The President should separate himself from this NSA debate.

[kentuck]

If he has not been fully informed by the intelligence departments, then he should tell the American people the truth. If the NSA, FBI, or CIA have kept information from the President of the United States, the Commander-in-Chief, then there needs to be a Congressional investigation and legislation. This cannot stand. If the Democratic Party wants to be the Party of "reform", then this is a good place to start...

[FirstLight]

1. wait....what?

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.

[kentuck]

3. You are assuming he did know?

Why is that taken for granted?

[1awake]

6. If he did not know, he needs to step outside of the presidential bubble

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.

[LuvNewcastle]

8. Sen. Wyden has been troubled by a lot of the things he knows,

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

[Demo_Chris]

9. Because it's his JOB to know, and it was in the oath he swore...

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

[dkf]

2. Or the opposite where he orders a complete review and then stops the parts with obvious problems.

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

[HardTimes99]

4. You're assuming that the NSA and the Cheney goons still in place haven't put the screws

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.

[kentuck]

7. True.

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?

[HardTimes99]

10. Reagan issued a mea culpa along those lines during Iran-Contra which kept him from

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).

[HooptieWagon]

19. Uh, POTUS is head of executive branch.

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.

[Demo_Chris]

11. How could they? He has a MICROPHONE. He has the US Marshals that work for him....

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.

[HardTimes99]

12. I grant you it smacks of conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories. And I am

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

[Demo_Chris]

16. This would assume there is something there to blackmail him with...right?

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!"

[HardTimes99]

21. We are all guilty of something, even if we all should not go to prison. I read that

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.

[Demo_Chris]

23. I'm sure you understand my point none the less. nt

[grasswire]

15. and Gen. Alexander NSA chief has his own military...

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

Hollywood screenwriters couldn't write this one.

[Demo_Chris]

18. Good grief. If Obama grabbed a Microphone and said his name the guy would be behind bars in an hour.

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.

[grasswire]

20. bottom line: we are nearly in a constitutional crisis.

Gotta think about that for a while.

[Demo_Chris]

22. I think we can safely leave out the word "nearly." nt

[grasswire]

25. sigh..... nt

[quinnox]

5. It would be a good move to detach himself from the house of cards that is rapidly collapsing

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.

[Sunlei]

13. Separate himself? no, I think the President should continue oversight & be involved in any discovery

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.

[KoKo]

14. What you say is the "Old Way."

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.

[grasswire]

17. we are beyond our own imaginations at this point

I guess it could be called "freefall"

[PSPS]

24. Separate himself? His office makes him part of the debate.

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

[Thinkingabout]

26. Are you saying if the president needs to separate himself from then NSA debate if does

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.

[kentuck]

27. I don't think that is what I am saying?

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?

[Thinkingabout]

28. I dont think the president is ever going to give enough information which is going to stop

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.

[kentuck]

29. It is not legally possible to get one warrant for one million people.

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

[Thinkingabout]

30. To whom or what do you think the phobe call records belong? Perhaps you missed when I said the

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

[kentuck]

31. I think we disagree?

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.

[Thinkingabout]

33. You are very wrong here, you purchase gas from a pump but you do not own the pump or station,

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.

[kentuck]

40. More accurately...

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.

[Thinkingabout]

42. You are right, you possess the card just as you own the device you communicate with but you do not

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.

[kentuck]

43. Because you entrusted them with that information for the service they provide...

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

[Thinkingabout]

44. I think I stated a warrant was required to obtain the information on credit cards, etc. A warrant is

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?

[kentuck]

45. I guess we disagree.

[bemildred]

32. The records of their employees belong to the companies.

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.

[Thinkingabout]

36. It is true the employee records belongs to the employer even though the records are about the

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.

[bemildred]

37. I'm tired. So I'm not going to "argue". Truth is I think that's a tricky question.

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.

[Thinkingabout]

38. I am not here to argue, if you have ever watched some of the Dateline programs on murders and the

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

[bemildred]

39. I don't watch TV much, and then only movies.

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

[Thinkingabout]

41. I get your point you think the records are your property but I dont even think Bush or

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.

[bemildred]

46. No, I meant what I said, I think it's unclear, and we paper it over with hand waving and graft now.

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).

[Fire Walk With Me]

34. After he signed, twice, the Constitution-shattering NDAA section 1021

(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.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. I'd love to see him have a debate with the ACLU, Amnesty International, and Daniel Ellsberg.

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