Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

meegbear

(25,438 posts)
Tue Dec 17, 2013, 01:30 PM Dec 2013

The Rude Pundit: Obama, NSA Metadata Collection, and Our Right To Know Why

There are two things that someone on the left can say that piss off unyielding Obama supporters: 1. Drone missile strikes are immoral and likely illegal in a "war crimes" sense (that's a discussion for another day), and 2. the blanket surveillance of the American people is an unconstitutional violation of privacy. And guess who could stop these practices with a wave of his pen? The motherfucking President.

"How dare you," they say, "how dare you question whether or not Barack Obama can be trusted." And when you point out that President Ted Cruz might not have earned such trust, you get silence. Principles like, you know, the Constitution, matter in these cases and trump your loyalty to one politician or another.

So all the Rude Pundit wants to say to every queasy person on the left, especially to those who called Edward Snowden a traitor or probed Glenn Greenwald's life and writings for anything to impeach his credibility (both of which totally miss the point of the leaked documents), is simple: Suck on Bush-appointed U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon's ruling that NSA metadata collection is probably unconstitutional and certainly goddamned scary.

You can go through the entire decision, which is filled with a breathtaking amount of steaming anger at government fuckery in the lives of everyone (yes, everyone). But, for the Rude Pundit, here's the money shot right in the face (from page 61): &quot T)he Government does not cite a single instance in which analysis of the NSA’s bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the Government in achieving any objective that was time-sensitive in nature. In fact, none of the three 'recent episodes' cited by the Government that supposedly 'illustrate the role that telephony metadata can play in preventing and protecting against terrorist attack' involved any apparent urgency." Judge Leon then discusses how metadata was supposedly used in the three cases and concludes, "there is no indication that these revelations were immediately useful or that they prevented an impending attack."

And then, after kicking the government in the balls, he farts in its face: "Given the limited record before me at this point in the litigation - most notably, the utter lack of evidence that a terrorist attack has ever been prevented because searching the NSA database was faster than other investigative techniques - I have serious doubts about the efficacy of the metadata collection program." The plaintiffs (which means, yes, madman Larry Klayman) have a good chance of showing that the metadata collection violates their Fourth Amendment rights.

For the Rude Pundit, as it is for Judge Leon, as it should be for every American, it's always come down to that proposition for the government: Prove it. Show us you need this blanket surveillance. Show us that you need to keep years of this metadata. Show us that without it we'd have been blown up. (Implicit in there is "No, I don't trust you with my information. I don't give a shit who you are." Also implicit in there is "Yeah, you need to give up some fuckin' 'secrets' here.&quot

Which brings us back to President Obama. Ryan Lizza writes in The New Yorker about how a FISA judge who oversaw the metadata collection program believed, back in 2009, that the NSA was violating the rules governing its usage. He "was considering rescinding the N.S.A.’s authority to run the program, and was contemplating bringing contempt charges against officials who misled the court or perhaps referring the matter to 'appropriate investigative offices.'"

It gave the Obama administration an out. Fuckers were lying about how the data was being searched. Shut the fuckers down, right? No. In February, the Obama White House told the court, "The government respectfully submits that the Court should not rescind or modify the authority" of the NSA to throw a net over all the info, contempt or lies be damned.

The Rude Pundit doesn't give a damn how we got this information about our government's spying on us. What enrages him is being told he shouldn't worry about it, that he should just go about his business and let the professionals do their work. He naively believes that the failure to call "bullshit" on bullshit just because you like the bull is how you help democracy die faster.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Rude Pundit: Obama, NSA Metadata Collection, and Our Right To Know Why (Original Post) meegbear Dec 2013 OP
Hoarders of useless shit lame54 Dec 2013 #1
President Hillary Clinton will put a stop to this NSA shit in 2017 tularetom Dec 2013 #2
oboy nt grasswire Dec 2013 #4
standing ovation grasswire Dec 2013 #3
I've had these arguments with people here mindwalker_i Dec 2013 #5
You're god damned right! hootinholler Dec 2013 #6
K and fucking R. Go Rude one! nt riderinthestorm Dec 2013 #7
Rudie nails it again!!! bvar22 Dec 2013 #8
HOLY SHIT!! The Rude One just called out a certain DUer. madinmaryland Dec 2013 #9
OH FUCK YES! whatchamacallit Dec 2013 #10
+1000 truth2power Dec 2013 #11
"the failure to call 'bullshit' on bullshit just because you like the bull winter is coming Dec 2013 #12
Breakthrough phrase. Octafish Dec 2013 #14
Go Rude! TheKentuckian Dec 2013 #13
Good rant, but I have a problem even with this argument. woo me with science Dec 2013 #15

mindwalker_i

(4,407 posts)
5. I've had these arguments with people here
Tue Dec 17, 2013, 03:21 PM
Dec 2013

The top comments about people who ask, "How dare you question whether Barack Obama can be trusted." It was, in fact, referred to as "silly." Well, you were wrong then and you're wrong now! Not only is collecting this data a violation of privacy and the constitution, it opens the door to using illegally collected data for all sort of other things, like drug busts, and in fact that's probably what it's original intent was - terrorism was just an excuse.

madinmaryland

(64,933 posts)
9. HOLY SHIT!! The Rude One just called out a certain DUer.
Tue Dec 17, 2013, 09:07 PM
Dec 2013
Who knew that the Rude One read DU!!



Hopefully the Rude One does not get locked on DU!!

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
12. "the failure to call 'bullshit' on bullshit just because you like the bull
Wed Dec 18, 2013, 12:37 AM
Dec 2013

is how you help democracy die faster."

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
15. Good rant, but I have a problem even with this argument.
Wed Dec 18, 2013, 01:14 AM
Dec 2013

That they can't prove greater safety from terrorism is ultimately beside the point. Even if they *HAD* stopped a terrorist attack, it still does not justify this trashing of our Constitutional protections. Life has risks. Making every citizen wear a personal camera and be accompanied by a government-appointed bodyguard might make everyone safer, too, BUT THE GOVERNMENT STILL HAS NO RIGHT TO DO IT. We are being propagandized to fear the danger of terrorist attacks, when we should be fearing the even greater assault of dismantling our representative, Constitutional system of government.

Even if a surveillance state DID make us physically safer, and the Rude Pundit is right that there is no evidence of that, THEY STILL WOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPY ON US.

The Fourth Amendment does NOT say: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized....UNLESS IT MAKES EVERYONE SAFER."


We should not concede increased safety as a good reason for abrogating Constitutional rights. In the worst case scenario, I worry about desperate fascists who might try to *supply* proof of the grave dangers they keep telling us we face...

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Rude Pundit: Obama, N...