This article is about a collection of previously classified documents spanning most of the twentieth century about advice to various United States presidents on secret surveillance programs in the interest of national security. The article was a more interesting read than I expected when I first saw it on my Google News page. President Franklin Roosevelt was advised to violate a specific Supreme Court holding about intercepting telegraph communications with persons outside the United States.[1] The history, across multiple administrations, has often been a history of security concerns trumping individual liberty concerns.
But on the whole the history is also hopeful. A key idea from the article that really connects to me is "just as the book shows how that apparatus has been built up, it also tells a second story: of how public outrage, loud and sustained, can tear it back down." Countries have been in danger from external enemies before, and countries have been in danger from their own leaders and complacent citizens before. When the people mobilize, they can still rein in the government.
[1] From the article: "In his opinion, Assistant Solicitor General Charles Fahy had little hesitation about validating the president’s authority to intercept electronic communications to parties abroad. There was just one problem: The Supreme Court had explicitly held that the Communications Act barred such a move."
On the mobilization front, this rally is aiming to be a large display of support for reforming the surveillance apparatus: http://rally.stopwatching.us
The USG actually started on its electronic surveillance career in the 1860s, when Lincoln approved routing all the telegraph connections thru the office of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton [1]. The first electronic (?) MITM, maybe.
>When President Obama changed course and decided not to press forward unilaterally on planned strikes against Bashar Al Assad’s regime, he was effectively heeding that constitutional catechism. Congress and the public had signaled their opposition to military action, and Obama responded by acknowledging the need for congressional support. After decades of presidents ordering foreign interventions without consulting the House and Senate, his move represented a dramatic and welcome reversal
It is disingenuous to claim that Obama is "bold" for not proceeding with a ridiculously ineffective plan opposed by the overwhelming majority of all Americans, up to and including his own wife, especially after Obama persisted in pushing it despite all that opposition. Further, is the author forgetting Libya? Obama didn't wait for congressional support then. Claiming Obama is heeding or has heeded a "constitutional catechism" is absurd.
>When President Obama changed course and decided not to press forward unilaterally on planned strikes against Bashar Al Assad’s regime, he was effectively heeding that constitutional catechism. Congress and the public had signaled their opposition to military action, and Obama responded by acknowledging the need for congressional support. After decades of presidents ordering foreign interventions without consulting the House and Senate, his move represented a dramatic and welcome reversal
This wasn't about the constitution it was about making sure the blame was well spread around for any actions taken.
When you are entering a war that will last past the end of your term it is good for you and the party. People don't like change during war so unless you really screw up you and your party are safe for that election. If you start a war that is unpopular and you can't extend it past the end of your term then you and your party won't win the next round.
I'm pretty party agnostic, and there are things I both like about Obama and things I very much dislike. But he is a good at playing crowds and making decisions based on polling. That's what was done here.
Oh I can't make baseless claims on the internet? What's your excuse?
Look I don't really like how Obama has handles anything but laying the blame on him is pretty fucking retarded when these programs have been in the works for decades.
The New Republic's owner and Editor-in-Chief is Chris Hughes, Facebook founder who coordinated Obama's online campaign for presidency, so I'd reassess your read of whatever racism you're seeing.
In expanding the surveillance state and the White House’s wartime authorities, Obama has continued a grand and unfortunate presidential tradition—fresh details of which have quietly come to light.
[+] [-] tokenadult|12 years ago|reply
But on the whole the history is also hopeful. A key idea from the article that really connects to me is "just as the book shows how that apparatus has been built up, it also tells a second story: of how public outrage, loud and sustained, can tear it back down." Countries have been in danger from external enemies before, and countries have been in danger from their own leaders and complacent citizens before. When the people mobilize, they can still rein in the government.
[1] From the article: "In his opinion, Assistant Solicitor General Charles Fahy had little hesitation about validating the president’s authority to intercept electronic communications to parties abroad. There was just one problem: The Supreme Court had explicitly held that the Communications Act barred such a move."
[+] [-] pvnick|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ds9|12 years ago|reply
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/06/opinion/lincolns-surveilla...
[+] [-] erikpukinskis|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MattyRad|12 years ago|reply
It is disingenuous to claim that Obama is "bold" for not proceeding with a ridiculously ineffective plan opposed by the overwhelming majority of all Americans, up to and including his own wife, especially after Obama persisted in pushing it despite all that opposition. Further, is the author forgetting Libya? Obama didn't wait for congressional support then. Claiming Obama is heeding or has heeded a "constitutional catechism" is absurd.
[+] [-] acjohnson55|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] knowaveragejoe|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drakaal|12 years ago|reply
This wasn't about the constitution it was about making sure the blame was well spread around for any actions taken.
When you are entering a war that will last past the end of your term it is good for you and the party. People don't like change during war so unless you really screw up you and your party are safe for that election. If you start a war that is unpopular and you can't extend it past the end of your term then you and your party won't win the next round.
I'm pretty party agnostic, and there are things I both like about Obama and things I very much dislike. But he is a good at playing crowds and making decisions based on polling. That's what was done here.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] taproot|12 years ago|reply
Oh I can't make baseless claims on the internet? What's your excuse?
Look I don't really like how Obama has handles anything but laying the blame on him is pretty fucking retarded when these programs have been in the works for decades.
[+] [-] kyro|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vellum|12 years ago|reply
In expanding the surveillance state and the White House’s wartime authorities, Obama has continued a grand and unfortunate presidential tradition—fresh details of which have quietly come to light.
[+] [-] sillysaurus2|12 years ago|reply