Of all the things President Obama -- one of the most transformative Democratic presidents this nation has ever had -- has had to battle, some wouldn't have been a surprise to anyone in this community: Republican intransigence, Republican dumbness, and Republican racism, whether thinly veiled or otherwise.
Other things may have been more of a surprise but only marginally so for the Democratic cynics among us: Democrats running away from Obama's signature achievement en masse during the 2014 midterms and not even bothering to "catapult the propaganda" in the lead-up to the SCOTUS decision, which could very well mean the difference between a 5-4 vote one way and a 5-4 vote the other way; and Democrats facilitating Boehner's efforts to undermine Obama's foreign-policy objectives, which I personally believe are even more commendable than Obamacare.
But perhaps even seasoned progressive/liberal Democrats didn't expect the most disheartening things to come: pervasive liberal racism and insensitivity about black history on the one hand, and on the other, pervasive attacks on Obama from the left, the most significant and divisive left-wing attacks being over the spying issue.
Back in 2013, the founder of this website shared a couple of personal thoughts on the spying issue -- not in a diary, mind you, but in a couple of comments, after expressly being asked to share his thoughts. Some of those thoughts even now are taken out of context and used to malign him. I don't want to revisit those particular comments -- you probably all know what they are, but if you don't, Cedwyn, one of the consistent voices of reason on this matter, wrote a diary back in 2013 reintroducing some much-needed context.
The kos comments on which I wish to focus are the following, for I believe that he has been thoroughly vindicated over the past couple of years:
It's an issue. One of many. And one that probably has the least direct effect on people, no matter how much people hyperventilate about it. So forgive me for not having a heart attack over something that is, at best, an abstract insult to our privacy, as opposed to a tangible one that most of you will never have to experience.
And really, was there EVER a time when global powers didn't spy on each other. Heck, FRIENDS spy on each other! It's called the real world. In this case, the US got busted. But it's nothing new, nothing that hasn't been done before, and nothing that won't keep on being done until time ends.
Look, at the time, I thought he was being, well, I probably shouldn't complete the thought. But in hindsight, I see he astutely observed this issue for what it was: foreign-intelligence activity.
Notice his premise doesn't include anything domestic. This premise turned out to be sound. As I have shown (or tried to show) in my previous diary, many of the most prominent articles on this issue have grossly conflated legitimate foreign-intelligence activity with domestic activity. I discussed the HDD malware revelations as an example of this conflation (it's fair to say that these revelations owe themselves in no small way to the Snowden ANT revelations, especially considering how long this malware had been hidden):
The most recent hit job against legitimate foreign-intelligence gathering was the stuff about malware targeting hard-drive firmware, "spies spy spyingly" spycraft tools that any government making more than $5,000 in tax revenue each year would have at its disposal. Yes, the Kaspersky report mentions infections detected in the United States. What can you honestly conclude from that? Do you even know whether those infections targeted US citizens vs. visiting foreigners?
Look, I can't conclusively show that this malware was used for only legitimate foreign-intelligence activities (whether on or off US soil). Quite frankly, I think a fair-minded person would admit that the onus is on the journalists to prove nefarious domestic activity -- indeed, a fair-minded person could be forgiven for assuming that the journalists simply don't have anything to offer on that front. In any event, based on the provided details, the activity surrounding this malware is
indistinguishable from legitimate foreign-intelligence activity.
It hasn't stopped there. The conflation is ongoing. Witness a diary or three around here lumping the Gemalto cyber-heist with domestic Stingray devices, a total non sequitur. For technical reasons, my opinion is that the heist was purely for legitimate foreign-intelligence activity, but it's not something I could establish conclusively for a fair-minded person, so I'd be content to leave it as indistinguishable from foreign-intelligence activity, and the fair-minded person, being by definition fair and reasonable, would suspend judgment on the matter and wait for these journalists to put up or shut up on the domestic front, instead of "catapulting the propaganda."
No doubt there will be more conflation coming. Here's how to protect your cognitive faculties when reading future spying articles:
1. Ask yourself whether the articles conclusively describe foreign-intelligence activity. If your answer is yes, stop here. Alternatively, if your answer is yes, before stopping, you could then ask why highly sensitive American spycraft is being tossed about in the media. If your answer is no, go to step 2.
2. Ask yourself whether the articles describe activity that's indistinguishable from foreign-intelligence activity. If your answer is yes, stop here. Alternatively, if your answer is yes, before stopping, you could ask yourself why you've had to stop so often in steps 1 and 2 during almost two years of clickbait and hysteria. If your answer is no, go to step 3.
3. If you've reached this step, it's presumably because you've uncovered nefarious domestic activity. Here's hoping it's not a case of a handful of bad apples (that exist in every institution), a highly exceptional case that proves the law-abiding rule, as it were.
The next thing I want to address is the terrorist straw man. As I mentioned in my previous diary:
They have also erected a ridiculous straw man to which no government's SIGINT activities adhere: that it's all about hunting terrorists. Once that straw man was erected, it was much easier to play people like a fiddle and manufacture outrage about the kinds of diplomatic and economic espionage that every government worth its salt has done since the dawn of civilization.
Let's have a look at how executive order 12333 defines
foreign intelligence:
(d) Foreign intelligence means information relating to the capabilities, intentions and activities of foreign powers, organizations or persons, but not including counterintelligence except for information on international terrorist activities.
The first clause very well covers most forms of foreign espionage. The second clause rules out counterintelligence but makes an exception for terrorists -- the fact it makes an exception for terrorists should be a huge hint that the first clause isn't restricted to terrorists. This executive order has been around since 1981.
Let's have a look at the revision in executive order 13470:
Foreign intelligence means information relating to the capabilities, intentions, or activities of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, foreign persons, or international terrorists.
There again is the pretty damn obvious clue that foreign intelligence isn't all about hunting terrorists. The fact that every government worth its salt engages in many forms of espionage, including but not limited to diplomatic and economic espionage, is such a "grass is green" trifle that our laws, going back decades, have never taken pains to pretend otherwise. It's something out of the theater of the absurd to have to explain the birds and the bees on this.
Kos was right, and the past two years have vindicated his comment. When something remotely resembling domestic activity appears, he's wasted no time in getting on the case, as he did with Holder last year.
It's long overdue for us to welcome more balanced perspectives on this issue. I mean, I changed my mind after a year or so, and I think others should have that opportunity without facing gratuitous hostility.