In Rare Interview, Dick Cheney Champions NSA Surveillance

Sunday show obsessives got a bit of a Father's Day treat on Sunday:Dick Cheney on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace to talk about, among other things, the NSA data collection program. In something of a Greatest Hits interview, the former vice president threw everything he has behind government surveillance. And, despite looking a bit rusty when his cell phone went off on air, he's still got it.

The interview kicked off with Cheney, who was introduced by Wallace as "the driving force behind increased government surveillance" in the Bush administration, calling leaker Edward Snowden a "traitor," and insinuating that he may have had help from within the NSA. Asked if Snowden was spying on behalf of China, the former vice president said he was "deeply suspicious," and that the U.S. will "need to be really aggressive" with China to extradite Snowden.

Cheney also pushed aside Sen. Rand Paul's reservations about the NSA program that he made on Fox News Sunday last week. When asked why the NSA has to "vacuum up" information on ordinary citizens, Cheney laughed off the suggestion, saying that "it's just a big bag of numbers that has been collected." And, getting right into the swing of being back defending government surveillance, Cheney slipped into the first-person plural: "The allegation is not that we get all this personal information on Aunt Fanny or Chris Wallace, that's not the way it works." Cheney also took some ownership—or at least authorship—of the data-collection, saying that he "worked with [former Director of National Intelligence] Mike Hayden when we set this program up."

And while the former vice-president had many nice things to say about the "fine" men leading the NSA, he had no kind words for the president. "I don't pay attention, frankly, to a lot of what Barack Obama says...I'm obviously not a fan." He also said that President Obama is "dead wrong" in suggesting that the War on Terror is winding down, and that "in terms of credibility, I don't think he has credibility."

And, just for good measure, Cheney threw in his two cents on the IRS scandal: "One of the worst abuses of power imaginable."

If Cheney wasn't enough for your Father's Day morning, you were in luck. As the former vice-president exited, Karl Rove entered the show's panel to talk Syria. Because what better way is there to spend Father's Day than to pretend it's still 2005.

Erdogan's supporters rally, dismissing Turkish protests as a 'big game'

Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan addressed hundreds of thousands of his cheering supporters in Istanbul saying, 'My patience has run out' with anti-government protests.

Turkey’s largest city was divided on Sunday by competing shows of force, between Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who staged a mammoth rally of loyalists, and anti-government demonstrators, who clashed with police on Istanbul's streets once again to protest his rule.

After 17 days of street violence that have posed an unprecedented challenge to Mr. Erdogan’s decade in power, he told a crowd of hundreds of thousands: “My patience has run out.”

Using language that belittled the protesters as disrespectful and irrelevant, Erdogan appeared to point the finger of blame at everyone except himself and his ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), citing instead the party's economic triumphs and democratic reforms. His supporters were similarly dismissive, repeatedly calling the protest movement centered on Taksim Square a "big game," a catch phrase that sums up Erdogan's belief that the demonstrations are an outside conspiracy fanned by foreign media.

“I love Erdogan. Everything is perfect,” says Sedat Boyraz, a sailor among the sea of rally-goers waving Turkish and AKP flags. Few doubted Erdogan could muster massive crowds, having been elected three times with ever-increasing mandates, most recently with 50 percent of the vote in 2011.

“In Taksim it is a very big game.… All these groups in Taksim don’t want Turkey to be successful,” says Mr. Boyraz. “Taksim is not the reality in Turkey. The reality is here,” he says, pointing to the cheering Erdogan supporters behind him, and echoing the prime minister’s own words from the stage.

RECOMMENDED: Think you know Turkey? Take our country quiz.

Erdogan has ordered protests to end: Police recaptured Taksim Square and dismantled makeshift barricades on June 7; then last night, amid clouds of tear gas, they evicted sit-in protesters camping in the adjacent Gezi Park.

Both actions sparked nights of running clashes, calls for a mass march on Taksim Square today, and a strike by five trade unions to begin on Monday. A protest that started as a small bid to save Gezi Parktrees from a development project has spiraled into an assault on Erdogan’s abrasive leadership style, with charges of authoritarian rule.

“I am your servant, not your leader,” Erdogan declared. At times in his two hour speech he called on the crowd to cheer so that “they” – the protesters several miles away, attempting to gather in the center of town – would be afraid.

“The issue is not about the park, it is about Turkey,” said Erdogan, who has often used “us vs. them” language when stating that his loyalists far outnumber the protesters, most of whom are young, more Westernized, and more secular Turks. “They tried to instigate instability in this country but they will never succeed.”

ERDOGAN, PROTESTERS HAVE MET

Erdogan noted that he had met with twice with protest groups, but with little result.

“They say, ‘You are too tough.’ They say, ‘Dictator,’" said Erdogan. “What kind of a dictator is this, who met the Gezi Park occupiers and honest environmentalists? Is there such a dictator?"

Erdogan blamed a host of “provocateurs” for the violence – from protesters using social media and global news organizations like the BBC and CNN, to college deans and English teachers – and vowed that “we will find them one by one.”

The Turkish leader also drew what he claimed to be a conspiracy between protester “terrorist organizations” and two other events – a double car bombing in May near the Syrian border which killed 52, blamed on a Turk who claimed he was working for Syrian intelligence; and an attack on Erdogan's office in March at the AKP headquarters in Ankara, claimed by a radical leftist group.

Despite the divisive rhetoric, the atmosphere at the rally was relaxed, compared to the scenes just a few miles away at the center of town, where police fought protesters who had marched toward Taksim Square along every access road. Groups of police chased protesters down narrow alleys and broad avenues, firing tear gas and making arrests.

BANGING OF POTS

As Erdogan began speaking, protesters began banging pots and pans in the streets and from balconies in a symbolic effort to drown him out. Similar noise-making – dismissed by Erdogan as a weak tactic – has been heard throughout central Istanbul at 9 pm every night for two weeks.

Protesters have demanded that Erdogan apologize for heavy-handed police action and excessive use of tear gas. They also called for resignations of key officials and security chiefs involved in the clampdown, and the preservation of the Gezi Park and its trees – one of the few green spaces in the center of the city – which had been slated for removal to make way for a development project.

“Any call [to gather] in Taksim will not contribute to peace and security,” Istanbul Governor Huseyin Avni Mutlu said. “After the current environment becomes stable, they can continue exercising their democratic rights. Under current circumstances we will not allow any gathering.”

City buses were used to ferry AKP rally-goers to the venue for free. Party leaflets distributed throughout Istanbul billed the event with the words: "Let’s spoil the big game. Let’s write history!”

The protesters complain that Erdogan is running a “majoritarian democracy,” and does not consult minority social and political groups who feel ignored and excluded by AKP rule.

“He’s a man. I love his characteristics,” says Talha, a political science student at the rally who declined to give his last name. “I think the Taksim problem is fixed. There is a problem, but it is democratic. Protesting is okay, it is only when they throw stones that it is a problem.”

“I am very proud of our president and prime minister,” says Busra Uzun, a female student wearing a hijab at the rally. She carried a sign that read: “Be smart, don’t fall for the big game.” She says Gezi Park protesters had been “duped.”

Erdogan was speaking to those supporters, with his defiant words. He made no apology for the events that have shaken Turkish markets and Turkey’s reputation. And he praised the police and their "restrained" efforts, and said that ordering the clearing Gezi Park was his “duty as prime minister, otherwise there would be no point in my being in office.”

* Follow Scott Peterson on Twitter at @peterson__scott

RECOMMENDED: Think you know Turkey? Take our country quiz.

Gun control backfires? Rick Perry to lure blue-state gunmakers to Texas

Strong gun control laws were recently passed in Connecticut and New York, so Gov. Rick Perry will visit gunmakers in both states this week to try to bring them to gun-friendly Texas.

The shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., have brought into high relief one of the anachronisms of the American economy: Some of the biggest and most influential makers of firearms in the United States are located in some of its bluest – and most antigun – states.

That is a fact that Gov. Rick Perry (R) of Texas hopes to turn to his advantage this week.

He is scheduled to visit Colt's Manufacturing, which has been inConnecticut since 1847, and Mossberg & Sons of North Haven, Conn., the largest maker of shotguns in the US, among other manufacturers and suppliers in Connecticut and New York.

RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about the Second Amendment? A quiz.

The visits are the most public move in discussions that have been ongoing for some time, officials say. "We've been reaching out to them via letters and the governor's talked on the phone to some of them," Lucy Nashed, the governor's spokeswoman, told the Connecticut Post. "This is something he's been doing for a long time – talking to companies in different states."

Forcing the issue are sweeping gun-control measures passed first by New York then by Connecticut in response to the Sandy Hook shootings. When Connecticut lawmakers were considering the bills in March, Colt shut down manufacturing for a day and bused 400 workers to the statehouse in a show of force. Other manufacturers did the same.

“We exhausted ourselves testifying during public sessions at the state capital, reaching out to journalists, busing our employees to Hartford and more, but in the end it didn’t matter. They wrote the bill in secret,” Mark Malkowski, president of Stag Arms in New Britain, Conn., told Forbes.

Want your top political issues explained? Get customized DC Decoder updates.

The tone of Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) has frayed the state's relationship with gunmakers further. Speaking on CNN's "State of the Union" after he signed the bill, Governor Malloy said: "What this is about is the ability of the gun industry to sell as many guns to as many people as possible – even if they are deranged, even if they are mentally ill, even if they have a criminal background. They don’t care. They want to sell guns.”

The irony is that politicians are attacking an industrial heartland that is intimately tied with the founding of the nation. The Connecticut River Valley in New England has been dubbed "Gun Valley." The Springfield Armory in Springfield, Mass., was the primary manufacturer of US military firearms from 1777 – before the defeat of the British – to 1968. Its diaspora created the heart of the American firearms industry.

Today, Colt manufactures many of the core firearms of the US military, including the M4 and M16. The No. 1 and 3 gunmakers in the US, according to a report from The Blaze – Smith and Wesson (Springfield) and Sturm Ruger (Newport, N.H.) – are also both from Gun Valley. (No. 2 is Remington Arms in Madison, N.C.)

None of the companies employs a huge workforce individually. Colt, for example, employs about 670 workers, while Stag Arms has about 200. But collectively, they represent an ecosystem of codependent industry. Most of the parts for Colt guns not made on the premises come from suppliers within a 50-mile radius, according to a CNN report.

Moreover, Colt is intertwined with the history of the state and the country. Its original factory is a national historic site, and its iconic product, the Colt .45, is a token of America's westward expansion. "Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal," was a post-Civil War saying.

Ahead of Governor Perry's trip this week, Texas launched a $1 million radio and television ad campaign in the Northeast that speaks of the state's pro-business laws. "Texas is calling," Perry says in the ad. "Your opportunity awaits."

So far, gunmakers say they are simply exploring their options.

“While we have been proud to call Connecticut home for 175 years, as we look to future growth we have a responsibility to consider all options that ensure we remain competitive and meet the needs and expectations of our customers,” said Dennis Veilleux, CEO and president of Colt's Manufacturing, according to a Fox News report.

RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about the Second Amendment? A quiz.

Vietnam arrests third blogger in less than a month

HANOI, Vietnam (AP) — Vietnamese police have arrested a blogger accused of posting "erroneous and slanderous" information about the communist government, state media reported Monday. The blogger is the third locked up in less than a month in an intensifying crackdown against dissent.

Dinh Nhat Uy was taken into police custody in southern Long An province on Saturday, the state-runThanh Nien newspaper reported. He is accused of "abusing democratic freedoms," an offense punishable by up to seven years in prison.

Uy was found to have authored and posted on his blog "erroneous and slanderous" articles and photos of the government, the newspaper said.

The 30-year-old is the brother of Dinh Nguyen Kha, a student who was sentenced last month to eight years in jail for spreading propaganda against the state.

Two well-known bloggers have been arrested over the past three weeks on the same charges.

So far this year, 46 bloggers or democracy activists have been convicted and imprisoned, more than the number of people locked up for violating national security laws in the whole of 2012.

Critics accuse the government of using the security laws to silence dissent. Hanoi has said no one has been convicted of peacefully expressing their views, and only lawbreakers are put behind bars.

Foreign governments, led by the United States, and international rights groups have criticized the crackdown and called for the activists' release.

Column: When lying is acceptable, public loses

WASHINGTON (AP) — A member of Congress asks the director of national intelligence if theNational Security Agency collects data on millions of Americans. "No, sir," James Clapper responds. Pressed, he adds a caveat: "Not wittingly."

Then, NSA programs that do precisely that are disclosed.

It turns out that President Barack Obama's intelligence chief lied. Or as he put it last week: "I responded in what I thought was the most truthful or least most untruthful manner, by saying, 'No,' because the program was classified."

The White House stands by him. Press secretary Jay Carney says Obama "certainly believes thatDirector Clapper has been straight and direct in the answers that he's given." Congress, always adept at performing verbal gymnastics, seems generally unmiffed about Clapper's lack of candor. If there have been repercussions, the public doesn't know about them.

Welcome to the intelligence community, a shadowy network of secrets and lies reserved, apparently, not only for this country's enemies but also for its own citizens.

Sometimes it feels as if the government operates in a parallel universe where lying has no consequences and everyone but the people it represents is complicit in deception. Looking at episodes like this, it's unsurprising that people have lost faith in their elected leaders and the institution of government. This all reinforces what polls show people think: Washington plays by its own rules.

Since when is it acceptable for government — elected leaders or those they appoint — to be directly untruthful to Americans? Do people even care about the deception? Or is this kind of behavior expected these days? After all, most politicians parse words, tell half-truths and omit facts. Some lie outright. It's called spin.

And yet this feels different.

The government quite legitimately keeps loads of secrets from its people for security reasons, with gag orders in effect over top-secret information that adversaries could use against us. But does that authority also give the government permission to lie to its people in the name of their own safety without repercussions? Should Congress simply be accepting those falsehoods?

It wasn't always this way.

Congress was apoplectic when former aides to President Richard Nixon perjured themselves in the Watergate cover-up and when President Bill Clinton was less than truthful during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. But in those cases, the issues divided over partisan lines, and classified informationrelating to national security wasn't involved.

In this instance, most Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill support the underlying NSA programs even though the public is divided over them. And lawmakers aren't quick to hold Clapper accountable because, when it comes to telling the truth to Americans, their hands are hardly clean.

The public, meanwhile, has responded to Clapper's falsehood with a collective shrug. Are we just resigned to this?

Consider the results of 2012 surveys.

One from the Public Affairs Council found that 57 percent of Americans felt that public officials in Washington had below-average honesty and ethical standards. Another from the Pew Research Center found 54 percent of Americans felt the federal government in Washington was mostly corrupt, while 31 percent rated it mostly honest.

Trust in government has dropped dramatically since the 1950s, when a majority of the country placed faith in it most of the time. But by April 2013, an Associated Press-GfK poll had found just 21 percent feeling that way. And people have even less faith in Congress; a new Gallup poll found just 10 percent of Americans say they have confidence in the House and Senate — the lowest level for any institution on record.

In this case, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado, Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, long had tried to raise concerns over the scope and breadth of post-9/11 intelligence gathering.

They were privy to the secret techniques but were barred by law from disclosing any classified information. So they had to be subtle.

Discussion on Capitol Hill about top-secret programs usually takes place in a secure room so opponents of the United States won't learn of the details.

Nevertheless, in March — before the programs the senator knew existed had been disclosed to the world — Wyden put Clapper on the spot. The senator asked about the classified intelligence operations, which Clapper was prohibited from talking openly about, in a public committee hearing.

"Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" Wyden asked.

"No, sir," Clapper answered.

"It does not?" asked Wyden.

"Not wittingly," Clapper said, offering a more nuanced response. "There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect — but not wittingly."

Three months later, a former NSA contractor leaked information on top-secret surveillance programs that do, in fact, file away phone records on millions of Americans. Wittingly.

That, said Udall, "is the type of surveillance I have long said would shock the public if they knew about it."

Within days, Wyden — who says he gave Clapper a heads up a day earlier that he would be asking the question about classified information at an open hearing — accused Clapper of misleading the Senate committee in public and later in private when the intelligence director declined to change his answer from the firm "no" to the question.

"The American people have the right to expect straight answers from the intelligence leadership to the questions asked by their representatives," Wyden said.

Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., called for Clapper to resign and suggested perjury, saying he "lied under oath to Congress and the American people" and that "Congress can't make informed decisions on intelligence issues when the head of the intelligence community willfully makes false statements."

In interviews, Clapper tried to explain.

To National Journal, he said: "What I said was, the NSA does not voyeuristically pore through U.S. citizens' e-mail. I stand by that." But Clapper didn't tell the committee during the hearing that he was referring specifically to email, though he did indicate his reservations about being questioned in public on confidential matters.

Clapper also told NBC News that "I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful manner." He added that his response technically wasn't false because of semantics over the word "collection." But he also allowed that his response may have been "too cute by half."

Whatever else it does, the episode illuminates a conflict in our system — one that we dance around whenever the subject of secrets comes up.

The Obama administration says it wants the American people to allow the NSA to do what it must to protect the nation. The president himself has assured Americans that Congress has been in the loop, making sure the NSA isn't going too far. But it's hard to see how a real check on that power is possible if Congress is unable or unwilling to provide actual oversight, much less take action when a key official involved in the program isn't straight with lawmakers.

In this case, it nudges accountability further into the shadows — and gives the American public even less of a stake in the security of the open society that we say we hold so dear.

___