i will honestly tell you i think he is doing this to save his life.

You're quite probably right. Intelligence agencies, being by nature beyond public review and therefore above the law, have a distinct tendency to become a state-within-a-state, and our intelligence agencies just spent eight years in a feeding frenzy at a smorgasbord of unlimited power. Worse, we gave them absolute power over other human beings and let them conduct torture, which is a guaranteed way to create psychopathic monsters with a quite literally addictive need for more of the same.

It may well be that intelligence agencies of the sort we have are fundamentally incompatible with the long-term survival of democracies. And if, despite the liberal surge that put Obama in power, they are not checked, it may also be that the sun has already set on the republic.

So much for that constitutional scholar in the White House bit. Disappointing, to say the least.


Recommended by Hideo Kojima

I haven't trusted Obama on this issue since he changed his mind on FISA.  I can't say I'm even particularly surprised that this is happening - I'm somewhat surprised at left wing bloggers who are surprised.  This is not to say I am not deeply angry about it - I'm just not that surprised.

But the real concern I have is with what the courts will do.  It's one thing for the exective branch to make a bad argument. It's another for a court to agree with it.  The first is angering.  The second is law.  And I truly don't have a clue what the courts will do but I have a bad feeling about it.

And there is not a damned thing that Obama or anyone else can do about it. It has ruled this country since the JFK murder and it continues to rule today. I have said this over and over and over again here on the left blogosphere and watched as people blithely blathered on about the Intel-dominated media disinformation on which they are almost totally addicted.

Face it.

Face facts.

Face the evidence.

Face this evidence.

Obama signed on to this Intel-dominated system pretty much as it stands or the totally coopted mass media...the real "deciders" in this system as far as who gets elected and who does not, bet on it...would not have supported him in the in the manner that they did. Does that make him "evil"? I believe not. Just realistic. He is doing what he can. And surviving.

What to do about this situation?

Well...as I have also been saying in these blogs, the very first thing that people must do is wake the fuck up to what is really happening in this country. Wake the fuck up to the true scope of PermaGov power here. Wake the fuck up to the true function and power of the hypno-media, and then step away from their addiction. And here is where the disconnect happens. I can literally hear the click.

CLICK!!! as the TV addiction snaps on.

CLICK!!! as TV habits embedded in us at the age of 2 or 3 sink their monkey claws into out backs.

From:

"CLICK!!!" Looka!!! Mommy!!! Daddy!!! See the funny CLOWN!!!! Whatsa Big Mac? I WANT ONE!!!

to

"CLICK!!!" Looka!!! Honey!!! Sweetheart!!! See the serious NEWSCASTER!!!! What's an Obama? I WANT ONE!!!

in 30 years or less.

This is not on Obama.

It's on us.

Wake the fuck up.

I mean...he coulda gone the Kucinich route, right?

No. I ain't playin'.

Or the Russ Feingold/Mario Cuomo route.

No. I ain't even running!

But he didn't.

He went for the brass ring, and he won it.

And now as Bob Dylan so astutely pointed out recently, he's flying near the sun, Icarus style.

UH oh!!!

Will his wings melt?

We shall soon see.

He's flappin' as hard as he can, folks. Thrying to stay alive, trying to make the compromises necessary to get on over this latest downdraft..

Will he make it?

Not if you swallow the hype he won't.

Now he's the bad guy, right?

Wake the fuck up.

NEWSTRIKE!!!

MEDIASTRIKE!!!

CULTURESTRIKE!!!

VAYA!!!

Or sleep on.

Your fucking choice.

If indeed you have ever had one.

Your fucking choice.

AG

Goodness had nothing to do with it, dearie.-Mae West

You write:

I know that Obama doesn't want to get a bad reputation with the Intelligence Community like JFK, who wanted to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds" after the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

A "bad reputation"!!???

Yer kiddin' me, right?

A "bad reputation" with these people is a fucking death sentence.

A bad reputation.

Unbelievable.

Turn off the fucking news. Including MSNBC.

Step away from the TV with your brains in the air.

Please!!!

AG

Goodness had nothing to do with it, dearie.-Mae West

gee whocouldaknown?

John Mccain Called his wife WHAT??

Are you saying we are heading towards a fascism the likes of which this world has never known?!?? It's just that I love this country so much.. sniff

OK, so now we can get real.

Abroad, Obama (aka 'the walking plenary indulgence') will consolidate and expand our efforts in central Asia (Pakistan must go!). Stalemate will continue to be the policy in Israel until fails, an eternity. Pakistan, and then Iran will fall on Obama's watch or America will 'elect' another wingnut.

Domestically, he'll sell us Hillary's mandated universal health care and deliver the first tax that goes directly to corporations. The fascist label is dead right if we go that route.

Economically, he's taken this transformational moment and done nothing to fix the real problem with American capitalism: the private nature of the Fed. Instead, he's put us all on the hook for something like $70,000 each so far, all lent by the Fed at a reasonable profit, payable by our kids. This has been the single largest socialization of risk and privatization of profit the world has seen.

I am all for stimulus, but the idea of bailing out folks who may or may not have brought down the stability of the world economic model for profit and re-centralization of power makes by blood boil in a deep, genetic, son of the Revolution kind of way.

Their solution is all wrong, but the Repugs are right on a few of the most important things: Obama is not delivering Change, he's delivering one last shot at another bubble for the same players who've benefited from selling us the snake oil they are all busy re-branding on the gov't dime.

I think Obama was the best option we had, I am glad he is in office versus McCain, but that isn't saying a whole lot. I think the left has been so distracted by supposedly 'winning' to notice what the have lost.

Some folks are happy knowing the trim on the house is finally, finally painted blue. Congrats to you, but this 'house of cards is coming down'.

Declaring the bottom is the only way back up..

I wrote here:

http://deadhorse1995.blogspot.com/2009/02/past-is-prologue-again.html

early on in the Obama Administration about this condition of state. That is, when one measures Obama's pre-election positions versus the permanent government one can begin to see the limits of Presidential power.

I don't think all the posters here are being flippant. This is our reality of government, which is probably in place in most governments around the world. Democracy is dangerous and the people who own America don't want things to get out of hand.

Ok Booman, so the current national security regime is "disappointing" and "unacceptable" and "dangerous". Fair enough. But while the Long War is going on --- and while one may disagree on its desirability, it objectively is going on, right? --- what national security modus operandi is the realistic alternative? If surveillance isn't going to be run in a secretive way checked only by, preferably, some common sense in its application, then the current scope of surveillance will have to be formalized, then the fourth amendment will be formally rather than informally gutted via legislation. Why is that preferable?
In spite of Glenn Greenwald's legalistic wet dreams, lawyers will never arbitrate national security policy. And given the costly reign of terror liability lawyers have unleashed in the economic sphere that is not an unambiguously bad thing. In a national security environment where the choices for now are between bad and worse, yes broad-based informal surveillance is justifiable. Informal beats formal.

This is not a failing.
The bush administration set precedents with all it's lawbreaking.

As an example, U.S. citizen Jose Padilla was charged as an enemy combatant (no constitutional rights). When it looked like that was going to be nixed by the supreme court, the Bush administration charged him with a crime. However, since the case was rendered moot, it left the administration with the ability to repeat the tactic.

By arguing the Bush administration tactics, particularly where the Judge will likely rule against the administration (State Secrets argument cannot be used simply to cover up a crime or obstruct justice), precedent is again set, this time hobbling the next President from using Bush tactics.

There is no original statute regarding state secrets. The supreme court made it up in the 1950s. Because of precedent, it is unofficial law. It needs to get to the supreme court again to show its failings.

--Don't ask others to do, what you are unwilling to do yourself.

You manage to elect a moderate centrist and because he does not immediately overthrow the permanent government, you give yourself permission to sign off - it's hopeless, nothing changes.

I say that's b.s., because nobody had a right to think that Obama was going to save the world. All they could expect was a little space and a respite from Bush/Cheney. We have that - and more.