O! the Hypocrisy: American Citizens' Privacy

Reuters is reporting that the DEA is using information gathered by the NSA for investigations:

Reuters has uncovered previously unreported details about a separate program, run by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, that extends well beyond intelligence gathering. Its use, legal experts say, raises fundamental questions about whether the government is concealing information used to investigate and help build criminal cases against American citizens.

The DEA program is run by a secretive unit called the Special Operations Division, or SOD. Here is how NSA efforts exposed by Snowden differ from the activities of the SOD:...

...The SOD forwards tips gleaned from NSA intercepts, wiretaps by foreign governments, court-approved domestic wiretaps and a database called DICE to federal agents and local law enforcement officers...

Here's what then Senator Obama said in 2007 in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center:

This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

This Administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. There are no short-cuts to protecting America....

O! The Hyporcisy...Joe Biden edition on Government Warehousing Phone Records

FLASHBACK VIDEO: Biden in 2006: ‘Don’t Count Me In’ on Trusting NSA Phone Call Surveillance

O! The Hypocrisy: Public Safety Exception for Boston Marathon Bombing Suspect

Porkopolis has documented Obama's hypocrisy in not practicing the public policy he advocates with regard to  Habeas Corpus in the context of terrorism.

This 'do as I say, not as I do' schizophrenia is in full display again with the decision to not alert one of the bombing suspects of his Miranda rights citing a 'public safety exception'.

Update: Do You Have the Right to Remain Silent? The Obama administration’s radical view of Miranda rights was in place well before Boston by Jeffrey Rosen (emphasis added):

..In fact, the decision shows that the Obama administration has already gone further than George W. Bush's administration in blurring the lines between the criminal and military justice systems. The logic of the administration’s newly minted emergency exception to the Miranda warnings in terrorism cases would allow FBI agents effectively to suspend the Constitution at the Mexican border, where the distinction between organized crime and terrorism is increasingly hard to discern. In fact, the administration’s attempt to redefine what counts as an imminent threat is precisely the same move as it made in its infamous drone memo, which represented a similar extension of elastic Supreme Court standards. The Obama administration’s decision about the Miranda warnings, in other words, is only the tip of the iceberg, and Boston is the place where civil libertarians’ legitimate fears about the militarization of American criminal justice after 9/11 have come home to roost...

Related:

• O! The Hypocrisy
• O! The Hypocrisy...Continues
• O! The Hypocrisy Redux

O! The Hypocrisy Redux

You can blast a terrorist (even an American) from a drone in the sky, but don't you dare use enhanced interrogation on him.

Related:

• O! The Hypocrisy
• O! The Hypocrisy...Continues

What’s in it for U.S.?: The Limited Government Case against Gay Marriage

(Reposted in light of  Obama's 'evolution'.)

What’s in it for U.S.?: The Limited Government Case against Gay Marriage

While many cite cultural and religious reasons to oppose gay marriage, one doesn't need to resort to pathos and ethos-based arguments when formulating our public policy on marriage in general. A simple limited government philosophy offers the appropriate perspective.

The human condition is analog not digital. As in the non-human animal world, human sexuality is found along a spectrum of relationships. From a biological perspective and without scientific intervention, procreation in humans requires an individual male and an individual female.

Before considering the question of gay marriage, a more fundamental question should be considered: Why marriage at all?

In the United States, marriage is a tri-party legal agreement. The first two parties, husband and wife, are obvious. The third party is the state/community that acknowledges a marriage. Male and female couples petition the state –and more generally, their community– to recognize their marriage. If it was just a simple relationship amongst consenting adults, the community would have no need –and more importantly no business– acknowledging the relationship.

However, marriage is a relationship that imposes responsibilities on the community and that’s why the state is involved in its recognition and definition (see Update 2/5/2013 below); as in detailing that only two (not more) individuals of the opposite sex will be recognized in a marriage. Married couples get legal tax and inheritance status. Male-female couples asking the state to recognize their marriage are also asking the state to address the care of their biological children if the couples are incapable of doing so.

What does the community get in return for consideration of this ‘special’ status? It is rejuvenated –by the only relationship that can procreate: a male-female relationship– and benefits from responsibly raised children in a marriage. Because of the corrosive effects to the community of infidelity, the community acknowledges only monogamous marriages. This shared responsibility amongst all the parties (husband, wife, community) is the limited government rationale for marriage as a legal construct.

Gay couples asking the community to recognize their relationships have a responsibility to address the question: ‘In return for the community’s recognition, what will you do for the state that justifies more government?’. They may counter that some gay couples have children and that their care benefits the community. But these children are not, and can not be, the natural offspring of a gay marriage. They are the shared responsibility of the biological parents and the state. The existing legal constructs are sufficient to address the children’s and community’s interests.

The state/community will be a party to any marriage and therefore has every right to say which marriages it will recognize. The gay couples seeking recognition must make their case for community involvement in their relationship when the sine qua non condition of biological procreation does not exist and there are sufficient laws to deal with any children in a gay relationship. Until the argument for an expansion of government is made, the basic principle of limited government, the minimal amount of laws our society needs to function, should prevail.

• Update 12/11/2012: Scientists May Have Finally Unlocked Puzzle of Why People Are Gay) 
• Update: 12/30/2012: State of Kansas wants sperm donor found on Craigslist to pay for daughter born to lesbian couple
• Update 2/5/2013: The Washington State Court of Appeals affirmed the argument of marriage being between a male and female in Singer v. Hara: see HeadNote [4] along with its detail.
  

  [4] Marriage -- Nature of Marriage -- Public Policy -- Same-sex Marriages. The legislative purpose behind RCW 26.04, which authorizes marriage only between two persons of different sex, is to give effect to the public policy of marriage being an appropriate and desirable forum for procreation and rearing of children. The prohibition of same-sex marriages results from the impossibility of procreation.

• Update 2/9/2013: Florida judge approves birth certificate listing three parents)
• Update 6/29/2014: The Brave New World of Three-Parent I.V.F.
• Update 11/7/2014: 6th Circuit Echoes Porkopolis' Arguments on Rationale for State of Ohio Defining Marriage

Obama's Midas Touch...Not So Much

Obama visits Allentown Metal Works in December, 2009...It then closes in January, 2011.

Obama visits Solyndra in October, 2010...It then closes in August, 2011.

Obama visits GM Chevy Volt Plant in July, 2010...It then halts production in March, 2011.

Related: Model corruption: The truth about the GM 'rescue':

...The devil, in this case, was in the details of the bankruptcy plan that the government pushed through:

Bondholders -- investors ranging from large institutions to retirees just scraping by, who loaned GM a total of $27 billion -- received just 10 percent of the company. By contrast, the government's $50 billion gave it about 61 percent.

And the union -- in return for the $20 billion that GM owed its health trust -- got a remarkable 17.5 percent of the stock plus $2.5 billion in cash plus $6.5 billion in preferred stock carrying a dividend of about 9 percent.

In other words, the UAW got three to four times as much as the bondholders for a smaller claim on GM's assets. The union even boasted to its members in May 2009 that it had made no concessions on pay, health care or pensions in the restructuring.

In effect, the government divided up GM's creditors into favored and unfavored groups, then gave a fat stake in the reorganized business to the favored (a k a longtime Democratic Party donors). On top of that, Washington also ordered the shutdown of 1,650 GM dealers and another 1,000 Chrysler dealers as part of its takeover...

O! The Hypocrisy...Continues

The hypocrisy on indefinite detention hits just keep on coming from our sanctimonious President (Remember how he scolded the Bush adminstration and his colleagues (both Republicans and Democrats) so derisively as a Senator during a radio interview):

ABC News: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

In his last official act of business in 2011, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act from his vacation rental in Kailua, Hawaii. In a statement, the president said he did so with reservations about key provisions in the law — including a controversial component that would allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge.

The legislation has drawn severe criticism from civil liberties groups, many Democrats, along with Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, who called it “a slip into tyranny.” Recently two retired four-star Marine generals called on the president to veto the bill in a New York Times op-ed, deeming it “misguided and unnecessary.”

“Due process would be a thing of the past,” wrote Gens Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar. “Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States – and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise.”

The president defended his action, writing that he signed the act, “chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed.”

Senior administration officials, who asked not to be named, told ABC News, “The president strongly believes that to detain American citizens in military custody infinitely without trial, would be a break with our traditions and values as a nation, and wants to make sure that any type of authorization coming from congress, complies with our Constitution, our rules of war and any applicable laws.”...

O! The Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is the overarching theme found between the lines in the New York Times' Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen:

The Obama administration’s secret legal memorandum that opened the door to the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born radical Muslim cleric hiding in Yemen, found that it would be lawful only if it were not feasible to take him alive, according to people who have read the document...

...The secret document provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war, according to people familiar with the analysis. The memo, however, was narrowly drawn to the specifics of Mr. Awlaki’s case and did not establish a broad new legal doctrine to permit the targeted killing of any Americans believed to pose a terrorist threat...

This authorization for the killing was done by the same person that scolded the Bush adminstration and his colleagues (both Republicans and Democrats) so derisively as a Senator during a radio interview:

Diane Rehm: ...Earlier this week the President signed into law the Military Commissions Act; the new law that gives the President quite far reaching authority on the war on terror. You voted against the measure. Tell us why.

Sen. Obama: I think it was a sloppy piece of legislation. It was rushed in part to match the election schedule. And had we stepped back and thought this through there was a way of making sure that the military could do it's job in charging and trying those persons who seek to do us harm, but do so in a context was consistent with our core constitutional principles. This wasn't that bill.

One of the most disturbing aspect of the legislation was the elimination for the first time in our history of the principle of Habeas Corpus. And those that are familiar with our jurisprudence know that Habeas Corpus predates the American Revolution; it's a principle going back to the 13th Century.

And the basic principle is one that should be so obvious to people that I think all of us take it for granted. That is, if the government grabs you and hauls you into custody they have an obligation to charge you and allow you to answer those charges. And this piece of legislation said for the first time that it is permisible for this adminstration or the military to capture people and not give them that basic hearing in court...

This authorization to kill Anwar al-Awlaki doubles-down on the hypocrisy previously detailed in the New York Times' Obama Upholds Detainee Policy in Afghanistan:

The Obama administration has told a federal judge that military detainees in Afghanistanhave no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team...

What's playing out in Obama's policy is the dynamic previously covered in Immune Systems Provide a Framework for Developing Principles on the Use of Interrogation Techniques:

...The science of immune systems, Immunology, and Evolution offer us billions of years of 'best practices' in dealing with deadly threats that can be translated to the moral challenges our society faces in the Global War on Terror.

In principle, an immune system's mechanism works to protect an organism by attacking pathogens that would do it harm. White blood cells or leukocytes are constantly at work defending against harmful microbes in the body. The fevers we experience when our bodies get the flu, a 'high-level attack' and a disease that takes 250,000 to 500,000 humans annually, are part of the overall defenses the immune system utilizes. Because the body doesn't operate properly in a fever's high temperatures, it maintains a normal temperature when it is simply experiencing 'low-level attacks', like the germs that infect a small wound on your hand.

Unfortunately, the immune system's protection comes at a price; it's a two-edged sword with built-in imperfections. Sometimes it attacks the very organism it's trying to defend. This condition is called Autoimmunity. Rheumatology is one branch of medicine that treats one of these imperfections.

Billions of years of Evolution have given us a mechanism that precariously balances aggressive actions with unintended consequences. We must remind ourselves that the attack-and-defend interplay between pathogens and immune systems is not a steady-state system, but is co-evolving. One of the more fascinating adaptations is the process of active immunity and its production of antibodies. With active immunity, an immune system is constantly re-programming itself in response to the diseases/attacks it has survived...

All Hat, No Cattle

Journalist, 'Heel' Thyself

It’s encouraging that the host of the eponymously named Diane Rehm Show will now be applying a tough journalistic standard to politicans.

On her August 15, 2011 show entitled Emerging Field of GOP Presidential Candidates (transcript and audio at link), Ms. Rehm shared her thoughts on how the press (and presumably, she includes herself) should challenge politicians “to make sure that people hear the full story and not just what candidates tell us.”

Consider the following from the transcript where Ms. Rehm and her guests were discussing the recently announced candidacy of Rick Perry (emphasis added):

...DUNHAM 10:34:23
So, again, there are a lot reasons why Texas has boomed that don't directly have to do with Rick Perry.

REHM 10:34:29
There is another question -- 23.8 percent of Texans did not have health insurance in 2009. Has that percentage changed?

DUNHAM 10:34:44
I think it's gone up slightly. But Texas is close to the bottom or the top for uninsured people. It was before Perry became governor. It is now. It's a fair question to raise.

REHM 10:34:56
Texas has the second highest percentage of children without health insurance.

DUNHAM 10:35:05
That's correct. And health insurance is a big issue for him, Obamacare.

REHM 10:35:09
Texas also lags the rest to the nation badly in high school graduation rates?

DUNHAM 10:35:18
Yeah, I think you could have your list where Texas is at the top of all the good things and the bad things. You're absolutely right.

WALTER 10:35:24
You know, the other issue, though, is when you think about where the economy is right now and how people feel about the economy. When only 8 percent of Americans right now in Gallup polling say they feel that the economy is excellent or good, when only 17 percent think -- they think the economy is getting better, some of those issues that you raise, Diane, don't necessary go to the top of the concern list for a lot of voters.

WALTER 10:35:45
All they're going to hear at some point is, this guy created jobs in Texas. And they want to hear about jobs, and they want to hear about the economy. And if Perry does his job right, he finds a way to keep that focus unrelenting on that.

REHM 10:36:00
But that's where I feel the press needs to make the point clearly, that, for example, the average wage of those Texas' jobs is around $7 an hour. I don't think the press can simply go along with what Gov. Perry has to say and swallow it whole, David Keene.

KEENE 10:36:29
Well, the press should always do that, but the narrative...

REHM 10:36:31
Yeah, right.

KEENE10:36:32
The narrative that is -- that surrounds Rick Perry's persona as being the governor of the state that's producing a lot of jobs, and -- partly worth a mention -- but jobs are being driven there by places like California. But no matter where you're governor of, you can find negative things and positive things. All in all, he's got a pretty good narrative.

KEENE 10:36:52
But when you look at the discussion that we're now having and the questions of the last few minutes and with what's happened in Iowa, you get down to what the general election is going to be about. It's going to be about these issues, about the size and the role of the government, whether we should be worried about the deficit or whether we should be spending more money.

KEENE 10:37:11
And it's really a race in which both parties are all in because both parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, have staked out a very clear position on the issue of most -- of concern to most Americans. And that's going to determine how this race ultimately ends.

REHM 10:37:27
I just want to make sure that people hear the full story and not just what candidates tell us. David Keene is former chair of The American Conservative Union...

Ms. Rehm must have learned her lesson after the debacle that is now known as the press coverage of then candidate Barack Obama and her role (or as will be seen shortly, roll) in it. Here’s some background for those that haven’t been privy to Ms. Rehm’s transformation.

On October 20, 2006, Ms. Rehm fawningly interviewed then Senator Obama (link to audio) on his book ‘The Audacity of Hope’ and asked the following question (emphasis added) (Link to original blog post...Obama wasn't a declared candidate on October 20, 2006 (he declares Februrary 10, 2007), but the Time Magazine cover story for that week (note: cover date is one week ahead) shows the MSM were pushing the "Why-Barack-Obama-Could-Be-The-Next-President" meme well before that time.):

Diane Rehm:

...Earlier this week the President [Bush] signed into law the Military Commissions Act; the new law that gives the President quite far reaching authority on the war on terror. You voted against the measure. Tell us why.

Sen. Obama:

I think it was a sloppy piece of legislation. It was rushed in part to match the election schedule. And had we stepped back and thought this through there was a way of making sure that the military could do it's job in charging and trying those persons who seek to do us harm, but do so in a context that was consistent with our core constitutional principles. This wasn't that bill.

One of the most disturbing aspect of the legislation was the elimination for the first time in our history of the principle of Habeas Corpus. And those that are familiar with our jurisprudence know that Habeas Corpus predates the American Revolution; it's a principle going back to the 13th Century.

And the basic principle is one that should be so obvious to people that I think all of us take it for granted. That is, if the government grabs you and hauls you into custody they have an obligation to charge you and allow you to answer those charges. And this piece of legislation said for the first time that it is permisible for this adminstration or the military to capture people and not give them that basic hearing in court...

Ms. Rehm could have challenged the Harvard Law School grad at that time and pointed out that none other than the Civil War President that came from the same state then Senator Obama was representing, Abraham Lincoln, suspended Habeas Corpus. Certainly, with her new found zeal for questioning political candidates, and given the chance again, Ms. Rehm would not "simply go along with what [Obama] has to say and swallow it whole".

What really must have shocked Ms. Rehm and turned her into a reformed ‘question what the candidate is telling us with critical thinking’ journalist was the February 21, 2009 New York Times article entitled ‘Obama Upholds Detainee Policy in Afghanistan’. From the article:

The Obama administration has told a federal judge that military detainees in Afghanistanhave no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team.

In a two-sentence filing late Friday, the Justice Department said that the new administration had reviewed its position in a case brought by prisoners at the United States Air Force base at Bagram, just north of the Afghan capital. The Obama team determined that the Bush policy was correct: such prisoners cannot sue for their release.

“Having considered the matter, the government adheres to its previously articulated position,” wrote Michael F. Hertz, acting assistant attorney general.

The closely watched case is a habeas corpus lawsuit on behalf of several prisoners who have been indefinitely detained for years without trial. The detainees argue that they are not enemy combatants, and they want a judge to review the evidence against them and order the military to release them.

The Bush administration had argued that federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear such a case because the prisoners are noncitizens being held in the course of military operations outside the United States.

The Obama team was required to take a stand on whether those arguments were correct because a federal district judge, John D. Bates, asked the new government whether it wanted to alter that position.

The Obama administration’s decision was generally expected among legal specialists. But it was a blow to human rights lawyers who have challenged the Bush administration’s policy of indefinitely detaining “enemy combatants” without trials…

Let’s ‘audaciously hope’ that Ms. Rehm applies her ‘better-late-than-never’, ‘get tough journalistic analysis’ philosophy consistenly from here on out.

Juxtaposition 'Backfire'

Yeah, yeah 'Backfire' is not PC these days but it's in keeping with the theme (click on images to enlarge):




HT: Wizbang

Obama's Belated Sanctimony

There's only one thing that's worst than a sanctimonious politician; one that's dumbfoundingly late with his sanctimony. Obama has recently taken this political skill to new heights as he piles on the rhetoric with the stimulus spending plan. This comes on the heels of the call-out of Wall Street bonuses.

While addressing the gathering of the United States Conference of Mayors, he warned them to watch the taxpayers' money:

...“I want to be clear about this: We cannot tolerate business as usual -- not in Washington, not in our state capitols, not in America’s cities and towns,” Mr. Obama told a gathering of the United States Conference of Mayors. He said he was putting them “on notice” that if they propose a wasteful project, “I will call them out on it.”...

Where was Obama's admonition for the big slice of cheese Pelosi's mouse got?:

Talk about a pet project. A tiny mouse with the longtime backing of a political giant may soon reap the benefits of the economic-stimulus package.

Lawmakers and administration officials divulged Wednesday that the $789 billion economic stimulus bill being finalized behind closed doors in Congress includes $30 million for wetlands restoration that the Obama administration intends to spend in the San Francisco Bay Area to protect, among other things, the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi represents the city of San Francisco and has previously championed preserving the mouse's habitat in the Bay Area...

Questions the MSM Won't Be Asking Obama Anytime Soon

Q: As Senator you voted for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). What responsibiltiy do you take for creating a program that has little, if any, oversight and accountability.

Q: Former President Bill Clinton claimed that "the era of big government is over". You're aides are estimating the cost of your proposed 'American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan' at $775 billion. Was Clinton wrong?

Is Obama Coming Apart at the 'Seems'?

Related: Pigs & Old Fish: Why He Meant What He Said

"I'm not going to argue the case"...because there is no case

Related: Gingrich Slams MSNBC's Allen Concerning Palin's Qualifications

Obama's claiming he's more experienced than Palin...

...For the moment, let's accept his argument. He should be concerned that the most experienced candidate doesn't always win. Exhibit A: Why Obama Beat Clinton.

Out 'Obama' Obama

A case for Palin: "Governor, You're No Dan Quayle"

Punitive Liberalism

Obama’s punitive liberalism, or why treating success as a form of failure is wrong (HT: Instapundit):

...William McGurn, in a brief but splendid article in The Wall Street Journal yesterday, helps us to understand the way that moralism plays out in Obama’s policy prescriptions. The key term, McGurn notes, is “fairness,” a loaded word that Obama (like many liberals) deploys as a moral bludgeon...

...The crucial point here is that what Obama is interested in is not increasing but in promulgating redistributionist policies that make it harder for people to prosper economically. McGurn recalls Obama’s response to ABC’s Charlie Gibson when Gibson observed that rasing taxes led to decreased revenues: “Well, Charlie,” Obama replied, “what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”...

...The bottom line is that when Obama invokes “fairness,” he wants us to feel guilty about economic success. This is the secret of his appeal to to socialistically inclined. It is also the reason why the rest of us are so uneasy about the prospect of an Obama administration...

Fearless Would-Be Leader

(Click to enlarge: via IBD)

This Internet Search Thing Just Might Catch On

There's a lot of huffing and puffing about McCain using Paris Hilton in a negative campaign add against Obama.

It turns out Obama himself found it convenient to use the metaphor of an over-exposed celebrity not just once, but at least twice:

"The Paris Hilton Tax Break" (HT: Instapundit):

If it's so awful to pull Paris Hilton into politics, as John McCain recently did in a commercial, then Barack Obama shouldn't have dragged her into a Senate debate two years ago, when he attacked the repeal of the death tax:

Mr. OBAMA: Madam President, I rise to speak in opposition to the complete repeal of the estate tax.

First of all, [let's] call this trillion-dollar giveaway what it is—the Paris Hilton tax break.

McCain Not First to Compare Obama to Paris Hilton:

Would all of this overwrought press hysteria be rendered even sillier were it to turn out that Sen. McCain was in actuality quoting Sen. Obama? Methinks that it would.

A February 24, 2005, Washington Post article begins:

There's nothing exotic or complicated about how phenoms are made in Washington, and, more to the point, how they are broken.

"Andy Warhol said we all get our 15 minutes of fame," says Barack Obama. "I've already had an hour and a half. I mean, I'm so overexposed, I'm making Paris Hilton look like a recluse."

...Time magazine had the quote as well. From their Verbatim section