President Obama's remarks today in regard to the surveillance issues.

[phleshdef]

I transcribed this myself, as best as I could, so I apologize for any mistakes. I think I got it pretty accurate though.

----

Reporter - Jackie Calmes:

"Mr President, could you please react to the reports of secret government surveillance of phone and internet and could you also assure Americans that the government, your government, doesn't have some massive secret database of personal and online activities?"

President Obama:

"Yea. When I came into this office I made 2 commitments that are more important than any commitment I make. Number one, to keep the American people safe and number two, to uphold the Constitution. And that includes what I consider to be a Constitutional right to privacy and an observance of civil liberties. Now, the programs that have been discussed over the last couple of days in the press are secret in the sense that they are classified. But they are not secret in that when it comes to telephone calls, every member of Congress has been briefed on this program. When it comes to all these programs, the relevant intelligence committees are fully briefed on these programs. These programs have been authorized by broad bipartisan majorities repeatedly since 2006. And, so I think at the outset its important to understand that your dually elected representatives have been consistently informed on exactly what we are doing.

Now let me take the two issues separately.

When it comes to telephone calls, nobody is listening to your telephone calls. Thats not what this program is about. As was indicated, what the intelligence community is doing is looking at phone numbers and durations of calls. They are not looking at people's names. And they're not looking at content. But by sifting through this so called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who may engage in terrorism. If the intelligence community then wants to listen to a phone call, they've got to go back to a federal judge, just like they would in a criminal investigation.

So, I want to be very clear. Some of the hype we've been hearing over the last day or so, nobody is listening to the content of people's phone calls. This program, by the way, is not just fully overseen by Congress, but by the FISA court. A court specially put together to evaluate classified programs to make sure the executive branch or government generally is not abusing them and that its being carried out consistent with the Constitution and rule of law. And so not only does that court authorize the initial gathering of data but, and I wanna repeat, if anyone in government wanted to go further than just that top line data and wanted to, for example, listen to Jackie Calmes's phone call, they'd have to go back to a federal judge and indicate why they were doing further probing.

Now with respect to the Internet and emails. This does not apply to US citizens and does not apply to people living in the US. And again, in this instance, not only is Congress fully apprised of it, but what also is true is that the FISA court has to authorize it. So, in summary what you got is, two programs that were originally authorized by Congress, had been repeatedly (re)authorized by Congress, bipartisan majorities have approved of them, Congress is continually briefed on how these are conducted, theres a whole range of safe guards involved and federal judges are overseeing the entire program throughout. We also set up an audit process when I came into office, to make sure, after the fact, to make sure absolutely certain that all the safe guards are being properly observed.

Now, having said all that, you'll remember when I made that speech a couple of weeks ago about the need for us to shift out of a perpetual "war mindset", I specifically said that one of the things we are going to have to discuss and debate is how are we striking this balance between the need to keep the American people safe and our concerns about privacy. Because, there are some trade-offs involved. I welcome this debate. And I think its healthy for our democracy, I think its a sign of maturity. Because probably 5 years ago, 6 years ago, we might not have been having this debate. And I think its interesting that theres some folks on the left but also some folks on the right who are now worried about it... who weren't very worried about it when it was a Republican President. I think thats good that we are having this discussion. But I think its important for everybody to understand, and I think the American people to understand, that there are some trade-offs involved.

You know, I came in with a healthy skepticism about these programs, my team evaluated them, we scrubbed them thoroughly, we actually expanded some of the oversight, increased some of the safe guards, but my assessment and my team's assessment was that they help us prevent terrorist attacks. And the modest encroachments on privacy that are involved in getting phone numbers or duration without a name and not looking at content, that, on net, it was worth us doing. Some other folks may have a different assessment of that. But I think its important to recognize that you can't have 100% security and also then have 100% privacy and zero inconvenience. We're gonna have to make some choices as a society. And I can say in evaluating these programs, they make a difference in our ability to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity. And the fact that they are under very strict supervision by all three branches of government and that they do not involve listening to people's phone calls, do not involve reading the emails of US citizens or Us residents absent further action by a US federal court, that is entirely consistent with what we would do in a criminal investigation, I think on balance we have established a process and a procedure that the American people should feel comfortable about.

But again, these programs are subject to Congressional oversight and Congressional reauthorization and Congressional debate. And if there are members of Congress who feel differently, then they should speak up and we are happy to have that debate. Ok. All right, we'll have a chance to talk further during the course of the next couple of days. Thank you guys."

--President begins to exit, another question, mostly inaudible is asked by another reporter, regarding the leaks of this information, President goes back to the podium--

President Obama:

"I don't, I don't welcome leaks. Because, theres a reason why these programs are classified. I think theres a suggestion, somehow, that any classified program is a quote/unquote secret program, which means its somehow suspicious, but the fact of the matter is, in our modern history, theres a whole range of programs that have been classified because, for example, when it comes to fighting terror, our goal is to stop folks from doing us harm and if every step we are taking to try to prevent a terrorist act is on the front page of the newspapers or on television then presumably the people that are gonna try to do us harm will be able to get around our preventive measures. Thats why these things are classified. But, thats also why we setup Congressional oversight. These are the folks you all vote for, as your representatives in Congress and they're being fully briefed on these programs. And if in fact, there were abuses taking place, presumably, those members of Congress could raise those issues very aggressively. They're empowered to do so.

We also have federal judges that we put in place, who are not subject to political pressure. They've got lifetime tenure as federal judges and they're empowered to look over our shoulder at the executive branch to make sure that these programs aren't being abused. So we have a system in which some information is classified and we have a system of checks and balances to make sure its not abused. And if in fact, this information just ends up being dumped out "willy nilly" without regard to risks to the program, risks of the people involved, in some cases, with other leaks, risks to personnel in very dangerous situations, then its very hard for us to be as effective in protecting the American people. Thats not to suggest that you just say "Trust me, we're doing the right thing, we know who the bad guys are". And the reason thats not how it works is because we've got Congressional oversight and judicial oversight. And if people can't trust not only the executive branch, but also don't trust Congress and don't trust federal judges to make sure we are abiding by the Constitution, due process and rule of law, then we're gonna have some problems here. But my observation is that the people who are involved in America's national security, they take this work very seriously, they cherish our Constitution. The last thing they'd be doing is taking programs like this to listen to somebody's phone calls.

And by the way, with respect to my concerns about privacy issues... I will leave this office at some point, sometime in three and a half years, after that I will be a private citizen. And I suspect that, on a list of people who might be targeted so that somebody could read their emails or listen to their phone calls, I'd probably be pretty high on that list. So its not as if I don't have a personal interest in making sure my privacy is protected. But, I know that the people who are involved in these programs, they operate like professionals. And these things are very narrowly circumscribed. They're very focused and in the abstract, you can complain about "Big Brother" and how this is a potential, ya know, program run amok. But when you actually look at the details, I think we've struck the right balance."

[WeekendWarrior]

1. This all seems very reasonable to me

But once again the Chicken Littles are screaming that the sky is falling. They've been screaming it for as long as I've been alive (which is pretty long), and the sky hasn't fallen yet.

[phleshdef]

3. I remember during the Bush years, the biggest argument was the lack of oversight....

...and the bypassing of the courts. Some people will claim otherwise, but I remember, I was there. That no longer seems to be a problem. But a lot of people just WANT to be pissed of so they continue to do so, for whatever reason they can come up with.

[JoePhilly]

6. Exactly ... lack of oversight was the primary issue.

And I suspect what we'll continue to see is the same folks who are perpetually outraged continued to be so over this topic for a week or so.

And then something new and shinny will pop up to replace this as the outrage DU JOUR (see the pun there?)

My money is on Obama's secret evil plan to kill Social Security.

Its been at least 4 weeks since DU hast freaked out over how Obama is obviously just minutes away from killing SS.

[okaawhatever]

16. Bush did it by executive order. Now it's congressional law. Huge difference nt

[freshwest]

12. Well, it did fall on this one guy:

[NYC_SKP]

2. Thank you for transcribing this, it can't have been easy! K/R (nt)

[phleshdef]

4. It was sort of painful since I had to pause about every 5-10 seconds.

But I did it with love!

[treestar]

5. Thank you. A good read!

A lot of what I was saying/thinking before I read this. People call me a cheerleader, but I'm really a person who thinks along similar lines to the ones the President does. Hadn't thought of his last point, very true. And what makes him different from Bush is that Bush and his cronies thought they would stay in control.

[Cha]

7. Thanks phleshdef.. that's amazing to me that

you did this!

snip***

"You know, I came in with a healthy skepticism about these programs, my team evaluated them, we scrubbed them thoroughly, we actually expanded some of the oversight, increased some of the safe guards, but my assessment and my team's assessment was that they help us prevent terrorist attacks."

***snip

There it is right there.

[sheshe2]

8. Thank you phleshdef,

For posting this, I missed the speech earlier!

And if people can't trust not only the executive branch, but also don't trust Congress and don't trust federal judges to make sure we are abiding by the Constitution, due process and rule of law, then we're gonna have some problems here. But my observation is that the people who are involved in America's national security, they take this work very seriously, they cherish our Constitution. The last thing they'd be doing is taking programs like this to listen to somebody's phone calls.

K&R!

[freshwest]

13. Well said!

[LeftInTX]

9. Thank you very much for transcribing this!

[Jamaal510]

10. K&R

[blkmusclmachine]

11. Ignore his words. Watch his actions.

Then you can know The Truth.

[warrprayer]

14. Summed up in one word...

... "SUCKERS"!

[freshwest]

15. Thanks very much. The depth of his thinking on these things always exceeds the soundbites repeated

endlessly by those who seek to detract from him, who don't have the capability to understand.

You can see his thinking on this. Those unwilling to listen just because it's Obama talking, are missing a lot.

[Kablooie]

17. It sounds reasonable but never accept statements at their face value. Skepticism is healthy.

What he says may be true but also there still may be aspects that are unacceptable.
It's too early to know.
---

I just watched Lawrence O'Donnell's interview with Glen Greenwald.

One point that Greenwald brought up is that Snowden, who was a mid level IT guy, not a secure data analyst, could have accessed anyone's private email without anyone knowing. This data, besides being excessively invasive, is open to be used for abusive and illegal purposes without any legal oversite.

[Brigid]

18. Sorry, Mr. President.

But I don't trust Congress and I don't trust the FISA courts. I didn't like these "spying on Americans" programs under Bush, and I don't like them any better now.