Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Communications Government The Courts United States News Your Rights Online

Obama Administration Defends Warrantless Wiretapping 788

Posted by timothy
from the high-moral-ground-is-a-grassy-knoll dept.
a whoabot writes "The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the Obama administration has stepped in to defend AT&T in the case over their participation in the warrantless wiretapping program started by Bush. The Obama administration argues that that continuation of the case will lead to the disclosure of important 'state secrets.' The Electronic Frontier Foundation has described the action as an 'embrace' of the Bush policy." Update: 04/07 15:18 GMT by T : Glenn Greenwald of Salon has up an analysis of this move, including excerpts from the actual brief filed. Excerpt: "This brief and this case are exclusively the Obama DOJ's, and the ample time that elapsed — almost three full months — makes clear that it was fully considered by Obama officials."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Obama Administration Defends Warrantless Wiretapping

Comments Filter:
  • Change? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:08AM (#27489665)

    Yeah, the kind left in your pocket.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cayenne8 (626475)
      "Meet the new boss.....

      ....Same as the old boss...."

      • Re:Change? (Score:4, Funny)

        by Moryath (553296) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:33AM (#27490075)

        "Change"... is all you'll have left in your pocket or bank account once Obama is done.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Shakrai (717556)

          "Change"... is all you'll have left in your pocket or bank account once Obama is done.

          Well yeah, all you'll have left is change. Coins don't burn [financialsense.com] nearly as well as bank notes ;)

        • Re:Change? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by severoon (536737) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @12:19PM (#27491977) Journal

          Oh no. Things were so much easier when we could move forward based on the simple algorithm Bush = bad. Now that we have to actually think about stuff, what ever will we do?

          • Re:Change? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Hordeking (1237940) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @07:43PM (#27498029)

            Oh no. Things were so much easier when we could move forward based on the simple algorithm Bush = bad. Now that we have to actually think about stuff, what ever will we do?

            Don't look at me. I didn't believe Hussein Obama when he first said it, then I saw proof when he voted for telecom immunity. If you honestly believed he wasn't going to do this, you really shouldn't be voting.

      • by Dr. Manhattan (29720) <sorceror171.gmail@com> on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @11:00AM (#27490561) Homepage
        ...and contributing to the EFF [eff.org], the ones actually pushing this issue.
      • Re:Change? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Firethorn (177587) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @12:13PM (#27491881) Homepage Journal

        Yeah, part of this is that I can promise whatever I want during my campaign, but once elected I get the good briefings, and suddenly some of my promises don't make sense anymore. Well, that's the charitable reason anyways.

        Wire tapping, Gitmo, Afghanistan, Iraq, all of Obama's timelines are looking a lot more like Bush's now.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by steelfood (895457)

      Change is what that cup in your hand is for.

    • Re:Change? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jav1231 (539129) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @11:47AM (#27491435)
      What's funny is watching so many who voted for Obama who still can't bring themselves to find anything to disagree with him on. There's nothing wrong with saying you find something disturbing even from someone you largely support. We've been an all-or-nothing politico.
      • Re:Change? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Miseph (979059) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @12:41PM (#27492421) Journal

        I haven't really seen that... I've just seen a lot of anti-Obama types criticizing people who did for their unwillingness to do so before they even say anything.

        That said, I'm extremely disappointed by this, I am disappointed that he can't find a single cabinet member who knows to pay their taxes, and I am even more disappointed in these Democrats who are committing tax evasion: I am OK with paying taxes to support social services and the like, and I am willing to accept that a great deal of that money will also, unfortunately, be spent on offense (it's not "defense" anymore when you're invading nations unprovoked)... but supporting such spending and then NOT paying taxes is just beyond contempt. I'm also not thrilled with his continuation of the Bush policy of socializing completely inappropriate industries (banks, autos) rather than ignoring the "too big to fail" bullshit and letting them die like they deserve and get replaced by businesses that know how not to fail.

        On the other hand, I'm glad that he's put and end to Gitmo and started to reclaim any sort of American claim to a moral high ground, that he's put us on a path to getting out of Iraq sometime in the next decade (better than never, like Cheney wanted), that's he refocusing the US military into the legitimate military operation in Afghanistan (a lot of us never opposed this war at all, despite what the vocal fringe claims), and that's he's at least giving lip service to the idea that average working Americans are more important than a small number of extremely wealthy ones.

        In any event, he's still a dramatic improvement on the last guy. He'd have to work pretty hard not to be.

        • Re:Change? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by tsotha (720379) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @02:42PM (#27494377)

          On the other hand, I'm glad that he's put and end to Gitmo...

          He's done no such thing. He's simply claims to have a timetable, sort of, to close Gitmo. There are lots of thorny issues to be resolved before that facility is closed, and Obama hasn't done anything to resolve them yet.

          In any event, he's still a dramatic improvement on the last guy. He'd have to work pretty hard not to be.

          I keep seeing people clinging to this desperate delusion. So far he's no improvement over Bush's first ten weeks. Not by a long shot.

  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:09AM (#27489687) Journal
    The little R next to the president's name indicating party changed to a D and some Wikipedia pages were updated.

    Aside from that, business as usual I guess. No point in getting rid of all the cool toys the last guy left lying around, right?

    On another note, have you begun your responsible phased withdrawal from Iraq [barackobama.com] you promised me when I voted for you, Mr. Obama?

    Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 -- more than 7 years after the war began.

    How's that going, by the way?

    • by Nursie (632944) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:18AM (#27489813)

      This is just so much more ammo for the "Please don't vote for either R or D!" argument.

      Choosing the lesser of two evils is not a good policy. "Throwing away" your vote on a third party is always decried as the best way to let the other guy in. No, no, no, you need to vote for whichever (R or D) is closer to your views or else all your doing is letting the other one, that you really hate, in.

      Can we agree that their both evil yet?

      Can we make 2012 a third party year? Please?

      Signed by me, a cynical brit that would love to see actual change on either side of the atlantic.

      • by gnick (1211984) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:25AM (#27489931) Homepage

        I think that some people are just learning that the D's respect your privacy roughly as much as the R's. But, of course, when it's the R's doing it, the D's are very vocal about how they're violating people's rights and need to be run out on a rail. If this was a new policy and not a continuation of one from the previous administration, the R's would likely be waxing Libertarian and doing the same thing now.

        I won't go so far as to welcome "the new boss - same as the old boss" because Obama is certainly markedly different from Bush on a wide swath of issues, but some things never change. Once a government claims a power, taking it back is very, very difficult.

        Personally, I voted Barr/Root mainly because fiscal liberalism scares me and social liberalism just seems right (even though I wished that they had a better VP choice). Still, I'm holding my breath that having a charismatic president in office will have some positive repercussions domestically and internationally.

      • This last election I quit forever voting for the lesser evil. Your vote is wasted only if you vote for a candidate because the candidate can win, even if you don't really like him/her. While people may get some warm fuzzies by supporting a winner, it's sort of like picking the way you die: some ways are better than others but in the end, you're at the same spot.

        Our problem is that two private organizations, the Democratic and Republican parties, have hijacked our government. They've created self-protecting rules for elections, as if the election system was made for them. And when it all comes down to the end, they aren't all that different except on the edges. Both want to spend us into oblivion. Both are warmongers (just google up some Clinton speeches from the time she helped Bush go to Iraq) or look at Obama's lack of progress on that front. Both are out to further their parties' interests with only a glance toward their constituents interests.

        If people would quit drinking the "wasted vote" kool-aid, we'd have some hope. As it is, America is being destroyed by inches from the inside.

      • by vsingh165 (1058102) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:30AM (#27490027)

        This is just so much more ammo for the "Please don't vote for either R or D!" argument.

        Choosing the lesser of two evils is not a good policy. "Throwing away" your vote on a third party is always decried as the best way to let the other guy in. No, no, no, you need to vote for whichever (R or D) is closer to your views or else all your doing is letting the other one, that you really hate, in.

        Can we agree that their both evil yet?

        Can we make 2012 a third party year? Please?

        Signed by me, a cynical brit that would love to see actual change on either side of the atlantic.

        Can we please make 2012 a no party year? Candidates should be themselves rather than cloak themselves in stupid pointless ideologies.

        • by lorenlal (164133) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:49AM (#27490361)

          Mod parent up.

          Just ask George Washington what he thought of political parties.

        • by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @11:43AM (#27491351)

          Can we please make 2012 a no party year? Candidates should be themselves rather than cloak themselves in stupid pointless ideologies.

          And this sums up the problem, you think the only elections that matter are the Presidential ones every four years. Why wait for 2012? Why not make 2010 a no party year? Why not make sure that the guys running the local government are doing a good job?
          If people would start putting more emphasis on local and state elections, it would have a much bigger impact on the state of affairs than any amount of effort on the Federal level.

      • by MaWeiTao (908546) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @11:41AM (#27491329)

        It was frustrating as hell to have to defend my desire to vote for a third party when people kept arguing that I was wasting it by not voting for the two ruling parties. So apparently I'm throwing my vote away if I vote my conscience.

    • by CRCulver (715279) <crculver@christopherculver.com> on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:20AM (#27489847) Homepage

      The little R next to the president's name indicating party changed to a D and some Wikipedia pages were updated.

      When it comes to wiretapping, the same status quo was maintained when Bush senior yielded the presidency to Clinton. In fact, Clinton expanded wiretapping for US economic gains, claiming it would "level the playing field." See James Bamford's Body of Secrets [amazon.com] .

      Nearly all our presidents over the last few decades have pretty much been in agreement that violation of privacy is cool. The exception is Carter, who actually tried hard to limit the intercepts. And old-time NSA employees, military and civilian, despise him for it, because a lot of them get off on unhindered access to communications.

      • by Em Emalb (452530) <ememalb.gmail@com> on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:25AM (#27489929) Homepage Journal

        And old-time NSA employees, military and civilian, despise him for it, because a lot of them get off on unhindered access to communications.

        No, for them, it makes their job easier. The issue, when boiled down, is the old "greater good" argument again.

        Suppose they wiretap 1000 phones without a warrant. 999 of them are mistakes and nothing comes from it except the violation of citizen rights. (which is a huge thing, IMO) but that 1000th one yields a goldmine of terrorist activity that they would have missed had they been forced to wait for a warrant. Because of the wiretap being quickly put in place, they're able to stop a legitimate terrorist threat.

        That's a good thing, right? But it's also a hugely BAD thing as well.

        A damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. But to say it's because NSA folks get off on it is simply stupid.

        • by downix (84795) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:34AM (#27490097) Homepage

          Except.....

          You can get the warrant retroactively through the FISA courts. If you happen to be polling, and run across something critical, you file the paperwork, BAM, warrant. If you happen to not, the data is purged.

        • by Gizzmonic (412910) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:38AM (#27490191) Homepage Journal

          Suppose they wiretap 1000 phones without a warrant. 999 of them are mistakes and nothing comes from it except the violation of citizen rights. (which is a huge thing, IMO) but that 1000th one yields a goldmine of terrorist activity that they would have missed had they been forced to wait for a warrant. Because of the wiretap being quickly put in place, they're able to stop a legitimate terrorist threat.

          This happens frequently on TV shows, but has it ever really happened in real life? No.

          The entire national security apparatus is a huge expense and a bigger curb to our freedom than anything an outside enemy has ever imposed on us. And what do we get in return? Bloated bureaucracies that have no clear mission. "Homeland Security" was created after 9/11 because the "Department of Defense" failed to defend us, as did the FBI, CIA, NSA, Secret Service, etc. So what's the solution? Another nebulous bureaucracy to drain taxpayer money and entangle us in more foreign wars, all the while bickering with the other agencies for prestige. It's a raw deal if you ask me.

        • by Ethanol-fueled (1125189) * on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:43AM (#27490259) Homepage Journal
          No way. This is not about "national security" in the sense of busting terrorists and preventing catastrophic damage. It's about control, plain and simple. There are no credible threats. Is this [militantislammonitor.org], busting some loser ice cream man after paying a shady informant a quarter-million bucks (commonplace even while many Americans are jobless and starving), the best that they can do?

          Sweeping powers like rampant warrantless wiretapping will always be abused. Why care if you're not up to anything? Surely you won't mind if I follow you around and read over your shoulder, or even follow your wife into the restroom to make sure that she's not doing anything illegal. Huh. You'd think that we would be better than to allow state-sponsored voyeurism. But it's for your own good - the terrorists and pedophiles are out to get you!
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Locklin (1074657)

          Except it's not 1000 phones, it's 100,000,000 phones, 10 or so with information about a serious terrorist plot, and 10,000 false positives.

    • by Shivetya (243324) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:35AM (#27490119) Homepage Journal

      I know there are a few others here on Slashdot like myself who did not believe a word out of this guy's mouth during the campaign (and no I did not vote McCain)

      You didn't really believe half the stuff he promised would come to pass did you? His own voting record (what little of it that is) and his writings (we actually got two) pointed to a direction not in line with his campaign. Throw in the fact he had basically zero experience people either were relying on the novelty of a black President or were so partisan that anyone not "R" was the only choice.

      Look at his appointees, I would swear Hillary won. I was one of the deluded types who didn't really fret over Bush having such powers and holding such views because I knew the press would be merciless. I was worried about the next guy and apparently it will be fun to see if anything gets made of it, let alone the clowns in Congress who had a cow when he did this.

      So did ya'll really buy into this shit or not?

      It really blows my mind that so many act surprised.

      News at 11, water is wet, fire is hot, and politicians only want power for themselves.

  • Too bad so sad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:10AM (#27489697)

    "The Obama administration argues that that continuation of the case will lead to the disclosure of important 'state secrets.'"

    Well thats what happens when you use unconstitutional and illegal methods to obtain those secrets. Tough shit!

  • Does this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PuckstopperGA (1204112) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:10AM (#27489703)
    Does this remind anyone else of the argument that "when the president does it, it's not illegal"?

    Nice to see that change came to town...
    • Re:Does this (Score:5, Interesting)

      by cbiltcliffe (186293) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:20AM (#27489857) Homepage Journal

      Preface: I didn't vote for Obama, and I didn't vote for Bush. I also have never voted for any other American president, party, or political idea. I'm not an American, and I don't live in the USA.

      My point:

      Well, honestly, we can give him the benefit of the doubt, in that state secrets might actually be revealed if the case continues.

      However, this does not mean that Obama is not being a moron.

      There's a reason courts have the ability to seal records. If something that truly needs to be kept secret comes out in the court case, the judge reviews it, then orders the records for that particular part of the case sealed. It doesn't go into court records, doesn't show up on websites later, and in general, stays between those who heard it in the courtroom, with the threat of contempt of court charges if anybody ever says anything about it.

      So, Obama is either an idiot who doesn't realize the above is possible, or he's a corrupt jerk, little or no better than Bush.

      Either way, he shouldn't be running your country.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by b4dc0d3r (1268512)

        More likely, he is getting the same advice that Bush got, from different advisers. He doesn't have to be an idiot, corrupt, or a jerk to take advice from people who think they know what's best for the country.

        I'm about 100% sure the request for secrecy is coming from the NSA, and Obama's DOJ is accomodating as much as possible due to convincing arguments, just like Bush's DOJ did.

        Something must have convinced Obama to change course from his campaign promises. Do you think he just decided one day that it w

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymusing (1450747)

      FTA: Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a lawyer for the customers, said Monday the filing was disappointing in light of the Obama presidential campaign's "unceasing criticism of Bush-era secrecy and promise for more transparency."

      Well, Obama did criticise Bush's handling of terrorism, but he also said this [greenchange.org]: "Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the [warrantless wiretapp

  • One word (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dyinobal (1427207) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:11AM (#27489711)
    Unlawful. That is all that should matter, how disappointing.
  • by mcrbids (148650) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:12AM (#27489723) Journal

    I voted for him.

    This is my biggest disappointment so far in his presidency. It's a signal that, for all the talk about transparency, it's talk.

    I'm not saying that he's a failure as President, but I am saying that this issue marks the end of any honeymoon.

    • by erroneus (253617) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:20AM (#27489841) Homepage

      I didn't vote for Obama. I voted Libertarian. If you want to end the corruption and game playing with business, you should too. "But why should I waste my vote?" Is it really a waste? Democrat/Republican parties are two sides of the same coin. Vote for them and you vote to continue the game. We have seen attempts at change from within, and each time they are silenced quickly. In Obama's case, I can't say whether or not he was sincere, but his promises and attitudes changed VERY quickly once he got into office.

      This is more than disappointment. It's our death.

    • by nadamsieee (708934) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:20AM (#27489849)

      Obama took out of his Presidential campaign to vote in favor of spying on innocent Americans [wired.com].

      What did you expect?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by cayenne8 (626475)
      "This is my biggest disappointment so far in his presidency. It's a signal that, for all the talk about transparency, it's talk."

      Why does this surprise you?

      I mean, while on the campaign trail, he came back to the Senate, and reversed his earlier stated positions, and voted FOR the bill giving the telco's immunity.

      You could have easily seen this coming before voting him for president. He didn't hide his change of opinion on this one.

    • Obama voted for FISA while in the Senate. Were people just hoping he didn't really mean it?

      Look, the handwriting has been on the wall for a while. He's a politician from Chicago.

      People went all crazy about him without pausing and realizing he is still a politician.

  • Anonymous Coward (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:15AM (#27489761)

    Dude. They have secret spy courts. They have secret spy courts. They have secret spy courts. Say it 3x and it's still true. The only reason to now want a wiretap OK'd through a secret spy court is because you might not get the warrant. And if you might not get the warrant, it might be illegal to do the tap. Duh.

  • surprised? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pak9rabid (1011935) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:18AM (#27489807)
    I'm not. Who's going to willingly remove power from themselves once said power is already granted? Only an idealist or philosopher would do something like that..unfortunately no one fitting these descriptions is fit for the game of politics in this country..or any country holding a world power for that matter.
  • One man's trash... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RogueWarrior65 (678876) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:19AM (#27489833)

    Any concept can be used for both good and bad. IMHO, listening in on conversations to suspected terrorist contacts outside the US can be useful if the information sheds light on terrorist operations. Listening in on conversations that occur completely within our borders? That's tres KGB or Stasi. The radical left in this country has a paranoia about its own people. Ooo, a Ron Paul bumper sticker. They must be militia members! Better call the FBI. Newsflash: dissent is protected in this country and doesn't just apply to leftist speech.

  • by Thelasko (1196535) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:20AM (#27489853) Journal

    The Obama administration argues that that continuation of the case will lead to the disclosure of important 'state secrets.'

    Never mind the, "Obama is just as bad as Bush," rant. What's the secret? Any guesses?

  • by your_mother_sews_soc (528221) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:25AM (#27489933)
    Between the promise to not hire lobbyists, the parade of appointees who have had problems paying their taxes, the proposal floated to have soldiers provide their own insurance for battle injuries (since rescinded), and now this, I hope people start to realize they voted for Obama for the wrong reason. It was more of a vote against Bush and his party than anything. and it was also a fantastically executed marketing campaign. More money was spent on the Obama campaign than any other election. They tapped into what their target audience wanted, hired the best speech writers, and pulled it off.
  • Par for the course (Score:3, Insightful)

    by brian0918 (638904) <brian0918NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:26AM (#27489961)
    I feel sorry for the people who voted for Obama (I voted "none of the above"). They're getting more of Bush when they wanted to "move on". This is the exact opposite of what they expected, but it's been par for the course. Besides this, we also have his reversal on the ban on federal funding for stem cell research: one day he signed a bill overturning the ban, and two days later, he reinstated the ban in an omnibus spending bill. He definitely should have read and understood the latter before signing it. In addition is his complete 180 on earmark spending. During his campaign, and early in his election, he was adamantly opposed to earmarks [youtube.com]. Then recently he came out in favor of them [youtube.com], and stated that he had always supported them.

    Say one thing, do another. Just like Bush and the GOP. Were you really expecting any better from the Dems?
  • by PMuse (320639) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:32AM (#27490065)

    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009 [nytimes.com])

    Clearly, the President is choosing something over our ideals [wikipedia.org]. It's about time that he explained what he's choosing.

  • by shadowofwind (1209890) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:33AM (#27490087)

    I find the increasing emphasis on surveillance technology to be worrying. Aerial reconnaisance technology developed for use in Afghanistan will eventually be used domestically in my opinion. Surveillance satellites are already used that way, with hardly any public outcry. It seems the American left that's in power cares about equality, but not so much about protecting against abuse of government power. And I don't think the philosophy has been very good for the rest of the world either. Unmanned reconnaissance followed by poorly informed airstrikes has been a big part of the reason people in Afghanistan dislike and don't cooperate with the US-led coalition.

  • Defending Obama (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tjstork (137384) <todd...bandrowsky@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:38AM (#27490185) Homepage Journal

    You know, as a Republican, I suppose I could take the cheap shot and say, "Hah, there you go, see, he's not really any different after all."

    But...

    Bashing Obama for doing something supposedly conservative is just silly. Conservatives bashing Obama for doing something conservative is even sillier still. If it was so right for Bush to wiretap, then, shouldn't conservatives be defending Obama at least on this issue? If it was so wrong for Bush to wiretap, well, conservatives, where were you for eight years?

    The thing is, one could make the argument that Obama is defending Bush on warrantless wiretapping not necessarily because he plans on doing it himself, but because he wants to spare the USA the damage from some foreign policy implication of what Bush did.

    If you look at his overall record, Obama is acting like the dyed in the wool hardcore liberal that he is. Come on, Obama has spent his last European trip apologizing for everything the USA has ever done - a typical liberal thing to do. Do you think Bush would ever apologize for American foreign policy? Don't think so.

  • Watergate today (Score:3, Interesting)

    by whoever57 (658626) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @10:57AM (#27490489) Journal
    Imagine Watergate today. The Whitehouse would just get AT&T or another friendly telco to bug their conversations and then claim state immunity. Nixon would never have resigned. Does anyone think that would have been a good idea?
  • by boatboy (549643) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @11:04AM (#27490607) Homepage
    Obama very clearly opposed this, then got in office and supports it. The clear inference here is that he learned _something_ between then and now to lead him to believe this was saving lives or in some other way acceptable. I get 'those who would sacrifice privacy for security deserve neither'. I have to believe that there are pros and cons both ways to this, but that the scale tip toward the pros. (For the record, I'm not an Obama supporter on just about any other issue.)
  • What to fear (Score:3, Informative)

    by MasterLock (581630) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @11:08AM (#27490695)
    Quite a timely post from on Bruce Schneier's blog: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/04/what_to_fear.html [schneier.com]

    Original article by John Goekler: http://www.counterpunch.org/goekler03242009.htmlhttp://www.counterpunch.org/goekler03242009.html [counterpunch.org]

    Of the top things to be scared of there is no mention of terrorism. But watch out for family members! "Over 16,000 Americans will be murdered this year, most often by a relative or friend."

  • I get it. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DragonTHC (208439) <Dragon&gamerslastwill,com> on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @11:26AM (#27491061) Homepage Journal

    I understand that those lawsuits can't move forward without incriminating some former leaders and putting others in jail.

    I understand that. But maybe that's what we need and want. Maybe we want to see some former leaders go to jail to get some closure.

    I understand that Obama is respecting the office, but what the fuck? Someone needs to pay the price. John Yoo should be hanged for treason. Dick Cheney should be hanged for treason. Bush should spend his life in prison because he is too stupid to know what he was doing was seriously illegal and wrong. Those people subverted the Constitution of the United States and attempted a coup de'tat. That is treason.

    Bush ignored his presidential oath. You remember the one he took where he swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America? He wiped his ass with the constitution. That is impeachable. That is unforgivable. The people of the United States of America demand justice. The fact that we can't get it means we've lost our republic. Touché Mr Franklin.

  • by Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @12:19PM (#27491975)

    There are two Americas. Guess which one gets all the rights and breaks the rules?

    Enjoy your prison state. Pay your taxes. The economy is bad for YOU the poor... but not the wealthy. The wealthy get your tax dollars through hand outs.

    Steal from the poor, give to the rich. And they sold you that Robin Hood story too, just like the fairy tale that is America.

  • Four legs good (Score:3, Insightful)

    by T.E.D. (34228) on Tuesday April 07, 2009 @12:42PM (#27492441)
    ...two legs better [wikiquote.org].

Save gas, don't use the shell.

Working...