
The president is wrong: The NSA debate wouldn’t have happened without Snowden - Libertatea
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/09/the-president-is-wrong-the-nsa-debate-wouldnt-have-happened-without-snowden/?tid=rssfeed
======
bambax
For me, Obama has become inaudible; I don't care anymore about what he says.

I'm more interested in his actions; among these we find (by decreasing order
of importance):

\- use of drones to indiscriminately kill civilians, "suspected terrorists" or
their children (cf. the murder of 16 years old American citizen Abdulrahman
al-Awlaki)

\- the detention, and ruthless and aggressive prosecution of Bradley Manning

\- force-feeding Guantanamo detainees on hunger strike, depriving them of even
the right to end their own life

I'm not a US citizen, so what I think about Obama really doesn't matter; but
he must have set some kind of record in the amount of goodwill he was able to
destroy during his time in office.

~~~
brownbat
These political discussions on HN are awkward, and I wish they'd stop.

It's not because political discussions aren't important, they are, but because
I don't think this is a useful place to have them.

Counterarguments are self-censored, because any moderates calmly pointing out
hyperboles tend to be downvoted by the more passionate participants in the
discussion.

With the moderates bowing out, online voting systems quickly gel into two
extremes, maybe a far right and a far left. That's not sustainable though, one
side quickly gets bigger and wins. The losing side now is best off self-
censoring, because why get downvoted when you can just comment on other
topics? You eventually get a political monoculture representing one extreme,
with no voices of opposition or moderation.*

No moderation system has yet promoted any useful political dialogue, because
you can't convince the 5% of people who are most emotional to rate argument
quality independently of personal beliefs.

That's why, in general, I'm opposed to the political pulpit of HN, even for
positions I agree with. It's a bad medium for good discussions on issues of
significant controversy.

* (What's admittedly tricky is sometimes a political monoculture is the correct result. If someone made arguments on behalf of the KKK, we don't need a full and fair debate providing a false equivalence between both sides. One side is just wrong. The problem is, with politics, everyone thinks they're arguing against someone else who is just wrong, just like the KKK. There's no objective way to determine whether or not both sides of a discussion hold merit worthy of a full debate, or whether we should just downvote one side out of the discussion before it leaves the gate.)

~~~
sage_joch
Snowden unveiled a horrifying truth about our government: widespread
surveillance has been combined with a class of officials who do not face
consequences for breaking the law. I don't think it's hyperbolic to say that
the Constitution is facing an existential threat. Normally I would be
sympathetic to the view that politics should stay off HN. But this feels
different. I would hope that people wouldn't self-censor their counter-
arguments, however. The possibility that things aren't quite as bad as I
suspect helps me sleep at night. And the truth is, there is reason for hope.

~~~
dylangs1030
The Constitution is not under any kind of "existential" threat. You should be
more worried about citizens not knowing their own Constitution than you should
be worried about the government breaking it.

Literally _any_ valid view of American history would immediately demonstrate
that we are moving _forward_ in terms of overall liberty, not backward. With
the possible exception of disenfranchised minority groups and lower classes,
there has been increasing political transparency and quality of life in every
respect, and the former are only still mistreated because of the power vacuum
in their communities.

The only reason why this is so outrageous is because people have short
memories - I doubt many people are as shocked at this who lived through the
Nixon Watergate scandal. That kind of corruption wouldn't so easily take place
today.

------
Terretta
The president is both wrong and not wrong. He's saying things that are both
true and not true, or true and beside the point.

For example, "No domestic spying program" may be 100% true. It's a foreign
spying program that's devouring domestic data because of where the data is
tapped and how data flows, then having the data shared domestically outside
the program.

Any time government officials are commenting here, the adjectives and adverbs
-- okay, even verbs and nouns -- are being used as qualifiers to eke out a
"technically true but in a practical sense false" statement.

In another example, when he says "nobody's reading your emails" that's true
for all but a handful of his listeners. For the rest of us, an algorithm may
be parsing, but "nobody" as in no human, is "reading" as in with her eyeballs,
until the emails are flagged live for review or "collected" (read with
eyeballs, according to Clapper) later.

It's a shame dialectic isn't a popular school subject any more. The TL;DR
crowd doesn't stand a chance against this kind of nuance.

These pronouncements and these nebulously defined NSA behaviors are like
Schrödinger's cats. We need Snowdens to help us observe and collapse their
states.

~~~
madaxe
The word you're after is doublespeak.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak)

~~~
wpietri
I'm also ok with "lie".

These sorts of "I can pretend it's not a lie" lies are still lies. Words were
said with the intent to deceive.

That they are spoken by skillful and practiced liars just makes them bigger
assholes, more deserving of condemnation.

------
jacquesm
Obama has his own reality distortion field.

In time Snowden will enter the history books for what he did, Obama not so
much. Maybe only to serve as a reminder that the Nobel peace prize lost its
prestige.

Part of this is that Snowden did a service to everybody on the planet
(including Obama) and Obama serves a limited set of interests.

~~~
flexie
I think he will be mentioned on the same page as Warren Harding.

And also again in the chapter about notable African Americans. Let's not
forget that getting elected president as the first African American is an
achievement in itself, and one which I believe benefits the African American
community, even if Obama's performance as a president doesn't live up to our
initial hopes.

~~~
andy_ppp
Yeah but he hasn't done fuck all for all those people who are persecuted
because they are black in America. Look at the prison system and the way drug
cases are prosecuted. In fact just watch this TED talk - this black president
is for the 65 year old white corporate executive more than anyone:

[http://www.ted.com/talks/bryan_stevenson_we_need_to_talk_abo...](http://www.ted.com/talks/bryan_stevenson_we_need_to_talk_about_an_injustice.html)

~~~
toyg
One would argue it was the only way a black person could be elected US
President: by being whiter inside than white old men. Someone threatening like
Jesse Jackson never stood a real chance; in fact, giving the electoral system,
no real reformer will ever have a chance: old white people from rural states
are overwhelmingly over-represented, the game is rigged in their favour.

It's like the football/soccer rule-changing committee being structured in a
way that nobody can change anything if British federations don't agree.

~~~
pessimizer
>being whiter inside than white old men

>Someone threatening like Jesse Jackson

Be careful of this kind of talk. I understand and probably agree with what you
probably mean to say, but reifying whiteness as some sort of meaningful
quality of the soul, and by contrast characterizing blackness as "threatening"
is not a good way to think about it.

You're using "white" and "black" here as stand-ins for something else. It's
easier for everyone if you just refer to the actual qualities that you intend
to refer to, rather than implying that there's a proper ways for people to
behave or be that are appropriate or inappropriate in relation to their skin
colors.

sorry:)

~~~
toyg
sorry, I apologise if I wasn't clear. By "whiter inside" I meant
"unquestioningly faithful to institutions and systems that purposely (an
occasionally violently) discriminate not-whites, not-rich and not-Americans".
Which I think fits the current US President quite well at the moment,
regardless of his skin.

------
alan_cx
Obama said that? Shame on him. He doesn't even need re-election.

I was so happy for the US and world in general when Obama was elected. This
man has become the world biggest disappointment. Americans appear love world
records and things that go down as "historic". Well chaps, you have another
one.

This man is worse than George W Bush. Bush was clearly what he was. We all
knew what we were getting, and could rely on it. Obama is a lie in a suit. He
makes the US look like a national and international lie. Maybe it is.

~~~
vermontdevil
Jeez have we forgotten what Bush had done?

Iraq anyone?

And no I'm not saying Obama is doing hecka of a job.

But let's not forget the serious damage Bush did.

Not to mention all this NSA stuff too under Bush.

~~~
tinco
No one cares about Bush anymore, you're being rather irrelevant.

~~~
vermontdevil
Yeah right. The Supreme Court appointees by Bush has caused the greatest
damage we will see for years (Citizen United)

The way America supported the Govt involvement in religion and tax money, the
senseless wars, the intrusion of our lives by TSA etc. all accelerated by Bush
and continued by Obama and will continue until this country collapses.

Yeah keep on not caring about how our history has changed for the worst and
for good.

~~~
tinco
It's no use to care about Bush, he himself is not in power anymore.

What does it give us to say 'yeah, Bush was a bad guy'?

If anything Bush did is still having adverse effects, Obama and his successors
are the ones who we should look at.

I think the most important thing in your comment is 'and continued by Obama',
that's the pain point, that's what's matters to us now.

------
akbar501
(Copy and Pasted from) Obama's Ethics Agenda (2008)...in his own words.

Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste,
fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to
public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and
patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars,
should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees
as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will
strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste,
fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal
agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and
whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.

~~~
sergiosgc
I don't know if he was asked about this text, by any journalist. However, read
the text from Obama's perspective, and you'll easily find the answer he'd
give: Snowden did not use the official channels for whistleblowing. Snowden
commited a crime, and should be handled as a criminal.

That text can be read as having the intention to neuter whistleblowers by
providing a sanctioned escape valve as much as the interpretation you're
giving it (that of general protection of whistleblowers).

~~~
jasonkolb
The proper channel is the press. That's why we have free speech. What Bradley
Manning did is much more questionable, Snowden gave the information over to
the Fourth Estate and let professional journalists sound the whistle. You
would rather have him blow the whistle to the same people who are benefiting
from The Way Things Are? What incentive do they have to do anything about it?

------
nwh
Especially as a foreigner, it's pretty clear that there's no end to any of
this. Even if it is claimed that spying has stopped, there's almost no chance
that anything will actually change. You're talking about an organisation that
has it's own interpretation of the rules, has nobody to pull them up on what
they do wrong, and for all intents is invisible to the public. If a public
court "shuts them down", it's just a facade to keep the media at bay.

If their president is lying to them on simple facts that get refuted by a
whistle browser at the next available moment, there's no telling what else
goes on behind closed and private doors.

~~~
northwest
Also, rest assured that the US government will continue to put enough pressure
on foreign/European governments to continue mass surveillance on their behalf.

If there is no fundamental structural change in the US, the Western World will
remain a surveillance society and the current degree of democracy will be so
much weakened that the term "democracy" will need to be "redefined".

~~~
madaxe
Representative democracy is the rule of more equal people over the less equal.

~~~
akbar501
Love the quote. Nice adaptation.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

------
dfgdbdfbfdg
The headline should be "The president is lying" but that would upset the
readers and the sponsors. So lets just say he is "wrong", just like the NSA is
just "wrong" about not collecting data on everybody.

~~~
northwest
He had the "balls" to say on TV something to the tune of "the US doesn't have
a spying program at home".

That should be enough for everybody to understand even Mr Hope-and-Change is
lying now.

------
mtgx
Obama is not wrong. He's just lying. Who actually believes he would've started
any kind of reforms without this, when he commanded over this program for five
years? Not to mention that none of these "reforms" seem too serious anyway.
The only reform that is needed is to repeal the Patriot Act and the FISA
Amendments Act. Then we can start the debate from scratch, rather than trying
to win inches in this debate from the privacy point of view.

~~~
indymike
Wrong by choice is still wrong.

------
lifeisstillgood
This is beginning to have the feel of a watergate - the press can sense blood
in the water - senior administration figures have outright lied, in public,
and been found out.

That usually leads to a resignation - but now there are bigger fish to hunt.

Shutting down the program will no longer be enough - there is an impeachment
in the offing. What will be enough to call off the dogs?

Edit: I often let my cynical side overrule me - and happily claim "they" will
always continue doing shady and disreputable things. But the reason "they" can
is that "we" do not stand up and shout loudly enough and so build the laws to
prevent them.

It seems an ownership change has not hurt WaPo, for which I am glad.

------
graycat
Obama is just saying some things, little things to defuse the situation until
it is out of the headlines. The article explains that what Obama said the
effect Snowden had isn't true, but since Obama is only trying to defuse the
situation before the vast majority of voters who are not paying much
attention, that what he said is not true seems not to matter much. And for
reminding voters in the future that what Obama said here is not true also
seems will not matter much to the vast majority of voters.

I'm concluding that the political process, i.e., involving Obama and Congress,
will consist of a lot of pushing to save the Fourth Amendment, etc. from the
small minority of voters who care a lot, a little movement by the politicians,
the issue out of the headlines, and then no more movement by the politicians.

So, for saving the Constitution, I'm counting on legal cases going to the
SCOTUS and the SCOTUS defending the Fourth Amendment, etc.

------
zeteo
Well, arguably everything he said in yesterday's news conference was at best
questionable (and at worst deceitful). But I'm still glad he said it. The fact
that he had to address these issues publicly, and in a manner that's
effectively "oh yeah, I would have revised those programs anyway" (rather than
some senators' "the programs are essential! don't listen to the traitors") is
greatly encouraging; the system may not yet be beyond redemption. Are his
measures palliatives rather than cures? Very likely. And he's still hiding
behind concocted phrases designed to "reassure the people". But the moment can
nonetheless be savored as a promising victory for the digital civil rights
movement.

------
mercurial
It's funny to think of how Clinton was hounded for lying under oath about a
blowjob, and how the US Congress seems to be asleep at the wheel (or
complicit) in this case. At least, that's the impression from abroad.

~~~
nhangen
Congress has been investigating, but has been denied access to evidence
because it is classified.

~~~
mpyne
Uh, Congress has access to classified information. They receive classified
briefings all the time from agencies in the Executive Branch.

~~~
nhangen
[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/04/congres...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/04/congress-
nsa-denied-access)

------
merraksh
_When Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asked for a “ballpark figure” of the number of
Americans whose information was being collected by the NSA last year, the
agency refused to give the senator any information, arguing that doing so
would violate the privacy of those whose information was collected._

Well, doesn't that answer automatically imply that a very large percentage of
the population was watched? Otherwise, if the number were, say, 1%, the mere
number would not have violated anyone's privacy.

------
6d0debc071
> _" My preference, and I think the American peoples’ preferences would have
> been for a lawful, orderly examination of these laws."_

Yes, and you had the time to bring that to the fore. I recall one of the
rationales Snowden offered for not acting sooner was that he was holding off
to see whether you did anything about them via that more orderly process.

I wonder how much faith in the political process, especially among young
people, Obama's managed to burn.

------
eyeareque
I was very happy Obama was re-elected.. So much for that. But at least now
I've realized I need to start voting independent. Our two party system is a
failure. We lose when your voting choices are "bad" or "worse".

~~~
sergiosgc
Even if the US escapes from the two party local maximum, it'd probably land in
a three party local maximum like many modern democracies (Germany is a good
example). Then, a middle-ground party works with the election winner to
maintain government stability. It is not a much better model.

The conclusion we are reaching is that representative democracy has very
serious limits. Voting for the whole ideologic package does not allow my voice
to be heard on stuff that: a) I really care about, or b) I really know inside
and out. I'd prefer to relinquish my opinion on some stuff (agricultural
policy, for example), and really be heard on other matters (there's absolutely
_no_ excuse for torture).

~~~
angersock
Here, I'll take it one step further.

In this day and age, especially with such a strong emphasis on advertising and
consumerism, the people governed on the whole _do not deserve_ a say in how
things are done. We had a thread not a day ago where mass numbers of HN folks
earnestly pleaded that we couldn't reasonably expect normal people to learn to
use computers beyond knowing how to app store a thing, how to socializeauth
their twitterscapes--people who routinely bemoan how bad politicians are on
tech policy issues.

Fuck it. If we want to progress as a race, we need to stop pretending that the
'common man' ought to have a say in long-term priorities, or in how we should
govern their fellow citizens.

~~~
ams6110
I think you've got it _exactly_ backwards. We need to rely much more on the
"common man" being able to take care of his own day-to-day needs, and take the
attitude that the government is what is harmful, incompetent, corrupt, and
does not deserve a say in how many things are done.

~~~
angersock
These are not mutually exclusive--let the marching morons manage their own
affairs as well as they can, and don't let them intervene in politics and
create perverse incentives for "democratically elected leaders" to do the
wrong things to get votes.

I can completely get behind the idea that the government ought to function
like a microkernel operating system, doing as little as it can get away with
while providing services for all. Part of that, though, is that userland stays
well the fuck over in userland.

------
dllthomas
Even accepting on its face the notion that Obama was preparing to look at
reforms, how does that make what Snowden did less patriotic? I don't think
anybody but Obama _knew_ that he was preparing to look at reforms, and after 6
years of an Obama presidency where things were just getting more spy-happy how
was Snowden supposed to assume anything but more of the same? According to
Obama, Snowden and Obama _agreed_ that the programs needed change, and they
both chose to do something about it.

------
general_failure
Agree. Snowden's the only reason why people, politicians and the president are
talking about this.

------
dotcoma
Of course he's wrong. He's looking more and more like Nixon...

------
eagsalazar2
The president is not wrong. The president is lying. Big difference.

------
chrisvineup
Yeah at some point in history, maybe. Its easy to say that after being caught
with your dick in my inbox.

------
tbatterii
> “I don’t think Mr. Snowden was a patriot,” the president said

was?

------
ajuc
Does USA have a way to change president mid-term if enough people sign for
that?

~~~
rietta
Yes, it's called an Impeachment. According to the Constitution it can only be
for an high crimes and misdemeanors. The Congress then holds a trial and if
convicted the President is removed from office. Then the next in succession
becomes President until the next election. Basically, it's not going to happen
over this. Remember, Congress agrees with the actions of the government more
or less.

To more directly answer your question. There is no popular recall mechanism.
The closest would be if there was enough public outcry to their congressional
representatives that Congress began to move against the President. The bar is
really, really high on this. It's not going to happen.

~~~
ams6110
Of course that would leave us with Joe Biden. Which is probably why Obama
picked him.

------
justplay
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BPGk0PXCUAANwGP.jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BPGk0PXCUAANwGP.jpg)
tweeted my wikileaks.

------
walshemj
newspaper blows own trumpet - film at 11.

------
Sauer_Kraut
It would happen at the same time as the closing of Guantanamo Bay, I imagine.

~~~
madaxe
Yes, simultaneously with the end of drone strikes.

All of these things ended in '08, when he was elected, remember, just like he
promised.

~~~
mpyne
He never promised to end drone strikes. In fact I believe he _emphasized_
drone strikes even then in order to shift away from American "boots on ground"
and the then-current policy of using JDAM bomb strikes (which are even more
dangerous w.r.t. collateral damage).

~~~
madaxe
You're quite right, actually - he didn't promise anything about drones - as at
that point they didn't officially exist, most likely.

------
bengrunfeld
According to Snowden's slides, PRISM began to receive information from
Microsoft in 2007. So now in... wait for it.. 2013, Obama was juuust about to
start looking into what those crafty NSA people were doing?? The amount of
stupid here is Unbearable!!

------
andyl
Since Bezos took over, this is the first WaPost article I've taken notice of.
Great article - I'm encouraged.

