President Obama

Diskusjon om politiske temaer fra det internasjonale nyhetsbildet.

Re: President Obama

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 28 Okt 2012, 06:08

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... t-time-sex


Obama´s latest official campaign ad, released yesterday (10/25), is a TV Bimbo comparing a girl's losing her virginity to voting for Zero.

This afternoon, the Obama campaign released its latest ad from a celebrity. This one was from Lena Dunham, 26-year-old creator of HBO’s raunchy series Girls. It’s an astoundingly tasteless ad comparing voting for the first time to losing your virginity. Really. And Dunham recommends that if you’re going to have sex – er, vote – for the first time, you should really do it with President Barack Obama. Here’s the transcript:

Your first time shouldn’t be with just anybody. You want to do it with a great guy. It should be with a guy with beautiful … somebody who really cares about and understands women.

A guy who cares about whether you get health insurance, and specifically whether you get birth control. The consequences are huge. You want to do it with a guy who brought the troops out of Iraq. You don’t want a guy who says, “Oh hey, I’m at the library studying,” when he’s really out not signing the Lilly Ledbetter Act.
Or who thinks that gay people should never have beautiful, complicated weddings of the kind we see on Bravo or TLC all the time. It’s a fun game to say, “Who are you voting for?” and they say “I don’t want to tell you,” and you say, “No, who are you voting for,” and they go, “Guess!”
Think about how you want to spend those four years. In college age time, that’s 150 years. Also, it’s super uncool to be out and about and someone says, “Did you vote,” and “No, I didn’t vote, I wasn’t ready.”

My first time voting was amazing. It was this line in the sand. Before I was a girl. Now I was a woman. I went to the polling station and pulled back the curtain. I voted for Barack Obama.


Yes, she just compared sex with voting. And she mocked virgins – “No, I didn’t vote, I wasn’t ready.” And she said that Barack Obama’s the guy she’d rather have sex – er, vote – with. She actually saved herself for Barack Obama (she’s 26) – she could have swiped her V(oting)-card with John Kerry, but he was too limp a candidate, apparently. A real flip-flopper.

So she chose to do it for the first time with Barack Obama, since he “cares about and understands women.” In fact, he understands them so well that he exploits them for insane commercials comparing losing your virginity with voting. Obama has young daughters. But that didn't stop him from releasing this commercial. Because this is what Obama thinks of your daughters. This is Obama's official campaign ad. Paid for with his campaign money. Distributed by his campaign. If this ad were any more demeaning to women – who apparently care only about having sex, if you listen to Lena “You Want To Do It” Dunham -- it would be produced by Bill Maher and star Bill Clinton.

Oh, wait. That’s Obama’s actual campaign.

First it was Big Bird. Then it was binders. Then it was bayonets. Now it’s about birth control.
According to Barack Obama, this campaign isn’t about the economy. Or foreign policy. It’s about free birth control as advocated by unbelievably wealthy celebrities. If Obama goes any smaller in this campaign, we’re going to need a microscope to find him.

And God knows that women don’t want to have sex – er, vote – with a small candidate. In fact, they might prefer a candidate who provides, say, jobs. Or an economy that’s not a disaster area. Or perhaps consulates full of live ambassadors.

But at least Dunham got one thing right. The folks who vote for Barack Obama want voting without consequences.
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7865
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: President Obama

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 28 Okt 2012, 06:09

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... ark-steyn#

The Incredible Shrinking President
Two videos distill the meaning of a campaign, and a presidency.
By Mark Steyn

We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video,” said Hillary Clinton. No, not the person who made the video saying that voting for Barack Obama is like losing your virginity to a really cool guy. I’ll get to that in a moment. But Secretary Clinton was talking about the fellow who made the supposedly Islamophobic video that supposedly set off the sacking of the Benghazi consulate. And, indeed, she did “have that person arrested.” By happy coincidence, his bail hearing has been set for three days after the election, by which time he will have served his purpose. These two videos — the Islamophobic one and the Obamosexual one — bookend the remarkable but wholly deserved collapse of the president’s reelection campaign.

You’ll recall that a near-month-long attempt to blame an obscure YouTube video for the murder of four Americans and the destruction of U.S. sovereign territory climaxed in the vice-presidential debate with Joe Biden’s bald assertion that the administration had been going on the best intelligence it had at the time. By then, it had been confirmed that there never had been any protest against the video, and that the Obama line that Benghazi had been a spontaneous movie review that just got a little out of hand was utterly false. The only remaining question was whether the administration had knowingly lied or was merely innocently stupid. The innocent-stupidity line became harder to maintain this week after Fox News obtained State Department e-mails revealing that shortly after 4 p.m. Eastern, less than a half hour after the assault in Benghazi began, the White House situation room knew the exact nature of it.

We also learned that, in those first moments of the attack, a request for military back-up was made by U.S. staff on the ground but was denied by Washington. It had planes and special forces less than 500 miles away in southern Italy — or about the same distance as Washington to Boston. They could have been there in less than two hours. Yet the commander-in-chief declined to give the order. So Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods fought all night against overwhelming odds, and died on a rooftop in a benighted jihadist hellhole while Obama retired early to rest up before his big Vegas campaign stop. “Within minutes of the first bullet being fired the White House knew these heroes would be slaughtered if immediate air support was denied,” said Ty Woods’s father, Charles. “In less than an hour, the perimeters could have been secured and American lives could have been saved. After seven hours fighting numerically superior forces, my son’s life was sacrificed because of the White House’s decision.”

Why would Obama and Biden do such a thing? Because to launch a military operation against an al-Qaeda affiliate on the anniversary of 9/11 would have exposed the hollowness of their boast through convention week and the days thereafter — that Osama was dead and al-Qaeda was finished. And so Ty Woods, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Chris Stevens were left to die, and a decision taken to blame an entirely irrelevant video and, as Secretary Clinton threatened, “have that person arrested.” And, in the weeks that followed, the government of the United States lied to its own citizens as thoroughly and energetically as any totalitarian state, complete with the midnight knock on the door from not-so-secret policemen sent to haul the designated fall-guy into custody.

This goes far beyond the instinctive secretiveness to which even democratic governments are prone. The Obama administration created a wholly fictional story line, and devoted its full resources to maintaining it. I understand why Mitt Romney chose not to pursue this line of argument in the final debate. The voters who will determine this election are those who voted for Obama four years ago and this time round either switch to the other fellow or sit on their hands. In electoral terms, it’s probably prudent of Mitt not to rub their faces in their 2008 votes. Nevertheless, when the president and other prominent officials stand by as four Americans die and then abuse their sacrifice as contemptuously as this administration did, decency requires that they be voted out of office as an act of urgent political hygiene.

At the photo-op staged for the returning caskets, Obama et al. seem to have been too focused on their campaign needs to observe even the minimal courtesies. Charles Woods says that at the ceremony Joe Biden strolled over to him and by way of condolence said in a “loud and boisterous” voice, “Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?” One assumes charitably that the vice president is acknowledging in his own inept and blundering way the remarkable courage of a man called upon to die for his country on some worthless sod halfway across the planet. But the near-parodic locker-room coarseness is grotesque both in its inaptness and in its lack of basic human feeling for a bereaved family forced to grieve in public and as crowd-scene extras to the political bigshot. Just about the only formal responsibility a vice president has is to attend funerals without embarrassing his country. And this preening buffoon of pseudo-blue-collar faux-machismo couldn’t even manage that.

But a funny thing happened over the next six weeks: Obama’s own cue balls shriveled. Biden had offered up a deft campaign slogan encompassing both domestic and foreign policy: “Osama’s dead and General Motors is alive.” But, as the al-Qaeda connections to Benghazi dribbled out leak by leak, the “Osama’s dead” became a problematic boast and, left to stand alone, the General Motors line was even less credible. Avoiding the economy and foreign affairs, Obama fell back on Big Bird, and binders, and bayonets, just to name the “B”s in his bonnet. At the second presidential debate, he name-checked Planned Parenthood, the General Motors of the American abortion industry, half a dozen times, desperate to preserve his so-called gender gap. Yet oddly enough, the more furiously Obama and Biden have waved their binders and talked up Sandra Fluke, the more his supposed lead among women has withered away. So now he needs to enthuse the young, who turned out in such numbers for him last time. Hence, the official campaign video (plagiarized from Vladimir Putin of all people) explaining that voting for Obama is like having sex. The saddest thing about that claim is that, for liberals, it may well be true.

Both videos — the one faking Obamagasm and the one faking a Benghazi pretext — exemplify the wretched shrinkage that befalls those unable to conceive of anything except in the most self-servingly political terms. Both, in different ways, exemplify why Obama and Biden are unfit for office. One video testifies to a horrible murderous lie at the heart of a head of state’s most solemn responsibility, the other to the glib shallow narcissism of a pop-culture presidency, right down to the numbing relentless peer pressure: C’mon, all the cool kids are doing it; why be the last hold-out?

If voting for Obama is like the first time you have sex, it’s very difficult to lose your virginity twice. A flailing, pitiful campaign has now adopted Queen Victoria’s supposed wedding advice to her daughter: “Lie back and think of England.” Lie back and think of America. And then get up and get dressed. Who wants to sleep with a $16 trillion broke loser twice?
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7865
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: President Obama

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 21 Mai 2013, 11:47

President Obamas talsmann setter rekord i å ikke svare på direkte spørsmål:

OPPTAK:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... ttack.html

UTSKRIFT:

CHRIS WALLACE, "FOX NEWS SUNDAY" HOST: Let's turn to Benghazi. And I want to ask you about one lingering question, which is the president's actions on 9/11, the night of the attack, because we don't know very much about that. We do know that in the afternoon he had already scheduled meeting with Defense Secretary Panetta as well as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey when he heard about this while they were in a meeting on an unrelated subject. He said that wanted them to deploy forces as soon as possible.

The next time that he shows up, is as Hillary Clinton says that she spoke to him at around 10:00 that night after the attack at the consulate, not as it turned out at the annex, but the attack at the consulate was -- had ended. Question, what did the president do the rest of that night to pursue Benghazi?

DAN PFEIFFER, SENIOR ADVISER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, look, the president was kept up to date on this as it was happening throughout the entire night, from the moment it started until the very end. And because this is a critically -- this was a horrible tragedy. These are people that he sent abroad whose lives are in risk, people who work for him. And I recognize that there's a series of conspiracy theories the Republicans have been spinning about this since the night it happened, but there's been an independent review of this, congress has held hearings, we provided 250,000 pages of -- 250,000 pages of documents up there. There's been 11 hearings, 20 staff briefings. And everyone has found the same thing, this is a tragedy.

And so the question here is not what happened that night. The question is what are we going to do to move forward ensuring that this doesn't happen again. That's why Congress should act on what the president called for earlier this week, to pass legislation to allow us to actually implement all the recommendations of the independent accountability review board so we can protect our diplomats around the world, because when we send our diplomats off into far-flung places, there's an inherent level of risk. We should do what we can to mitigate that risk.

WALLACE: But with due respect, you didn't answer my question. What did the president do that night?

PFEIFFER: He was kept -- he was in constant touch that night with his national security team and kept up to date with the events as they were happening.

WALLACE: When you say his national security team, he didn't talk to the secretary of state, except for the one time when the first attack was over. He didn't talk to the secretary of defense. He didn't talk to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Who was he talking to?

PFEIFFER: He was talking to his national security staff, his National Security Council, the people who keep him up to date about briefings as they happen.

WALLACE: Was he in the Situation Room?

PFEIFFER: He was kept up to date throughout the day.

WALLACE: Do you not know whether he was in the Situation Room?

PFEIFFER: I don't remember what room the president was in on that night. And that's a largely irrelevant fact.

WALLACE: Well --

PFEIFFER: The point is -- the question is -- the premise of your question is that somehow there was something that could have been done differently, OK, that would have changed the outcome here. The accountability review board has looked at this. People have looked at it. It's a horrible tragedy, what happened, and we have to make sure it doesn't happen again.

WALLACE: Here's the point, though. The ambassador goes missing, ends up the first ambassador in more than 30 years is killed. Four Americans, including the ambassador, are killed. Dozens of Americans are in jeopardy. The president at 4:00 in the afternoon says to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to deploy forces. No forces are deployed. Where is he while all this is going on?

PFEIFFER: This has been testified to by the --

WALLACE: Well, no. No one knows where he was, or how he was involved, or who told him there were no forces --

PFEIFFER: The suggestion of your question is that somehow the president --

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: I just want to know what the answer is.

PFEIFFER: The assertions from Republicans here that somehow the president allowed this to happen or didn't take action is offensive. It is absolutely an offensive premise. And there's no evidence to support it
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7865
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: President Obama

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 11 Jun 2013, 08:59

Skandalene florerer i Obamas administrasjon

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/06/1 ... imprismed/

Are We Being ImPrism’ed?



Is there anyone in government we can trust?

It seemed as if we’d be able to focus on the Eric Holder subset of the Obama scandal parade for at least a few days. But we were interrupted by revelations about Obama’s telephone and email snooping published in the Guardian, a Brit newspaper not known for its faithfulness to the facts.

Guardian published a story — and a top secret court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court — focusing on our government’s intelligence gathering of telephone “metadata” on more than a hundred million Verizon customers and a hitherto unknown e-mail snooping system called “PRISM.” Both reports were verified (and denounced) by the U.S. intelligence community.

These reports come at a time when the Obama scandal score card read:

The IRS’s defense to the targeting of Tea Party-related groups for illegal treatment rested on the assertion of the Fifth Amendment by one of its high-ranking people.
The Attorney General evidently committed perjury by denying any connection to the search warrant used to obtain Fox News reporter James Rosen’s emails.
The Justice Department isn’t even contesting the impropriety of subpoenaing the telephone records of the Associated Press.
Various senior members of the Obama administration, past and present, have admitted that they used email accounts under fictional names for official business (to avoid government record-keeping laws).
The courts are considering the impropriety of President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege last year in hope of protecting Eric Holder in the “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scandal, a program that was created to obtain political leverage in favor of gun control.

And that’s only the top five on the list.

Libertarians, and some conservatives, are shouting that we’re undergoing a quiet coup d’état, a revolution against our Constitution that is happening under our noses. It may get that far, but we’re not there yet. What is happening is not a revolution but rather the realization that we cannot believe anything that this administration says.

Back to the case in point.


....
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7865
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: President Obama

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 11 Jun 2013, 09:01

http://www.document.no/2013/06/obama-nixon/

Obama - Nixon?
Hans Rustad
11.06.2013 kl. 00.32

Barack Obama sam­men­lig­nes med Richard Nixon. Paral­lel­len er deres vilje til å bruke stats­ap­pa­ra­tet for å kon­trol­lere bor­gerne, uten at bor­gerne vet noe. Vil ame­ri­ka­nerne finne seg i det? Nei, tror Damian Thomp­son i Tel­graph. Han tror PRISM og Snow­don er så stort at Obama ikke kom­mer til å sitte perio­den ut.

Det reg­ner med uven­tede poli­tiske kon­stel­la­sjo­ner: både høyre og venstre­si­den har fun­net hver­andre. Fox News og Michael Moore mener det samme. Dette er govern­ment “intrus­tion”, inn­blan­ding, overgrep.

De store mediene er lunkne og tør ikke følge opp saken i dens fulle bredde. En jour­na­list i BBC pres­terte å si at den har kom­met for en let­telse for Obama for­den har tatt opp­merk­som­he­ten vekk fra IRS. Men IRS er utslag av samme men­ta­li­tet: man har mulig­he­ten til å ramme mot­stan­dere, og hvor­for ikke benytte mulig­he­ten når man har anledning.

Tim Stan­ley

Finally, tota­ling every scan­dal up – IRS, AP phone records, Fox jour­na­lists being targe­ted, the Beng­hazi mess – this has to be the most fur­tively aut­ho­ri­ta­rian White House since Nixon’s. We don’t yet have a “smo­king email” from Obama orde­ring all of this, but it can’t be said often enough that there is a cor­re­la­tion between Obama’s “pro­gres­sive” dome­stic agenda and the mis­be­ha­vior of the other agen­cies governed by his admi­ni­stra­tion – for­cing people to buy health­care even when they can’t afford it, bai­ling out the banks, war in Libya and the use of drone stri­kes to kill US citizens. This is exactly what the Tea Party was foun­ded to expose and oppose. All the laugh­ter once directed at the “para­noid” Right now rings hollow.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timst ... c-control/

Men så duk­ker en ufor­ut­sig­bar per­son som Edward Snow­don opp og kull­kas­ter alt. Han er ingen Brad­ley Man­ning. Damian Thomp­son tror ame­ri­ka­nerne vil trykke ham til sitt hjerte, en helt som var vil­lig til å fore sin egen per­son­lige lykke for at andre skulle ha rett på et privatliv.

I do not see how Obama can talk his way out of this one. Snow­den is not Brad­ley Man­ning: he’s not a dis­tur­bed disco bunny but a highly arti­cu­late network security spec­ia­list who has left behind a $200,000 salary and girl­fri­end in Hawaii for a life on the run. He’s not a sleazy opport­u­nist like Julian Assange, eit­her. As he says: “I’m wil­ling to sacri­fice all of that because I can’t in good con­science allow the US govern­ment to destroy pri­vacy, inter­net free­dom and basic liber­ties for people around the world with this mas­sive surveil­lance machine they’re secretly building.”

It will be very dif­fi­cult for the Obama admi­ni­stra­tion to por­tray Snow­den as a trai­tor. For a start, I don’t think US pub­lic opi­nion will allow it. Any expla­na­tions it offers will be drow­ned out by Ame­ri­can citizens deman­ding to know: “So how much do you know about me and my family? How can I find out? How long have you been col­lecting this stuff? What are you going to do with it?”

Sud­denly the worse-than-Watergate rhe­to­ric doesn’t seem over­blown. And I do won­der: can a pre­si­dent who’s pre­si­ded over, and pos­sibly encoura­ged, Chinese-style surveil­lance of The Land of the Free hone­stly expect to serve out his full term?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damia ... full-term/
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7865
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: President Obama

Innlegg QIQrrr 11 Jun 2013, 10:58

Jeg tror ikke det har forkommet noe kritikkverdig i forbindelse med PRISM.

Binswanger:

    I agree with the The Wall Street Journal: there is nothing inherently wrong with the government having collected "meta data" about phone calls and such. The collection of this information has, reportedly, enabled the government to quash planned terroist attacks, e.g., an attack on the NYC subways that was in the works in 2009. (Some are objecting that the PRISM data-collection program was not a necessary input in the foiling of that attack; but even if it wasn't, it's better to have all the the sources of information we can.) In general, I'm not scared by government invasions of privacy. I have no secrets. Those who raise the specter of Big Brother are not on a wrong basic premise, but they are being unrealistic: when and if we fall into the grip of totalitarianism, there will be nothing to stop the dictatorship from spying on us by any means it wishes. Such a regime does not require that the tools have been set up in advance. This is not to say that the present government should be given carte blanche. And some reining in may well be called for. But alarmism here is unwarranted and counter-productive.
Mitt inntrykk er at mange har trukket forhastede konklusjoner.

Et flertall av amerikanerne ser også ut til å ta det hele med fatning:

    Pew Research Center, June 10, 2013: A majority of Americans – 56% – say the National Security Agency’s (NSA) program tracking the telephone records of millions of Americans is an acceptable way for the government to investigate terrorism, though a substantial minority – 41% – say it is unacceptable. And while the public is more evenly divided over the government’s monitoring of email and other online activities to prevent possible terrorism, these views are largely unchanged since 2002, shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks - Majority Views NSA Phone Tracking as Acceptable Anti-terror Tactic
Og Snowden har jo ironisk nok appellert til det demokratiske flertallets påståtte suverenitet i denne saken.
Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen

"Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted" - Franz Kafka
Brukerens avatar
QIQrrr
 
Innlegg: 4439
Registrert: 20 Mai 2004, 23:33

Re: President Obama

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 11 Jun 2013, 14:30

QIQrrr er sikkert enig med meg i at dette

Et flertall av amerikanerne ser også ut til å ta det hele med fatning:


ikke betyr at det er rett og riktig.
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7865
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: President Obama

Innlegg QIQrrr 11 Jun 2013, 20:23

Vegard Martinsen skrev:QIQrrr er sikkert enig med meg i at dette
Et flertall av amerikanerne ser også ut til å ta det hele med fatning:

ikke betyr at det er rett og riktig.

Naturligvis, og det var myntet på følgende:

Hans Rustad skrev:Damian Thomp­son tror ame­ri­ka­nerne vil trykke ham til sitt hjerte...
Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen

"Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted" - Franz Kafka
Brukerens avatar
QIQrrr
 
Innlegg: 4439
Registrert: 20 Mai 2004, 23:33

Re: President Obama

Innlegg QIQrrr 13 Jun 2013, 03:06

CATO Institute, June 12, 2013: President Barack Obama is under harsh attack for stating the obvious: No amount of government ingenuity will guarantee the American people 100 percent security, 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. He was answering a burst of more heated responses from left and right alike to the “news” that for years the National Security Agency has been collecting metadata about Americans’ phone calls and certain foreign Internet communications. Legally, the president is on secure footing under the Patriot Act, which Congress passed shortly after 9/11 and has since reauthorized by large bipartisan majorities. As he stressed, the program has enjoyed the continued support of all three branches of the federal government. It has been free of political abuse since its inception. And as he rightly added, this nation has real problems if its people, at least here, can’t trust the combined actions of the executive branch and the Congress, backstopped by federal judges sworn to protect our individual liberties secured by the Bill of Rights - NSA Surveillance in Perspective
Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen

"Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted" - Franz Kafka
Brukerens avatar
QIQrrr
 
Innlegg: 4439
Registrert: 20 Mai 2004, 23:33

Re: President Obama

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 13 Jun 2013, 07:07

En konservativ skribven har et annet syn enn det QIQrrr gir uttrykk for over. Uthevelser er gjort her.


SHOULD IT BE CRIMINAL TO EXPOSE THE CRIMES OF THE STATE?
Wednesday, 12 June 2013

http://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/5474/87/

What Edward Snowden has done is an amazingly brave and courageous act of civil disobedience.

As a Whistleblower like me, he became discomforted by what he was exposed to and what he saw: the industrial-scale systematic surveillance that is scooping up vast amounts of information not only around the world but in the United States, in direct violation of the fourth amendment of the US constitution.

The NSA programs that Snowden has revealed are nothing new: they date back to the days and weeks after 9/11. I had direct exposure to similar programs, such as Stellar Wind, in 2001.

Stellar Wind was a highly secret program that, without warrant or any approval from the Fisa court, gave the NSA access to all phone records from the major telephone companies, including US-to-US calls. It correlates precisely with the Verizon order revealed by Snowden; and based on what we know, you have to assume that there are standing orders for the other major telephone companies.

It is technically true that the order applies only to meta-data. The problem is that in the digital space, metadata becomes the index for content. And content is gold for determining intent.

This executive fiat of 2001 violated not just the fourth amendment, but also Fisa rules at the time, which made it a felony - carrying a penalty of $10,000 and five years in prison for each and every instance. The supposed oversight, combined with enabling legislation - the Fisa court, the congressional committees - is all a kabuki dance, predicated on the national security claim that we need to find a threat. The reality is, they just want it all, period.

So I was there at the very nascent stages, when the government - wilfully and in deepest secrecy - subverted the constitution. All you need to know about so-called oversight is that the NSA was already in violation of the Patriot Act by the time it was signed into law.

When I was in the US air force, flying an RC-135 in the latter years of the cold war, I was a German-Russian crypto-linguist. We called ourselves the "vacuum-cleaner of the sky" because our capability to gather information was enormous at the time. But it was always outward-facing; we could not collect on US targets because that was against the law. To the US government today, however, we are all foreigners.

I became an expert on East Germany, which was then the ultimate surveillance state. Their secret police were monstrously efficient: they had a huge paper-based system that held information on virtually everyone in the country - a population of about 16-17 million. The Stasi's motto was "to know everything".

So none of this is new to me. The difference between what the Bush administration was doing in 2001, right after 9/11, and what the Obama administration is doing today is that the system is now under the cover and color of law. Yet, what Snowden has revealed is still the tip of the iceberg.

General Michael Hayden, who was head of the NSA when I worked there, and then director of the CIA, said, "We need to own the net." And that is what they're implementing here. They have this extraordinary system: in effect, a 24/7 panopticon on a vast scale that it is gazing at you with an all-seeing eye.

I lived with that dirty knowledge for years. Before 9/11, the prime directive at the NSA was that you don't spy on Americans without a warrant; to do so was against the law - and, in particular, was a criminal violation of Fisa. My concern was that we were more than an accessory; this was a crime and we were subverting the constitution.

I differed as a whistleblower to Snowden only in this respect: in accordance with the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, I took my concerns up within the chain of command, to the very highest levels at the NSA, and then to Congress and the Department of Defense. I understand why Snowden has taken his course of action, because he's been following this for years: he's seen what's happened to other whistleblowers like me.

By following protocol, you get flagged - just for raising issues. You're identified as someone they don't like, someone not to be trusted. I was exposed early on because I was a material witness for two 9/11 congressional investigations. In closed testimony, I told them everything I knew - about Stellar Wind, billions of dollars in fraud, waste and abuse, and the critical intelligence, which the NSA had but did not disclose to other agencies, preventing vital action against known threats. If that intelligence had been shared, it may very well have prevented 9/11.

But as I found out later, none of the material evidence I disclosed went into the official record. It became a state secret even to give information of this kind to the 9/11 investigation.

I reached a point in early 2006 when I decided I would contact a reporter. I had the same level of security clearance as Snowden. If you look at the indictment from 2010, you can see that I was accused of causing "exceptionally grave damage to US national security." Despite allegations that I had tippy-top-secret documents, in fact, I had no classified information in my possession, and I disclosed none to the Baltimore Sun journalist during 2006 and 2007.

But I got hammered: in November 2007, I was raided by a dozen armed FBI agents, when I was served with a search warrant. The nightmare had only just begun, including extensive physical and electronic surveillance.

In April 2008, in a secret meeting with the FBI, the chief prosecutor from the Department of Justice assigned to lead the prosecution said, "How would you like to spend the rest of your life in jail, Mr. Drake?" - unless I co-operated with their multi-year, multimillion-dollar criminal leak investigation, launched in 2005 after the explosive New York Times article revealing for the first time the warrantless wiretapping operation.

Two years later, they finally charged me with a ten felony count indictment, including five counts under the Espionage Act. I faced upwards of 35 years in prison.

In July 2011, after the government's case had collapsed under the weight of truth, I plead to a minor misdemeanor for "exceeding authorized use of a computer" under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act - in exchange for the DOJ dropping all ten felony counts. I received as a sentence one year's probation and 240 hours of community service: I interviewed almost 50 veterans for the Library of Congress veterans history project. This was a rare, almost unprecedented, case of a government prosecution of a whistleblower ending in total defeat and failure.

So, the stakes for whistleblowers are incredibly high. The government has got its knives out: there's a massive manhunt for Snowden. They will use all their resources to hunt him down and every detail of his life will be turned inside out. They'll do everything they can to "bring him to justice" - already there are calls for the "traitor" to be "put away for life".

He can expect the worst; he knows that. He went preemptively overseas because that at least delays the prying hand of the US government. But he could be extracted by rendition, as he has said. Certainly, my life was shredded. Once they have determined that you are a "person of interest" and an "enemy of the state," they want to destroy you, period.

I am now reliving the last 12 years from what's been disclosed in the past week. I feel a kinship with Snowden: he is essentially the equivalent of me. He saw the surveillance state from within and saw how far it's gone. The government has a pathological incentive to collect more and more and more; they just can't help themselves - they have an insatiable hoarding complex....
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7865
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: President Obama

Innlegg QIQrrr 13 Jun 2013, 07:51

Jeg vet ikke om "konservativ skribent" er det som best beskriver Thomas Drake.
Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen

"Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted" - Franz Kafka
Brukerens avatar
QIQrrr
 
Innlegg: 4439
Registrert: 20 Mai 2004, 23:33

Re: President Obama

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 13 Jun 2013, 08:32

QIQrrr skrev:Jeg vet ikke om "konservativ skribent" er det som best beskriver Thomas Drake.


Det eneste jeg visste om ham var at det jeg siterte var publisert på en liberalkonservtiv nettside som er svært god og Objektivist-inspirert (selv om den er religiøs).
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7865
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: President Obama

Innlegg streetsmart 13 Jun 2013, 13:18

Jeg har ikke satt meg helt inn i saken her, men viss noen i politiet ser at jeg skriver på liberalistiske nettforum, ser på porno, skriver skitne meldinger til jenter, prater dritt om andre personer i emailene mine, liker hatbilder av Jens Stoltenberg på facebook. Om jeg gjør dette, er det et stort problem at en i regjeringen får det med seg? Kan regjeringen gjøre noe i det hele tatt med meg, selv om de overvåker meg? Jeg har jo lov til å gjøre alt det jeg har gjort. Er det ikke fint at politiet følger med hvem som bryter loven, og passer på at terrorister planlegger attentat og får en lettere inngang til dette? Effektiviserer ikke dette politiets arbeid?

Hvordan innskrenker dette vår frihet. Hva måtte jeg tenke mer på om jeg visste at politiet kan gå inn å se hva jeg gjør på internett, når jeg vet at å si og skrive hva jeg vil er lovlig?
streetsmart
 
Innlegg: 167
Registrert: 20 Feb 2011, 20:52
Bosted: Trondheim

Re: President Obama

Innlegg Rounin 13 Jun 2013, 18:19

streetsmart skrev:Jeg har ikke satt meg helt inn i saken her, men viss noen i politiet ser at jeg skriver på liberalistiske nettforum, ser på porno, skriver skitne meldinger til jenter, prater dritt om andre personer i emailene mine, liker hatbilder av Jens Stoltenberg på facebook. Om jeg gjør dette, er det et stort problem at en i regjeringen får det med seg?

Det er et stort problem at de kan få det med seg, selv om både du og alle de som sender trafikken videre på veien har blitt enige om at de ikke skal det. Dette kan de kun få til gjennom lureri eller tvang.

streetsmart skrev:Kan regjeringen gjøre noe i det hele tatt med meg, selv om de overvåker meg? Jeg har jo lov til å gjøre alt det jeg har gjort.

Regjeringen kan relativt lett endre lovene, samt bryte dem, uten samme konsekvenser som det har for en enkeltperson. Når de som utgjør den da i tillegg har en sterk motivasjon for å kontrollere andre – De lever av å gjøre dette – og et massivt overvåkningsapparat til å gjøre det med, vil det lett bære galt av sted.

streetsmart skrev:Er det ikke fint at politiet følger med hvem som bryter loven, og passer på at terrorister planlegger attentat og får en lettere inngang til dette? Effektiviserer ikke dette politiets arbeid?

Nei. Ulempen ved at alle uskyldige blir overvåket hele tiden er større enn gevinsten dette gir.

streetsmart skrev:Hvordan innskrenker dette vår frihet. Hva måtte jeg tenke mer på om jeg visste at politiet kan gå inn å se hva jeg gjør på internett, når jeg vet at å si og skrive hva jeg vil er lovlig?

Dette er vel en gjentagelse av spørsmålene du stiller over, så da gjelder samme svar.
Brukerens avatar
Rounin
 
Innlegg: 747
Registrert: 06 Jun 2007, 17:17

Re: President Obama

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 13 Jun 2013, 18:31

Politet bør ha all rett til å se på alt som er åpent tilgjengelig - f.eks. det du skriver på fb som er åpent for alle.

Men dersom noe ikke er åpent - ting du sier på telefonen, ting du skriver i et brev eller i e-mail, ting du skriver på et lukket forum, sider du besøker på Internett, lukkede klubber du besøker in person - så skal slike ting ikke være tilgjengelige for politet uten en begrunnet mistanke om alvorlig kriminalitet og en rettslig kjennelse.

Mange vil si at de ikke har noe å skjule og at de derfor ikke har noe imot å bli overvåket fullt ut, men prinsippet må være at det skal være opp til den enkelte selv å bestemme hva han vil dele med hvem. Ingen har rett til å ta seg til rette har, og dette gjelder også myndighetene.
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7865
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

ForrigeNeste

Gå til Utenrikspolitikk

Hvem er i forumet

Brukere som leser i dette forumet: Ingen registrerte brukere og 1 gjest

cron