“Punting the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.
Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Punting the Pundits”.
Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt
New York Times Editorial Board: Mass Surveillance Isn’t the Answer to Fighting Terrorism
It’s a wretched yet predictable ritual after each new terrorist attack: Certain politicians and government officials waste no time exploiting the tragedy for their own ends. The remarks on Monday by John Brennan, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, took that to a new and disgraceful low.
Speaking less than three days after coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris killed 129 and injured hundreds more, Mr. Brennan complained about “a lot of hand-wringing over the government’s role in the effort to try to uncover these terrorists.”
What he calls “hand-wringing” was the sustained national outrage following the 2013 revelations by Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor, that the agency was using provisions of the Patriot Act to secretly collect information on millions of Americans’ phone records. In June, President Obama signed the USA Freedom Act, which ends bulk collection of domestic phone data by the government (but not the collection of other data, like emails and the content of Americans’ international phone calls) and requires the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to make its most significant rulings available to the public
Glenn Greenwald: NYT Editorial Slams “Disgraceful” CIA Exploitation of Paris Attacks, But Submissive Media Role Is Key
The editorial, which you should really read in its entirety, destroys most of the false, exploitative, blame-shifting claims uttered by U.S. officials about these issues. Because intelligence agencies knew of the attackers and received warnings, the NYT editors explain that “the problem in [stopping the Paris attacks] was not a lack of data, but a failure to act on information authorities already had.” They point out that the NSA’s mass surveillance powers to be mildly curbed by post-Snowden reforms are ineffective and, in any event, have not yet stopped. And most importantly, they document that the leader of this lowly campaign, CIA chief John Brennan, has been proven to be an inveterate liar: […]
But there’s one vital question the NYT editors do not address: why do the CIA and other U.S. government factions believe – accurately – that they can get away with such blatant misleading and lying? The answer is clear: because, particularly after a terror attack, large parts of the U.S. media treat U.S. intelligence and military officials with the reverence usually reserved for cult leaders, whereby their every utterance is treated as Gospel, no dissent or contradiction is aired, zero evidence is required to mindlessly swallow their decrees, anonymity is often provided to shield them from accountability, and every official assertion is equated with Truth, no matter how dubious, speculative, evidence-free, or self-serving.
Katrina vanden Heuvel: Why the Biggest Problem with the Media is Not ‘Liberal Bias’
Lately, Republican presidential candidates have found a political target that’s easier to hit than their primary rivals or even Hillary Clinton: the media.
For instance, Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) scolded the moderators of last month’s CNBC debate, saying, “The questions asked in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media.” Likewise, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) declared, “The Democrats have the ultimate super PAC. It’s called the mainstream media.” And more recently, Ben Carson accused the media of reporting “a bunch of lies” that called into question parts of his biography. “I think it’s pathetic, and basically what the media does is they try to get you distracted,” he said.
Republicans are right to criticize the mainstream media, but they are doing it for the wrong reasons. That’s because the biggest problem with the media today is not their alleged liberal bias. Rather, it’s a corporatized system that is rigged against the public interest and failing our democracy. If they are truly interested in making the media better, here are three principles that politicians from both parties should embrace.
Marcy Wheeler aka emptywheel: Metadata Surveillance Didn’t Stop the Paris Attacks
Since terrorists struck Paris last Friday night, the debate over whether encryption prevents intelligence services from stopping attacks has reignited. The New York Times and Yahoo reported on vague claims that the terrorists’ use of encryption stymied investigators who might have thwarted their plans. CIA Director John Brennan made equally vague comments Monday morning, warning that thanks to the privacy protections of the post-Snowden era, it is now “much more challenging” for intelligence agencies to find terrorists. Jeb Bush piled on, saying that the United States needs to restore its program collecting metadata on U.S. phone calls, even though that program won’t be shut down until the end of this month.
Following a terrorism incident as shocking as the Paris attacks, it is no surprise that politicians and the intelligence establishment would want to widen American spying capabilities. But their arguments are conflating the forest—bulk metadata collection—and the trees: access to individual communications about the attack. To understand why that’s the case, start with this tweet from former NSA and DHS official Stewart Baker: “NSA’s 215 program”—and by association the far larger metadata dragnet of which the domestically focused phone-metadata program is just a small part—“was designed to detect a Mumbai/Paris-style attack.”
Only it didn’t.
Zephyr Teachout and David Segal: Will President Obama Leave a Failed Legacy on Secret Money in Politics?
President Barack Obama has said he ran for office because he believed “so strongly that the voices of ordinary Americans were being drowned out by the clamor of a privileged few in Washington.”
Obama’s popularity among the Democratic base in ’08 and ’12 was due in large part to his seemingly sincere promises to fix a corrupt political system. In fact, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg argues persuasively that running on a platform to fundamentally reform money in politics so government works for the middle class is also the Democrats best hope for electoral success in 2016. [..]
During Obama’s time in office, his administration has taken no action to actually rebalance the system so candidates are accountable to ordinary Americans, not just wealthy special interests.
As the president enters his final 14 months, he would do well to consider how history will remember him on this issue. Does he want to be remembered as the worst president on money in politics since Nixon, according to leading election law expert Rick Hasen? Or will he be remembered as the leader who chipped away at Citizens United and paved the way for bigger, bolder solutions at the local, state, and national level?
Lauren Carasik: US leaders cave to popular fear on Syrian refugees
The horror of last Friday’s attacks in Paris that left 129 people dead and hundreds more wounded has unleashed a predictable, destructive backlash. In the United States, a parade of governors quickly lined up to express their opposition to the resettlement of Syrian refugees in their states. As of Tuesday afternoon, 26 governors — all but one Republican — have said refugees are unwelcome in their states because they pose too great a threat to national security. On Monday, President Barack Obama reiterated his commitment to take in 10,000 Syrian refugees this fiscal year. “Many of these refugees are the victims of terrorism themselves — that’s what they’re fleeing,” Obama said, adding, “Slamming the door in their faces would be a betrayal of our values.”
Despite their defiance, the governors lack the legal authority to override the federal government on immigration issues. Obama is authorized to accept those fleeing violence and persecution under the Refugee Act of 1980. However, the State Department’s muted response to the gubernatorial revolt suggests it may avoid a direct confrontation, preferring to settle refugees in less hostile environs. Since many programs rely on state cooperation, governors can complicate and deter the placement of refugees in their states by refusing to allocate funds toward resettlement.
But once refugees have been resettled in the U.S., the Constitution prohibits the restriction of their movement around the country. The reactionary posturing only serves to vilify and imperil vulnerable refugees here and abroad, undermine American security and trample the values we profess to hold dear.
Recent Comments