Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

The charitable explanation, which this article seems to imply, is that he suddenly discovers how important these programs are and how much is at stake.<p>The less charitable explanation, since it&#x27;s hard to believe he fundamentally agrees deep down with these programs, is that he is just another politicians and the guaranteed political fallout from surveillance and drones was far less than the catastrophic career-ending political fallout from a major terrorist attack (after dismantling surveillance programs). He chose the option that he thought would give him a second term (and then a gold plated public speaking career after the White House).<p>I would say his gambit paid off. The right would never love him, the left had no one else and in any case they had fallen so deeply in love with the Idea of him.

The NSA is part of the executive branch. Obama controls the executive branch. Reining in NSA powers is effectively giving up some of his own powers, something that people rarely do.<p>Most people do not walk away from power. George Washington and Cincinnatus were rare exceptions, and not at all the norm.

There is another scary explanation, is that they have collected enough dirt on him and other politicians to become &quot;untouchable&quot;

The New Yorker wrote the &quot;must read&quot; article on the subject two years ago: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.newyorker.com&#x2F;magazine&#x2F;2013&#x2F;12&#x2F;16&#x2F;state-of-deception" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.newyorker.com&#x2F;magazine&#x2F;2013&#x2F;12&#x2F;16&#x2F;state-of-decept...</a><p>I remember it being really good, you should read it if you have the time.

&gt; An important meeting with Obama was scheduled to begin in the Situation Room at half past noon on Friday, February 6, 2009. Officials who had been asked to participate gathered around the conference table waiting to brief the new president. He was late<p>&gt; The officials were there to tell Obama about secret surveillance programs—including the fact that the National Security Agency was collecting Americans’ domestic phone records in bulk.<p>Funny... that was about 3 years before he denied the Feds were collecting anything. And then corrected himself to admit they were collecting metadata.

This reads like historical fiction. I can&#x27;t imagine that Charlie Savage attended the meeting. But he says nothing about his source(s). Maybe the book does. Nevertheless, the style strikes me as odd.

After reading the book: Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President. I truly believe that the president (and maybe more so this president) is simply a figure head. Being surrounded by people of strong character he&#x27;s been unable to be a commander and instead became someone with nice rhetoric.

Or: Obama loves power. Total domestic surveillance at home and drone wars abroad are but two facets of the same Leviathan.

<p><pre><code> This lawyerly approach to government had some surprising consequences for civil libertarians </code></pre> To those who were unhappy with the overreach of the Bush administration, I would remind them that lawyers gave us the Dred Scott decision. It was an executive order that ended slavery in the United States.

I wonder if there are other similar &quot;lawyerish&quot; explanations for how obama dealt with wall street.

which other elected leader of a western-style country has ended any kind of surveillance?<p>realpolitik is far more messier than lofty moralism, the US never had a clean slate, ever. just like any other country.<p>and for the posters bitching about the sham democracy in the US - right, but still people are dying in other countries to achieve just of a fraction of the freedom, safety and liberty present in the USofA.<p>if elections changed anything they would be banned, right?<p>which they ARE, in a lot of places on earth.<p>as long as a president here is limited to two terms the systems works. erdogan, putin, see for other places where this core principle gets violated and what it does to the system.

When was the last time a politician said no to power ?

Glenn Greenwald did an interesting interview with Charlie Savage about the subject of this book: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;theintercept.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;11&#x2F;10&#x2F;interview-with-charlie-savage&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;theintercept.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;11&#x2F;10&#x2F;interview-with-charlie-s...</a>