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