dominate the Middle East.

The citizenry WENT ALONG with it, the whole Home Security color coding BS and the whole Bush&Co abuse for eight long years. We demonstrated against the war but we bided our time until we could WORK THROUGH THE SYSTEM to elect, with hackable voting machines, our representatives.

And how to we get rewarded, but to have polls showing how unpopular the Patriot Act, surveillance, TSA voyeurism-- and corporate personhood are-- ignored.

We have stood by while ex-and future CEOs write laws enabling their immunity from the same laws Americans get arrested for.

And while many Americans have expressed themselves in disrespectful, racist and threatening ways-- the rest of us have strived to have a reasonable dialogue around these issues of mission creep.

WE DESERVE THE TRUTH -- not treated like children, like the RW neo con/ theocracy wanting/ authoritarian types operate. And we don't want to be treated like criminals, preyed upon by the private for profit prison business either.

The burden is NOT on the American people to prove our trustworthiness-- after all of our compliance and patience with this nonsense. It is a slap in the face to dare treat us as criminals during a time in history when corporate corruption has become so obvious.

None of us want to see violence, and the chaos often unleashed when too many people, each with their own valid and passionate issues-- which have built up over these long years-- head to the streets in anger. FEW of us want to destabilize our country, but what we ask for is a real and measurable retreat from corrupt corporate domination of our duly elected representation.

I think we are capable of peacefully assembling-- but the militarized police with new missions to profile all dissent as a crime, threatens this peace.

It took us a long time to get here, but I think Americans have had ENOUGH.

[Rex]

23. Actually looking over some of the reactionary posts here

I don't know if some HERE can handle the truth. They seem way into living in denial.

[Major Hogwash]

24. The latest polls show that 70% of Americans don't care about this issue.

That's a lot more than the handful of Greenwald admirers posting here every single day.

First it was Benghazi, then it was the IRS denying conservative groups tax-free status, and then it was the Faux Snooze reporter having his phone records subpoenaed by the federal government.

Then it was all the bitching at Michelle and how some thought it was appropriate to shout down the First Lady at a private fundraiser.
And now it is Greenwald's story that is being bandied about on a daily basis.

But, I liked this show the first time I saw it . . . when it was called Seinfeld!!

Because this is a story about nothing.
Greenwald has nothing.
Just like Boehnor.
Just like McConnell.
Just like Rand Paul.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. If that was true you'd post a link but it's not so you don't.

Not only is your number incorrect, there is no polling showing any percentage saying they 'don't care'.
If it was true, you'd post a link and some actual polling results. But it is not, so you don't.

[tblue]

27. Tsk. Racist.

Et tu, Eugene?

[Kurovski]

28. He approves of Pole-dancing.

I'm disgusted with his cartload of shamefulness.

[WillyT]

29. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!