Obama portrayed the programs as a trade-off between security and civil liberties. "I think it's important to recognize that you can't have 100 percent security, and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices as a society," he said.What's wrong with this picture? Even a child would know that any terrorist would simply interact like they did in the old days before cell phones and Internet. It's easy. Look at partisan actions in WW II, for example.
He also expressed his displeasure that the domestic spying programs' existence was leaked to the press. "I don't welcome leaks," he said. "There's a reason these programs are classified."
The president's full-throated defense of the programs, albeit with the qualification that he welcomes debate, is unlikely to quell the outrage over the revelations. Obama ran as an antidote to Bush's policies in 2008, but the reports reveal that he has continued many of them, leading to concerns over the reach of the national security state.
Obama went on to defend those who operated the programs as "professionals."
In the long run, a more important question may be whether the drone strikes, which have killed more than 3,000 people, are creating more enemies for the United States than they are eliminating.
Scholars who have studied the political effects of drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen have argued that even well-targeted raids often claim innocent victims, and the result is a backlash against the U.S. Likewise, Hayden and retired Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the former U.S. commander in Afghanistan, have warned that too many drone attacks — in Pakistan, for example, where the CIA uses "signature strikes" against suspected militants without identifying them individually — can be a bad thing.
"What scares me about drone strikes is how they are perceived around the world," McChrystal told the Reuters news agency last month. "The resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes ... is much greater than the average American appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who've never seen one or seen the effects of one."
During a hearing that lasted more than three hours, only one senator asked about that critical issue — a senior Republican, Susan Collins of Maine.
"If you looked at a map back in 2001, you would see that Al Qaeda was mainly in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and if you look at a map today, you would see Al Qaeda in all sorts of countries," Collins said. "If the cancer of Al Qaeda is metastasizing, do we need a new treatment?"
The 50 Greatest Villains Comment by Barbara Kyle
Antagonists are often the most memorable characters
in literature, without whom many of the best selling novels of all time
would simply cease to exist, their supporting beams cut away, the shell
of remaining "story" quietly imploding to ignominy and self-publication
... And consider the impact on a scene, any scene, as soon as the
author moves the particular chess piece of antagonist onto the page. The
mere presence of a Javert from "Les Misérables," Assef from "The Kite
Runner," or even Marilla from "Anne of Green Gables," immediately
energizes the environment. The narrative and dialogue literally crackle
and groan with antagonist. 
Writers new to the fiction game often shy away from creating an effective antagonist.
If you are an editor, you see this time and time again. But why? Is it
because they can't accept that a certain percentage of cruel and selfish
humans are a reality of life? Is it because they live in an American
bubble surrounded only by circumstances that reinforce their Rockwellian
naivety? Do they not watch Bill Moyers, or Sixty Minutes, or even a
shred of film footage from the latest repressions of the downtrodden by
tyrannical government forces? Or is it because they don't understand the
requirements of good dramatic fiction (no good guy without a bad
guy, folks)? Or some combo thereof? Whatever. Though you would think
after watching hundreds of films (even comedies) and reading God knows
how many novels they might catch on. And this doesn't mean they have to
reinvent the black hat cowboy. We're talking about prime movers of
social conflict and supreme irritation that come in wide variety of
forms, from relatively mild to pure evil.
First, but not worst, we have Marilla Cuthbert from ANNE OF GREEN GABLES.
Author Lucy Maud Montgomery intended for Marilla to be a source of
tension and obstacle for Anne, not a plot-swinging major like the four
mentioned below. You might call her, an "antagonistic force" or
temporary antagonist, remaining an irritant long enough to provide verve
to the story and suitable growth arc to the protagonist.
Playing
in a love triangle that includes his wife, Daisy, and Jay Gatsby, the
wealthy Buchanan displays himself time and time again as an arrogant and
bullying schmuck, enough that by the time Fitzgerald needs us to cheer
for Jay, and desire freedom for Daisy, we are more than ready to do so.
In comparison to Buchanan, Jay Gatsby, despite his faults, appears like a
Lancelot, while Daisy, despite her shallowness, becomes the distressed
damsel. If Buchanan did not exist, or if Fitzgerald had depicted him as a
decent fellow, the faults of Jay and Daisy would have burned in high
relief, and as readers, our sympathy for them would be zero.
Fitzgerald's only chance would have been to render them both irrevocably
detestable, as Emile Zola did for his murderous couple in THERESE RAQUIN--so
much so that as a reader you turn the page in hopes they will both soon
be wearing prison orange (or whatever color of rag they wore in those
days).
Next comes the infamous Javert of LES MISERABLES
by Victor Hugo. Unlike the first two antagonists, Javert's primary flaw
might be defined as dogged zealotry, and at times, he behaves as hard
on himself as on others. After the character Valjean, a victim of
mistaken identity, appears in court and loses both his business and his
position in Montreuil-sur-mer, he escapes long enough to hide his
fortune. He spends more time in prison, working aboard a ship.
Eventually he escapes again and retrieves the character Cosette from the
evil Thenardiers. Then begins a decade of hiding, moving from place to
place, always staying just ahead of the implacable Javert. Will Valjean
save the farm and live to tell the story? Are we not concerned enough
for brave Valjean that we want to know?
A close second to Assef below, for reasons of sheer despicableness, is good ole boy Bobby Ewell of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD
by Harper Lee. Shunned by the entire town, and terribly embittered,
Ewell’s raison d'etre consists of being antagonistic towards every
living thing. As Atticus Finch does his best to defend Tom, the rancor
and hatefulness exhibited by Ewell at the trial manipulates the emotions
and fears of those present, raising the heat on Tom to lynch mob
intensity. Ewell is determined to see Tom hang, and following the trial,
Mr. 666 stokes up his inner dragon for yet another bellow. He seeks
revenge on those who desired a fair trial for Tom, and doing harm to
Scout and Jem seems like a great way to destroy Atticus.
Rising like a bad moon to the bottom of the list is the human monster known as Assef, antagonist from THE KITE RUNNER
by Khaled Hosseini, a novel that has sold millions of copies in dozens
of languages. A vicious and bigoted childhood acquaintance of the
likable characters, Amir and Hassan, he torments them whenever the mood
strikes, but devolves to subhuman status upon attacking and raping
Hassan. And at such time the Taliban gain control of Afghanistan, he
gravitates to their culture, thus placing himself in a position to
indefinitely torture others he considers inferior. As a brutal cherry on
the sociopath milkshake, Assef turns the character Sohrab into his sex
toy, and Amir must defeat Assef to bring Sohrab home.
- Michael Neff of Algonkian Writer Conferences
