If Obama Wanted an 'Open Debate' on NSA Spying, Why Thwart One for so Long?

[xchrom]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/14-5

Tim Cushing made one of my favorite points of [last] week in his Tuesday post "Former NSA boss calls Snowden's supporters internet shut-ins; equates transparency activists with al-Qaida", 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, twentysomethings who haven't talked to the opposite sex in five or six years", he equates transparency groups like the ACLU with al-Qaida.

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 twentysomethings with social anxiety online because, unlike the larger world, the internet gives those twentysomethings 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-Qaida.

[MotherPetrie]

1. K&R

[xocet]

2. President Obama likes only the principle of the open debate, not the practice thereof. n/t

[uponit7771]

5. Yeap, with purist left and winger right who in the hell can debate them?!

[xocet]

6. There are two problems with your argument.

The first problem is that you equate progressives, liberals and Democrats with RW people.

The second problem is that your argument simply defines debate as impossible and therewith abandons even the attempt to have a debate.

Your argument is an argument for not holding an open debate and, thus, it underscores my point.

[uponit7771]

7. Nope and nope

[xocet]

8. Interesting refutation. Ironically, you refuse open debate and strengthen my point.

Can you actually defend your argument?

[uponit7771]

18. No I don't equate the left with wingers, wingers are rabid and bigoted against facts

...where the left is ... less so.... the purist left maybe more so but still not to the level of not caring about the facts of the matter as wingers are.

No, I don't present a false negative...something can be done if practical but the purist left doesn't want practical they want now dammit or we'll bash consummately

On this issue that has been proven looking at the FACTS NOT in dispute; Obama spoke of issues conservative surveillance BEFORE snowglen...tacitly but done, there was no "increase government" bullshit that fudr memes have began lately.

Biggest thing is to get a congress that Obama can work with

[MNBrewer]

29. It's actually a very succinct analysis of your argument.

[Marr]

16. +1

And the unthinking response really does back up your point.

[Fire Walk With Me]

3. Why charge Snowden with 3 felonies and George W Bush and friends with NONE? n/t

[uponit7771]

4. Obama has said NOTHING about overeach in these agencies?! See, this is what I'm talking about

...when people just tell overt facts to fuck off..

How in the world are we supposed to begin a discussion from apparent adverse realities

[leftstreet]

11. You mean now, or when he was campaigning?

Or how about when he was a senator?

Obama pushed for tighter regulation of NSA surveillance as a senator
7 August 2013

Only five years ago, Obama was part of a group of legislators that supported substantial changes to NSA surveillance programs

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/07/obama-senator-nsa-surveillance-history

[uponit7771]

14. either, makes no difference. I can understand a reality check on his side on implementation but not

...a total change of direction which hasn't happened.

I believe there has been enough proof that Obama has been speaking on these issues before SnowGlen became opened their mouths

[L0oniX]

9. Obama pushed for tighter regulation of NSA surveillance as a senator - 2005

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023457047

2005 Obama Slammed Patriot Act; “Fishing Expedition Through Phone Calls, Emails…Gives People No Rights”
http://www.ironicsurrealism.com/2013/06/07/2005-obama-slammed-patriot-act-fishing-expedition-through-phone-calls-emails-gives-people-no-rights/

“…And if someone wants to know why their own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document – through library books that you read the phone calls you’ve made, the emails that you’ve sent – this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No judge will hear their plea, no jury will hear their case. This is just plain wrong. Giving law enforcement the tools they need to investigate suspicious activity is one thing – and it’s the right thing – but doing it without any real oversight seriously jeopardizes the rights of all Americans and the ideals America stands for.”

"Once in power, the ‘Patriot Act’ shoe was on the other foot. As Obama learned to love it and all the power that comes with it."

[uponit7771]

15. naw...naw...Obama aint done shit cause he aint fixed everything yet...soooo yeah...

[L0oniX]

17. Guess he should have cut back on all the stuff he said he would do ...during the campaigns too. n/t

[stupidicus]

10. yep

from the beginning that's why I've thought (for several reasons) that all the efforts to eliminate or diminish his role and responsibility for all of this are hopelessly flawed/erroneous.

For example:

Amy Goodman’s “Democracy Now!” gets an exclusive interview with Ladar Levison, who closed down his Lavabit encrypted email service rather than comply with Federal demands that he allow it to be monitored. Levison’s plight, whereby he was ordered to do something against his conscience without a warrant and then placed under a gag order not by a judge but by an arm of the executive, is clearly a violation of his constitutional rights. I’d like to point out that if Barack Obama and Eric Holder wanted, they could just instruct the FBI and the NSA not to behave this way. That Bush’s anti-Patriotic Act lets them do something doesn’t mean this administration has to.

The blurb for the show: http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/levison-lavabits-information.html

[L0oniX]

20. +1 ...I heard the radio show in my car yesterday too. Can't go without my daily dose of DN. n/t

[Maedhros]

26. The idea that Obama is somehow compelled to make the FBI/NSA/CIA/Military misbehave

is beyond ridiculous.

If Obama believes blanket surveillance is wrong, he could end it tomorrow.

If Obama believes that drone-strike double-taps at funerals and weddings are wrong, he could end them tomorrow.

If Obama believes that 60 Gitmo inmates cleared of all wrongdoing should be released, he could do it tomorrow.

[stupidicus]

34. exactly

which is why I've thought all claims about how little responsibility he owns is ridiculous.

I think some just find solace in that, because they don't wanna accept and acknowledge the ugly truth of the matter

[MisterP]

32. the effort is hopeless, actually--but that's not what matters: the intent is not to convince

Last edited Wed Aug 14, 2013, 03:25 PM - Edit history (3)

or even distract! it's to 1) delay and string along until it becomes a fait accompli (like with El Mozote or the Salvadoran Maryknoll rape-murders--first it was "Commie liar! not even <i>New Republic</i> believes you!" then "okay, we admit that this piece of old news was true: everyone knows, and it's best to forget and not do anything to make sure it never happens again": this could even happen with JFK and 9-11...) and 2) leave that idea hanging out there as part of the discourse, legitimating the idea and moving the borders of "legitimate discourse" to include it (thus enabling the constant move to the right)

the same thing happened with the "Mooslims are clitoris-whackin' gay-burnin' racial supremacists who'll take over the world and impose sharia on Wyoming" or "Social Security is bankrupt" tropes: in 2002 it would've just caused laughter on DU or DKos, and now it's everywhere

ditto the charter schools: they don't test better, cost more, and eventually get shut down--but beyond the tangible profits they make for their backers, each cycle of takeover further normalizes the notion that this is what should be done with schools

[stupidicus]

33. no doubt dude

it's always about baby steps so that we're not too shocked by the new doctrine

Many of us have witnessed this since the rise of the DLC and the slow sellout to the corporate/monied interests it was intended to result in.

I've long thought that the ever-increasing madness of the rightwingers (Pee Party, etc) is in part about using fear of them as means of washing it all the unpalatable BS down. As you might have noticed from the usuual suspects around here, that ranks high on their list of why we shouldn't be complaining about much of anything.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. How "open" is a debate when one side picks the "debaters"?

And, much of what their "debating" is kept secret?

Rather laughable attempt at CYA.

[Maedhros]

28. Well, you know how the media works:

One side claims that the sky is blue. Of course, to be fair and balanced, they invite someone from the other side that claims the sky is yellow. After a brief volley of talking points, the host announces that the sky has been determined to be green.

[WillyT]

13. K & R !!!

[DCBob]

19. Its not an easy topic to discuss openly..

Its a bit like having that first talk about sex with your kid... you want to put off as long as possible but you know you have to do it eventually.

[L0oniX]

21. So now after the NSA spys on us ...they want to have sex with us too?

[QuestForSense]

22. I hate to break it to you, but

they've been slipping it to us for several years now.

[Th1onein]

35. DUzy!

[Fuddnik]

24. Well, we're already fucked.

[Pholus]

30. Why do you think they refer to interception data as "touching" it?

[silvershadow]

23. Shhh....your reality is crashing into the narrative. nt

[xchrom]

27. yes -- i see that up thread.

the hysteria and angry frowning at 'purists'.

[Pholus]

31. The talking point of the day -- "far" left = "far" right = unreasonable

Added to a very Coulter-esque "I never could see why the right wingers claimed liberals hate 'Murika till now."

[NealK]

25. K&R