Former deputy chief of staff for Ron Wyden on the ways Obama didn't "welcome debate" on surveillance

[bigtree]

from Techdirt:

In a bit of fortuitous timing, this week we had asked former deputy chief of staff for Ron Wyden, Jennifer Hoelzer, to do our weekly "Techdirt Favorites of the Week" post, in which we have someone from the wider Techdirt community tell us what their favorite posts on the site were. As you'll see below, Hoelzer has a unique and important perspective on this whole debate concerning NSA surveillance, and given the stories that came out late Friday, she chose to ditch her original post on favorites and rewrite the whole thing from scratch last night (and into this morning) . . .


Jennifer Hoelzer's Insider's View Of The Administration's Response To NSA Surveillance Leaks

____ Tim Cushing made one of my favorite points of the week in his Tuesday post "Former NSA Boss Calls Snowden's Supporters Internet Shut-ins; Equates Transparency Activists With Al-Qaeda," when he explained that "some of the most ardent defenders of our nation's surveillance programs" -- much like proponents of overreaching cyber-legislation, like SOPA -- have a habit of "belittling" their opponents as a loose confederation of basement-dwelling loners." I think it's worth pointing out that General Hayden's actual rhetoric is even more inflammatory than Cushing's. Not only did the former NSA director call us "nihilists, anarchists, activists, Lulzsec, Anonymous, twenty-somethings who haven't talked to the opposite sex in five or six years," he equates transparency groups like the ACLU with al Qaeda.

I appreciated this post for two reasons:

First of all, it does a great job of illustrating a point that I've long made when asked for advice on communicating tech issues, which is that the online community is as diverse and varied as the larger world we live in. Of course, we are more likely to come across the marginal opinions of twenty-somethings with social anxiety online because, unlike the larger world, the Internet gives those twenty-somethings just as much of an opportunity to be heard as a Harvard scholar, a dissident protesting for democracy or General Hayden himself.

Sure, it can be infuriating to read scathingly hostile comments written by troubled individuals who clearly didn't take the time to read the post you spent countless hours carefully writing (not that that has ever happened to me) but isn't one of the things that makes the Internet so darn special its unwavering reminder that free speech includes speech we don't appreciate? Of course, that's a point that tends to get lost on folks -- like General Hayden -- who don't seem to understand that equating the entirety of the online world with terrorists is a lot like posting a scathing comment to a story without reading it. You can't expect someone to treat you or your opinion with respect -- online or anywhere else -- when you're being disrespectful. And I can imagine no greater disrespect for the concepts of transparency and oversight than to equate them with the threats posed by terrorist groups like al Qaeda.

But my main reason for singling out Tim's post this week is that Hayden's remark goes to the heart of what I continue to find most offensive about the Administration's handling of the NSA surveillance programs, which is their repeated insinuation that anyone who raises concerns about national security programs doesn't care about national security. As Tim explains this "attitude fosters the "us vs. them" antagonism so prevalent in these agencies dealings with the public. The NSA (along with the FBI, DEA and CIA) continually declares the law is on its side and portrays its opponents as ridiculous dreamers who believe safety doesn't come with a price."

. . . Which brings me to my next favorite Techdirt post of the week, Mike's Friday post entitled "Don't Insult Our Intelligence, Mr. President: This Debate Wouldn't Be Happening Without Ed Snowden," which is a much less profane way of summing up my feelings about the President's "claim that he had already started this process prior to the Ed Snowden leaks and that it's likely we would have ended up in the same place" without Snowden's disclosure.

"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."

I hope you won't mind if I take a moment to respond to that.

Really, Mr. President? Do you really expect me to believe that you give a damn about open debate and the democratic process? Because it seems to me if your Administration was really committed those things, your Administration wouldn't have blocked every effort to have an open debate on these issues each time the laws that your Administration claims authorizes these programs came up for reauthorization, which -- correct me if I am wrong -- is when the democratic process recommends as the ideal time for these debates . . .


(must read) more: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130810/09240524136/jennifer-hoelzers-insiders-view-administrations-response-to-nsa-surveillance-leaks.shtml

[dkf]

1. Incidence after incidence of obstruction in allowing full information to be discussed.

Boy I don't know what possessed Obama to pretend he was going to let us know about what he and this government are doing when the evidence is they were actively preventing meaningful discussion.

The deception is mind boggling.

These paragraphs are dead on:

I'd go even further than that and argue that a big part of the reason the American people are having a hard time trusting their government is that the public's trust in government is harmed every time the American people learn that their government is secretly doing something they not only assumed was illegal but that government officials specifically told them they weren't doing. Hint: When the American people learn that you lied to them, they trust you less.

I think it's hard for the American people to trust their President when he says he respects democratic principles, when his actions over the course of nearly five years demonstrate very little respect for democratic principles.

I think the American people would be more likely to trust the President when he says these programs include safeguards that protect their privacy, if he -- or anyone else in his administration -- seemed to care about privacy rights or demonstrated an understanding of how the information being collected could be abused. Seriously, how are we supposed to trust safeguards devised by people who don't believe there is anything to safeguard against?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130810/09240524136/jennifer-hoelzers-insiders-view-administrations-response-to-nsa-surveillance-leaks.shtml

[bigtree]

2. right on the money

. . . from what I consider an impeccable source.

[n2doc]

3. K n R nt

[Luminous Animal]

4. Trevor Timm for Politico: "Does Barack Obama think we’re stupid?"

That’s the only conclusion possible after watching Friday’s bravura performance, in which the president announced a set of proposals meant to bring more transparency to the NSA — and claimed he would have done it anyway, even if Edward Snowden, had never decided to leak thousands of highly sensitive documents to the Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald.

But even as he grudgingly admitted that the timing, at least, of his suggestions was a consequence of Snowden’s actions, the president declared, “I don’t think Mr. Snowden was a patriot.” When you look at what has changed over the last two months, though, it’s hard not to wonder, “What could be more patriotic than what Snowden did?”

First, the results: More than a dozen bills have already been introduced to put a stop to the NSA’s mass phone-collection program and to overhaul the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has re-interpreted the Fourth Amendment in secret, creating a body of privacy law that the public has never read, A half-dozen new privacy lawsuits have been filed against the NSA. The Pentagon is undergoing an unprecedented secrecy audit. U.S. officials have been caught deceiving or lying to Congress. The list goes on.

These actions have been accompanied by a sea change in public opinion about surveillance. Poll after poll has shown that, for the first time ever, Americans think the government has gone too far in violating their privacy, with vast majorities believing the NSA scooping up a record of every phone call made in the United States invades citizens’ privacy.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/edward-snowden-is-a-patriot-95421.html

[JayhawkSD]

7. Of course Barack Obama thinks we're stupid

He tells us, repeatedly, that we're fighting in Afghanistan to "deny them space in which to plan their attacks."

The first time he said that I let it go as meaningless rhetoric, but he has made it a regular statement, often reprated. No one with an IQ higher than a professional golf score could buy that, but he keeps right on saying it. The attack of 9/11 was planned in Germany and the perpetrators trained in Florida and Southern California. Subsequent (failed) attacks have been planned mostly in Yemen and Pakistan, but he expects us to listen to him babbling about how we are "fighting in Afghanistan to deny them space in which to plan their attacks."

There are many other examples, such as Friday's little treasure about reforming the security apparatus, which is not going to happen, and how he was going to do that even without Snowden's revelations, which is transparently absurd.

[WinkyDink]

10. The perps "trained" in Cheney's office.

[LuvNewcastle]

14. We are not going to get the truth from Obama on security/defense matters.

He will continue to lie until he's caught lying, just like most other Presidents we've had. No one should have the impression that he's different or exceptional.

[WinkyDink]

11. "Americans think..." "majorities believing...." THESE ARE FACTS OF LAW, AND NEED NO "BELIEF" SYSTEM.

The NSA HAS FLOUTED THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND HAS PROVEN TRUE BUSH'S REMARK: "IT'S JUST A G**D**N PIECE OF PAPER."

AND NOW IT'S ON OBAMA'S WATCH.

[deurbano]

20. Thanks. I thought these excerpts were interesting, too:

In his speech in May on national security, the president did indeed announce a review of surveillance policy. What he failed to mention, though, was that the very same speech was spurred by another leak — of the Justice Department white paper justifying drone strikes on Americans overseas. There’s been no change in transparency surrounding drone strikes since the speech, as Obama himself proved later in the press conference when he refused to confirm a drone strike took place in Yemen last week — there were several.

The fact is Obama has had years to initiate a debate about surveillance but instead has actively stifled it. Although, as he acknowledged Friday, he was a huge critic of the PATRIOT Act as a senator, his administration actively opposed privacy and oversight amendments in 2011. Similarly, in December 2012 — just eight months ago — the administration opposed all oversight fixes to the FISA Amendments Act. It passed unchanged with little debate.


Just how much has changed since Snowden went rogue?

Two cases tell the tale: In litigation over the administration’s secret legal interpretation of the Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act a few months ago, the government wouldn’t even give a page count of its opinion, let alone what it said. Similarly, a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit for the 2011 FISA court opinion ruling NSA activities unconstitutional led to the release of 30 pages completely redacted.

On Friday, the administration released a full white paper of its secret legal interpretation of Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which the NSA has used to vacuum up every domestic telephone record in the country without suspicion. The administration also announced that the 2011 FISA court opinion ruling some NSA surveillance unconstitutional will be released nine days after its Aug. 12 deadline.

[DirkGently]

23. Only relentless public pressure brings "change."

"We must form grass-root structures that would hold me and other elected officials more accountable for their actions." -- Barack Obama

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/16/660885/-Obama-hold-me-and-other-elected-officials-more-accountable#

[Mojorabbit]

24. +100 nt

[Dustlawyer]

5. K&R!!! General Hayden is probably behind all of this expansion! He is a Dick Cheney clone!

Obama could have been transformational but he chose to pay back the true rulers of our country (the people that own Congress, the Judiciary, and the media) for his position. He could have blown the lid off after being elected to a 2nd term! Instead he covers for Wall Street, the NSA, and the likes of powerful corporations like BP!

[cantbeserious]

6. Right On - Obama Obfuscation At Its Finest - Desecrating The 4th Amendment Daily

eom

[blackspade]

8. Excellent OP!

Thanks for posting.

[WinkyDink]

9. Obama's cynical disingenuousness on this matter reveals too much to me about his allegiances.

Like: NOT to the citizenry or to the Constitution.

Sue me.

[NJCher]

12. as I type...

Hayden is on Face the Nation doing the same thing.


Cher

[bigtree]

15. it's his baby

from Ron Fullwood (bigtree), awhile back:

Relying on 'Reasonable' Beliefs of Bush and Hayden (2006-05-09)


DU post on the article:

Hayden just told Sen. Feinstein that there is a "broader" standard in the 4th amendment than 'probable cause, ie: reasonableness.

That's an amazing example of this administration changing laws to fit their overreaching ambitions.

Hayden did this several times before this hearing. His, and the administration's, tortured interpretation of the 4th amendment goes to the heart of their justification for spying on Americans without a warrant. The FISA courts use the 'probable cause' standard in determining whether to approve wiretaps and surveillance of U.S. citizens. The Bush administration bypassed the courts and adopted this arguably lesser standard of 'reasonableness' . . .

[zeemike]

13. K&R

Something we all need to realize...the emperor really is naked just as he apears...despite what you are being told.

[Waiting For Everyman]

16. "It's the way we do it, with open debate and democratic process."

How can anybody debate laws that are secret? or court opinions that are secret? or 200,000 National Security Letters that come with gag orders attached? or questions that our own Representatives and Senators are not allowed to know the answers to? or labeling almost everything that our government is doing as "classified" simply to hide it from the public? Yeah howdy, those are some GREAT DEBATES we have about that stuff, aren't they? What is this, language nullification?

My favorite for unadulterated crass gall, is Senator Wyden's question as to a ballpark figure of how many Americans have their information in NSA's databases; answer: we won't tell you because that would be an invasion of those Americans' privacy! WTF!!!

To paraphrase Obama's quote, what do I hate most about the way Obama screws us over... It's the way he does it, as if we're stupid and he can shove us aside and do as he pleases, including making a joke out of our rights under our Constitution that he took an oath to defend and protect. This President is more imperial than Shrub was, which is hard to top.

It's the way you do it, alright, Mr. President. This statement of yours that I quoted is a prime example of it.

[hlthe2b]

17. I suspect he takes this as a personal affront that the Bushies* excesses were barely questioned....

and his administrations actions with respect to surveillance and all things "national security" are not similarly given a collective pass...

... and that probability--from a Democratic President and former constitutional law professor-- offends the hell out of me. I expected so much more from him.

[Catherina]

18. Thank you BigTree. Rec'd with enthusiasm. Agree that it's a MUST READ

During the debate itself, Wyden and Udall offered an amendment to declassify the Administration's legal interpretation of its Patriot Act surveillance authorities and, in a twenty minute speech on the Senate floor, Wyden warned that the American people would one day be outraged to learn that the government was engaged in surveillance activities that many Americans would assume were illegal, just as they were every other time the national security committee has tried to hide its questionable activities from the American people.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

19. It's the weekend. Are the Obama Defenders off?

[The Second Stone]

21. Turns out they were all professional DC insiders who are

on August recess. Manufactured consent indeed.

[hootinholler]

22. " If these aren't the moments the First Amendment was meant for, what are? "

Fucking A right they are!

K&R Maybe we can finally get some traction.

[stupidicus]

25. yep

that's why in part I've thought and argued from the beginning that he has more of a share of the ownership than many seem to think he does.