Skip to comments.Obama thinks Americans don't need to know
Posted on 08/06/2013 3:33:36 AM PDT by markomalley
When former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden leaked the existence of a massive spying program siphoning up Americans' personal phone records earlier this year, President Obama declared: "I welcome this debate and I think it's healthy for our democracy."
Shortly thereafter, his administration revoked Snowden's passport and hit him with Espionage Act charges (filed under seal, naturally).
That's the thing about the self-styled "most transparent administration in history": Often you can't find out what they're up to until somebody breaks the law to let you know.
One suspects Obama "welcomes this debate" about as enthusiastically as Anthony Weiner greets the debate over his post-apology "sexting." But this administration has given us plenty of reasons to debate the health of our democracy.
After all, Team Obama feels entitled to keep the public in the dark about the most fundamental decisions a self-governing people can make, such as what the law is and whether and with whom we go to war.
The administration claims the right to target Americans suspected of terrorism for death by drone-strike, but it's resisted revealing the legal memoranda explaining under what circumstances and by what authority.
In 2011, the Obama Justice Department responded to a Freedom of Information Act request with "the very fact of the existence or nonexistence of such documents is itself classified."
The current debate over the NSA's call-records dragnet also involves "secret law" -- specifically, a classified interpretation of the PATRIOT Act broad enough to make every American's call data (and perhaps other records) "relevant" to terrorism investigations.
And for several years now, the Obama administration has been building secret drone bases throughout Africa and the Arabian Peninsula in order to wage war against al Qaeda and its "associated forces." Who are those "associated forces"? Sorry, that's classified too.
In May, Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., asked the Defense Department for a list. They agreed to provide one -- but only if Levin kept it secret. Letting us know who we're at war with could cause "serious damage to national security," a Pentagon spokesman explained.
It might be useful for the public to learn how far War on Terrorism mission creep extends so their representatives can debate whether we need perpetual drone war against increasingly marginal groups.
Tough, says DoD: "Because elements that might be considered 'associated forces' can build credibility by being listed as such by the United States, we have classified the list."
Two weeks ago, the House and Senate intelligence committees quietly approved shifting CIA funds to the administration's covert military aid program for Syrian rebels.
Seventy percent of Americans want to stay out of the Syrian bloodbath, according to Pew's latest poll, but Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry shored up wobbly legislators by stressing "the need for U.S. 'skin in the game.'"
Conveniently, they didn't have to convince too many: "Obama opted to approve the program as a CIA covert action," the Washington Post explained, in order to avoid "the need for wider congressional approval."
Secrecy can be pretty convenient for legislators, too. When asked how she voted on Syria, committee chairman Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., replied, "it's classified."
The day after his first inauguration, Obama proclaimed "a new era of openness in our country." Yet, in office, he's driven state secrecy to new levels of absurdity.
You may think that Americans have a right to know who we're at war with, when the government thinks it can kill them, and whether the executive branch considers the personal data of all Americans "relevant" to terrorism investigations -- but this administration begs to differ. As far as it's concerned, you can't handle the truth.
Obama thinks Americans don’t need to know.
Obviously, he proved that by being elected twice, Americans not only don’t need to know, they know nothing.
“National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden leaked..”
Do you think that is why they are closing down all those embassies for a week? Only Obama and the El Qaeda know for sure.
Seems odumbo has been practicing that tactic long before he became president. Look at his “history”, if you can find it.
Right square in his well used.........
The idiots in America voted for him... but the rest of us worked hard against him.
Last night I was watching L Ingraham on BOR, making it watchable as he is on vacation. She had a series of snippets from the Ozero campaign each one pointing out how defeated Al Quada was BASED upon the diligence of his excellency. She asked how does that equate with this alert where were closed 19 embassies and raised the terror levels domestically. She even had the clip of that POS Carney answering the question, raised by Fox of course. He squirmed but the point is this guy lies, no one bothers to call him on it either because they are in bed with him (oh, what a horrible image), or they don't want to believe they were scammed. Until any of those are overcome, and they will not be, no matter how hard we work to get him out or discredited, this guy is not only going along willfully destroying the US but will have his image on Mt. Rushmore for doing it.
Sad to say, we are a very divided country.
Yes we are but we only need to unite about 60% to return our republic to its intended path. We need 50% plus one to get the ball rolling. Keep the faith!
I am not giving up, just stating what I see. Yes, had they all voted, the GOPe would have won but as you say they chose not to give a vote or squat to the conservatives in a mania to appeal to the “center”. Obama made no such appeal to the center and garnered less votes than he did in 08, by 4 million plus. I assume his drop was probably in the moderate area while Romney picked up a few hundered thousand. The difference was almost 5 million though.
Meanwhile, Rush had a caller from a 18yo yesterday. Rush asked him why did the under 30 crowd so heavily vote for his excellency, the second time, after seeing what happened after 4 years? The 18YO basically said it was camp to do so and he would go blind trying to convince them they were dumb to do so. They seemed to be only concerned with fag rights, abortion issues, and racial issues (I paraphrased that quite a bit and could have missed his point as I was at the dentist during the call).
This figures as I am approaching 70 and am as conservative as I have ever been along with my friends but unfortunately we are dropping off of late in numbers while the breeders are kicking out an entirely differently motivated crowd....I was brought up to believe you got what you worked for, this bunch believes they get what they vote for. Sadly, I don’t know how one changes that.
Now shut up and be a good comrade, or you little brat won't get her operation.
I see the same things. I am 58 and Conservative and I understand what you are saying. I then think to the generations of young Americans that have fought and are still fighting in our name and I remember what Churchill said.
Show me a young Conservative and I’ll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I’ll show you someone with no brains.”
“Actually... if FOUR MILLION REGISTERED REPUBLICAN VOTERS had shown up to vote... people that are alive and have voted in the past... romney would have won.”
Actually, I doubt that considering the evidence that voting machines were rigged.
Fine but the numbers add up and a pos like romney could have won... the point being that most republicans outside of the northeast had little reason to vote FOR romney. Offer a good Conservative candidate with cojones and even voter fraud can’t beat us.
“Offer a good Conservative candidate with cojones and even voter fraud cant beat us.”
Agreed that conventional voter fraud has its limits so they have to get close enough to cheat but if electronic voting machines are programmed as has been alleged then there is no practical limit to the extent of fraud if the machine actually switches votes from one party to the other. I have no direct knowledge of this of course but I think anything is possible now.