What the heck did President Obama say?

Last night I watched and listened to President Obama's 2014 State of the Union Address. 

Today, I found and read the transcript because I was plagued with a burning need to find out if what I thought I heard the President say is really what had been declared by him.  Here is the direct quote from the full transcript:

That's why, working with this Congress, I will reform our surveillance programs because the vital work of our intelligence community depends on public confidence, here and abroad, that privacy of ordinary people is not being violated. (Applause.) And with the Afghan war ending, this needs to be the year Congress lifts the remaining restrictions on detainee transfers and we close the prison at Guantanamo Bay -- (applause) -- because we counter terrorism not just through intelligence and military action but by remaining true to our constitutional ideals and setting an example for the rest of the world.

I found this of particular interest and simply want to examine it briefly in light of the law suites against the government for the violations of our Constitutionally protected rights to reasonable expectations of privacy and against unwarranted searches and seizures, etc.. as written into the 4th Amendment (see blog below). 

So what the President said again was:

"That's why, working with this Congress, I will reform our surveillance programs because the vital work of our intelligence community depends on public confidence, here and abroad, that privacy of ordinary people is not being violated. (Applause.) And with the Afghan war ending, this needs to be the year Congress lifts the remaining restrictions on detainee transfers and we close the prison at Guantanamo Bay -- (applause) -- because we counter terrorism not just through intelligence and military action but by remaining true to our constitutional ideals and setting an example for the rest of the world."

Just looking at that first portion, President Obama has said that there is nothing wrong with the surveillance programs currently spying on normal everyday Americans.  Citizens who have never even been a blip on the NSA's radar in the past and now, with no reasonable suspicion and absolutely no probable cause, the Government has devised a system through the FISA Court wherein they can obtain letters authorizing them to force private companies to turn over their information on completely innocent American's. 

If, as the President would have us believe, there is absolutely nothing illegal or immoral about these programs, why then would he have declared in his State of the Union Address:

"That's why, working with this Congress, I will reform our surveillance programs because the vital work of our intelligence community depends on public confidence, here and abroad, that privacy of ordinary people is not being violated. (Applause.)"

If it was not broken, why on earth would he be working with Congress to reform it to ensure that the privacy of ordinary people is not being violated?

The President's closing portion of that train of thought was:

"And with the Afghan war ending, this needs to be the year Congress lifts the remaining restrictions on detainee transfers and we close the prison at Guantanamo Bay -- (applause) -- because we counter terrorism not just through intelligence and military action but by remaining true to our constitutional ideals and setting an example for the rest of the world."

If this president is truly concerned about remaining true to our constitutional ideals, why has he not suspended this program and demanded that the NSA, the FBI and the Government at large, "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" as sworn and immediately go back to obtaining warrants supported by probable cause to obtain the records of the citizens that the government is there to serve?

Remember that this is the same President who said that American's need to recognize that you can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy. 

Here is the applicable quote as taken from Huffington Post:

"I think the American people understand that there are some trade-offs involved," Obama said when questioned by reporters at a health care event in San Jose, Calif.

"It's important to recognize that you can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience," he said. "We're going to have to make some choices as a society. And what I can say is that in evaluating these programs, they make a difference in our capacity to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity."

Remember that when asked in open Court to give one single solitary example of this program ever having worked to identify and thwart a pending act of terrorism against the United States or it's citizens' the government was unable to do so. 

Since there is no quantifiable measure of success with this program and in that the President himself says that there must be reform to ensure that the "that privacy of ordinary people is not being violated." shouldn't this government admit that it crossed the lines and take every possible step to bring itself back in check "by remaining true to our constitutional ideals and setting an example for the rest of the world."

Semper Vigilantes

We the People vs. the NSA et al,

We The People vs The NSA, et al

For few of those who will read this will it come as a surprise that the Government of These United States is actively spying on its citizens.  Most of us have a basic understanding of The Fourth Amendment to The Constitution and that states:

Fourth Amendment

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 
In his speech given on January 17, 2014, President Obama stated:

"In fact, even the United States proved not to be immune to the abuse of surveillance. In the 1960s government spied on civil rights leaders and critics of the Vietnam War. And probably in response to these revelations, additional laws were established in the 1970s to ensure that our intelligence capabilities could not be misused against our citizens. In the long twilight struggle against communism, we had been reminded that the very liberties that we sought to preserve could not be sacrificed at the altar of national security."
 
President Obama continued by admitting the "supercomputers are sifting through the data and that there is a recognized potential for abuse": 

"Second, the combination of increased digital information and powerful supercomputers offers intelligence agencies the possibility of sifting through massive amounts of bulk data to identify patterns or pursue leads that may thwart impending threats. It’s a powerful tool. But the government collection and storage of such bulk data also creates a potential for abuse."

When addressing our professionals within the intelligence gathering community, President Obama clearly admits the vulnerabilities of the U.S. citizens reasonable expectations of privacy when he says:

"They’ve got electronic bank and medical records like everybody else. They have kids on Facebook and Instagram. And they know, more than most of us, the vulnerabilities to privacy that exist in a world where transactions are recorded and email and text and messages are stored and even our movements can increasingly be tracked through the GPS on our phones."

 The President then addresses the seriousness of the threats to privacy we suffer when he states:

"Moreover, we cannot unilaterally disarm our intelligence agencies. There is a reason why BlackBerrys and iPhones are not allowed in the White House Situation Room. "

The good President then legitimizes the fears that every citizen of These United States should recognize when he says:

"But all of us understand that the standards for government surveillance must be higher. Given the unique power of the state, it is not enough for leaders to say: Trust us. We won’t abuse the data we collect. For history has too many examples when that trust has been breached. Our system of government is built on the premise that our liberty cannot depend on the good intentions of those in power. It depends on the law to constrain those in power."

So now the President wants us to feel secure in the knowledge that He is taking the following "affirmative" steps to keep "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,..."  When he says"

"And today I can announce a series of concrete and substantial reforms that my administration intends to adopt administratively or will seek to codify with Congress.
  
First, I have approved a new presidential directive for our signals intelligence activities both at home and abroad. This guidance will strengthen executive branch oversight of our intelligence activities. It will ensure that we take into account our security requirements, but also our alliances, our trade and investment relationships, including the concerns of American companies, and our commitment to privacy and basic liberties. And we will review decisions about intelligence priorities and sensitive targets on an annual basis so that our actions are regularly scrutinized by my senior national security team."

So in one breath, The President warns us that "it is not enough for leaders to say: Trust us.  We won't abuse the data we collect" then he says that "He" has granted "himself" by virtue or a new Presidential directive stronger "Executive Branch Oversight of our intelligence activities."  Isn't this truly the fox guarding the chicken coop?  The President is warning us not to trust the government that spied on dissidents in the past but to trust Him and his appointee's because they are somehow more trustworthy than their predecessors" 

"This brings me to the program that has generated the most controversy these past few months, the bulk collection of telephone records under Section 215. Let me repeat what I said when this story first broke. This program does not involve the content of phone calls or the names of people making calls. Instead, it provide a record of phone numbers and the times and length of calls, metadata that can be queried if and when we have a reasonable suspicion that a particular number is linked to a terrorist organization."

The same President who would have us believe that he and his cabinet are more trustworthy than those who have gone before then completely contradicts his own prior statements.  Remember earlier in this speech when the President said;  " digital information and powerful supercomputers offers intelligence agencies the possibility of sifting through massive amounts of bulk data to identify patterns or pursue leads" and we are to simply take his word for it that our individual data is secured while that sifting is taking place to locate potential threats to the United States? 

During the recent inquiries into this entire debacle, the Government was loathe to express one single solitary instance when this form of intelligence gathering and "sifting" had lead to the identity of one single instance where a terrorist plot had been identified and / or thwarted. 

We the People must stop following blindly a Government that admits that it sacrifices the rights and liberties provided us in the very Constitution in exchange for some alleged additional securities against terrorist threats, plots or attacks. 

Our forefathers would have been shot or hanged for treason had they been discovered while attempting to forge the lifeblood that has become this great nation.  They were willing to take the risks necessary to stand up against tyrants and injustices and We the People now more than even need to regain oversight of our Government, it's policies and it's actions.  If we do not begin to hold them accountable, who will?  At what point will we all wake up in an Orwellian state with no liberties or justices for any of us?