I've generally taken President Obama at his word. He inherited a very messed-up situation, and near as I can tell he has done his level best to deal with it. With next to no help from the bull-headed Congress too. He may not do everything that I want or as fast I want, but he's got the job -- not me -- so I basically take him at his word, most times, when he says he's doing what's best for the American People. Real Change takes time. And cooperation.
And I basically take President Obama at his word, when he says he "would welcome the debate" about the erosion of our civil liberties. Especially since that was another one of those messed-up things he inherited. Something that up til now the Patriot-enacting Congress has just blissfully ignored, their role in the story.
Obama’s Remarks on Health Care and Surveillance
June 7, 2013, NYTimes.com
[...]
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 that we’re 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 tradeoffs involved.
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 worried about it when there was a Republican President. I think that’s good that we’re having this discussion.
[emphasis added]
And then Obama reminds us of the 'need for real debate' again -- for emphasis. Guess he really means it:
Remarks by President Obama and President Xi Jinping of the People's Republic of China After Bilateral Meeting
Sunnylands Retreat, Rancho Mirage, California
whitehouse.gov -- For Immediate Release -- June 08, 2013
[...]
Now, the NSA program, as I discussed this morning, is a very limited issue, but it does have broad implications for our society because you’ve got a lot of data out there, a lot of communications that are in cyberspace. And how we deal with both identifying potential terrorists or criminals, how the private sector deals with potential theft, and how the federal government, state governments, local governments and the private sector coordinate to keep out some of these malicious forces while still preserving the openness and the incredible power of the Internet and the web and these new telecommunications systems -- that’s a complicated and important piece of business. But it’s different from these issues of theft and hacking.
And every government is then inevitably going to be involved in these issues, just like big companies are going to be involved in these issues. I mean, you’ve got private companies that have a lot more data and a lot more details about people’s emails and telephone calls than the federal government does. And if we’re called upon not only to make sure that we’re anticipating terrorist communications but we’re also called upon to work with the private sector to prevent theft out of ATMs, et cetera, then we’re going to have to find ways to deal with this big data in ways that are consistent with our values; in ways that protect people’s privacy, that ensure oversight, and strike the right balance.
And as I indicated this morning, that’s a conversation that I welcome having.
[emphasis added]
OK, were listening ... sort of, sometimes, in between mudfights and moral outrages.
Even the chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee wants to get into the Open Debate act. Well that's a sign of something positive. Maybe Congress will finally get off their high horse, and start to take a closer look at what they've done in the last decade, with respect to eagerly trading away our Constitutional Rights?
The Editors of New York Times seem primed and ready to help get this debate off the ground. And into the public arena. I hope someone takes them up on their generous offer:
A Real Debate on Surveillance
by THE EDITORIAL BOARD, New York Times -- June 10, 2013
[...]
Senator Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee, said on Sunday that she was open to holding a public hearing on the subject now, a hearing next month, a hearing every month. This newfound interest in openness is a little hard to take seriously, not only because of the hypocrisy involved but because neither official seems to want to do more than talk about being open. If the president wants to have a meaningful discussion, he can order his intelligence directors to explain to the public precisely how the National Security Agency’s widespread collection of domestic telephone data works. Since there’s not much point in camouflaging the program anymore, it’s time for the public to get answers to some basic questions.
Are the calls and texts of ordinary Americans mined for patterns that might put innocent people under suspicion? Why is data from every phone call collected, and not just those made by people whom the government suspects of terrorist activity? How long is the data kept, and can it be used for routine police investigations? Why was a private contractor like Edward Snowden allowed to have access to it?
[...]
Senator Feinstein has held several closed-door briefings for lawmakers. If she wants to hold hearings that are useful to the public, she should focus on the laws that fostered the growth of domestic spying, and the testimony should not consist of blithe assurances that the government can be trusted. The public needs explanations of how an overreaching intelligence community pushed that trust to the brink.
[emphasis added]
I've generally taken President Obama at his word. I really would like to think he wants to do the right thing. Just as soon as the circumstances outside of his control, allow him to.
More Sunlight on our current Patriot Act fallout, would be a very good place to start.
In my naive Constitution-respecting opinion, of course. But what do I know?
I'm just taking him at his word. That all this messed-up stuff, is kind of hard to fix, without some real debate, in a Congress willing to work, with our best interests in mind.