Kevin Graham wrote:Uh, no I read the entire article and it discusses Thomas Drake from start to finish. This was your example of Obama "going after" whistle-blowers, so he is the example I addressed.
He wasn't my example of Obama going after whistleblowers. You misunderstand the purpose of the link. I made an assertion with that link as a backed up source that Obama has waged an unprecedented crackdown on leakers and whistle-blowers. The article talks about this in the context of Drake's case. You response by saying, "Hey, that's only one example!" when the point of the linked information was the extensive nature of this. Now in this post you no longer dispute the point, but get lost regardless.
We have things nowadays (like the internet!) that make leaking information more rampant. Had Drake been caught during the Clinton or Bush administrations, are you suggesting he would have been given a pass?
He would not have been zealously prosecuted under anyone prior to Clinton going back to Wilson with the exception of the McCarthyism red scare era. Bush II's admin would've continued prosecution in the same manner as Obama. Clinton's may have. What he blew the whistle on isn't all that different from a minor version of the Pentagon Papers, which if you recall resulted in Ellsberg winning his case and the continued prosecution fading.
So what? This should be expected given the current state of the information age and the end of the most corrupt administration in history. There are more people trying to leak information, so more people get caught. Why shouldn’t they be punished for breaking laws?
Again, it's worth pointing out that the Obama admin has done everything it can to stop anyone associated with the government's illegal spying or torture from being prosecuted in criminal court or held accountable in civil court to total success. The Obama admin itself routinely funnels leaks to the press. This isn't about some abstract, consistent desire to see people punished for breaking laws. It's specifically about going after people who blew the whistle on the government's illegal and/or embarrassing activities to stop people from doing so in the future. Your argument here is that there's more to blow the whistle on and more means to do so, so that's why Obama going after more than twice the whistleblowers of all other administrations combined is mathematically inevitable. First, your assertion of corruption - the degree of it - is baseless. Feel free to establish how Bush II was that much more corrupt than all other presidents, including ones like Nixon, Grant, etc. - combined. Second, the people who blew the whistle did so through old-fashioned contacting of journalist sources that don't require modern internet access. Third, several of the whistleblowers reported on Obama era issues. Are you asserting his admin is part of that 'most corrupt in history' line?
And don’t forget, most importantly, he and his fellow whistleblowers were disgruntled employees who were upset that the agency didn’t run with their project ThinThread.
So?
"National security" is the justification used to diminish or remove civil rights.
No, that’s just your spin.
I listed a series of civil rights that you are arguing national security justifications require us to diminish or remove. They don't cease to be civil rights issues simply because you think we are justified in removing for national security reasons. You are definitionally confused.
National Security is the justification for matters of National Security. You operate on the assumption that when they use it, they’re really just lying to us.
No, but they could be. They certainly have in the past, present, and there is every motivation to do so in the future. Since you allow for no mechanism designed to check anything other than the assertion of the executive, you are asking for unfettered trust in the will of the executive. You want a elected dictator, not a democratic president accountable to the public.
JFK would like a word with you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces
He had a D after his name, so maybe you'll listen.
What they really want to do is punish NSA employees who don’t want to be team players. Right? I mean why else would they do this if this is not an issue of National Security?
Lol. Yes, why would a government agency engaged in widespread abusive and illegal activity want to stop people from blowing the whistle on them if not because of national security? I mean, people never are motivated by a desire to cover their own butts from retribution or a venal desire to protect their jobs or make them easier.
But you don’t know that people have been spied on without sufficient probable cause.
Yes we do Kevin. Do you even know what the illegal spying refers to? Or is it that you don't know what probable cause is?
Regarding due process of the law, that wasn't in reference to Drake. That was in reference to your endorsement of indefinite detention of anyone the government declares an enemy combatant at their say so. We now know the vast majority of detainees at GITMO were either outright innocent or lacking evidence against them to convict under a fair trial, incidentally. Yet you continue to assert that when the government fingers someone, we should just trust they know what they are doing because they hypothetically could be. The whole notion that people have an inherent right to know what they are charged with and defend themselves in a court of law before being convicted of a crime is something you reject. Instead, you prefer to allow the government to assert you are guilty and convict you without that pesky due process stuff that might result in the government not getting its way. Indeed, you want the government to have the authority to assassinate anyone it wants without question so long as it declares it a matter of national security. Tell me, why is this less dangerous than terrorism again?
Who was assassinated at an “asserted whim”?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Obama+assassination+list
But you don’t know just how “unlikely” these scenarios are.
In what you referenced? Yes we do.
Watergate was more complex and didn’t involve tracking down enemies of the state. Nixon was also caught lying about his role. Apparently for you, it should always be taken for granted that people are lying in government, unless of course they’re self-professed whistle blowers.
First, Watergate was less complex. Second, you missed my point. Nixon would not have been caught lying if he was allowed to conceal the evidence via the use of states secret privilege. He tried to do just that mind you. That argument failed at the time. But times and judges have changed and Obama won that argument. If the state of the law was what it is now during Nixon's time, he would've not gone down for Watergate because the evidence would've been concealed. He could've just declared national security reasons for any concealment needed and any trial to be stopped. You are in favor of handing the executive the power to prevent any and all evidence of any abusive or illegal action it takes to see the light of day. That in effect makes the presidency a dictatorship insofar as any constitutional restrictions on it are toothless. You defend this state of affairs by asking everyone to recognize the benevolence of dictator Obama. Perhaps when the Republicans win the presidency you'll change your tune.