I'm of the naive opinion that he is not a sleeper muslim communist agent bent on destroying America; that he really wants to do the best he can for America.
He's not always right in his beliefs, but has been public about his intentions, e.g., continuing engagement in Afghanistan.
If his "true self" doesn't match his actions... frankly, that's hardly even a "defense", that's just further damnation.
As far as I'm concerned, you elect an authoritarian on the left, to pacify that side, and pass authoritarian policies. To say that they're really good guys, and shouldn't be held accountable, is defending the status quo IMO.
Obama and the Supreme Court are pro authoritarianism, and will not question more power, nor will they dismantle it.
And if he's not acting in malice, why would he be doing what he's doing now when he is well-versed in the Constitution?
Note: I disagree with a lot of his policies (including this topic), I'm going for a first-principles thing here.
There have been many opportunities for him to break through that bubble - it's not like there has complete silence on the issue. And what kind of President oversees constitutional breaches of this magnitude and then manages to overlook the entire issue? It's too big, too serious and too illegal for him to be some sort of innocent participant.
The relentless pursuit of whistleblowers, his unwillingness to address the NSA/4th amendment/etc debate on its merits, lack of movement on key policy fronts (anti-drug policy, DHS, serious financial system reform) - all of it indicates to me that while he is not a Muslim Communist Terrorist Baby Killer, he also does not espouse any of the left of center beliefs he held as a younger politician, and for someone who voted him in to see symbolic leadership and practical progress on all these issues, he has been a huge disappointment.
I personally will be campaigning heavily for independent candidates at most levels of government in the future. I will certainly never vote Democrat again. For someone who campaigns, votes, and participates in all areas of civic life, these last few years have left me very disillusioned.
I'm pretty sure Obama is better informed, has a more thorough background in constitutional law, and has spent significantly more time thinking about these issues than just about anyone in the crowd here on HN.
It's the unintentional collection of data on U.S. citizens that is politically damaging. However, he can't kill that part of the program himself as it totally hobbles the NSA's foreign surveillance capabilities--it's very hard for them to correctly screen out U.S. citizens. To achieve a 0% false positive rate, they'd probably have to throw away 99% of traffic with today's techniques.
So he'd either like the courts to do it for him, or for them to validate the approach (as you say). Showing that NSA data is being used to prosecute a terrorist is a political win, either way.
Yo, that's some wicked spin ya' got on that sentence of yours.
Implying the slightest good intention to Obama in these circumstances seems deplorable.
If Obama didn't want to enforce the program, he could have stopped when it was secret and no one could complain. If there's an objective "guide" to Obama's supposed intentions, it's what his administration did in secret because they had very few controls on their surveillance approach.
The better to describe thing is: He'd like to continue program and he'd like to have it declared constitutional.
And don't bet this won't be declared constitutional given the Supreme Court's history and it's entanglement with the current system. Sure it would be lighting the constitution fire, tearing it, vaporizing the pieces and throwing them in a volcano. But hey, that's progress.