Robert Scheer: No Place to Hide

[marmar]

from truthdig:



Posted on Jan 21, 2014
By Robert Scheer


Barack Obama’s speech Friday on surveillance was his worst performance, not as a matter of theatrical skill, though he clearly did not embrace his lines, but in its stark betrayal of his oft proclaimed respect for constitutional safeguards and civil liberty.

His unbridled defense of the surveillance state opened the door to the new McCarthyism of Mike Rogers and Dianne Feinstein, the leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees, who on Sunday talk shows were branding Edward Snowden as a possible Russian spy.

Instead of crediting Snowden for forcing what the president concedes is a much-needed debate, Obama bizarrely cited the example of Paul Revere and the other early American rebels in the Sons of Liberty to denounce their modern equivalent. But the “secret surveillance committee” Obama referenced that Revere and his fellow underground conspirators established was intended to subvert rather than celebrate the crimes of the British controlled government in power.

Somewhere in law school, Obama must have learned that the whole point of our Bill of Rights, inspired by American revolutionaries like Sam Adams, a Sons of Liberty co-conspirator, was to curtail government power as the main threat to freedom. Thus was Adams’ insistence on the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment, banning the warrantless searches that Obama now seeks to justify. .....................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/no_place_to_hide_were_all_suspects_in_barack_obamas_america_20140121

[sabrina 1]

1. I watched Feinstein and Rogers, who seem to be quite a pair of pro-security state advocates, on that

show:

Mike Rogers and Dianne Feinstein, the leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees, who on Sunday talk shows were branding Edward Snowden as a possible Russian spy.

I expect to see that talking point around here any day now.

The useless media didn't even correct them when they implied, something we HAVE seen here, that Snowden fled to Russia.

So to correct that lie once again, it was the US Government that forced Snowden to remain in Russia. He was on his way to his final destination, with a stop over in Russia when the US Government took away his passport making it impossible for him to continue on his way.

The Corporate sponsored interviewer never asked them WHY the US Government wanted Snowden in Russia, he certainly didn't make that decision.

The lies are now so blatant that I think most people just roll their eyes when they hear them speak.

Another question I would like to Feinstein, who stated in another interview together with her Republican buddy, that 'we are in MORE danger now than ever'.

Against the Corporate Sponsored interviewer never asked the obvious question, since she was defending the violations of the Constitution as 'necessary for our security', if we are in MORE danger after more than a decade of these violations, isn't that an indication that THEY ARE NOT keeping us safe?

But we would have to have a free press for anyone to ask such questions.

[Peace Patriot]

4. Excellent post! Thanks, sabrina 1!

nt

[sabrina 1]

5. Thank you. I am still waiting for one of our intrepid 'journalists' on the Corporate media to

correct the latest talking point that Snowden 'fled to Russia' when we all know that it was the US Govt who forced him to remain in Russia. And after they do that I am expecting them to ask the question that has been asked now by most thinking people: 'Why on earth would the US Government WANT Snowden in Russia IF as they are claiming they were worried about Russia having access to any 'sensitive' material he might have had.

But so far, no one has even exhibited the slightest interest in why the US Government prevented Snowden from leaving
Russia.

[KoKo]

8. +1...the PTB still think they can massage that message...

to their true believers. But, how much longer can that last with so many turning to the internet for news. The audience is dwindling for those propaganda type Sunday Show.

Sadly....not fast enough, though.

[blkmusclmachine]

2. "Constitutional Scholar." No one said you actually have to be "for" the Constitution, y'know?!?!

[Demeter]

3. Uh, Yeah. He swore the oath of office.

and I'm pretty sure there's language about "upholding the Constitution".

And not just to strangle it.

[xchrom]

6. du rec.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. As a CYA speech jampacked with platitudes about privacy, it wasn't toooo bad.

It convinced some people privacy might be nice but "security" is even better and despite the evidence we should trust the bosses.