Saturday, June 15, 2013
Greenwald Battles The Strawmen!
The most vocal media critics of our NSA reporting, and the most vehement defenders of NSA surveillance, have been, by far, Democratic (especially Obama-loyal) pundits.
Rep. Peter King wants to try you and Snowden for treason. Other Republicans are outraged to the point of talking about arrests and trials, too.
Most Democratic "loyalists" are taking the position that we would like to see more oversight and transparency, but that we understand that there are trade-offs between security and liberty.
As I've written many times, one of the most significant aspects of the Obama legacy has been the transformation of Democrats from pretend-opponents of the Bush War on Terror and National Security State into their biggest proponents: exactly what the CIA presciently and excitedly predicted in 2008 would happen with Obama's election.
Here's where Greenwald gives away the game. See, HE'S pure. HE'S noble. HE'S consistent. The O-Bots are just narrow partisans! Only true Libertarians who are uncorrupted by "politics" can be trusted on these issues.
I love this part:
Some Democrats have tried to distinguish 2006 from 2013 by claiming that the former involved illegal spying while the latter does not. But the claim that current NSA spying is legal is dubious in the extreme: the Obama DOJ has repeatedly thwarted efforts by the ACLU, EFF and others to obtain judicial rulings on their legality and constitutionality by invoking procedural claims of secrecy, immunity and standing.
You see, these programs are illegal BECAUSE they are secret. The fact that Congress passed and the Judiciary signed off on these programs is irrelevant, because Glenn Greenwald can't read the rulings himself.
I understand the need to be suspicious of government power. And candidly, I can understand that I trust Obama with these programs more than I would have trusted President McCain and Sec Def Neocon McWarpowers. And that makes the programs themselves troublesome.
But that's why I want to see oversight and some additional transparency. Like most "Democratic pundits".
I don't see these programs as "illegal" because they cannot be illegal. They might be unconstitutional, though no court has yet found them as such.
But Greenwald knows he's right so screw it.