Civil libertarians raised questions about the scope and risks of the programs.



"The bottom line is that we have to defend ourselves from terrorism, but we don't have to do it in a way that allows the government to accumulate information on literally tens of millions of innocent Americans," Sen Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said Thursday night.



"The secrecy surrounding the government's extraordinary surveillance powers has stymied our system of checks and balances," said Laura Murphy, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union.



She added: "Congress must initiate an investigation to fully uncover the scope of these powers and their constraints, and it must enact reforms that protect Americans' right to privacy and that enable effective public oversight of our government."



No More Spying on Citizens Not Suspected of a Crime : Obama in 2007



In 2007 Obama promised there would be "No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime." He went on to say "The FISA court works."



But last week, the Guardian revealed a FISA court order mandating that Verizon hand over data on all phone calls inside the United States to the NSA. On one hand Obama seems to have been true to his word. Rather than using national security letters his FBI went through the FISA court.



But so what? What is the difference if, ultimately, the government is still collecting reams of data "on citizens who are not suspected of a crime." Not just citizens plural but, apparently, every individual within America's borders who has a phone (the surveillance is not limited to Verizon).



Does the FISA court order include calls made by members of Congress and the Supreme Court? Attorney General Holder refused to say in open testimony on june 6.



Candidate Obama berated his predecessor not just over the process by which the information was obtained but over the government's willingness to transgress the "civil liberties" of citizens in general. It was perhaps the one area in which candidate Obama seemed cognizant of the inherent dangers of big government run amok. The President should share with the American people what caused his obvious change of heart. One way or another it would be enlightening.





Ron Paul Warned Us About "1984" -- in 1984!

President Obama shamelessly defended National Security Agency surveillance programs Friday, saying they are designed to promote public safety and protect civil liberties."They help us prevent terrorist attacks," Obama said, and are valuable despite what he called "modest encroachments on privacy."People can "complain about Big Brother" and the potential of a "program run amok," Obama said, "but when you actually look at the details, then I think we've struck the right balance."The president said he welcomes a renewed debate between the need for public safety and concerns about privacy, adding "there are some trade-offs" involved."It's important to recognize that you can't have 100% security and also then have 100% privacy and zero inconvenience," Obama said.