The President should separate himself from this NSA debate.

You are assuming he DIDN'T know what was going on and has been telling us it's no big deal because that's what he BELIEVES...?




seriously?


I agree we need to have some investigations and public accountability, reform, etc... but it ain't gonna happen, nope. They have us ALL right where they want us.

Why is that taken for granted?

soon. One of the worst things I would imagine a President has to "deal" with being surrounded by a bunch of yes men and only being supplied by one source of info.

but he wasn't able to discuss any of it until the Snowden affair. Obama knows at least as much as Wyden knows.

Defending the Constitution is the single most important job the President has. Nothing else is even close.

He should stop pretending he is using his expertise as a Harvard Law Grad and Constitutional Law Professor and actually start scrutizing it all.

to Obama himself.

Fair enough, although there is some credible reporting that suggests that Obama himself was targeted for wiretaps as early as 2004. Don't have links readily at hand, but Russell Tice (one of the NSA whistleblowers) has made the allegation.

I am assuming that the President of the United States has been kept in the dark on some of these recent revelations. This is like a catch-22 for the President. If he admits he wasn't told, he is admitting he doesn't have complete control over the Executive Branch. If he admits that he knew everything and that it was in the national interest for him to remain silent, then he becomes part of the entire "scandal", however big it may grow?

being impeached, IIRC.

I still don't believe that Obama has done anything approaching an impeachable offense (at least based on what I know or think I know now), so I think he has plenty of options available to him short of resigning or being impeached\removed. But a festering wound usually does not stop festering without cauterizing or other such strong actions. This is starting to remind me of John Dean's metaphor of a 'cancer on the presidency' (even though I don't think Obama himself has done anything remotely impeachable).

Since everyone underneath him is appointed BY him, its reasonable to assume they are doing exactly what he orders them to do or else they are fired and replaced.
I can certainly excuse Congress and Courts on the basis of ignorance, since they aren't in charge. But the President has no such excuse, since its his job to know what his people are doing.

If they had even tried he could go on TV tonight and tell it to the world. The President of the United States isn't a Facebook blogger, he's the freaking President.

generally uncomfortable with CT because of logical lacunae like 'proof' and 'falsifiability'. However, before you reject the possibility out of hand, you should probably take a look at this article about Russell Tice, one of the so-called NSA whistleblowers:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/06/nsa-whistleblower-nsa-spying-on-and-blackmailing-high-level-government-officials-and-military-officers.html

Does that make it better or worse? And more, even were this true, we have soldiers who risked their lives for a Constitution in Iraq while (if this were true) we have a President who won't risk political embarassment for the Constitution he swore to defend.

In other words, hardly a defense. It really is in the realm of "I had to help Dennis rob the liquor store, if I didn't he said he would tell on me for looking at internet porn!"

somewhere and it has stuck with me ever since.

Who knows what dirt Cheney's goons might have gotten on Obama? Those who would know aren't saying and those who might want to know have no way of finding out. Shame (and shame aversion) can, however, be a powerful motivator of human behavior.

FWIW, the soldiers did not "risk their lives for a Constitution in Iraq." They did many things there but defending the Constitution was not one of them. It makes their sacrifices all the more tragic and absurdly meaningless, imho.

...answerable only to him. The whistleblower said that the intel elites are "running the country."

Hollywood screenwriters couldn't write this one.

Alexander might have his own military, but Obama has the US MIlitary, every police department in America, and hundreds of millions of American citizens who would leap into action to defend the Constitution. It's amazing how sterilizing sunlight can be -- which is why so many involved in this, including Obama, want it left to grow in the darkness.

Gotta think about that for a while.

because of the foundation being built upon lies and deceit. But not sure if that is possible at this point. Obama has firmly aligned himself in the pro-NSA spying camp, IMHO. At least, that is the strong impression he has given from many speeches and news reports.

of anything improper.

perhaps extend the Federal whistle blower protection to cover contractor employees Because so much of our Federal gov. work is contracted out.

Both you and I know in our Gut....that it isn't going to be "What Should Happen"...but will end up being "Whose Butt Gets Covered First" and "How Do We Sort this Out."

We've moved far beyond "Woodward & Bernstein" (whatever the truth of that was) and the Dreams of our Youth for Justice to Prevail."

I think we are in treacherous territory these days...and at almost a Tipping Point.

I say this to you...because we are of the same ERA. I'm concerned. There are so few GOOD GUYS....behind these people these days after "Decades of Deception." IMHO...but then I tend to be gloomy these days.

I guess it could be called "freefall"

The NSA is directly under his control. He has full authority over how it operates. Its lawlessness is, therefore, ultimately his responsibility.

Not know everything about it? In that case all the debates should shut down and only a very limited few can continue to debate and doubt if many are in the know on DU.

I'm not saying that if the President didn't know about it then it does not matter and we should not debate it any further. I certainly am not saying that. What do you think the President should do?

The whining I read just on this site, some will never be happy with his explanation. I also doubt some information will never be given unless years have passed because of security issues. Many times I have posted the phone call records collected does not belong to individuals but it is property of the communication companies and therefore a warrant issued to those companies covers the warrant issue. If there was a need to collect evidence from an individual then a warrant would be issued to deal with an individual incident and if it is a wiretap of a certain number this warrant would als be issued. This is nit as simple as some believe, if wiretapping is required on your number you would not necessary be notified. As far as the president knowing everything, we know this is not possible, ergo the need for cabinet members, department heads, etc. We need some reality here.

If they wish to eavesdrop on a million Americans, they will need one million warrants...

Records belong to the communication companies. Therefore the warrants has to be issued to the owners and not to the individual customers.

The communication companies are entrusted with your records. They do not "own" them. That is your personal and private information. You entrust them with that information so that you can do business with them. Technology does not supersede the Constitution. Just because you can do something does not mean that it is always legal. The Fourth Amendment still stands.

Just as you purchase services from communication companies. You are right, the Fourth amendment still stands and even if there are modifications to the FISA the amendment will still stand. Do you collect your phone call records, no, they are collected by the companies to which you purchase usage. It is like flying on a commercial flight, you don't buy the plane.

When you pay for your gasoline with a credit card, the gas company does not own your card or your information. You only agree to submit so much information so as to pay for your gasoline. The same with a phone or Internet company. You submit a certain amount of information to pay for a product. You may pay with a credit card? They do not own your credit card number nor any other personal information. They own the phone service which requires certain information to operate. You pay them for that service. You do not voluntarily give up your privacy and information to be used as they like.

Own the cell towers, cable, etc, this is owned by the provider. Likewise if a police investigator needs information about the gas purchase, etc which may prove time frames, a warrant is issue to the credit card company and the information is given.

They don't just give it to the police investigator. A warrant is required for them to see your information. Why is that?

Issued to obtain the phone call records and I might add the warrant to obtain the information on your credit card is not issued to you personally, it is issued to the credit card company, now why is the warrant issued to the credit card company?

The records of their customers belong to their customers, they are paying for them, the billing, all of it, is theirs. That's why they have privacy agreements, to get your permission to use some of your info in certain ways.

Employee. The companies used the phone call records to prepare billing and etc, if you ever have the occasion to discuss your bill you call the company provides your service. You are purchasing a service, you are not buying the company. Look at this, you go to a car dealer and purchase a vehicle, you take the vehicle and maintain the vehicle, this is an item and not a service. There is a difference.

Should be interesting to see it litigated, what may and may not be done with those records, to what extent they are property and to whom they belong, and in what fashion. This is murky stuff, what property means when it's little bits on magnetic media, and may be arbitrarily replicated an nominal cost.

Investigators seek phone call records they go to the provider with a warrant to obtain the information.

But I don't doubt it, that's what they have to do to get your property.

Cheney would have missed going the way of getting the records from the providers though Bush thought his war powers gave him the authority to wiretap without a warrant. The warrantless wiretaps was a problem for me. I don't know whether it would be a challenge to the ownership of the records because this is cut and dried on the records belonging to the providers, they can destroy them at anytime or keep them for years, they do not need customer permission to do so.

If this forces a re-examination of that subject to bring it into the digital age, I would approve.

They need those records for legal reasons (to support their claims to be paid, for example).

(indefinite detention of US citizens with neither trial nor representation), fought for its reinstatement after Chris Hedges et al. got it overturned as unConstitutional, was fine with the extra-judicial execution of US citizens suspected of terror or aiding terror, extended the "patriot act" and Bush tax cuts (some of the Bush tax cuts are permanent under the "fiscal cliff" scam), over a year of domestic terrorism against the righteous Occupy movement...and so much more...if he's -not- in the loop regarding the NSA problem, it would stun me considering his yee-haw support of the destruction of the Constitution in so many other places. Ray Kelly support for secretary of DHS. Summers to head the Fed. Penny Pritzker in government, a known worker's rights abuser...

Obama is poison, and poisonous. At this point it doesn't even matter.

But, politician that he is, he's likely to steer clear of debating anyone who's not on his side.