I heard that none of the above would order the FBI, CIA, and various other investigative units to stop. NOTA would ask the career professionals in these agencies (and people not too far removed form the security of the President him/herself) to drop their investigations into individuals who are spilling the dirty laundry and then some (and who doesn’t have dirty laundry?) of these agencies who for the past decade have gone through a significant shake because of the two high and symbolic towers that were destroyed in “a” heart of this nation while hitting the pentagon and what else? Further NOTA would do this even if the majority of Americans do not want to encourage insiders from exposing US government strategic information to potential enemies abroad and anyone with Internet access.

Let’s ask, how could Obama have been faced with so much mutiny from its investigative units? Well, the last 10 years has something to do with it, I think. These investigations were largely not fresh and what the US has gone through is a main part of the reason all of this mutiny has been taking place. There was internal backlash to difficult situations in these agencies dealing with feared enemies (you didn’t just almost have your house destroyed by an attacker flying a bomb with your name on it, but pretend for a moment). Many Americans even support the torture to some degree and certainly want an ordered mechanism for dealing with deviants and do not support a politician pushing around these people whose careers have been to protect the nation. Sure, this idealism is not shared by everyone, but I think there would be significant pushback to interference with ongoing investigations and decisions by these people inside our security network trying to defend their protocols and decisions of the past decade.

After public uproar of some degree, Manning was moved to a reasonable holding environment from his harsh cell. The case against Drake was weakened when Obama took over and the rest fell apart, as it should have and probably would have regardless. That is easier to do, of course, to lose a case in a public forum, than it is to be bold like NOTA and rebuke the decision-process in these agencies and order indictments to disappear. DOA really was probably unavoidable, yes.

NOTA would make a tremendously bold President if perhaps not representative of the majority of the people in avoiding prosecution in a quasi-public forum while rebuking behind the scenes key US security agencies (and heavens knows opening the door to how many more whistleblowers about this suppression being committed by a mere politician). Unfortunately, NOTA has been confirmed to be too old for the office and cannot be elected.