If we could see Obama debating Obama, we would see flip flops like we've never witnessed before. I have compiled a list of the things he has "changed" his stance on since becoming p(resident). The fact is, he hasn't "changed" his view on anything. His view has always been the same from the very beginning. He only comes out of the closet so to speak when it suits him to do so. And now, he is bolder than ever before because he considers himself untouchable. He has nothing to lose anymore so why not? But he is too full of pride. Just as Satan was. It was pride that brought Satan down and it will be that same pride that will topple this administration. They think they are in complete control...but that house is built on sand and the tide is about to come in. And it's going to come in fast.
Here are the stances Obama has taken. Then and Now:
“You know, when I came into this office, I made two commitments that are more than any commitment I make: number one, to keep the American people safe; and number two, uh, to uphold the Constitution. And that includes what I consider to be a constitutional right to privacy and, uh, an observance of civil liberties.
Now, the programs that have been discussed over the last couple days in the press, uh, are secret in the sense that they’re classified, but they’re not secret in the sense that, uh, when it comes to telephone calls, every member of Congress has been briefed on this program.
Uh, with respect to all these programs, uh, the relevant intelligence committees are fully briefed on these programs. These are programs that have been authorized by broad, bipartisan majorities repeatedly since 2006. And, so I think at the outset, it’s important to understand that your duly elected representatives have been consistently informed on exactly what we’re doing.
Now, let — let me take the, the two issues separately. When it comes to telephone calls, nobody is listening to your telephone calls. That’s not what this program’s about. As was indicated, uh, 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 might engage in terrorism. If these folks, uh — if the intelligence community then actually 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 – I want to be very clear. Some of the, uh, hype that we’ve been hearing over the last day or so — nobody’s listening to the content of people’s phone calls.
This program, by the way, is fully overseen not just by Congress but by the FISA Court, a court specially put together to evaluate classified programs to make sure that the executive branch, or government generally, is not abusing them and that they’re — it’s being out consistent with the Constitution and rule of law.
And so not only does that court authorize the initial gathering of data, but I want to repeat, if anybody 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,uh — and — and indicate why, in fact, uh, they were doing, uh, further — further probing.
Now, with respect to the Internet and emails, this does not apply to U.S. citizens and it does not apply to people living in the United States. And again, in this instance, not only is Congress fully apprised of it, but what is also true is that the FISA Court has to authorize it.
So in summary, what you’ve got is two programs that were originally authorized by Congress, have been repeatedly authorized by Congress. Bipartisan majorities have approved them. Congress is continually briefed on how these are conducted. There are a whole range of safeguards involved. And federal judges are overseeing the entire program throughout. And we’re also setting up — we’ve also set up an audit process, uh, when I came into office to make sure that we’re, after the fact, uh, making absolutely certain that all the safeguards are being properly observed.
Um. Now, having said all that, you’ll remember when I made that speech, uh, a couple of weeks ago about the need for us to shift out of, um, a perpetual war mindset. I specifically said that one of the things that we’re going to have to discuss and debate is how were 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.
And I welcome this debate. And I think it’s healthy for our democracy. I think it’s a sign of maturity, because probably five years ago, six years ago, we might not have been having this debate. And I think it’s interesting that there are some folks on the left, but also some folks on the right who are now worried about it who weren’t very, uh, worried about it when it was a Republican president. I think that’s good that we’re having this discussion.
But I think it’s important for everybody to understand, and I think the American people understand, that there are some trade-offs involved, you know. I came in with a health skepticism about these programs. My team evaluated them. We scrubbed them thoroughly. We actually expanded some of the oversight, increased some of the safeguards. But my assessment and my team’s assessment was that they help us prevent terrorist attacks. And the modest, uh, encroachments on privacy that are involved in getting phone numbers or duration without a name attached and not looking at content — uh, that on, you know, net, it was worth us doing.”
That’s — some other folks may have a different assessment of that. But I think it’s important to recognize that you can’t have a hundred percent security and also then have a hundred percent privacy and zero inconvenience. Um, you … you know, we’re going to have to make some choices as a society.
And all I can say is, is that in evaluating these programs, they make a difference in our ability to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity. And the fact that they’re 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 U.S. citizens or U.S. residents, absent further action by a federal court, that is entirely consistent with what we would do, for example, in a criminal investigation.
I think, on balance, um, we — you know, we have established a process and a procedure that the American people should feel comfortable about. But again, this — these programs are subject to congressional oversight and congressional reauthorization and congressional debate. And if there are members of Congress who feel differently, then, um, they should speak up.
And we’re happy to have that debate.”
Posts
