New Talking Point Revelations Should End Benghazi Witch Hunt

[_Res Ipsa]

So much for the "Liberal media" refusing to criticize Obama....

Rachel Maddow called out President Obama for "sort of changing his mind" on the issue of a federal shield law once he became president.

Maddow reacted to what she called the "bombshell revelation" that the Department of Justice secretly obtained the phone records of AP journalists. The Justice Department was investigating a leak that was responsible for an AP story on a thwarted Al Qaeda terror plot that was published around this time last year.

"Who knows what kind of irrevocable harm this has caused," Maddow said, adding that confidential sources would probably question speaking to the AP again, after knowing that the Justice Department obtained the news organization's phone records.

Maddow said that while a senator, Obama supported a federal shield law and co-sponsored 2007 legislation that was eventually killed by a Republican filibuster. Once he became president, the only actions Obama took surrounding federal shield law legislation was to limit that protection when it came to issues of national security.



On Wednesday, the Obama administration asked Sen. Schumer to reintroduce federal shield law legislation from 2009. In response to that legislation, Maddow said, "Yes, right. That is a good start. Keep going."

This "shield law" should be something that interests you EA. I didn't realize this was something Obama once supported.

The shield law is a chimera. The version Obama is pushing has an exception for cases of national security and requires judges issuing warrants to basically take the administrations word that it is a matter of national security. I don't think it would have provided any protection to the AP in this case. Frankly, what Congress needs to do is repeal the AUMF, the Patriot Act and it's follow ons, and seriously rethink the whole war on terror and abdication of its constitutional responsibilities to the executive branch.

[_Res Ipsa]

As we now know, the talking points, as Jonah Goldberg has pointed out, were "sanitized, folded, spindled and mutilated to fit a political agenda.

Making this at most a relatively minor instance of what happens EVERY time talking points are produced by any political party or virtually every other institution especially previous republican regimes and those were often much more than just sins of omission!

Goldberg is full of crap. I read through the whole e-mail chain. There are a few lessons there: An interesting one being that republicans who saw them in camera lied to the press about them. The second is that the CIA is absolutely the source of the report that the attack started out as some kind of protest. The talking points in no way blamed the attack on the video, but said it was motivated by the demonstrations in Cairo. That is consistent with what the original group that took credit for the attack said, and matches reports by witnesses in the mob. Other than what are likely politically motivated assertions from the Libyan government, no one has come forward with evidence that it was a planned attack, as opposed to an opportunistic attack while the U.S. was focussed on Cairo. Third, the White House did not suggest or make any of the revisions to the talking points that the clowns are bitching about. Fourth, the concern that is expressed over and over by the senior person from State involved in the editing process is avoiding compromising the investigation into finding out who was behind the attack and punishing them. That's a pretty natural reaction -- the four people killed were friends and colleagues. Were I in there position, my primary concern would be getting the bastards that killed them. And you don't increase you chances of catching them by broadcasting hints that you may be on to them on national TV.

The clown show has no interest whatsoever in doing what it takes (uhh, money) to improve embassy security. They are simply willing to take any measure, including jumping up and down and shouting on the bodies of dead Americans (including two Seals who died protecting diplomatic personnel) to keep the president from doing what a majority of voters in the U.S. elected him to do. They're not patriots -- not in the least.

[_palerobber]

As we now know, the talking points, as Jonah Goldberg has pointed out, were "sanitized, folded, spindled and mutilated to fit a political agenda." There is no doubt or argument as to this already established documentary fact.

if true, why did Saint Petraeus sign off on the final draft? or was he lying about that?

[_EAllusion]

EA's made these kinds of claims before but I haven't seen much by way of compelling evidence.

Are you serious? One, I wrote this post on Obama being more broadly worse that GWB on a variety of issues. It mostly concerns civil rights related topics:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... it#p584659

No, not at all. The problem isn't what Obama hasn't done. It's what he has done. His administration has worked very hard to defend and expand the civil rights abuses, secrecy, and militarism associated with "the war on terror" that were inherited from Bush. You appear to have bought into the erroneous notion that Obama simply has failed to roll-back these problems when the reality is that he has actively supported them and, in some important respects, ratcheted them up. This includes strong-arming through legislation, using the DoJ to defend those policies, using diplomatic pressure on other nations, and taking unilateral executive action. Every substantive issue associated with the war on terror that supposedly was an anathema to liberals under the Bush administration has been supported and worsened under Obama. It's been able to be worsened because Obama has cover by virtue of being a candidate of liberal Democrats and the Republicans really don't oppose this either.

...
The list is too extensive to recall in one post, but for starters:

He has waged an unprecedented battle against whistleblowers and journalists who use them as sources. He has sought to weaken the FOIA to conceal evidence of crime. He has pushed for the use of indefinite detention without due process, the use of kangaroo court military commissions when any sort of due process is offered, and the use of extraordinary rendition. He's fought and so far won the ability to immunize political leaders from accountability for heinous violations of the law through expansive use of the states secrets privilege. Due to a 6-5 ruling in the 9th circuit and a denial of cert from the Supreme Court this has gotten to the point that the executive is effectively immune from judicial review when it asserts national security classification. He has maintained and expanded the use of wiretapping and warrantless searches of US citizens, which in retrospect makes sense given his early flip-flop to support a law to retroactively immunize businesses who illegally cooperated with the government's illegal eavesdropping. It's known that the Obama administration has a secret interpretation of the PATRIOT act's surveillance powers that is more expansive than the general plain language public understanding. It's not known what it is. So far, the best interpretation going is that it is warrantless geotracking. His administration has drastically increased the use of secrecy for ordinary government functions. It has asserted the authority to assassinate US citizens without due process and has done so at least in one case. Contrary to campaign promises, Obama has used signing statements to announce his intent to circumvent congressional legislative limitations on executive power.

Nobel peace prizing winning Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan. The War in Iraq only formally ended because Iraq rejected the Obama administration's terms to extend allied troop presence beyond the initial withdrawal agreement negotiated under the Bush administration. He waged a war in Libya without congressional authorization. There's good evidence the US is engaged in a full-on cold war with Iran right now that has a not insignificant chance of becoming a hot war. His administration has ignored global ban on clusterbombs due to their indiscriminate and inhumane nature. No worry, as it has sought to overturn that ban agreement. His administration has massively increased the use of relatively indiscriminate drone attacks on members of sovereign nations we are not at war with, including killing citizen rescuers and mourners, an act normally considered a war crime. Many, many foreign civilians are dead as a result of this. Here's a particularly heart-breaking case if you are into that sort of thing.

On another war front, Obama has vigorously prosecuted the drug war and its attendant civil liberties problems, including parts he campaigned against.

Regarding the closing of GITMO, even if we did close GITMO, the Obama administration had other sites, including using Bagram Airforce Base, to serve the exact same function. The problem with GITMO wasn't where it was located. It was the indefinite detention of prisoners without due process through use of the category "enemy combatant" to escape American law and international treaties. The administration made it clear it was never serious about ending that. So all closing GITMO would've been was a symbolic bone that wouldn't change the underlying reality. It's no wonder it was only flirted with and easily abandoned.

The post itself contains at least a dozen links demonstrating these claims.

Two, Obama has endorsed virtually all of George W. Bush's substantial civil rights positions while taking them further in various respects, sometimes much further. How could he not be worse given that fact?

As far as I'm concerned, they should be punished and made an example of.

We are talking about people who whistle-blew on the government's illegal activity. The actions they blew the whistle on, such as illegal torture and spying, however, were not made an example of and were not subject prosecution. Obama has explicitly stated we need to move past that in defense of blocking any prosecution in the court system. Mind you, the Obama admin has gone further than the Bush admin and claimed that anytime they declare a issue a matter of national security, they can prevent it from appearing in court. This has been used to deny standing to victims of torture and spying and theoretically could be used to shield the illegal actions of the government from all judicial review. It would've protected Richard Nixon from going down for Watergate, for example. Indeed, the only people associated with that Obama has gone after are those who leaked the abuses of the government. Finally, remember the Obama admin doesn't go after all leakers. The Obama admin itself routinely funnels leaks to the press. Rather it goes after leaks it views as damaging or embarrassing to the government. You may not have a problem with this Orwellian abuse of power, but at least recognize what it is you actually are endorsing.

As far as this issue is concerned, we're talking about intelligence agencies doing what they could to get information about terrorists who were in communication with the AP.

Awesome. You're defending this.

I'm no expert on this matter, but I'm sure war time related arrests are treated differently, or at least they should be in my opinion.

Convenient then that we are in a perpetual state of undeclared war against an abstract, ill-defined enemy.

But saying Obama is worse that Bush on civil rights, while ignoring everything he has done for equality in America (i.e. gay rights) is probably just rhetoric to get a rise out of folks like me.

No, it's the truth. We're talking about a president who in addition to endorsing George W. Bush's war on terror civil rights views has claimed and used the authority to assassinate US citizens without due process for goodness sake.

Frightening? Come on.

When the next Republican president does it and your partisan sources are outraged, maybe you'll see the light. That you don't understand what might be chilling about the government blanket reading all communications of a major press organization for months is strange.

Tell me EA. If your daughter (assuming you have one) was kidnapped one day and she required daily medication or else she'd die, and you knew for a fact that she was being held in one of the houses on your street. Would you respect the civil rights of everyone in your neighborhood and let your daughter die, or would you kick down every door on the street?

Huh? How oddly artificial of a scenario. I'm opposed to blanket search warrants even if it is my family that is at stake, if that is what you are asking.

[_EAllusion]

The shield law is a chimera. The version Obama is pushing has an exception for cases of national security and requires judges issuing warrants to basically take the administrations word that it is a matter of national security. I don't think it would have provided any protection to the AP in this case. Frankly, what Congress needs to do is repeal the AUMF, the Patriot Act and it's follow ons, and seriously rethink the whole war on terror and abdication of its constitutional responsibilities to the executive branch.

With respect to national security motivated warrants, when there actually is a warrant, mind you this is how FISA courts operate:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... amp-drones

Let's repeat that: "of 1,789 applications, the FISA court did not deny any applications in whole or in part." What fantastic oversight (1789 is, ironically, the year the Constitution was ratified). The court did "modify" 40 of those applications - less than 3% - but it approved every single one. The same was true of 2011, when the DOJ submitted 1,676 applications and the Fisa court, while modifying 30, "did not deny any applications in whole, or in part".

From its inception, it was the ultimate rubber-stamp court, having rejected a total of zero government applications - zero - in its first 24 years of existence, while approving many thousands. In its total 34 year history - from 1978 through 2012 - the Fisa court has rejected a grand total of 11 government applications, while approving more than 20,000

They're just a rubber stamp that was designed to be a rubber stamp to give an air of legitimacy to any desired spying.

As far as your point goes, yes. Since the government retains the authority to declare any case a matter of national security, it leaves the shield law toothless. The executive already has a paper-trail of viewing hindering the government's actions, which is precisely what whistle-blowers do, as a national security matter.

[_Kevin Graham]

He has waged an unprecedented battle against whistleblowers and journalists who use them as sources.

OK, let's go through these one at a time. Your link refers to the example of Thomas Drake, who is being convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917. He even admits in an interview that he broke the law. He knew the risks, took them, and got caught. And so now you think he shouldn't have to pay the price? You say, "We are talking about people who whistle-blew on the government's illegal activity. " But in Drake's case we simply don't know this for a fact. In reality, we don't know what the information he was trying to leak entailed. For all you know it was information that would have endangered American lines if disclosed to the public.

He has sought to weaken the FOIA to conceal evidence of crime.

You make this vague reference to "weakening" FOIA when your link was very specific, referring to the disclosure of photographs "taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001.” Obviously there is a reason for this relating to specific time frame, and I suspect it has something to do with National Security. Maybe there are photos revealing the capture of some terrorists they'd rather Al Qaida believe were not captured? I'm fine with this. At some point you just have to trust your elected leaders to do what's in the best interest for the people without thinking you have the right to see every classified document there is.

He has pushed for the use of indefinite detention without due process, the use of kangaroo court military commissions when any sort of due process is offered, and the use of extraordinary rendition.

And you cannot fathom any scenario that would justify this practice?

He's fought and so far won the ability to immunize political leaders from accountability for heinous violations of the law through expansive use of the states secrets privilege. Due to a 6-5 ruling in the 9th circuit and a denial of cert from the Supreme Court this has gotten to the point that the executive is effectively immune from judicial review when it asserts national security classification.

You and your links are complaining about Obama "mimicking Bush" instead of asking yourself if these actions are justified. If they are, then suddenly it all makes sense, since this is the kind of thing we'd expect from a responsible Commander-in-Chief. American lives must come first. It is his job to see we're safe. You can't just categorize these complaints as a war on "civil rights" when further examination proves what you're really talking about are matters of National Security.

It's known that the Obama administration has a secret interpretation of the PATRIOT act's surveillance powers that is more expansive than the general plain language public understanding. It's not known what it is

So you don't know what it is, but you know it is more expansive, and your proof is a link by a "paranoia" wesbite?

Huh? How oddly artificial of a scenario. I'm opposed to blanket search warrants even if it is my family that is at stake, if that is what you are asking.

You're supposed to understand that saving lives can sometime necessitate the infringements of someone else's civil rights. You don't seem to appreciate or understand this, but instead live in a world where you think you have a right to any information under the sun because of your naïve interpretation of the FOIA. When access is denied due to National Security reasons, you blow it off as "how convenient," as if there is no valid argument to be made there.

I'll get back to this later but so far it seems your examples of "civil rights" violations revolve around National Security issues. Calling that a "convenience" doesn't make it wrong or any less true. And no, it didn't bother me when Bush did it either. And I suspect your most favorite Libertarian politician would do precisely the same thing if ever acting as President.

[_Res Ipsa]

They're just a rubber stamp that was designed to be a rubber stamp to give an air of legitimacy to any desired spying.

As far as your point goes, yes. Since the government retains the authority to declare any case a matter of national security, it leaves the shield law toothless. The executive already has a paper-trail of viewing hindering the government's actions, which is precisely what whistle-blowers do, as a national security matter.

I agree with you about the FISA courts. I don't see any checks and balances there at all.

Throughout my lifetime, I've watched every president try to grab power in the name of national security. Congress has been complicit in this, in my opinion refusing to stand up to the executive branch out of fear of being seen as "soft on terrorism." 911 frightened people, and frightened people aren't the best decision makers. I think we need a hard look at all of the fallout from 911, and the clown show keeps us from doing that.

[_EAllusion]

OK, let's go through these one at a time. Your link refers to the example of Thomas Drake, who is being convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917.

Did you just skim the title of the article or something? It's a very long article. I used that link because the article references with examples Obama's crackdown on leaks and whistle-blowers that is unprecedented in American history. Obama has gone after more whistle-blowers than any other president in history, moreso than all others combined. That aside, it is actually quite well known what Drake reported on, which was about waste, abuse, fraud, and most importantly illegal spying at the NSA. He did this after exhausting internal options. He beat the initial charges against him after the article was written, by the way. The espionage act provisions used against him almost never are used as the law is almost certainly unconstitutional and a recipe for government abuse in any case. The espionage act itself derives from an expansive attack on civil liberties that occurred during national security scares.

At some point you just have to trust your elected leaders to do what's in the best interest for the people without thinking you have the right to see every classified document there is.

First of all, this was in defiance of the courts. That's why the Obama admin sought to amend the law, and went ahead with their preferred course of action regardless. What happened to respect for rule of the law? Second, photos were blocked due to fear of inciting anger towards the US and stonewalling public agitation for prosecution of the former torture regime. But, hey, if you want to argue from ignorance that the government might have very good national security reasons that it can't reveal for any violation of established civil rights it engages in, you aren't arguing that Obama is any better than Bush on this front then. You are simply endorsing Bush and Obama's furtherance thereof. So the point has been made. That's your response to most of these issues encapsulated in this quote:

You and your links are complaining about Obama "mimicking Bush" instead of asking yourself if these actions are justified. If they are, then suddenly it all makes sense, since this is the kind of thing we'd expect from a responsible Commander-in-Chief.

And no, it is not justified to allow the executive branch total immunity from judicial review or public transparency at their mere say-so. It's a point that candidate Obama was able to articulate clearly against Bush's more limited erosion of this. That's far more dangerous to the American people than any terrorist organization at their worst.

American lives must come first. It is his job to see we're safe. You can't just categorize these complaints as a war on "civil rights" when further examination proves what you're really talking about are matters of National Security.

"National security" is the justification used to diminish or remove civil rights. The right not to be spied upon or otherwise searched without sufficiently established probable cause is a civil right. The right to a fair and speedy trial where you are allowed to defend yourself under the rule of law before being punished for a crime is a civil right. Freedom of speech and the press are civil rights. The right not to be assassinated at the asserted whim of the executive is a civil right for God's sake. If you think you are justified at removing these civil rights in the name of an unproven assertion of national security, that doesn't make it not a civil rights issue anymore. It's still a civil rights issue that involves a national security conversation.

You're supposed to understand that saving lives can sometime necessitate the infringements of someone else's civil rights.

Highly artificial scenarios that aren't likely to exist in reality are not a basis for granting the government broad powers that are far more likely to harm than help people don't make for good discourse. What if you could save the planet from global thermonuclear annihilation by torturing a four year old for information?!? Well, that isn't going to happen and even if it was this argument is not a basis for allowing torture in circumstances not this absurdly contrived.

You don't seem to appreciate or understand this, but instead live in a world where you think you have a right to any information under the sun because of your naïve interpretation of the FOIA.

What are you going on about? I made several different arguments only one of which related to the FOIA. And that one was a correct interpretation of the FOIA.

When access is denied due to National Security reasons, you blow it off as "how convenient," as if there is no valid argument to be made there.

When "the president should be able to do what he want to people when we are war because he might have very good reasons we can't know about" is your argument, pointing out that we are only in a war in the sense that we have an undeclared war against "terror" which is an abstract non-entity whose definition and targets can expand and contract at the convenience of the user is a relevant point.

And no, it didn't bother me when Bush did it either. And I suspect your most favorite Libertarian politician would do precisely the same thing if ever acting as President.

Given that less than a generation ago this would've been viewed as an impeachable series of offenses - remember that Richard Nixon tried and failed to make the argument Obama won re: state secrets privilege - I sincerely doubt it.

[_Kevin Graham]

Did you just skim the title of the article or something? It's a very long article.

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.

I used that link because the article references with examples Obama's crackdown on leaks and whistle-blowers that is unprecedented in American history.

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?

Obama has gone after more whistle-blowers than any other president in history, moreso than all others combined.

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?

That aside, it is actually quite well known what Drake reported on, which was about waste, abuse, fraud, and most importantly illegal spying at the NSA.

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. I saw this guy in an interview years ago and he was acting like 9-11 would have never happened if the NSA had used his invention, which ironically, was a spying project that would have allowed the agency to monitor all communications in the country. So the context of his “waste, abuse, fraud” argument is really about the agency rejecting his ThinThread project. How could you forget to mention that little detail?

That's far more dangerous to the American people than any terrorist organization at their worst.

Uh, well so is the existence of a man who in such a position of power that he has his finger on a button that could end human life as we know it. But we trust he won’t push it just for kicks and giggles.

"National security" is the justification used to diminish or remove civil rights.

No, that’s just your spin. 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. 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? Of course, folks like Drake cannot be lying about their motives at all, because you’ve already branded them heroes.

The right not to be spied upon or otherwise searched without sufficiently established probable cause is a civil right.

But you don’t know that people have been spied on without sufficient probable cause. You’re just complaining because it hasn’t been established to your satisfaction. I’m saying it doesn’t have to be.

The right to a fair and speedy trial where you are allowed to defend yourself under the rule of law before being punished for a crime is a civil right.

From what I understand, Drake got his jury trial. Was he prevented from defending himself?

Freedom of speech and the press are civil rights.

And these rights can be abused.

The right not to be assassinated at the asserted whim of the executive is a civil right for God's sake.

Who was assassinated at an “asserted whim”?

Highly artificial scenarios that aren't likely to exist in reality are not a basis for granting the government broad powers that are far more likely to harm than help people don't make for good discourse.

But you don’t know just how “unlikely” these scenarios are. For all you know they exist every day. They are certainly no less likely that Thomas Drake being able to save the world with ThinThread, or that ThinThread differed so dramatically from Trailblazer that it could somehow distinguish between communications by terrorists and US citizens and then prevent the agency from monitoring the latter using special encryption that only a court order could break. He said his greatest invention the world has ever seen was rejected because it was too cheap, too efficient, and just too perfect. Yes, that’s all very “likely”!
And you didn’t answer my question either. How come?
If you knew you could save or even protect lives by infringing on someone else’s civil rights, would you do it? If you think these kinds of scenarios are “unlikely” well then that’s your self-serving delusion, just so you don’t have to come to grips with the point I’m making.

When "the president should be able to do what he want to people when we are war because he might have very good reasons we can't know about" is your argument, pointing out that we are only in a war in the sense that we have an undeclared war against "terror" which is an abstract non-entity whose definition and targets can expand and contract at the convenience of the user is a relevant point.

What reason is there to believe the President or anyone else in government would find it “convenient” to kill Americans indiscriminately for no apparent reason? Talk about unlikely scenarios. Your arguments are neck deep in them.

Given that less than a generation ago this would've been viewed as an impeachable series of offenses - remember that Richard Nixon tried and failed to make the argument Obama won re: state secrets privilege - I sincerely doubt it.

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.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

How many embassies were attacked under Bush I & Bush II? How many died? Where's the outrage?

- Doc