The real problem continues to be that secret programs leave the American public out of the conversation, and many of us would gladly trade a little less security for a little less intrusion. But how would we know? In a speech today, Obama defended the latest surveillance news:
SAN JOSE, Calif. – President Obama strongly defended the government’s secret surveillance of people’s phone records and Internet activities, saying there are “a whole bunch of safeguards involved” and that Congress has repeatedly authorized the programs.
“You could complain about big brother and how this is a potential program run amok,” Obama said, “but when you actually look at the details, I think we strike the right balance.”
He thinks we trust contribution-addicted members of Congress? Really?
Commenting on the surveillance for the first time since news organizations revealed the sweeping National Security Agency programs this week, Obama highlighted limits to the programs to protect the privacy of U.S. citizens and said the surveillance has helped the government anticipate and prevent terrorist attacks.
“They make a difference in our capacity to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity,” Obama said. He added that the programs are “under very strict supervision by all three branches of government and they do not involve listening to people’s phone calls, do not involve reading the e-mails of U.S. citizens and U.S. residents.”
Obama spoke at length about the need to find a proper balance between national security prerogatives and civil liberties.
“You can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience,” Obama said. “We’re going to have to make some choices as a society.”
Yes, I agree. But I think citizens have already come to the conclusion that 100 percent security is not worth the intrusion into our privacy, and if these programs are secret, we’re not part of that balancing act. Only the members of the security establishment are.
The president acknowledged that he took office in 2009 with “a healthy skepticism about these programs,” but after thorough evaluation by his advisers concluded that they were necessary.
“We scrubbed them thoroughly,” Obama said. “We actually expanded some of the oversight, increased some of the safeguards. But my assessment and my team’s assessment was that they help us prevent terrorist attacks. And the modest encroachments on privacy that are involved in getting phone numbers or duration without a name attached and not looking at content, that on net it was worth us doing.”
Trust me, baby. Trust me.
H/t Ed Tayter.
4 thoughts on “‘Trust me’”
“a whole bunch” of safeguards . . . Thanks for being so informative. Nothing to see here, oh look there’s a new season of Arrested Development.
What will the speech sound like when we find out as noted here days ago that they are also lying about archiving digital content data?
Oh, fuck off guys. When in the hell did y’all thing the gubmint wasn’t watching what we did? I’m from the Weather Underground and Black Panther generations when wiretaps and paid FBI informants were the ‘soup’ of the day. It may have been ” illegal” back then, but so what? The new boogeymen are the ‘terrorist’ that come out of ‘nowhere’ to justify the new phone taps and privacy intrusions. I forget, can someone remind me again what Amendment was it that forbade the intrusions into our private lives??????????
How about Baldfaced Barry as a new nickname. It scans, it’s alliterative, and it summons up fond memories of Tricky Dicky.
Comments are closed.