White House Totally Ready to Have That Civil-Liberties Conversation it's Trying to Actively Smother

||| www.ufo-blogger.comwww.ufo-blogger.comAs readers around here know, Rep. Justin Amash (R-Michigan) has, rather remarkably, succeeded in getting an amendment to defund the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance activities up for a scheduled vote today on the House floor. Once again, the Wacko Birds are making news—and significant potential policy shifts—in Washington, D.C.

But this time around it isn't the GOP’s Angry Birds who have disgorged the most ridiculous response to this libertarian-bent challenge, it's the White House. Check out the cynicism and pure disregard for democratic debate on display in this late-afternoon press release:

In light of the recent unauthorized disclosures, the President has said that he welcomes a debate about how best to simultaneously safeguard both our national security and the privacy of our citizens.  The Administration has taken various proactive steps to advance this debate including the President's meeting with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, his public statements on the disclosed programs, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence's release of its own public statements, ODNI General Counsel Bob Litt's speech at Brookings, and ODNI's decision to declassify and disclose publicly that the Administration filed an application with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.  We look forward to continuing to discuss these critical issues with the American people and the Congress. 

Them dang kids! |||However, we oppose the current effort in the House to hastily dismantle one of our Intelligence Community's counterterrorism tools.  This blunt approach is not the product of an informed, open, or deliberative process.  We urge the House to reject the Amash Amendment, and instead move forward with an approach that appropriately takes into account the need for a reasoned review of what tools can best secure the nation.

To sum up: We are totally ready to have this conversation we have been actively trying to suppress, we are being transparent in our non-transparency, and in the name of openness and deliberation we must smother this attempt at open deliberation. This administration is flat-out contemptuous of everyone not in it.

As Guardian National Security Editor Spencer Ackerman tweeted last night,

I've really never read anything like that White House #NSAfiles statement. And lemme tell you, this has been quite the past 2 months for me.

Oh, and never fear: The Angry Birds are weighing in, too, as illustrated by this Wall Street Journal sneer, entitled "Republicans for Snowden."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Justin Amash ‏@repjustinamash 9h
    When's the last time a president put out an emergency statement against an amendment? The Washington elites fear liberty. They fear you.
  • Drake||

    To be fair, he wasn't around to oppose the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. Imagine how those would go over today.

  • Andrew S.||

    We might be left with the 3rd. Possibly. Rest would be dead.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Did you see the news about the cops taking over the guy's house?

  • Juice||

    To me that's just plain old fashioned violation of the 4th amendment.

  • sarcasmic||

    They'd just explicitly add some wiggle word instead of relying on the courts to add it implicitly.

    For example "Congress shall make no unreasonable law" or "shall not be unreasonably infringed."

  • Almanian!||

    99% of Americans support these "reasonable" restrictions on ANARCHY.

  • SweatingGin||

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances except in cases involving cooperation among two or more people, in which case congress shall have full power to regulate said speech, including prior restraint and bans of the product of that speech.

  • Juice||

    I was on the fence about Amash before that tweet. No longer.

  • Drake||

    Whenever I "welcome a debate" with somebody, I make myself available for a calm discussion. If that offer was accepted, I would schedule time to debate.

    Only a fucking douche says something like that, then boards a plane for vacation and purposely makes himself unavailable.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I would proclaim that I'm willing to debate with "any serious opponent." I'd then dismiss all my *actual* opponents as unserious. Then I'd deplore the sad state of public discourse in this country.

    That wasn't hard at all!

  • Drake||

    Make sure to use the Imperial "We" and "Us".

  • sarcasmic||

    I'd then dismiss all my *actual* opponents as unserious.

    Serious people understand the need to snoop on every citizen because they could be a potential threat to national security. Anyone who claims to disagree with that is not serious and not worthy of debate.

  • Almanian!||

    Well done, Eduard!

  • John||

    Remember Al Gore going on Larry King and debated Ross Perot about NAFTA? I understand the president doing that would be a bit out of the box. But why not send out Chuck Hegal or Clapper to do such a debate if the case is so strong and this program so important?

  • ||

    They cant debate about it because we dont know what it even is and they cant tell us. Top Secrets for Top Men only, overseen by a Secret Court ruling on Secret Laws, all necessary because terrorism. Nevermind none of this shit has caught a single terrorist and Al Qaeda is expanding.

    I dont think for a second that any of this is about terrorism. It is about us. They do fear liberty, and they do see us as their enemy.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Hector Berlioz, The Judges of the FISA Court:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7il7IKyfqlQ

  • G-dub||

    To be fair, he'll get the gist of what we're arguing by reading our emails. He doesn't NEED to be there.

  • Bryan C||

    +1

  • Sevo||

    "Only a fucking douche"

    I think you're on to something!

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    You say that like Obama can just take a vacation whenever he wants. He has to run all vacation changes by his supervisor, and HR can be real hardasses about it if he changes up his PDO days without giving them enough notice.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Not to mention if the VP wants to take vacation ins the same or overlapping time period...

  • Russell||

    Given what Snowden's existence says about vetting at the NSA, one wonders how many erstwhile allies have been on the broadband take as well ?

  • Pro Libertate||

    What a load of crap. Frankly, I think Amash and others supporting civil liberties shouldn't bother paying any attention to what the president says but should use every means at their disposal to force the government back into its hole.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The Administration has taken various proactive steps to advance this debate including the President's meeting with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board...

    I look forward to the transcript of this meeting.

    The irony of course here being that we wouldn't be having any of the discussions Obama welcomes without the country's biggest traitor, Snowden.

  • Overt||

    What is especially hilarious is that our Chief Politician considers "meeting" with some oversight board to be at all noteworthy.

    Let's set aside the fact that "advancing a debate" is a bullshit cover for doing something. You aren't fixing- you aren't even debating- you are just advancing the debate. What the fuck?

    Anyways, setting that aside, who thinks that a secret meeting with politicians does anything but CLOUD the debate. It is an attempt to get his debate opponents to shut up with secret threats and doomsaying. The entire purpose of that meeting is to stop the debate.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    In light of the recent unauthorized disclosures, the President has said that he welcomes a debate about how best to simultaneously safeguard both our national security and the privacy of our citizens.

    The cat is out of the bag, boys. Circle the wagons!

  • John||

    From the WSJ piece

    This would greatly complicate the job of preventing future terrorist attacks, because metadata can link a known suspect to a terrorist or terror cell that U.S. officials weren't aware of.

    Sure. And I "can run a couple of seven minute miles" provided I lost 20 pounds and got in the condition I was in ten years ago. They are arguing out of their ass. Note the switch from the certainty "would greatly complicate the job" to the uncertainty of "can link". Sure it can, but that doesn't mean it "has" or "will". Without concrete examples showing how this data has actually helped, they are just pretending this is true.

    Further, if we know the guy is a terrorist, we can get a fucking warrant and follow his every move. Or maybe arrest him since being a terrorist is illegal last I looked. Very sad to see such a poor level of argument from the WSJ. That is New York Times level mendacity.

  • Raven Nation||

    Didn't read the piece but (as I noted yesterday, sorry for the replay) one of the people involved in the program declared that just DEBATING the Amash amendment would hinder "our" efforts to track terrorists.

  • John||

    They are only so over the top because they can't defend the program. If you look at how terrorists are actually caught, it is almost always because of a tip. You are not going to find them trolling through every piece of information on the internet or scanning the contents of phone calls.

    To say that you will, is to assume that terrorists are going to make their plans clear via email or cell phone call. And that is just not the case.

  • Raven Nation||

    "They are only so over the top because they can't defend the program."

    Maybe. But I think some of these guys are true believers. They really do think any discussion helps the enemy.

  • John||

    I know such people. I think it is a result of the insular culture of the IC world. Everyone in the IC starts out there. They never take anyone from the outside. If you didn't start out with them as a GS 9 or a specialist in military intel, you are a moron who has nothing to say about the subject. This insularity allows them to write off any criticism with "you are not in the community so you just don't understand". The group think then alleviates the need for them to think so they stop doing it.

  • Raven Nation||

    Well, insular culture is pretty common these days. I see this in academia where the academics decry conservatives and libertarians who "only listen to people they agree with, don't seek out contrary opinions, and suffer from confirmation bias" (paraphrase). It is true that there are none so blind as those who will not see but it really is breathtaking at times.

    That's one of the things I value about H-R. Although most people are broadly on the same page, there are enough differences that there are great debates at times which helps folks like me learn things.

  • Hyperion||

    We all know this has nothing to do with terrorism. It's only an excuse to compile an enemies list based on the political views of any person.

    Then that list will be distributed to the different government bureaucracies so that they can target the people on the list.

    Do I really believe this non-sense? Yes.

  • John||

    I don't think it is that, at least not from the intel community. What is going on there is that they have no idea how to actually prevent terrorist attacks. But they have to do something to justify their existence. One thing they can do that is easy is listen to things. They know how to listen and they know how to collect huge amounts of information. So what they are doing is collecting the information and then pointing to it as evidence of how good and successful they are. When anyone asks what they are doing with the information and how it is making us safer they respond with "that is classified" or "even asking that question makes us less safe".

  • Hyperion||

    And I wasn't trying to say that is the intention of the intel community. I'm saying it's the intention of this evil administration.

    I don't think targeting Tea Party groups is the intention of the IRS employees either. It was the intention of this administration.

    So, it doesn't matter what the peon employees intend to do, it matters what they are ordered to do from high above. And this sometimes results in a Snowden.

  • John||

    If you want to be really paranoid, Obama's campaign was very closely tied to the Google people whom we now know were working closely with the NSA. Could it be that the NSA and google worked together with the Obama campaign to identify soft supporters of both sides and then encourage or discourage said voters depending on their leaning? Could this explain why all of the turnout numbers for Romney were on the low end of expectations and all of the ones for Obama were on the high end?

  • Overt||

    How exactly would Google "encourage or discourage" these people?

  • John||

    That is where the campaign comes in. You call them, tell them lies about the other side. If they are your supporters go after them hard convincing them to vote. What makes robocalling and such effective is the ability to target the people it is most likely to affect. To do that, you have to know who the soft leaners are.

    Also, if you know they don't intend to vote, you can just have someone show up and vote for them. Without voter ID checks, all you need is to know the names of people who are registered and don't intend to vote and then have people willing to go vote for them.

  • ||

    " I don't think it is that, at least not from the intel community."

    You are probably right, but Hyperion's fear is well founded. The Pelosis, Shumers, Obamas, Bloombergs, and Warrens of the world will use anything well intentioned government drones build as a hammer, without hesitation, if they think they can get away with it.

    Sure they will start with the big fish, but eventually they will get around to H&R commenters and the guy down the street who is upset about property taxes.

    Sadly, the true believers, or many of them, in the intelligence community will go right along with it because they are unable to distinguish between the government and the country.

  • Hyperion||

    Anyone who is not at least a little paranoid and fearful of our current government by now, is just plain naive, imo.

    Sadly, the true believers, or many of them, in the intelligence community will go right along with it because they are unable to distinguish between the government and the country.

    And because they probably can't find a job in the private sector. One reason why people like Obama want more government employees and less private sector jobs.

  • Killazontherun||

    And because they probably can't find a job in the private sector.

    True for the inbreds that work at the local DMV, but for these guys in the IC, the sad truth is they are so much a part of that culture any contribution they could make in the private sector would seem insignificant in their own value system.

  • Donut-san||

    Not only that, but if they have a known suspect, why not just get a warrant for his data and leave the rest of us alone? As you suggest below, spying on everyone just gives them a lot of irrelevant data to sort through.

  • John||

    Exactly. You don't need this program to see who a known terrorist called and contacted.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Read the comments. The article is getting multiple assholes in the comments.

  • Hyperion||

    Hey, look over there!

    Obama has good news for us, he's now going to focus all of this noble efforts on the jerbz.

    The great Messiah to change the focus of the country, back to jobs

    See, they're ain't no jerbz, cause Rethuglicans.

    So take out your wallet and bend over, it's time for some more shovel ready jerbz.

  • WTF||

    It's Recovery Summer all over again!

  • SugarFree||

    You lie! shrike has alreadlt told us that the economy is perfect under the direction of Bright Leader Obama Who Brought Peace To All.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    this Wall Street Journal sneer, entitled "Republicans for Snowden."

    There is no administration claim about the global war on terror so preposterous the WSJ editorial Board will not accept it at face value.

  • John||

    They are consistent at least. Let no one call them partisans.

  • Hyperion||

    I think that what has this administration a little shaken, has nothing to do with the wacko bird Republicans. It's the fact that Amash has been able to get some of the Democrats on his side.

    This has to be discomforting for this fascist administration. The Democrats are supposed to toe the party line.

    Obama is probably meeting with the heads of various national security agencies to see if they can bend the rules to allow him to murder drone these rogue Dems, so that no more of them ever get such crazy ideas as to support an amendment proposed by a Libertarian Republican.

  • John||

    The Dems are the only ones who can hurt him. He could drone strike Rand Paul tommorow and his sychophants in the media would portray the resulting outrage as just another partisan fight in Washington and another case of Republicans being unfair to Obama. But when Democrats go after him, they can't do that. If a significant number of Democrats in Congress ever turn on him and start telling the truth and allowing honest investigations of his administration, he will end up impeached or resigning in disgrace. Unified or near unified support from the Democratic Party is the only thing standing between Obama and being the next Nixon. And he knows that.

  • Hyperion||

    But when Democrats go after him, they can't do that.

    I dunno about that. It depends on how many of them there are. If the progressive Dems think that they can single those out and drive them out of the party without losing control of the Senate and losing more seats in the house, they will.

    I think that the Dems biggest fear is losing the Senate, and while it could happen, I doubt that it will. As long as they control the Senate, Obama is safe.

    And I don't really think that the Republicans are going to try to impeach the first black president. If they get control of both houses, they'll just make the rest of his 2nd term a living hell.

  • John||

    I think there is a good chance they will lose the Senate. Obama's fate comes down to the 2014 elections. If the Democrats lose control of the Senate and don't just lose but lose badly and lose in places they normally don't lose, Obama is in a lot of trouble. At that point the Democrats will realize that they can't keep being associated with Obama and expect to win in 2016. When that happens the gloves will come off. They will really go after him. And the media will go after him too.

    People keep saying the media will never go after him because they have so much invested in him. But that assumes they have any shame, which they don't. If it is necessary for the cause, the media will go after Obama like a pack of wolves. The six years they spent lying and functioning as his private state run media will be forgotten and written out of history. They will just talk about how they were harder on Obama than any President in memory as they turn their sites on the next Republican who gets in office.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    It'll be 2006 all over again. uh...yay?

    Oh, and I eagerly look forward to the liberaltarians voting for Republicans...because shouldn't Democrats be "punished hard" for their eight years of governance?

  • John||

    Well, we can't have that.

    It might be 2006 all over again. If the economy continues to go south, and scandals continue to drip out. This is why Obama is out shucking and jiving on the Zimmerman case. His only hope is to get his base to come out in 14 like they did in 12. If they don't, and the Republican base comes out, it will be another 2010 and the Senate will go very R.

    It is a tough political problem. How do you get the millions of low information, low IQ voters who turned out in 12 and 08 to feel good about voting for a black man for President to turn out in a midterm election where the black President is a lame duck?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    How quickly and badly will Tea Party favorites like Cruz betray their liberty-laden rhetoric? Anyone want to bet days?

  • John||

    I don't think Cruz will. If he was going to he would have already done so the way Rubio did with immigration and E-verify and such. I think Cruz is smart enough to realize that selling out to the establishment is a ticket to oblivion. Only the stupid ones like Rubio are going to be convinced that Chuck Schummer and John McCain are looking out for their best interests.

  • Hyperion||

    Cruz is a bit of an oddity to me still. I am really on the fence about this guy, but I am leaning towards, I don't trust him. He's not a Libertarian. We'll have to watch his voting record and ignore what he says.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I don't trust Cruz either.

  • Hyperion||

    At this time, I wouldn't be willing to make any bets about the chances of team red taking the Senate.

    When it gets a little closer to election time, it's going to be possible to watch the RCP consolidated polls and make an educated guess about what will happen.

    My guy feeling, right now, tells me that the Dems will hang on to the Senate by a narrow margin.

  • John||

    My guy feeling, right now, tells me that the Dems will hang on to the Senate by a narrow margin.

    It all depends on who shows up. My gut feeling is that Obama is firing too early. You can only get your base in a state of rage sufficient to show up to an election for so long. As the Zimmerman case fades away, he will have to find a new reason to get them riled up. But the next reason probably won't be as effective as the Zimmerman case and so forth. At some point people lose interest in being pissed off and get discouraged over the continued failure of the administration. Not all or even most of them, but some of them. And in an electorate this closely divided even 10% of your base being dispirited and not showing up completely turns an election.

    The one thing that could do him a lot of good the Republicans giving him immigration reform. That would energize Hispanics to come out and vote Democrat as a thank you rather than being dispirited over Obama continuing to not live up to his promises. It would also cause the R base to go into revolt and maybe stay home in protest. And of course the veteran members of the Stupid Party are working hard to do just this.

  • Hyperion||

    As the Zimmerman case fades away, he will have to find a new reason to get them riled up

    Well, you know they will find something, or make it up.

  • Overt||

    Obama isn't flogging Zimmerman to save the elections. He is flogging Zimmerman to save his ass from a complete unholy scandal.

    Consider: Obama doesn't utter a peep about Zimmerman for an entire week. And then the friday after it is revealed that the Chief Council of the IRS was involved in the Tea Party targeting, he suddenly fills the airwaves with drek about white entitlement.

    Every minute on the weekend talkies that was spent discussing Obama's "controversial" speech was a minute avoiding discussion of what should have been a fucking bombshell- an anchor around the neck of this horrid administration.

  • John||

    It is both Overt. He is flogging Zimmerman to try and get black turnout up in 2014. IF he loses the Senate, it is much more likely the truth about all of this comes out. And he doesn't want that.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I don't think so. I'll be shocked if the GOP doesn't have both houses. The only real question in my mind is the margin for the Senate.

    The economy has been a joke for far too long, and the lack of any improvement even on the horizon is a big, big problem for the Democrats. And Scandalpalooza.

  • Hyperion||

    And Scandalpalooza

    I don't know, ProL, it's totally frustrating how this administration is able to continue to deflect such outrageous things as Fast and Furious and the IRS scandal. It just keeps piling up and yet, they walk away again smelling like roses.

    If Obama was not black, he would already been brought up for impeachment. There just is no other way to explain it.

  • John||

    Hyperion,

    The Dems and the media are just fanatically committed to him. In fact, I think the fact that the scandals are so bad makes them even more fanatical. If the truth ever gets out, they know how bad it is going to be.

    The only thing that will change that is a serious loss in 2014 making them realize defending Obama will cost them 2016. If that doesn't happen and they hold the Senate, the truth won't come out until Obama is long gone from office and the NYT can do a below the fold page 12 story on the interesting revelations in the new Obama biography.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Scandals like this take a while to move from discovery to legal or political action. Watergate took two years, for instance.

    While the media support for Obama has hurt with some of the earlier scandals, I think their monolithic support for him is breaking down, and he's clearly not a popular president.

    I suspect that the GOP will use the scandals to help win control of both of the houses, and I also expect that they will push hard before then for a special prosecutor once the evidence gets more fully developed. Frankly, I think most everyone believes the IRS scandal goes all the way up, as do some of the other scandals. Holder will be removed, one way or the other. Obama may be, too, though I'm sure he's been shielded pretty well.

  • R C Dean||

    The Democrats are supposed to toe tow the party line lion.

    Sheesh.

  • Hugh Akston||

    This constant pants-shitting over the specter of terrierism must be a real boon to our nations dry cleaning industry.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    And now we see what Step 3 ("????") is in the Underpants Gnome business plan.

  • Jordan||

    Meh. Now they have to compete with ChipotlAway.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Do they do something different to Chipotle out in Colorado, because I never had that problem...

    Then again, I could be the Boy with the Golden Butthole.

  • G-dub||

    " This blunt approach is not the product of an informed, open, or deliberative process. "

    By all means, inform us Mr. President.
    Douchebag.

  • UnCivilServant||

    "Mister 'President', as you have prevented an informed, open, or deliberative process by hiding behind overt lies and mendacity, this blunt approach is the only avenue for justice left. PS, please resign"

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    That line slays me, so it does. Isn't debating something on the floor of Congress at least supposed to be thought of as informed, open, and deliberative?

  • Hyperion||

    If Congress didn't get a cue from the POTUS Imperial that they are supposed to do something, then why are they doing it? It's not respectful to his highness.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The Democrats are supposed to toe the party line.

    Tut tut, Sir. Tut tut.

  • Hyperion||

    The GOP are supposed to tow the lion also, but that flew out the window with the coming of the wacko birds.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    "the President has said that he welcomes a debate ... The Administration has taken various proactive steps ... public statements on the disclosed programs, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence's release of its own public statements, ODNI General Counsel Bob Litt's speech at Brookings"

    So, not as much a "debate" as a release of statements from our guardians assuring us that all is well. Statements we wouldn't have seen, or known to look for, it it wasn't for "traitors" exposing these programs in the first place.

    Back on 9/12/2001, I remember my Libertarian instincts telling me that freedom would be taking it up the ass for this. But a part of me wondered if I was overreacting, or just buying into a stereotype. The reality was worse than even the most pessimistic would have imagined.

  • Sevo||

    Calvin Coolidge| 7.24.13 @ 10:44AM |#
    "the President has said that he welcomes a debate ... The Administration has taken various proactive steps ... public statements on the disclosed programs, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence's release of its own public statements, ODNI General Counsel Bob Litt's speech at Brookings"

    IOWs 'debate' via press release.

  • ||

    "Back on 9/12/2001, I remember my Libertarian instincts telling me that freedom would be taking it up the ass for this."

    I remember seeing the entire body of congress on the steps of the capital with their hands on their hearts singing the national anthem. I knew we were fucked then.

    You are right. I didnt imagine even then that we would fall this far this fast. Secret courts and secret laws? The fed gov has completely delegitimized itself in my eyes. It is a rogue occupying force that only stays in power by bribing people with free shit and threatening the rest with a gun. Rule of law my ass.

    How long before we have camps? Or do we already? Anyone know?

  • Hyperion||

    How long before we have camps?

    Not long, unless we completely derail this clusterfuck of a mess that DC has created.

    I don't have much faith in it happening. The majority of voters in this country are completely uniformed and ignorant about what is going on.

    For instance, I am going over to HuffPo to see if this is being reported over there. If it is, I would guess, and it's an educated guess, that there are more than 10,000 posts already wanting Obama to arrest Amash and execute him for treason.

    Compare that to less than one hundred posts here, defending his position. That's why we are totally screwed.

  • Fluffy||

    Speaking of Snowden, it sounds like Russia says he can leave the airport and hang out in Russia now.

    I rather urgently want to email this guy a picture of Admiral Akhbar.

    IT'S A TRAP

  • Hyperion||

    Not sure if it's a trap. I think Putin is rather enjoying fucking with Obama over Snowden.

    If he leaves Russia, he's probably screwed. I doubt he'll ever be able to leave there, unless a future POTUS pardons him for his sin of informing the unwashed masses.

  • ||

    Would President Rand Paul pardon him? I like to think so, but once in that oval office, people tend to change, and rarely for the better.

  • Hyperion||

    I think Rand would pardon him.

    However, the next POTUS, the Hildebeast, will probably launch nukes at Russia and get the world destroyed if Putin doesn't hand him over.

  • John||

    I don't think it is a trap. If Putin wanted Snowden, he just would have grabbed him by now. What the fuck is Obama going to do about it?

    I think Putin just views Obama as the moron and easy mark that he is and is just enjoying fucking with him. Putin is former KGB. He eats true believing useful idiots like Obama for breakfast.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Perhaps Putin could give him a room in his secret supervillain lair? You know he has one.

  • Hyperion||

    Snowden is just probably thinking about hot Russian chicks about right now, unless he's gay.

  • ||

    Speaking of....what has become of the good Dr. Groovus?

  • Hyperion||

    I feel like I missed something... who is Dr. Groovus?

  • Sevo||

    Hyperion| 7.24.13 @ 11:46AM |#
    "I feel like I missed something... who is Dr. Groovus?"

    A US MD practicing in the Ukraine, assuming we can believe the innertubze. Bright guy; he's just not been heard from recently.

  • Pro Libertate||

    He's deep in the comforting bosom of Eastern Europe.

  • John||

    I hear the rooms come with an invitation to the parties and your own private masseuse.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Ever see The Spy Who Loved Me? That's what I'm thinking. Somewhere under Lake Baikal. Staffed with the Russian women the CIA lied to the world about.

  • John||

    Me too.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    From the WSJ piece:

    "Several former Bush security officials on Tuesday also released an open letter to Congress supporting the NSA programs as lawful, carefully limited and essential to U.S. security. The signers include former Attorneys General Michael Mukasey and Alberto Gonzales, former CIA directors Michael Hayden and Porter Goss, former national security adviser Stephen Hadley, and former secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff."

    Reads like a Who's Who of American Criminals.

  • ||

    Yeah, that is who I want making decisions about what is legal, security officials.

  • Hyperion||

    NE Weed Belt

    BTW, DC is not in New England, dummies. Get some geography lessons for the journalisters at FluffPo.

  • John||

    They need a lot more than that. I really do hold any self described journalist under the age of 50 in complete contempt until proven otherwise. Even if I agree with their politics, they tend to be sadly ignorant and poorly educated about any subject other than putting words together and sometimes they are not so hot at that.

  • Sevo||

    ..."they tend to be sadly ignorant and poorly educated about any subject"...
    In the Bay Area we have broken "bolts" which are "2-1/2" around".
    And a wrecked airplane that had "shaker sticks"
    The fasteners are studs, they are 2-1/2" in diameter and the airplane has a stick shaker as a warning device.

  • Hyperion||

    Ok, I now have to admit that I was wrong on this one. Over at HuffPo, looking at the coverage of this, most comments are similar to this, by a wide margin supportive of Amash.

    It is not very often that I can agree with a bill that a member of the GOP writes, but this is one I whole-heartedly support. Repeal the entire Patriot Act while they are at it and give us our freedoms back

    I am shocked. Obama could be totally screwed on this one.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Backlash, bitches.

  • Hyperion||

    The sad reality, most likely, is that if this gets passed by congress, Obama will veto it. And these same commenters who supported this, will then make up excuses for Obama why he couldn't sign it. It will somehow be the fault of Republicans. Such is the extent of their cognitive dissonance.

  • John||

    There are enough conservatives to support it and mindless partisan Democrats to keep it law. There just isn't a majority available. The only way there might be is if you got an R President who could unite the Dems who would no longer have a partisan interest in keeping it and the Libertarians to get a majority in Congress.

  • ||

    Yes, I imagine the dems that have gotten onboard with Amash on this did so because they received calls/emails to the effect of "Wait...what? All that security apparatus is being used to spy on....me?"

    Hang it on Bush, whatever works, just get rid of it.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "Several former Bush security officials on Tuesday also released an open letter to Congress supporting the NSA programs as lawful, carefully limited and essential to U.S. security. The signers include former Attorneys General Michael Mukasey and Alberto Gonzales, former CIA directors Michael Hayden and Porter Goss, former national security adviser Stephen Hadley, and former secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff."

    Suddenly I have in my head an image of one of those "World's Dumbest Criminals" cop stings where they send out notices saying, "You're a WINNER! Come to this address and pick up your cash prize!"

  • Sevo||

    "former Attorneys General [...] former CIA directors [...] former national security adviser [...] former secretary of Homeland Security"

    Certainly a list of offices really concerned with the civil rights of the population right there!

  • Curtisls87||

    " This blunt approach is not the product of an informed, open, or deliberative process."

    Let me get this straight. The administration is using the ultimate "blunt approach" by collecting this metadata, and they're complaining that someone else is using a "blunt approach" to prohibit it?

    The size of their brass testicles is astounding.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement