NYT: 'Mr. Obama does not seem to understand that the nation needs to hear more than soothing words'

[Newsjock]

Source: New York Times
Editorial

President Obama, who seems to think the American people simply need some reassurance that their privacy rights are intact, proposed a series of measures on Friday that only tinker around the edges of the nation’s abusive surveillance programs.

He said he wants “greater oversight, greater transparency, and constraints” on the mass collection of every American’s phone records by the National Security Agency. He didn’t specify what those constraints and oversight measures would be, only that he would work with Congress to develop them. But, in the meantime, the collection of records will continue as it has for years, gathering far more information than is necessary to fight terrorism.

... Fundamentally, Mr. Obama does not seem to understand that the nation needs to hear more than soothing words about the government’s spying enterprise. He suggested that if ordinary people trusted the government not to abuse their privacy, they wouldn’t mind the vast collection of phone and e-mail data.

... As long as the N.S.A. believes it has the right to collect records of every phone call — and the administration released a white paper Friday that explained, unconvincingly, why it is perfectly legal — then none of the promises to stay within the law will mean a thing.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/10/opinion/a-weak-agenda-on-spying-reform.html

[ProSense]

1. What

If all Mr. Obama is inclined to do is tweak these programs, then Congress will have to step in to curb these abuses, a path many lawmakers of both parties are already pursuing. There are bills pending that would stop the bulk collection of communications data, restricting it to those under suspicion of terrorism. Other measures would require the surveillance court to make public far more of its work. If the president is truly concerned about public anxiety, he can vocally support legislation to make meaningful changes, rather than urging people to trust him that the dishes are clean.

...legislation is the NYT proposing the President support?

Wyden Statement on President Obama’s Proposed Reforms to the FISC and PATRIOT ACT
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023436039

Blumenthal Applauds President Obama’s Support For Special Advocate In FISA Courts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023435963

[JustAnotherGen]

3. Good question!

[ljm2002]

14. Well Wyden had something to say about that...

...from your OP:

Wyden Statement on President Obama’s Proposed Reforms to the FISC and PATRIOT ACT
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023436039

Notably absent from President Obama’s speech was any mention of closing the backdoor searches loophole that potentially allows for the warrantless searches of Americans' phone calls and emails under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I believe that this provision requires significant reforms as well and I will continue to fight to close that loophole. I am also concerned that the executive branch has not fully acknowledged the extent to which violations of FISC orders and the spirit of the law have already had a significant impact on Americans' privacy.

Of course your response fails to directly address any of the points made in the NYT editorial. Standard, tried and true deflection technique. Which is of course your prerogative. Just thought I would point it out.

[ProSense]

17. To the point

in my comment, the piece the editorial links to mentions that fact.

The president also threw his administration’s support behind a proposal to change the procedures of the secret court that approves electronic spying under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in order to make its deliberations more adversarial. The court, created in 1978, was initially envisioned to carry out a limited role of reviewing whether there was sufficient evidence to wiretap someone as a suspected foreign terrorist or spy.

"Of course your response fails to directly address any of the points made in the NYT editorial. Standard, tried and true deflection technique. Which is of course your prerogative. Just thought I would point it out."

In case you missed it, I did address a point: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023436837#post1

[ljm2002]

22. How very considerate of you...

...to post a link to the very post that I replied to.

Your post talked about some of Obama's proposed reforms, which as I noted, Wyden likes overall but still has some problems with. However, these proposals are being made in reaction to the brouhaha over NSA surveillance, and Congress already has

But just saying "What legislation is the NYT proposing the President support? "

evades the specifics in the editorial.

"There are bills pending that would stop the bulk collection of communications data, restricting it to those under suspicion of terrorism. Other measures would require the surveillance court to make public far more of its work. If the president is truly concerned about public anxiety, he can vocally support legislation to make meaningful changes"

While they do not name specific bills, there does seem to be a clue or two in the excerpt above regarding your question.

Which of the Congressional bills being proposed do you support? Or will you support only President Obama's proposals? If so, why are they better than current Congressional proposals?

[ProSense]

26. I actually

read Wyden's full statement, which contracdicts the NYT editorial.

“Many of the reforms proposed by the President stem from suggestions made by myself and my colleagues to deal with the severe threat to civil liberties posed by current surveillance authorities and programs. While more details are clearly necessary, the President’s proposals are certainly encouraging steps toward bringing about the kind of civil liberty protections that I and others have been working to achieve for several years.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023436039

[ljm2002]

69. Which of the Congressional bills being proposed do you support?

Or will you support only President Obama's proposals? If so, why are they better than current Congressional proposals?

[ProSense]

70. What a strange question

"Which of the Congressional bills being proposed do you support? Or will you support only President Obama's proposals? If so, why are they better than current Congressional proposals?"

Why would I "support only President Obama's proposals"? I support the President's proposals and those by Senators Blumental, Leahy and Udall.

You?

[Civilization2]

56. it seems PS gets paid by views,.. always non-responsive and deflective, and links to self,.

Debate is useful, this PS type of partisan hackery serves no useful purpose. Why PS does not just create a single post that says "l support every action of the Obama administration without question.", and link to it over and over, whenever anyone debates an action of the administration? It would be as interesting and useful as the debate so far,.. just an observation.

[ProSense]

68. Clownish conspiratorial drivel. n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

40. The NY Times would like it if Obama had the FBI kick in the door at the NSA...

It's required that the FBI dress as 1930's G-Men and go all "prohibition" and use fire axes on the servers.

[CakeGrrl]

2. "then Congress will have to step in to curb these abuses"

No shit, genius. Congress greenlighted the powers in the first place. It's not the President's doing to un-do them.

[ProSense]

6. Frankly,

"No shit, genius. Congress greenlighted the powers in the first place. It's not the President's doing to un-do them."

...there seems to be a lot of willful ignorance at play here. Why would they ignore that the President voiced support for such legislation?

The piece the editorial links to mentions that fact.

The president also threw his administration’s support behind a proposal to change the procedures of the secret court that approves electronic spying under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in order to make its deliberations more adversarial. The court, created in 1978, was initially envisioned to carry out a limited role of reviewing whether there was sufficient evidence to wiretap someone as a suspected foreign terrorist or spy.

This is also the same NYT editorial board that called for Snowden's extradition.

NYT editorial: What’s the Point of a Summit?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023419234

[freshwest]

82. Quit spreading your liberal biased reality crap! Facts, schmatz. We want a dictator!

"I adhere to the radical ideology of Chairman Meow"

What's the hold up, Obama? Just do it! Your legions of feline followers await your command to pounce on the imperialist running dog lackeys of Congress!

We'll shut down the *Hiss!* government until we get our way! Wait, that would make us just like them. Never mind.

Okay, then, ProSense.

[BlueCheese]

7. Even if Congress authorized certain powers...

First, Congress seems surprised at how the administration has interpreted the laws. It's really not clear that Congress meant to allow the kinds of things that have been disclosed. The interpretations are secret, which is already very disturbing-- democracies should not have secret laws.

Second, even if Congress gave the president permission to do something bad, they didn't require him to do it. The law, even under the most tortured interpretation, does not say the NSA must collect everybody's phone records or international emails. Obama doesn't need Congressional action to stop these programs.

[roguevalley]

12. of course it is. everyone has to toe the constitution even if it means having

losing battles. he is using this shit for himself, shit that got nixon in trouble and stuff pulled out of bush and cheney's ass. He has the OBLIGATION to end this not expand it.

[liberal_at_heart]

4. he's been promising more transparency since the beginning of his first term. Haven't seen any proof

of it yet. In fact, his administration seems to get less transparent with every passing year.

[BlueCheese]

5. I really don't understand why he's so passionate about continuing the security state.

What accounts for the switch from Candidate Obama?

More importantly, do these officials really not understand why the public finds these programs so disturbing? I have a hard time understanding why they're so tone-deaf about this. It doesn't matter if we know a little more about these programs. The problem is the programs themselves.

[Amonester]

23. Follow the money, maybe.

Not HIS money, but perhaps many of the Democratic Party's private contractors' contribution money? Hmm?

Like, get private money out of politics first?

[DirkGently]

8. I think he sometimes believes words are enough.

Beautiful speechmaking is one of Obama's political superpowers, and he knows it.

He sometimes leans to heavily on it, however.

[cantbeserious]

24. Money Speaks Louder Than Words

eom

[DirkGently]

36. Yes. And it takes political capital to make

policies that are not comfortably supported by the existing power structures. Wall Street and the burgeoning surveillance industry are two areas in which the President has felt he either could not make a difference, or did not need to risk attempting it.

The NSA leaks have shifted that balance.

[Maedhros]

49. It's a short step from "Money Trumps Peace"

to "Money Trumps Civil Rights."

[tblue]

59. They have bought him a lot of mileage.

People list as his achievements things like, "He made a speech on (some subject)."

It's not an accomplishment if all it is is talk.

[DirkGently]

61. I'm ready to see him follow through.

Maybe the public outcry will give him enough political cushion to stick his neck out this time.

[tblue]

97. Yeah. Any day now.

[JimDandy]

67. That crutch he's leaning on is crippling us, though. n/t

[Catherina]

9. Don't forget the dorky website lol

"if ordinary people trusted the government not to abuse their privacy, they wouldn’t mind the vast collection of phone and e-mail data."

He could not be more mistaken but that's his problem, not mine.

[tom_kelly]

19. Right on

Remember too, the many contractors with their thousands of employees that have the access to these systems. Just a bad, bad situation.

[quinnox]

10. At this point, Obama's words are only working on the "Amen!" crowd

which is increasingly dwindling.

[mick063]

28. You don't mince words.

And since I have long departed the "amen" crowd, I am in full agreement.

I trusted him with maintaining Social Security. Instead, he proposed to weaken it at every opportunity. It was the trust lost there, that has caused me to not trust anything to this man.

I simply do not trust him. Concentrate on your library Mr. President and just leave everything to the next administration.

[quinnox]

33. yup, that whole social security austerity fiasco pissed a lot of duers off

Good post.

[tblue]

48. Opening your eyes is the first step.

Even though it sucks to be in the know.

[LittleBlue]

62. +1

[Doctor_J]

86. It's been long string of betrayals

Leaving Siegelmann in jail, agreeing with the mass firings of RI school teachers, ignoring the WI labor contest, extending the Bush tax cuts, agreeing to christian-only prayer at government meetings, ... The few that remain in the "amen" crowd are really out to lunch

[Cha]

11. PBO is doing "more than soothing words" if the NYT would get their

head out of their ass and see what is actually happening.

[roguevalley]

13. given that he is using this stuff against our people, he isn't doing anything.

proposing to do shit and doing it are two different things.

[Cha]

16. PBO is trying to keep us safe.. I have no problem with that.

[TransitJohn]

31. Where have I heard that before?

[Cha]

38. I don't care where you've heard it before.

I happen to be well informed.

Your attempt at insulting me is a fucking dud.

[Maedhros]

51. The Leader is Good, the Leader is Great

[Enthusiast]

76. +1..nt

[Enthusiast]

75. LMAO!

Well played!

[Marr]

43. Oh, gag. /nt

[Hydra]

63. Just like Bush and Cheney were "keeping us safe"?

Hell, it's even by the same methods...

[roguevalley]

71. you should. its unconstitutional

to give up freedom for the illusion of security isn't either. the words you just posted are the same ones Bushbots and Cheney types used.

[MattSh]

83. With an average of 32 posts a day...

every day, for the last 11 years, I'd say you're doing a pretty good job of keeping yourself safe. Unless you're afraid of someone attacking you through your computer.

[Doctor_J]

87. Exactly what the right wingers said about Bush

do you see the hypocrisy in your statements? Or does even that elude you?

[SammyWinstonJack]

96. heh.

[zeemike]

18. He has been purposing to close Gitmo for 5 years now.

and it is still there and we are still torturing those people...and probably will never stop it or close the place.

But he has purposed to cut SS benefits for old people...I bet that gets done.

[Cha]

47. Oh not that shit again.. you guys need to get a clue and stop spreading

ignorance.

[Maedhros]

52. Educate yourself.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/opinion/reprieve-mos-def-gitmo-force-feeding

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/02/guantanamo-detainees-cleared_n_3188255.html

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-federal-judge-urges-obama-to-address-force-feeding-guantanamo-hunger-strikers/1697738.html

These people have been cleared of all charges of wrongdoing, but they are still being held in Gitmo. Obama could have them released tomorrow.

[Cha]

54. You educate yourself

[Maedhros]

58. I have kept up on what's happening at Guantanamo Bay.

You, however, appear to revel in one-sentence deflections.

Welcome to the ignore list!

[tblue]

53. Maybe next president.

My understanding is that one reason for this was refusing to send Yemeni prisoners to Yemen. I don't know where that stands now. Do you? Also, O's alternative to Gitmo was never to let the innocent go free, but to put them, and all the others there, in facilities on the mainland. This president either won't or can't get it done. Maybe nobody can, but I wish he'd told us that. What are we supposed to think? Better luck next time?

[madrchsod]

64. the congress-republicans-will not give him the money to close it

we tried to get a vacant state prison in illinois as the new gitmo but the outside groups put the pressure and money to kill the deal. another problem is no one wants a some of these people back in their country. the torture serves no propose other than cruel and unusual punishment.

[MisterP]

15. action is for racist Commie-Nazi-libertarian-Democrats!

[loyalsister]

20. "Mr. Obama does not seem to understand"

What a condescending headline! Forget the content. I son't remember such headlines about Bush- probably because the questioning his intellect was a given. This one seems to invite the supposition that "maybe he's not as smart as we thought?"

[DeSwiss]

27. Bush and Obama BOTH deserve such a headline.

- Because of its truth.

[Cha]

39. Yes, it's a stupid condescending headline from the NYT that brought us Judy Miller.

and the war on Iraq.

PBO is a whole hellava lot smarter that those sitting around pouring venomous whines on the internet. and that goes for the freaking nyt, too.

[markpkessinger]

46. Perhaps it was condescending; so were the President's remarks

His "proposals" (if you can even call them that -- there was nothing specific on the table) amount to little more than, as The Times suggested, "tinkering at the margins," and do not begin to address the concerns many of us have about the surveillance state. I can hardly think of anything that could be more condescending to the public than telling us, basically, that he had simply forgotten to tell us he had "done the dishes."

[questionseverything]

84. well at this point

since most everything is so secretive we really do not know if those dishes are done or not

our goverment was founded on a system of checks and balances....that has been denied since congress is not even allowed to know the entirety of the program and the few that know some details are not allowed to share those details with "we the people"...the judiciary has served as a rubber stamp on the exec and its rules are secret too...not to mention as we learned with the dea story,these programs are being used MORE for ordinary crime than to fight terrorists

GEESH sorry that is such a word salad but it is such a mess it is hard to know where to start

i still want to support current admin and if he can clean this up and get the MIC to stop abusing the 4th amendment he will be remembered well

[tblue]

55. I bet they chose those words carefully.

Don't want to put words in their mouth, but I bet this phrase was a modification of something much more pointed. Maybe a polite way of saying something like, "He is royally effing up."

[Doctor_J]

88. You seriously don't remember the NYT bashing Bush?????

WTF is wrong with you Kool-Aid drinkers? Are you now going to tell me the NYT is doing this because they're racists?

[Skittles]

21. AWWWWW but he gives such purty speeches

*INDEED*

[DeSwiss]

25. Soothing words = BULLSHIT

''Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.''~Frederick Douglass

- Why is it that must we constantly re-learn the same lessons?

K&R

[Little Star]

78. ....

[Smarmie Doofus]

29. Alas, there is a great deal that he doesn't understand. And if you're so far gone that you have to

be guided back to the real world by the editorial bd. of the NY Times , take it as a sign: it's time to take stock.

Who *are* you?

[TransitJohn]

30. So when can we expect the sliming of the NYT to commence?

They're obviously racist libertarian Paul-bots who didn't get their pony.

[99th_Monkey]

34. You didn't hear it from me

but word on the street is that Alex Jones and Rand Paul are secretly
in negotiations to buy the NYTimes.

[TransitJohn]

37. I can totally see that.

[99th_Monkey]

32. Thank you NYTimes!! nt

[totodeinhere]

35. And then we have Ezra Klein's take on this. "Edward Snowden should be hailed as a hero."

What makes us different from other countries is not simply our ability to secure our nation,” Obama said. “It’s the way we do it, with open debate and democratic process.”
If that’s so, then Edward Snowden should be hailed as a hero. There’s simply no doubt that his leaks led to more open debate and more democratic process than would’ve existed otherwise.

No reasonable person can accept Obama's assertion that "absent Snowden, we would have gotten to the same place..." Come on now President Obama. If it hadn't been for Edward Snowden we would not be having an intense nation debate about the efficacy of surveillance. Edward Snowden did this nation a great service.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/09/edward-snowden-patriot/

[Mass]

57. Between Ezra Klein and John Lewis, I take John Lewis any day and he said Snowden was not a hero.

I like Ezra Klein, but he has been a pundit for his entire life (that is short. He is not even 30) and lacks experience in real life.

This said, I also think he is wrong. The discussion about this issue is virtually non existent except in a few very professional circles (who mostly have a hard time understanding the outrage about something they already knew, even though some of them disagreed and are happy to see people speaking about it.

For the rest, it is the same political circus everywhere, with name calling, indignation, but few solutions. Are people ready to accept any trade off for their safety? If yes, which ones? If not, are you ready to assume the risks? This is what needs to be discussed, not whether Snowden is a hero or a traitor.

BTW, what about other attacks to our freedom, particularly for the poorest among us. The worse attacks are not the Internet surveillance, but stop and frisk, drug tests for welfare, tasering of people for doing very little wrong, ... So, you who are ready to speak about that too, or are you going to be like Ezra Klein, Joan Walsh, Jonathan Alter, and all the DC crowd who is not interested about talking about that. They will never be subjected to these attacks, so why would they care?

[liberal_at_heart]

73. how about if instead of following what someone else thinks, I think for myself.

John Lewis is obviously a great activist and has served our country well. That does not mean no one can ever disagree with him. I respect John Lewis but I disagree with him on Snowden. Snowden has also provided a great service to the country by exposing not only the over reach of the NSA but the complete secrecy in which all of this has taken place.

[Enthusiast]

77. Excellent point.............nt

[Little Star]

79. +1

[Nay]

80. Thank you. Come on, everybody, Snowden doesn't have to go down any other road except

his own. I'm appalled at all the posters who are discussing HOW he is making his protest and ignoring WHAT his protest is about. I don't give a shit if he didn't follow lockstep with 1960's civil disobedience 'rules'! Who gives a shit??? I don't care if he really IS a 'coward'! I want to see and evaluate, and for everyone to see and evaluate, the information he has brought forth.

The idea that he has to make his stand in any specific way is idiotic. It is a way to divert attention from his message. Period.

[NRaleighLiberal]

41. Trust must be earned. Period. n/t

[EC]

42. That's not the title of the article.

I didn't think the NYT would refer to the President as Mr.

I thought when we post from articles, the correct title was supposed to be used?

[quinnox]

44. incorrect, the title can be whatever the duer wants in general discussion

that rule only applies to the Late Breaking news forum.

[Journeyman]

92. The NYT *always* refers to the President as "Mr" on second reference. . .

been that way since at least the 1950s, when the AP Style Book was adopted by most news services.

In this editorial alone, he's identified as "President Obama" in the first paragraph, and after that as "Mr Obama" in the fifth paragraph, the second reference to him, and again in the last paragraph.

And given space limitations in headlines, newspapers will refer to the President by only his title, or even just his last name with no disrespect intended to either the office or the person.

[EC]

93. I know that.

but not in a title.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Oh wow...this is not going well

[Civilization2]

60. It is all good and on the up and up,. trust us, we are spying on you for your own good!

Funny how when people get caught doing something, they claim they where going/trying to stop,..

Go back to sleep America, you government is in control again,. Go back to sleep America,.. -Bill Hicks

[AppleBottom]

81. Bad citizen, Obey or be deemed a traitor. nt.

[AppleBottom]

65. I actually thought Obama's press conference today was more fear mongering than soothing. nt.

[Warren DeMontague]

66. If the NSA is helping the DEA monitor and arrest drug users, there's GOTTA be a good reason!!!!!!!!!

Last edited Sat Aug 10, 2013, 04:28 PM - Edit history (1)

[pacalo]

72. Damn straight.

[Fire Walk With Me]

74. Are people starting to begin to come to realize that Obama says one thing and does another?

And that his actual agenda (meaning: actions) is aligned with the plutocracy/plutonomy? I suppose that's a start, albeit several years late.

(Anyone who doesn't know what I mean search Obama's words on Trayvon Martin and then his exceedingly supportive words for the unConstitutional racist Ray Kelly, whom Obama may be priming to head DHS, an utter catastrophe in the making.)

[Doctor_J]

85. sadly, tender hearted speeches and republican policies are all he is

good at. A tragedy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

89. Just more CYA and PR.

[WillyT]

90. K & R !!!

[indepat]

91. Why wouldn't all Americans trust their government to always do the right thing when it can be relied

on to almost always cow to the far-right's thingy?

[treestar]

94. Them what does it need to hear?

Boy we are a needy bunch.

[ProSense]

95. Imagine,

the EFF did a better job at analysis than the NYT.

EFF analysis of NSA announcements: Devil's in the details.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023439446