Dear Pres. Obama: Dissent isn’t Possible in a Surveillance State (By Juan Cole)

[kpete]

Last edited Sat Dec 14, 2013, 02:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Dear Pres. Obama: Dissent isn’t Possible in a Surveillance State
By Juan Cole | Dec. 11, 2013 |

...............

In his stirring eulogy of Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s first president to be legitimately elected, by the entire South Africa people, President Barack Obama said,

“There are too many of us who happily embrace Madiba’s legacy of racial reconciliation, but passionately resist even modest reforms that would challenge chronic poverty and growing inequality.

There are too many leaders who claim solidarity with Madiba’s struggle for freedom, but do not tolerate dissent from their own people. And there are too many of us who stand on the sidelines, comfortable in complacency or cynicism when our voices must be heard.

I am not an armchair politician who holds the real ones in contempt. Politics is hard. Most of us don’t have the patience or the stamina for it. Hammering out a compromise among persons with strong egos and entrenched ideologies is a talent and a skill that I admire. Those puritans who demand consistency and decry hypocrisy, who scoff at bargaining, may admire their own unsullied characters alone in their rooms, but they will never actually accomplish anything good for people. Barack Obama has the patience of a Job, in the face of an opposition party that has declared itself not a loyal opposition but a deadly enemy.

So it is not lightly or glibly that I use the occasion of Obama’s heartfelt speech to upbraid him. But the contradictions in his sentiments and his actions here are too extreme, too glaring to pass without rebuke.

.................

The kind of information being gathered without a warrant not only by the National Security Administration but by a wide range of law enforcement and intelligence agencies has the potential for making dissent impossible. Most effective protest of the sort Mr. Obama praised in his speech is illegal. Often, the laws themselves are wrong, as with the latticework of Jim Crow legislation that subjected African-Americans or the enactments of the South African parliament in the Apartheid era. Breaking wrong laws is key to much of the social progress the world has made in the past century. Gandhi, whom Obama cited, formulated a policy of nonviolent noncooperation, which involves law-breaking. The government’s aspiration to total information awareness about all human beings will be deadly to conspiring to break the law or carrying it out.

........................................

the rest:
http://www.juancole.com/2013/12/dissent-possible-surveillance.html

[Laelth]

1. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Dear Juan:

That's the idea.
Sincerely,
Barack

[woo me with science]

3. K&R

But he knows that.

[pangaia]

4. I just can not figure this president out...

But, I will keep trying.

[sendero]

5. But we don't live in a police state..

.... so stop saying that!

[zeemike]

6. I agree with the above posters.

He knows that...and ether he don't care or there is nothing he can do about it but give lip service to it....I favor the latter.

More and more the evidence points to a conclusion that he is not in charge, and knows it.

[Dustlawyer]

16. He is POTUS! He has the Bully Pulpit!

If he came out publicly on how wrong the spying is and that the American people will not tolerate it we would be done with it! Instead he remains mostly silent, same for Guantanamo. He had done a lot of great things, but still remains a corporate Dem. The Plutocracy wants the info b/c they do not want to be surprised by the next OWS type movement.

[zeemike]

32. Perhaps he just wants to live.

And knows that where billions are involved his life is expendable if he gets in the way.

[Dustlawyer]

45. You could be right. I would say trillions though.

[tblue]

49. We need someone who puts people first.

It's horrid to think that that is how our POTUS decides policy. I'm not saying that's what he's doing. I'm responding to what's posted above.

It is horrid to think his life would be in jeopardy for doing what he believes is right--of course. Of course! But it is also horrid to think he decides to not do the right thing for that reason. We need someone who is not guided by fear for himself. I want President Obama safe, believe me. But if this is the trade-off then, seriously, he is not the right President for this point in history. Maybe no one we know is. But there have been leaders willing to risk everything to do what is right. It's not hard to think of examples. I don't believe we have the luxury to keep putting off what needs to be done. Time is of the essence. People are suffering and dying and we are in a state of crisis, much of which is unaddressed. That should be the priority, IMHO.

[dotymed]

52. You have described

Senator Bernie Sanders.

I whole heartedly believe that he is the President we desperately need at this point in history IF we want to progress past
the oligarchy and police state.

[TBF]

51. ^^ this ^^

And as president he is just an administrator. It takes citizens in the streets marching to get a movement going & that is the only thing that has ever led to serious changes historically.

[Octafish]

7. Secret Police. Secret Courts. Secret Government.

What Constitution?

[randome]

8. Really? Because the NSA retains copies of telecom data, dissent is impossible?

If it's that easy to silence dissent, then shame on the dissenters.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[colorado_ufo]

10. Does it really stop there?

How would you - or any of us not directly affected YET - know?

[randome]

19. We don't. We can only go by what we know so far.

Carl Bernstein said it appeared to him that the NSA has strong protections in place to prevent abuse of the metadata. One can make a fair assumption -not always warranted, I agree- that similar protections exist for other data when it is inadvertently obtained while monitoring foreign communications.

We should know more about how the NSA minimizes that data other than their use of the word 'minimize'. And I believe that is one of the recommendations to come out of the recent review.

More transparency, less secrecy. I think we're all in agreement on that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[nashville_brook]

37. it provides way too much leverage to executives that won't be as saintly as Obama

the whole reason we have 3 equal branches of government is to separate the powers. this gives way too much to one branch -- and perhaps it's not your dissent that will be staunched, maybe it will be Congress or the courts. you know, another branch of government that doesn't have access to NSA projects. this would allow a republican administration to shut out a Dem House/Senate.

the point is, this kind of unequal power shakes the foundation of the state. your kitty pictures notwithstanding.

[JDPriestly]

20. Yes. Because the NSA retains copies of the telecom data, dissent is impossible.

Or better said, dissent is very dangerous.

Talk to anyone who lived in East Germany or certain other parts of Eastern Europe before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

When the government has an effective surveillance system (and ours does) physical or violent repression is invisible. But everyone knows.

Do you think for a minute that I would write what I do if I were still working? I learned the hard way not to speak my mind in the workplace ore even publicly when I was working.

I don't think so. The silencing of expression is already here. It's called "chilling speech" when government activities make people afraid or nervous about speaking their minds. Remember that expression. You might want to learn more about it. It is a legal term: "chilling speech."

[randome]

22. Nervous about what?

Do you think every single person who thinks about dissent has some dark secret in their past that can be revealed by the phone metadata that the telecom companies already keep?

Shit, if I wanted to spend my time protesting something I felt strongly about, nothing would stop me. You could dig up my porn preferences and make it public and it would not stop me. You could make allegations about my divorce and it would not stop me.

Are potential dissenters that easily cowed?

Carl Bernstein said it appeared to him that the NSA has strong protections in place to prevent abuse. (Can't believe how many times I've typed that.) And I agree with him.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Uncle Joe]

25. Some dissenters will be easily cowed and some may not, it's a numbers game.

Most everyone has something in their past or present that they prefer others not to know for a multitude of reasons, even Martin Luther King.

The point being with a surveillance state the government can damage those dissenters whether it be on a professional or personal level.

By creating an all invasive surveillance state, the government has the ability to diminish if not squash dissent.

[kpete]

30. well said

Uncle Joe

the ability to diminish if not squash dissent.

The Diminishment Of The Constitution Of The United States Of America




peace to you and yours,
kp

[JDPriestly]

26. The NSA has all the data on your communications and can link them to the communications

of anyone you meet with.

If they wanted to trace my contacts with other members of my Democratic Club they could easily see that I call so-and-so about the time and place our Club is meeting. Then I contact the people I am picking up to take to the meeting.

They probably won't arrest me for participating in the Democratic Club, at least not now. But who knows what the future will bring. Ted Cruz in the White House? Might he round me up for being a Unitarian? What else?

Best not collect the phone and other communications data in the first place. What do they want that huge, comprehensive mass of data for if not to control people, to know where they are, who their friends and family are and be prepared to round up folks, just in case?

I have not thought of a rational answer to that question other than someone somewhere has in the back of their mind the desire to control those with whom that someone disagrees. There is not that much terrorism in the US. There aren't that many terrorists. I know a lot of crazy people. The number of people who contemplate violence based on their politics is pretty small. And generally they are easy to identify without comprehensive collection of phone pen register data.

The system the NSA has devised does not make sense. It is irrational unless it is intended for suppression and oppression. Not now. But just in case. Not now. But when the dominoes are in place. I lived in Europe and spoke to too many people running from Communist oppression as well as people who lived through the NAZI era to not understand where the NSA spying is headed. I've seen this before.

[randome]

27. Copying the telecom's records makes some sense to me.

I mean, if a terrorist attack happens here, it makes sense to see who the terrorist may have been in contact with just before the attack.

And it doesn't even need to be a terrorist. It could be a money laundering organization. A child pornography ring. Any of these activities that have a foreign component to them.

From a pure law enforcement standpoint, it makes sense to have that data readily available rather than having to send a warrant to every telecom in the country to see who those contacts are.

So long as it's kept in the kind of 'black box' system described by Bernstein and the NSA documents, I personally don't have a problem with it.

Can the system be abused? No doubt. Any system can. The telecoms themselves could spy on all of us if they wanted. But at least the NSA has procedures in place. If those procedures aren't being followed, I think every single one of us would voice our opposition.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[JDPriestly]

36. Getting a warrant is quite easy.

It does not take long. Our Constitution requires a warrant.
that person is willing to create a situation in which a dictator could easily take over and intimidate everyone, then that person will probably approve of the surveillance.

If a person cares about the rule of law, our Constitution and the separation of powers that is the key to the organization of our government as I do, then you probably understand that this surveillance is extremely dangerous to our country.

If a person likes the idea of a dictatorship with incriminating information on just about everyone (you might be surprised at how many criminals you have contact with), then welcome to 1984 in its new and improved 2013-2014 edition. Because that is what we have. That is what we are moving toward.

U.S. Constitution

. . . .
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

It is unreasonable for the NSA to be searching our phone, e-mail and other bills and perhaps even recording our electronic conversations. Utterly unreasonable. There may be advantages to doing that in specific, isolated situations. But getting a warrant when needed is much simpler than catching and organizing and analyzing all that electronic data, much easier. You fill out a form and present it to a judge. Generally the judge will sign the warrant. It's as easy as that.

The NSA is way out of bounds.

[Blus4u]

29. What you say.....

Exactly....

[riderinthestorm]

28. Lol! I chuckle everytime you trot out Bernstein. As tho his evaluation outweighs Gore, Kerry

Hell even Obama admits the NSA is operating outside the rules.

In the face of overwhelming consensus (barring Bernstein -snort) that the NSA needs to be reigned in your persistent reliance on him only illustrates how out of touch you both are

[treestar]

56. The NSA is nothing compared to plain old journalism

When someone runs for office, they dig up all the dirt. They don't need the government to do it.

They don't even have to prove anything in a court of law, either.

[NuclearDem]

31. And the courts disproportionately punish activists.

And because the police are armed with weapons of war to crush demonstrations as quickly and violently as possible.

[rhett o rick]

38. Once again you come to the defense of the authoritarian state.

Do you claim to be politically liberal?

[treestar]

55. There's plenty of dissent right here

How could Fox News exist if dissent was impossible? Boner had no problem "dissenting" and neither does the Tea Party. Neither does the left. It's hilarious how they feel they have to exaggerate to have a case to make.

[bvar22]

9. K&R for wider exposure.

This is TRUTH.

Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy can not coexist.

Government Spying on the Citizens and Democracy can not coexist.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

11. nice post bvar!

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

12. Great find, kpete, thanks!

[ProSense]

13. This amounts to a huge

Barack Obama has the patience of a Job, in the face of an opposition party that has declared itself not a loyal opposition but a deadly enemy.

So it is not lightly or glibly that I use the occasion of Obama’s heartfelt speech to upbraid him. But the contradictions in his sentiments and his actions here are too extreme, too glaring to pass without rebuke.

...contradiction of the OP title.

In a real surveillance state, opposition wouldn't exist publicly in any real form, let alone in the form of a "deadly enemy."

For dissent to be non-existent, there would likely have to be a dictatorship and mass oppression.

[JDPriestly]

23. I think that is part of Obama's problem in dealing with this overly zealous security apparatus

called the NSA. The deadly enemy opposition is closely allied with the NSA security state operations. The deadly enemy opposition is a conservative opposition. It is not only in the NSA and more conservative, paranoid divisions of our, as Juan Cole says, anti-government within the government but in Congress, in the media, everywhere that things like the NSA spying on American phone pen registers is advocated or tolerated (among other reprehensible policies).

Rread this. It was published when the Merkel revelations emerged:

The White House then leaked on Sunday that the Snowden revelations provoked a review of NSA programs and procedures, and the fact that the NSA had Merkel’s and 35 other world leaders’ personal phones under surveillance was revealed to the White House. Someone there then ordered this summer that the personal spying on Merkel and “some” other leaders be halted (the halt wasn’t ordered on all 35?).

In attempting to repair Obama’s reputation with his colleagues at the G-20, however, the White House counter-leakers have made an epochal and very serious revelation: The President wasn’t in the know. (Even in the best case scenario that he was told in 2010, he wasn’t in the know for the first 18 months of his presidency!)

http://www.juancole.com/2013/10/americas-branch-government.html

Theoretically, Obama is in charge of the NSA. It is, however, up to Congress to shut down the current overactive bunch we have in there now. Obama needs to work on that with Congress, but Obama would put himself at terrible risk were he to try to deal with it on his own.

Personally, I think the NSA and hyper-security-conscious bunch are a great danger to our country. My ancestors entered wild territories to settle and create farms in a time in which they were far more defenseless and subject to the terrors of famine, wild animals, criminals and all kinds of dangers. They were pioneers in this country who left everything safe and known behind usually due to horrible persecution in their home countries. And now Americans are frightened by relatively small threats that we have the luxury of facing together.

We do not need the excessive spying that the NSA is doing. We are either one nation or we will fall apart and no amount of spying will save us. That is my opinion.

Juan Cole, as I, admires and likes Obama very much. I think it is easy to take criticism of the NSA as criticism of Obama. But they are very different. The NSA is not Obama's friend. Some of its activities are necessary and warranted. But most that I know about are not.

[rhett o rick]

39. I think your assumptions are off. Criticism of the surveillance state is a criticism of the

spy agencies. Pres Obama has no effect on them. When he came into office he was told to keep his hands off the spy agencies. They are the same agencies, same policies, same leaders that where under Bush.

Ah wouldnt it be wonderful if Pres Obama had the power to fire Gen Clapper.

You see the choice is that either Pres Obama is in bed with the conservatives and their surveillance state, or he doesnt have the power to fight them.

You should have noticed that the Repubicans, as much as they hate Pres Obama, dont object to his appointments of Gen Clapper, Gen Alexander, John Brennan, or James Comey. The Repubicans dont object when the President extends the Patriot Act, or domestic spying. The Republicans dont object when he authorizes indefinite detention.

[ProSense]

41. Wait,

"I think your assumptions are off. Criticism of the surveillance state is a criticism of the

spy agencies. Pres Obama has no effect on them. When he came into office he was told to keep his hands off the spy agencies. They are the same agencies, same policies, same leaders that where under Bush."

...did I many any such "assumption"? I merely quoted Cole and pointed to a contradiction.

Barack Obama has the patience of a Job, in the face of an opposition party that has declared itself not a loyal opposition but a deadly enemy.

So it is not lightly or glibly that I use the occasion of Obama’s heartfelt speech to upbraid him. But the contradictions in his sentiments and his actions here are too extreme, too glaring to pass without rebuke.

...contradiction of the OP title.

In a real surveillance state, opposition wouldn't exist publicly in any real form, let alone in the form of a "deadly enemy."

For dissent to be non-existent, there would likely have to be a dictatorship and mass oppression.

[rhett o rick]

42. We havent lost all dissent yet. But Occupy proved that those in Power will go to

any extremes to shut down dissent.

I bet you assume that Barack Obama is an honest person that is thinking of the welfare of the 99%. Ok, then why does he allow the conservatives to dictate what the limits of the spy agencies are? Why doesnt he fire Gen Clapper? Either he likes their vision of security and therefore allows them to continue, or he doesnt like them but hasnt the power to fire them. The assumption that the President is all powerful is based on what?

[ProSense]

43. What

"I bet you assume that Barack Obama is an honest person that is thinking of the welfare of the 99%. Ok, then why does he allow the conservatives to dictate what the limits of the spy agencies are? Why doesnt he fire Gen Clapper? Either he likes their vision of security and therefore allows them to continue, or he doesnt like them but hasnt the power to fire them. The assumption that the President is all powerful is based on what?"

...does that have to do with my point? Again, you're asking about an "assumption" I did not make.

[rhett o rick]

44. Let me try a different approach.

You said,

In a real surveillance state, opposition wouldn't exist publicly in any real form, let alone in the form of a "deadly enemy."

For dissent to be non-existent, there would likely have to be a dictatorship and mass oppression.

In a total surveillance state we would reach those extremes. We clearly are not there, and I dont think the OP claimed such. However, we are clearly on our way to those extremes. And those that want to shut down whistle-blowers are on the wrong side of the fight.

And again, Pres Obama either embraces the controls of the NSA and other spy agencies, or he is powerless to stop their excesses.

[ProSense]

46. The comment

You said,

In a real surveillance state, opposition wouldn't exist publicly in any real form, let alone in the form of a "deadly enemy."

For dissent to be non-existent, there would likely have to be a dictatorship and mass oppression.

In a total surveillance state we would reach those extremes. We clearly are not there, and I dont think the OP claimed such. However, we are clearly on our way to those extremes. And those that want to shut down whistle-blowers are on the wrong side of the fight.

And again, Pres Obama either embraces the controls of the NSA and other spy agencies, or he is powerless to stop their excesses.

...was specific to Cole's statement about a "deadly enemy." That was his point.

[rhett o rick]

47. Good grief. You have no argument here. You want to claim you are only pointing out what you

see is an error with his statement. But the error is your assumptions. It seems your blind loyalty clouds your judgement.

[ProSense]

48. I made no friggin "assumption."

You're debating yourself.

My point was clear.

"Good grief. You have no argument here. You want to claim you are only pointing out what you see is an error with his statement. But the error is your assumptions. It seems your blind loyalty clouds your judgement."

You apparently have an issue you need to deal with. Leave me out of it. I made no assumption in my comment. None.

[treestar]

57. The idea that dissent is suppressed is so absolutely hilarious

an exaggeration! Orly Taitz would long ago be in jail. Hell, what happens to those people who directly threaten Obama's life? Do they end up in jail? Most people here think a visit from the Secret Service is all they will get.

There is plenty of criticism of the government, a lot of it is even untrue and unjustified. Have any of those people see a visit from the FBI, let alone jail?

[G_j]

14. K&R!!

[gulliver]

15. "potential for making dissent impossible"

That's too funny. There's a chance that there will be a historic blizzard today. There is an absolute possibility of that. It could be certain to happen.

[rhett o rick]

40. LOL. And your point is what?? nm

[stevenleser]

54. The irony in the comments on this OP dissenting with policy while claiming they cant is unbelievable

"Because of this terrible policy, you cannot dissent with this policy to which I strenuously object!"

Um, do you not know what dissent means?

[JDPriestly]

17. Brilliant commentary on the NSA spying.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. It's really not a problem. If you don't say anything against the regime, you're safe.

Be sure and wave a flag whenever you say anything questionable.

[HereSince1628]

21. As we know in Madison, POLITICAL CONTROL OF POLICE is an essential element

It's doubtful if federal surveillance really has anything to do with what we see in the people's building.

[jsr]

24. This is a must read.

[snot]

33. Our government HAS abused the power that comes with information, & WILL CONTINUE

to do so in the future. (Viz. its use of info to shut down John Lennon's anti-war activism and many other cases.)

You can choose to ignore the evidence of history, but I don't, and the Founding Fathers didn't. That's why the Constitution provides that the government must, PRIOR to collecting personal information, have SPECIFIC, PROBABLE CAUSE to believe that you are a committing a crime.

The NSA surveillance is unConstitutional, period.

PS: There is still no evidence that the all this surveillance, at tremendous cost to the public purse as well as to our freedom, has made us significantly safer.

[tblue]

50. The intent is not to keep "us" safe.

It's to keep some other entity safe, and no one in government is going to tell us who. Although we can guess.

[Jefferson23]

34. Thank you Juan Cole..perfectly stated. K&R

[BelgianMadCow]

35. I'm reccing this for Big Brother

and in order to remind myself to turn all the other recommenders in at the Thought Police.

[WinkyDink]

53. We all know how expensive "talk" is.

[99Forever]

58. Quite clearly, Mr Obama has already chosen...

..."to play P.W. Botha, not Nelson Mandela."

When he could have stood up for We the People, he has almost invariably chose to protect the 1%.

He could have done so much good for We the People, instead he has disappointed us and left us disillusioned and at the mercy of the Predator Class.