Browse By

Obama Creates Fake Investigation Into NSA Military Spying Against Americans

When it comes to the scandal of military surveillance of Americans by their own country’s military through the National Security Agency, the lies just keep spilling out of President Obama’s mouth.

The end of this week brought us a doozy. When Americans first learned from whistleblower Edward Snowden that the NSA had been unconstitutionally seizing and searching through their telephone records, emails and Internet activity, Barack Obama promised that he would launch an “independent” investigation into the matter, consisting of experts from “outside” the intelligence system in Washington D.C.

A couple of weeks ago, we saw the first sign that Obama’s promise was not in earnest: The President proposed letting James Clapper, the man who managed the NSA spying program, to lead the supposedly independent investigation.

Now, we have more information, and can see that Obama’s investigation is a fraud, through and through. All four members of the investigatory panel whose identities have been revealed so far are Washington D.C. political insiders, three of whom were appointed to positions of power by Barack Obama. There isn’t a single independent or outside expert in the group.

lazy summer usaWhat’s more, this panel will not provide a report to the American people. Instead, the report will go to the people who run the NSA’s Big Brother surveillance system. Those people, of course, are already well aware of what they’re doing, and have made it clear that they oppose any reform.

President Obama has purposefully designed an investigation to provide a report, written by the fox, sent to the fox, about how the fox has been raiding the henhouse.

Barack Obama appears to be the Fox In Chief.

4 thoughts on “Obama Creates Fake Investigation Into NSA Military Spying Against Americans”

  1. Bill says:

    Personally, I have to go with ‘the glass is half-full’ on this one.

    Firstly (and I know it’s a niggling point, but details matter) the four individuals named are not, as you say, “four members of the investigatory panel whose identities have been revealed so far.” The names that have been publicized came out in a leak from a government official and are reportedly the people Obama is intends to appoint. The odds are excellent that this leak was orchestrated by the administration itself, to float a trial balloon, as if to ask “are you guys OK with this?” This is how Washington asks this question – always has, always will. And the answer, as you and many others have stated, is “Nope!” So I view it as nice that they asked, and nice that folks like you are responding in the negative.

    Secondly, two of the four names are really pretty good. Sunstein and Swire don’t have intelligence backgrounds. Rather, Sunstein is a Harvard professor who, yes, did serve as head of the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and his wife is our new ambassador to the UN. Swire is a professor at Georgia Tech who served on the Obama-Biden transition team and as senior adviser to Obama for economic policy, and before that in the Clinton administration as chief counselor for privacy at the Office of Management and Budget. I personally have no problem with Obama choosing people he knows, trusts, and has worked with, because that’s what I (and most other people, I think) would do in this situation. Branding these two guys “Washington insiders!!!!” is a little like calling a doctor a “medical insider.” Yeah, and your point is…? Besides, it sounds a lot like something Rush Limbaugh would say, so it needs to be denigrated out of hand.

    On the other hand, the other two names are those of lifelong professional spooks (Morell and Clarke) and, for my money, Clarke’s career in intelligence is particularly odious. But then, on the other hand, it seems obvious that the committee needs some intelligence professionals on it, so I’m willing to hold my nose here, provided….

    …That Obama comes up with a fifth name to balance things out, someone who’s not a “Washington insider,” nor a spook either…in short, someone who doesn’t have a dog in this fight.

    I think it is important to bear in mind that this is not, as you called it, an “investigatory panel.” If it was, then it should have some investigators on it, but it’s not. Obama stated in the press conference at which he introduced this commission that its charge would be “to review our intelligence communications technologies…to review our capabilities…and consider how we can maintain the trust of the people.” Which is to say that this is an advisory committee, not an investigation. So the committee reports to Clapper, who reports it to the President. Which sounds about right to me. Yes, I’d love to see the report issued publicly, but let’s be realistic; if it has any meat in it whatsoever then it would necessarily be redacted into uselessness before it could be published.

    Gimme a minute here to pull on my asbestos undies…OK, commence flaming.

    1. Bill says:

      Been wracking my brain here for a while trying to think of who that fifth member should be. How’s this grab ya: Vint Cerf?

    2. J Clifford says:

      No flame. Just going to point out that any member of this panel needs to be a true outsider, and a critic, rather than a supporter, of Obama’s military surveillance of Americans’private communications. Obama’s dishonesties has been so thorough that he has lost all reasobable basis of trust. Unless this panel is strongly established to mount a vigorous and truly independent investigation, with full results going direct to the American people, it should be dismissed as a whitewash. Obama has signaled over and over again that he is not serious about transparency or reform.

      1. Bill says:

        But again, J…it’s not an investigation. It’s an advisory committee. It’s not reasonable to fault it for not being an honest investigation when it’s not intended or advertised to be any kind of investigation at all. Like you, I would like to see such an investigation, and see it reported directly to the American people. But this ain’t that. Chide Obama for not launching an investigation and I’ve got your back. But chide him because you don’t like the people he chooses to advise him, and I have to argue that we all have the fundamental right to take advice from whomever we choose.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!