Mr Pink Eyes writes with news about comments from US Attorney General Eric Holder, who said a San Francisco lawsuit over warrantless wiretapping should be thrown out, since going forward would compromise "ongoing intelligence activities." From the AP report:
"In making the argument, the Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration's position on the case but insists it came to the decision differently. A civil liberties group criticized the move Friday as a retreat from promises President Barack Obama made as a candidate. Holder's effort to stop the lawsuit marks the first time the administration has tried to invoke the state secrets privilege under a new policy it launched last month designed to make such a legal argument more difficult. ... Holder said US District Judge Vaughn Walker, who is handling the case, was given a classified description of why the case must be dismissed so that the court can 'conduct its own independent assessment of our claim.'"
...at tyrant's head (General Attorney Eric). Pull trigger. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation....."
Warrantless searches are illegal, and if the courts won't protect the Constitution against domestic enemies, then We the People will do it instead.
...at tyrant's head (General Attorney Eric). Pull trigger. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation....."
Warrantless searches are illegal, and if the courts won't protect the Constitution against domestic enemies, then We the People will do it instead.
For once, I agree with you. Maybe this is twice now.. If Holder doesn't feel he should be constrained by the rule of law, then I don't see how he could argue he should be protected by it either. It's simple hermeneutics, you just can't interpret the law to protect you and not others (unless you're power crazed or insane).
There were a number of anti-war/anti-Bush protests. I know because I attended one of them.
He said teabaggers, Slick. But much like the militia movement from the 90's, that stockpiled guns in preparation for Clinton's "New World Order", they took a vacation when Bush actually started to dismantle the Constitution.
We should have ignored Bin Laden the same way we ignore Internet Trolls. Don't feed them with a response. Was 9/11 a tragedy? Yes, and so was the challenger disaster, and the New Orleans flooding, and so on. Rather than declare war, we should have just picked up the pieces, secured the border the same way you install a more-solid door on your house after a breakin, and continued to live in peace.
Eliminate Warrantless Wiretaps. Barack Obama opposed the Bush
Administration’s initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line
between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American
citizens. As president, Obama would update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence
committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law.
I'm not surprised. Republicans and Democrats are just two halves of the same tyranny. They both desire power to control the people, and damn the constitution, and damn the requirements for searches.
Next time you walk into a voting booth, and elect a congresscritter, choose one that is neither R or D. We need a Congress that has no clear majority, due to the presence of third parties. Just imagine how much healthier our Republic would be if, instead of 60% democrats and 40% republicans, the ratio was 40% democrats, 30% republicans, 20% libertarians, and 10% socialists. No party could dominate.
I think you are the thick one here. He was implying that the current Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, are already socialist in practice if not in name. and he has a pretty viable argument.
Here is a chart from Wikipedia of the size of the Federal budget for the last 14 years:
* 2010 United States federal budget - $3.60 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
* 2009 United States federal budget - $3.10 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
* 2008 United States federal budget - $2.90 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
* 2007 United States federal budget - $2.77 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
* 2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
* 2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
* 2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
* 2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
* 2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
* 2001 United States federal budget - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)
* 2000 United States federal budget - $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)
* 1999 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)
* 1998 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)
* 1997 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)
* 1996 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)
Its more than doubled in 14 years and its been done by both Democrats and Republicans. Bush, supposedly the small government Conservative nearly doubled it all by himself in eight years. He not only doubled spending but cut taxes to create staggering deficits. They would have been really staggering earlier if it hadn't been for the housing bubble generating fantasy tax revenue. We don't have that bubble any more which is why deficits are going to be running more than a trillion until we gin up a new bubble(Ponzi scheme).
The U.S. GDP is maybe 14 trillion so the Federal budget alone is more than 20% of the economy. If you count secondary effects from all that spending it could easily be half our GDP now.
The budget deficits are now projected to run over a trillion a year indefinitely which is nearly as much as the ENTIRE federal budget in 1996. Of course the Fed and Treasury have also destroyed the dollar in the same period so a dollar in 1996 was worth a lot more than it is now which is why Gold is now over $1000. Gold has actually out performed the stock market the last couple decades thanks to the last couple years of economic devastation.
And of course in the last two years under both Democrats and Republicans there has been MASSIVE intervention in the economy to bail out Wall Street and Detroit. In so doing they have created massive moral hazard, by allowing giant corporations to do truly awful, incompetent, sometimes criminal things in the mortgage and auto market and just have the government step in to clean up their mess at the expense of ordinary Americans. Banksters pocketed billions and billions of dollars in the process and with collusion of their shills in government like Paulson have completely shredded free market capitalism in this country. They then turned around and have completely gutted all recent attempts to regulate them to keep them from doing it again... and they will do it again.... probably alread
This is change. You see, he's being evil in the same way as Bush, but for a different reason, which makes it okay. Bush was supported wiretaps because it served the interest of President Bush. Obama, on the other hand, supports them now because they serve the interests of President Obama. As you can see, this is an entirely different matter and so it's disingenuous to regard them as the same thing.
To be clear, I'm not trying to apologize for Obama, but you should pay very close attention to what that says:
Eliminate Warrantless Wiretaps. Barack Obama opposed the Bush Administration's initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens. As president, Obama would update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law.
Note, there is nothing in there about allowing existing lawsuits to go forward in order to punish those who violated the rights of Americans during the previous administration. In fact, Obama has stated, time after time, that he feels we should all just, you know, move on and get over it...
Us Brits were already aware that Obama follows Bush era policies.
One of the Britons detained in Guantanamo bay, Binyamin Mohamed, was finally released to the UK earlier this year. Since then he's been trying to prove that he was tortured by, or at the behest of British agents. The courts recieved documents from US intelligence that would back his claim, however their release was blocked by our foreign secretary.
Now, our foreign secretary is an idiot, and part of it is ass covering for sure, but the reason he has cited for blocking their release is that the US has threatened to cut intelligence ties with the UK meaning we could be left vulnerable to attack (as could the US) if this data were released. Originally this threat came from the Bush administration, but it seems since then the Obama administration has been asked with the same threats. Journalists and politicians here have contacted the white house to confirm this and have found that the Obama administration does in fact support this policy.
The fact is, the Obama administration has no interest in accountability for it's security services, it knows and has admitted they were complicit in torture, but it seems the extent to which they were is such a problem that they are willing to put the national security of an ally and their own national security at risk to cover this up and keep that evidence secure.
It's not like we're not used to this attitude from the US, as when a US airforce pilot was guilty of strafing British troops in an A10 in a friendly fire incident in Iraq they refused to release the pilots name for questioning and the gun camera videos etc. (which were later leaked anyway) for our enquiry into how it happened. We expected this kind of attitude of coverups from the Bush adminsitration, but the Obama administration? It did come as a suprise I'll admit.
An update is here, the court reversed it's decision and stated the documents can be released pending the outcome of an appeal by the British government. Hopefully they'll lose it and we'll be able to see if Obama really is willing to do as he says and damage security of both countries over it:
Change? Not from what we can see over this side of the Atlantic, the only difference here in Europe is instead of a US president having his leg humped by Tony Blair, we've now got a US president having his leg humped by Sarkozy and Berlusconi instead.
The EU Charter of Rights has no requirement for the general government to obtain a warrant.
Don't be disingenuous. Article 8 states that privacy shall not be infringed except as provided by law, for specific purposes only (among them fighting crime).
The exact formulation of the law is not the remit of the EU, but up to the member states. And given that most of these are representative democracies building on the same philosophers as your precious Founding Fathers, it is no coincidence that in fact, the law in almost all member states requires for warrants to be issued before wiretaps can go through.
Now, that some judges just rubberstamp everything the police holds in front of them, that is a different matter. But in that we're no different from the U.S. with it's Executive-lapdog FISA court.
Indeed. Looks like all the apologists who said his vote for the FISA amendments was just political expediency but that he'd work against wireless wiretapping once in office have a little egg on their faces.
Let me get this straight - the case is against warrant-less wiretapping, and since the case would expose on-going warrant-less wiretapping investigations, it should be thrown out? That's about the worst circular argument I've ever heard.
Why don't they just say it - they're going to do what they want, and it doesn't matter what anyone outside the "secret" circle thinks.
Let me get this straight - the case is against warrant-less wiretapping, and since the case would expose on-going warrant-less wiretapping investigations, it should be thrown out? That's about the worst circular argument I've ever heard.
Why don't they just say it - they're going to do what they want, and it doesn't matter what anyone outside the "secret" circle thinks.
Precisely, man. I want ongoing operations to be compromised. Ruined, even. Because they are illegal, immoral and wrong. If the government insists that it can break the law with impunity, how do they expect to govern? How do they expect to get juries to convict anyone, if nothing is really illegal as long as you want it bad enough.
If the government insists that it can break the law with impunity, how do they expect to govern?
By keeping the public distracted with arguments over what talk radio hosts are saying. No, really, who cares what Rush Limbaugh has to say, unless he is raising valid points against you? It's all about keeping the sheep preoccupied until they're in the gates and can't back out from the slaughterhouse.
Yes there is. If you agree with everything someone says, there is something wrong. If you agree with what someone says only because they are saying it, there is something wrong as well. I like Rachel Maddow, but I often don't agree with her. I dislike Limbaugh, and sometimes I agree with him.
Both of them are just people, as asinine and fallible as the rest of us. Worse, they exist to publish purely ideological rhetoric as news. And if you agree with any proper-noun ideology your suffering from laziness of thought. A lot of the problems in the world come from people agreeing with their party just because it is their party.
I'm a life long Democrat, and the democrats are often complete morons, and sometimes the Republicans have better ideas. I self-identify as a socialist or progressive, but I would rather have the libertarians in charge of social issues (get the government out of my life), but the socialists in charge of economic issues (keep the corporations out of my life).
Life is much more nuanced than any stupid political ideology. If you find yourself constantly agreeing with anyone, perhaps you should go make your own opinions?
This is obviously me being an optimist.. but let's hope they're putting up that argument just so it can be officially destroyed.
the realist in my recognizes now (as i did before i voted for him) that the president isn't perfect, and that sometimes information you learn after you say something changes your opinion - even if that change is for (what everyone else sees) the worse.
The law is not a matter of opinion. The law is clear. Warrantless wiretaps are illegal, and anyone who endorses them is a criminal. First it was Bush who was the criminal, now AG Holder, and if Obama supports his AG then he too will be a criminal. The law is the law.
Three umpires were asked about their jobs. One said "There are balls and there are strikes, and I call them as they are." The second said "There are balls and there are strikes, and I call them as I see them." The third said "There are balls and there are strikes, but they ain't nothing 'till I call them". There are plenty of court cases decided on opinion, like the ending of discrimination in DC schools. This is a case we should all be happy with, but it wasn't decided on any word of the Constitution, just an argument that the Constitution should bind the federal government more then the states.
I'm probably not even going to bother voting anymore. These days, I can only choose between Kodos and Kang. It doesn't matter which side you pick, both of them suck.
Sometimes, I don't even know why we the people even bother voting these days. Three cheers for exercising our rights and all, but expecting things to get better when all we have to pick from are scumbags is like trying to lose weight in a restaurant that has nothing on the menu but deep-fried food.
Sometimes, I don't even know why we the people even bother voting these days.
There's a Republican in upstate New York who's probably going to lose because she's not "conservative" enough. She's pro-gun - good thing in my government conservative book because it's a Constitutional (Second Amendment) issue and the other things have no business being regulated by the Government. But the rabid anti-abortionists and bigoted anti-gay people don't mind having their civil rights and freedoms taken away (except the
Now, the other side..the people who actually think Socialism can work even though it has never before and big Government can solve our problems, have their own rabid beliefs.
Umm, just FYI, as a Canadian who is perfectly happy living in a nation that most Americans would consider virtually communist, I have to disagree rather strongly with this. And I'm sure your average European would agree with me.
Socialism, hybridized with a liberal democracy and a free (but regulated) market *does* work, and works every single day all over the world. Just because Americans can't seem to figure it out, doesn't mean the idea is flawed. It just means the American system of government is so fundamentally fucked up it's hamstrung from the get-go.
Umm, just FYI, as a Canadian who is perfectly happy living in a nation that most Americans would consider virtually communist, I have to disagree rather strongly with this. And I'm sure your average European would agree with me.
Well that's the thing, most Americans can't and don't distinguish between communism and socialism, which is why when he said socialism has never worked before, I'm certain in his head he was thinking of the USSR and Eastern Europe during the Cold War.
I think it was during the 50s McCarthyism when Socialism somehow got equated to Communism. So while Western Europe et. al. were implementing rational socialist policies while still resisting the Soviets, we had to reject all of these things as somehow being equal to what our enemy was doing... even though they aren't...
The funny thing is that since both McCarthyism and the Cold War are long gone, you'd sound pretty silly accusing someone of being a communist. First because almost nobody really is, and second because it's considered a non-threat in this day and age, like accusing someone of being a British sympathizer it has no weight. Socialism still retains it's swear-word status, and since it's still alive and well in the world, it still retains its weight as a threat and thus insult -- at least if you don't distinguish between it and communism.
Umm, just FYI, as a Canadian who is perfectly happy living in a nation that most Americans would consider virtually communist, I have to disagree rather strongly with this. And I'm sure your average European would agree with me.
Socialism, hybridized with a liberal democracy and a free (but regulated) market *does* work
As a Russian who has "USSR" as place of birth in his passport, and now living in Canada, I have to note that Canada isn't anywhere near "virtually communist", and it isn't particularly socialist either. Socialism is when all production is directly controlled and owned by the state, and free enterprise in any form is forbidden. High taxes != socialism; and not that Canadian taxes are all that high, in fact.
Canada (and most European states) is a welfare state. It's still capitalist through and through, and you have full freedom to go and earn as much money for yourself as you can and want to do; it's just that part of that money (and not a bigger part) goes towards a safety net for the rest of the citizens. Calling that "socialist" is highly misleading (and I know that you probably used that word because many Americans use it that way, so it's really directed more towards them).
Actually the opposition to her comes more from her being pro-stimulus and pro-cardcheck and generally being more aligned with the Democrat party than it does from those who are "rabid anti-abortionists and bigoted anti-gay people don't mind having their civil rights and freedoms taken away (except the guns!) as long as the "fags" and those "baby killers" are controlled" as you put it... but no doubt her pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage stance didn't help her with the republicans.
So which is it? Is she really more of a Democrat who happens to anti-gun control... or more of a Republican who is pro-card check, pro-same sex marriage, pro-stimulus, and pro-abortion?
One is far easier to believe than the other personally... but mostly because I've known more of the latter than the prior over the years.
hope. Granted it is only on the Republican side. Where grass roots Conservatives told their party elders to take a hike.
Still, it is hard to claim much freedom of choice when there are only two parties who can always get on the ballot, two parties who have done much to prevent other parties from having a chance. Where they could not do it by law they did by influence over media outlets.
In Obama's defense, promises made on the trail tend to fall by the wayside because reality sucks. The naivete of the Administration, let alone their voters, was astonishing. I think they both bought the hype. The problem of course is the world is harsh and all your "we love you love me" crap has no affect on the world stage.
Throw in a good dose of the Washington establishment (sorry - but his Chief of Staff was a dead give away the only change was the party who sat in the house) and how did anyone here honestly expect things to change? Then again I seem to recall a large number here who buy into Michael Moore's crap so no matter education or intelligence level snake oil sells.
Then vote Constitution Party instead. They don't support warrantless searches of any kind.
Also there's more offices than just the president. A third party will probably never win the top office, but I beat we could win enough seats in Congress so that neither the Rs or Ds would have a majority. The duopoly will have been broken.
Then vote Constitution Party instead. They don't support warrantless searches of any kind.
Also there's more offices than just the president. A third party will probably never win the top office, but I beat we could win enough seats in Congress so that neither the Rs or Ds would have a majority. The duopoly will have been broken.
I hear you on the need to break up the collusion betweens the R's and D's against the wishes and interests of the people.
Since I never investigated the Constitution Party, I took a look at the their Website. Here's Doug Stewart's story of how he became a member from the front page of the aforementioned site:
George W. Bush had just been re-elected to a second term, but his remark, "the Constitution is nothing but a G.. D... piece of paper", really turned me off, but I had not voted for a Democrat since I was compelled into the Kingdom of God on the evening of 8/19/85.
Being a VA native and devotee of Southern history and heritage, though I went along for the ride after my conversion, I had always had a problem with "the Party of Lincoln". Bush's desire to expand the U.S. Empire abroad showed me what one of the big problems was. I began doing some research.
Seeing the reprobate Democratic platform, especially where abortion and homosexuality were concerned, I knew I needed to select a third party. The Libertarian Party was eliminated because they'll believe anything. More research showed me that the Constitution Party was tailor-made for me. I've now been a member for nearly five years, and am more politically active here than I ever was with the Republican Party.
From this "testimony" (published right there on the home page of the party), it sounds like the Constitution Party is the resurrection of the Confederacy.
The one thing that had kept me a Republican for so long (too long) was the fact that they were the "Party of Lincoln," which is precisely what turned off Stewart. If it's tailor made for Mr. Stewart -- a christian fundamentalist, unreconstructed Confederate -- it's exactly wrong for me. I'm still looking, believe me.
if Ron Paul were president, I guarantee you that he'd keep the new surveillance powers, too.
If Ron Paul were President, he might change his mind.
But as a Congressman, he opposes it. He didn't vote on the FISA bill, reportedly because he was unavailable to do so after a last-minute change to the calendar.
Mr. Speaker, I regret that due to the unexpected last-minute appearance of this measure on the legislative calendar this week, a prior commitment has prevented me from voting on the FISA amendments. I have strongly opposed every previous FISA overhaul attempt and I certainly would have voted against this one as well.
The main reason I oppose this latest version is that it still clearly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens' communications without a search warrant. That US citizens can have their private communication intercepted by the government without a search warrant is anti-American, deeply disturbing, and completely unacceptable.
In addition to gutting the fourth amendment, this measure will deprive Americans who have had their rights violated by telecommunication companies involved in the Administration's illegal wiretapping program the right to seek redress in the courts for the wrongs committed against them. Worse, this measure provides for retroactive immunity, whereby individuals or organizations that broke the law as it existed are granted immunity for prior illegal actions once the law has been changed. Ex post facto laws have long been considered anathema in free societies under rule of law. Our Founding Fathers recognized this, including in Article I section 9 of the Constitution that "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." How is this FISA bill not a variation of ex post facto? That alone should give pause to supporters of this measure.
Mr. Speaker, we should understand that decimating the protections that our Constitution provides us against the government is far more dangerous to the future of this country than whatever external threats may exist. We can protect this country without violating the Constitution and I urge my colleagues to reconsider their support for this measure.
I'm not particularly enthusiastic about Ron Paul, but claiming he would support warrantless wiretapping is a misrepresentation of his public statements on the subject.
Hmm, your reply doesn't make much sense. From your link:
A republic is a form of government in which the head of state is not a monarch[1] and the people (or at least a part of its people)[2] have an impact on its government
So, on the statement "we are no longer a democracy", you are answering: "correct, we are not a monarchy".
Truly, check it out. There are democratic republics (apparently not the US, but let's say France and Germany), non-democratic republics (US, China), democratic monarchies (Denmark for instance), and non-democratic monarchies (Saudi-Arabia). I know that you get taught in school that the US is not a direct democracy, but a representative democracy, but given that since ancient Athens we haven't seen a direct democracy, it is safe to assume that if one utters the word democracy it is with an silent 'representative'. Correcting this with saying that the US is a republic is very close to a non-sequitur.
It's possible, in theory, for all the current wiretaps to be completely legal, but be compromised by information that would have to be made public to have a court trial over past (possibly illegal) wiretaps.
Not that I necessarily think the current ones are all legal, though.
Not even that, but it's entirely possible that making available who had an illegal wiretap might either expose persons who need to be known not to be in on "ongoing intelligence activities" or that acknowledgment that X had an illegal wiretap placed might be harmful if X is still under suspicion of something but is not aware of said suspicion.
Personally, I think someone with proper clearance ought to go through the data and clear whichever taps are not part of an ongoing intelligence activity and those and only those should be used for purposes of the legal actions. If there are no such taps remaining, then set a date by which some percentage of said taps will no longer be part of an ongoing intelligence activity and go from there.
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday November 02, @09:34AM (#29949988)
Power is so hard to give up.
Of course they won't give it up: power itself is the end goal, not a means to an end as the career politician endlessly preaches. Once they achieve it, that job is done. The next concern is the next acquisition of power, not how to lose the previous one.
If you look hard enough, you'll discover that governments only expand in power and revenue throughout their lifetimes, never reduce. There's a reason why no government in history has ever significantly, permanently, and willingly reduced their level of power or revenue: because power and revenue are the ends, not the means, and the people in the business of government work for themseleves, not you and me.
It's not "We need to respect our constitution, even if it makes our security agencies do a little more work.".
It's "We need to respect our constitution, even if some of us die".
By not addressing their arguments head on, you give the bad guys strength. This is a matter of principle; you don't need to hide from their safety claims.
I don't actually believe that these methods save lives in the long run. I think that these people underestimate the real, physical risks of making enemies and losing the moral high ground. But I could be wrong. It's possible that there is some increase in safety.... small, compared to the risk of say driving a car, but real nonetheless. The point is that this stuff is wrong even if it does make people safer.
Fuck the cowards. There are some things you don't do.
I know the previous administration had an effect on us, but it appears to me that the current administration is actually handling this the right way. It may not be transparent to *us*, but matters of national security aren't supposed to be.
They provided the judge with the specifics, and let him decide. If the Bush White House had done that, rather than declare themselves above the law, we wouldn't be so jaded about executive privilege today.
This isn't as bad as it seems, and it's actually a huge step in the right direction.
I know the previous administration had an effect on us, but it appears to me that the current administration is actually handling this the right way. It may not be transparent to *us*, but matters of national security aren't supposed to be..
Gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there. I paid for it. National security, whatever that is, needs to be above-board. I have no sympathy with the fear-mongers who hyperbolically exaggerate risk just to justify their actions. Put it in perspective for once, and quit arguing that there are big-bad-scaries out there who can only be fought by lawless thugs who will just do the right thing, trust us.
>>>It may not be transparent to *us*, but matters of national security aren't supposed to be.
You're right that spying needs to be secret, but you're wrong when you say these warrantless searches should be allowed to continue. It's illegal. The government is a criminal and guilty of breaking the law, just as surely as microsoft was found to be an illegal monopoly. We punished microsoft, and now we must punish the United States leadership.
No man; no organization is above the law, or the will of the people, the ultimate source of all authority.
...same as the old boss. But this is not just a bit of education for Obama supporters, it is a valuable lesson for Bush II supporters as well. The extraordinary powers to further your agenda that you grant to your glorious leaders today are certain to be abused to further the agendas of their successors tomorrow.
No, Bush wasn't right. He used the US Constitution as toilet paper, and Cheney was worse.
But anyone who thought Obama was going to revoke anything Bush had done was only kidding themselves. Its always easier to just keep a bad power that your predecessor gained for the office...Obama figures the Bush administration already absorbed the damage and the heat, so why should he get rid of a nifty new super power?
Once we started down this slippery slope, there's no way to go back up.
That you've presented your argument as "See, Bush is right because Obama seems to be doing the same" shows you probably know nothing about the arguments in this case, or the executive privilege abuses Bush's administration made in the name of our country.
You do your country a serious disservice with the same old mindless "my team right, your team wrong" dittohead rhetoric. Means another ignorant voter, with no idea what their government is up to, regardless which party is in office -- and no clue how to fight it.
Remove the words from title: (Score:4, Insightful)
says wiretab lawsuit
Enforce the Constitution - aim gun (Score:5, Insightful)
...at tyrant's head (General Attorney Eric). Pull trigger. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation....."
Warrantless searches are illegal, and if the courts won't protect the Constitution against domestic enemies, then We the People will do it instead.
Parent
Re:Enforce the Constitution - aim gun (Score:5, Insightful)
...at tyrant's head (General Attorney Eric). Pull trigger. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation....."
Warrantless searches are illegal, and if the courts won't protect the Constitution against domestic enemies, then We the People will do it instead.
For once, I agree with you. Maybe this is twice now.. If Holder doesn't feel he should be constrained by the rule of law, then I don't see how he could argue he should be protected by it either. It's simple hermeneutics, you just can't interpret the law to protect you and not others (unless you're power crazed or insane).
Parent
Re:Enforce the Constitution - aim gun (Score:5, Insightful)
There were a number of anti-war/anti-Bush protests. I know because I attended one of them.
He said teabaggers, Slick. But much like the militia movement from the 90's, that stockpiled guns in preparation for Clinton's "New World Order", they took a vacation when Bush actually started to dismantle the Constitution.
Parent
Re:Enforce the Constitution - aim gun (Score:5, Insightful)
In my opinion there was no need for war.
We should have ignored Bin Laden the same way we ignore Internet Trolls. Don't feed them with a response. Was 9/11 a tragedy? Yes, and so was the challenger disaster, and the New Orleans flooding, and so on. Rather than declare war, we should have just picked up the pieces, secured the border the same way you install a more-solid door on your house after a breakin, and continued to live in peace.
Parent
From www.BarackObama.com (Score:5, Informative)
Eliminate Warrantless Wiretaps. Barack Obama opposed the Bush Administration’s initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens. As president, Obama would update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law.
Also, I thought he was assembling a cabinet critical of warrantless wiretapping [nytimes.com]?
Re:From www.BarackObama.com (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not surprised. Republicans and Democrats are just two halves of the same tyranny. They both desire power to control the people, and damn the constitution, and damn the requirements for searches.
Next time you walk into a voting booth, and elect a congresscritter, choose one that is neither R or D. We need a Congress that has no clear majority, due to the presence of third parties. Just imagine how much healthier our Republic would be if, instead of 60% democrats and 40% republicans, the ratio was 40% democrats, 30% republicans, 20% libertarians, and 10% socialists. No party could dominate.
Parent
Re:From www.BarackObama.com (Score:5, Informative)
I think you are the thick one here. He was implying that the current Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, are already socialist in practice if not in name. and he has a pretty viable argument.
Here is a chart from Wikipedia of the size of the Federal budget for the last 14 years:
* 2010 United States federal budget - $3.60 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
* 2009 United States federal budget - $3.10 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
* 2008 United States federal budget - $2.90 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
* 2007 United States federal budget - $2.77 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
* 2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
* 2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
* 2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
* 2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
* 2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
* 2001 United States federal budget - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)
* 2000 United States federal budget - $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)
* 1999 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)
* 1998 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)
* 1997 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)
* 1996 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)
Its more than doubled in 14 years and its been done by both Democrats and Republicans. Bush, supposedly the small government Conservative nearly doubled it all by himself in eight years. He not only doubled spending but cut taxes to create staggering deficits. They would have been really staggering earlier if it hadn't been for the housing bubble generating fantasy tax revenue. We don't have that bubble any more which is why deficits are going to be running more than a trillion until we gin up a new bubble(Ponzi scheme).
The U.S. GDP is maybe 14 trillion so the Federal budget alone is more than 20% of the economy. If you count secondary effects from all that spending it could easily be half our GDP now.
The budget deficits are now projected to run over a trillion a year indefinitely which is nearly as much as the ENTIRE federal budget in 1996. Of course the Fed and Treasury have also destroyed the dollar in the same period so a dollar in 1996 was worth a lot more than it is now which is why Gold is now over $1000. Gold has actually out performed the stock market the last couple decades thanks to the last couple years of economic devastation.
And of course in the last two years under both Democrats and Republicans there has been MASSIVE intervention in the economy to bail out Wall Street and Detroit. In so doing they have created massive moral hazard, by allowing giant corporations to do truly awful, incompetent, sometimes criminal things in the mortgage and auto market and just have the government step in to clean up their mess at the expense of ordinary Americans. Banksters pocketed billions and billions of dollars in the process and with collusion of their shills in government like Paulson have completely shredded free market capitalism in this country. They then turned around and have completely gutted all recent attempts to regulate them to keep them from doing it again... and they will do it again.... probably alread
Parent
Re:From www.BarackObama.com (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:From www.BarackObama.com (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:From www.BarackObama.com (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration's position on the case but insists it came to the decision differently
Meet the new Boss. Same as the old Boss.
Parent
Re:From www.BarackObama.com (Score:5, Informative)
To be clear, I'm not trying to apologize for Obama, but you should pay very close attention to what that says:
Note, there is nothing in there about allowing existing lawsuits to go forward in order to punish those who violated the rights of Americans during the previous administration. In fact, Obama has stated, time after time, that he feels we should all just, you know, move on and get over it...
Parent
Re:From www.BarackObama.com (Score:5, Informative)
Us Brits were already aware that Obama follows Bush era policies.
One of the Britons detained in Guantanamo bay, Binyamin Mohamed, was finally released to the UK earlier this year. Since then he's been trying to prove that he was tortured by, or at the behest of British agents. The courts recieved documents from US intelligence that would back his claim, however their release was blocked by our foreign secretary.
Now, our foreign secretary is an idiot, and part of it is ass covering for sure, but the reason he has cited for blocking their release is that the US has threatened to cut intelligence ties with the UK meaning we could be left vulnerable to attack (as could the US) if this data were released. Originally this threat came from the Bush administration, but it seems since then the Obama administration has been asked with the same threats. Journalists and politicians here have contacted the white house to confirm this and have found that the Obama administration does in fact support this policy.
The fact is, the Obama administration has no interest in accountability for it's security services, it knows and has admitted they were complicit in torture, but it seems the extent to which they were is such a problem that they are willing to put the national security of an ally and their own national security at risk to cover this up and keep that evidence secure.
It's not like we're not used to this attitude from the US, as when a US airforce pilot was guilty of strafing British troops in an A10 in a friendly fire incident in Iraq they refused to release the pilots name for questioning and the gun camera videos etc. (which were later leaked anyway) for our enquiry into how it happened. We expected this kind of attitude of coverups from the Bush adminsitration, but the Obama administration? It did come as a suprise I'll admit.
The original story is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/04/guantanamo-torture [guardian.co.uk]
An update is here, the court reversed it's decision and stated the documents can be released pending the outcome of an appeal by the British government. Hopefully they'll lose it and we'll be able to see if Obama really is willing to do as he says and damage security of both countries over it:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-britain-gitmo17-2009oct17,0,2433061.story [latimes.com]
Change? Not from what we can see over this side of the Atlantic, the only difference here in Europe is instead of a US president having his leg humped by Tony Blair, we've now got a US president having his leg humped by Sarkozy and Berlusconi instead.
Parent
Re:From www.BarackObama.com (Score:4, Informative)
Don't be disingenuous. Article 8 states that privacy shall not be infringed except as provided by law, for specific purposes only (among them fighting crime).
The exact formulation of the law is not the remit of the EU, but up to the member states. And given that most of these are representative democracies building on the same philosophers as your precious Founding Fathers, it is no coincidence that in fact, the law in almost all member states requires for warrants to be issued before wiretaps can go through.
Now, that some judges just rubberstamp everything the police holds in front of them, that is a different matter. But in that we're no different from the U.S. with it's Executive-lapdog FISA court.
Mart
Parent
Change. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Change. (Score:5, Insightful)
Forget the egg. It looks like they have secret taps on their phones.
Parent
So let me get this straight.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't they just say it - they're going to do what they want, and it doesn't matter what anyone outside the "secret" circle thinks.
Re:So let me get this straight.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me get this straight - the case is against warrant-less wiretapping, and since the case would expose on-going warrant-less wiretapping investigations, it should be thrown out? That's about the worst circular argument I've ever heard. Why don't they just say it - they're going to do what they want, and it doesn't matter what anyone outside the "secret" circle thinks.
Precisely, man. I want ongoing operations to be compromised. Ruined, even. Because they are illegal, immoral and wrong. If the government insists that it can break the law with impunity, how do they expect to govern? How do they expect to get juries to convict anyone, if nothing is really illegal as long as you want it bad enough.
Parent
Re:So let me get this straight.. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the government insists that it can break the law with impunity, how do they expect to govern?
By keeping the public distracted with arguments over what talk radio hosts are saying. No, really, who cares what Rush Limbaugh has to say, unless he is raising valid points against you? It's all about keeping the sheep preoccupied until they're in the gates and can't back out from the slaughterhouse.
Parent
Re:So let me get this straight.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing wrong with that.
Yes there is. If you agree with everything someone says, there is something wrong. If you agree with what someone says only because they are saying it, there is something wrong as well. I like Rachel Maddow, but I often don't agree with her. I dislike Limbaugh, and sometimes I agree with him.
Both of them are just people, as asinine and fallible as the rest of us. Worse, they exist to publish purely ideological rhetoric as news. And if you agree with any proper-noun ideology your suffering from laziness of thought. A lot of the problems in the world come from people agreeing with their party just because it is their party.
I'm a life long Democrat, and the democrats are often complete morons, and sometimes the Republicans have better ideas. I self-identify as a socialist or progressive, but I would rather have the libertarians in charge of social issues (get the government out of my life), but the socialists in charge of economic issues (keep the corporations out of my life).
Life is much more nuanced than any stupid political ideology. If you find yourself constantly agreeing with anyone, perhaps you should go make your own opinions?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is obviously me being an optimist.. but let's hope they're putting up that argument just so it can be officially destroyed.
the realist in my recognizes now (as i did before i voted for him) that the president isn't perfect, and that sometimes information you learn after you say something changes your opinion - even if that change is for (what everyone else sees) the worse.
Re:So let me get this straight.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The law is not a matter of opinion. The law is clear. Warrantless wiretaps are illegal, and anyone who endorses them is a criminal. First it was Bush who was the criminal, now AG Holder, and if Obama supports his AG then he too will be a criminal. The law is the law.
Parent
Re:So let me get this straight.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The more things change, the more the same they are. You expected any different once he had taken the oath?
It's official... (Score:5, Insightful)
...we no longer have a democracy.
I'm probably not even going to bother voting anymore. These days, I can only choose between Kodos and Kang. It doesn't matter which side you pick, both of them suck.
Sometimes, I don't even know why we the people even bother voting these days. Three cheers for exercising our rights and all, but expecting things to get better when all we have to pick from are scumbags is like trying to lose weight in a restaurant that has nothing on the menu but deep-fried food.
Re:It's official... (Score:5, Insightful)
So vote for the Pirate Party for instance, which opposes all this nonsense.
It probably won't win, but it will at least show people's concerns, which may get results.
Parent
Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a Republican in upstate New York who's probably going to lose because she's not "conservative" enough. She's pro-gun - good thing in my government conservative book because it's a Constitutional (Second Amendment) issue and the other things have no business being regulated by the Government. But the rabid anti-abortionists and bigoted anti-gay people don't mind having their civil rights and freedoms taken away (except the
Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, the other side..the people who actually think Socialism can work even though it has never before and big Government can solve our problems, have their own rabid beliefs.
Umm, just FYI, as a Canadian who is perfectly happy living in a nation that most Americans would consider virtually communist, I have to disagree rather strongly with this. And I'm sure your average European would agree with me.
Socialism, hybridized with a liberal democracy and a free (but regulated) market *does* work, and works every single day all over the world. Just because Americans can't seem to figure it out, doesn't mean the idea is flawed. It just means the American system of government is so fundamentally fucked up it's hamstrung from the get-go.
Parent
Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion (Score:5, Interesting)
Umm, just FYI, as a Canadian who is perfectly happy living in a nation that most Americans would consider virtually communist, I have to disagree rather strongly with this. And I'm sure your average European would agree with me.
Well that's the thing, most Americans can't and don't distinguish between communism and socialism, which is why when he said socialism has never worked before, I'm certain in his head he was thinking of the USSR and Eastern Europe during the Cold War.
I think it was during the 50s McCarthyism when Socialism somehow got equated to Communism. So while Western Europe et. al. were implementing rational socialist policies while still resisting the Soviets, we had to reject all of these things as somehow being equal to what our enemy was doing... even though they aren't...
The funny thing is that since both McCarthyism and the Cold War are long gone, you'd sound pretty silly accusing someone of being a communist. First because almost nobody really is, and second because it's considered a non-threat in this day and age, like accusing someone of being a British sympathizer it has no weight. Socialism still retains it's swear-word status, and since it's still alive and well in the world, it still retains its weight as a threat and thus insult -- at least if you don't distinguish between it and communism.
Parent
Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion (Score:4, Informative)
Umm, just FYI, as a Canadian who is perfectly happy living in a nation that most Americans would consider virtually communist, I have to disagree rather strongly with this. And I'm sure your average European would agree with me.
Socialism, hybridized with a liberal democracy and a free (but regulated) market *does* work
As a Russian who has "USSR" as place of birth in his passport, and now living in Canada, I have to note that Canada isn't anywhere near "virtually communist", and it isn't particularly socialist either. Socialism is when all production is directly controlled and owned by the state, and free enterprise in any form is forbidden. High taxes != socialism; and not that Canadian taxes are all that high, in fact.
Canada (and most European states) is a welfare state. It's still capitalist through and through, and you have full freedom to go and earn as much money for yourself as you can and want to do; it's just that part of that money (and not a bigger part) goes towards a safety net for the rest of the citizens. Calling that "socialist" is highly misleading (and I know that you probably used that word because many Americans use it that way, so it's really directed more towards them).
Parent
Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion (Score:5, Informative)
Actually the opposition to her comes more from her being pro-stimulus and pro-cardcheck and generally being more aligned with the Democrat party than it does from those who are "rabid anti-abortionists and bigoted anti-gay people don't mind having their civil rights and freedoms taken away (except the guns!) as long as the "fags" and those "baby killers" are controlled" as you put it... but no doubt her pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage stance didn't help her with the republicans.
So which is it? Is she really more of a Democrat who happens to anti-gun control... or more of a Republican who is pro-card check, pro-same sex marriage, pro-stimulus, and pro-abortion?
One is far easier to believe than the other personally... but mostly because I've known more of the latter than the prior over the years.
Parent
Well what is happening in New York is giving me (Score:5, Insightful)
hope. Granted it is only on the Republican side. Where grass roots Conservatives told their party elders to take a hike.
Still, it is hard to claim much freedom of choice when there are only two parties who can always get on the ballot, two parties who have done much to prevent other parties from having a chance. Where they could not do it by law they did by influence over media outlets.
In Obama's defense, promises made on the trail tend to fall by the wayside because reality sucks. The naivete of the Administration, let alone their voters, was astonishing. I think they both bought the hype. The problem of course is the world is harsh and all your "we love you love me" crap has no affect on the world stage.
Throw in a good dose of the Washington establishment (sorry - but his Chief of Staff was a dead give away the only change was the party who sat in the house) and how did anyone here honestly expect things to change? Then again I seem to recall a large number here who buy into Michael Moore's crap so no matter education or intelligence level snake oil sells.
Parent
Re:It's official... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then vote Constitution Party instead. They don't support warrantless searches of any kind.
Also there's more offices than just the president. A third party will probably never win the top office, but I beat we could win enough seats in Congress so that neither the Rs or Ds would have a majority. The duopoly will have been broken.
Parent
Re:It's official... (Score:5, Interesting)
Then vote Constitution Party instead. They don't support warrantless searches of any kind.
Also there's more offices than just the president. A third party will probably never win the top office, but I beat we could win enough seats in Congress so that neither the Rs or Ds would have a majority. The duopoly will have been broken.
I hear you on the need to break up the collusion betweens the R's and D's against the wishes and interests of the people.
Since I never investigated the Constitution Party, I took a look at the their Website. Here's Doug Stewart's story of how he became a member from the front page of the aforementioned site:
George W. Bush had just been re-elected to a second term, but his remark, "the Constitution is nothing but a G.. D... piece of paper", really turned me off, but I had not voted for a Democrat since I was compelled into the Kingdom of God on the evening of 8/19/85.
Being a VA native and devotee of Southern history and heritage, though I went along for the ride after my conversion, I had always had a problem with "the Party of Lincoln". Bush's desire to expand the U.S. Empire abroad showed me what one of the big problems was. I began doing some research.
Seeing the reprobate Democratic platform, especially where abortion and homosexuality were concerned, I knew I needed to select a third party. The Libertarian Party was eliminated because they'll believe anything. More research showed me that the Constitution Party was tailor-made for me. I've now been a member for nearly five years, and am more politically active here than I ever was with the Republican Party.
From this "testimony" (published right there on the home page of the party), it sounds like the Constitution Party is the resurrection of the Confederacy.
The one thing that had kept me a Republican for so long (too long) was the fact that they were the "Party of Lincoln," which is precisely what turned off Stewart. If it's tailor made for Mr. Stewart -- a christian fundamentalist, unreconstructed Confederate -- it's exactly wrong for me. I'm still looking, believe me.
Parent
Re:It's official... (Score:5, Informative)
if Ron Paul were president, I guarantee you that he'd keep the new surveillance powers, too.
If Ron Paul were President, he might change his mind.
But as a Congressman, he opposes it. He didn't vote on the FISA bill, reportedly because he was unavailable to do so after a last-minute change to the calendar.
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/06/24/ron-paul-on-the-wiretap-bill/ [antiwar.com]
Mr. Speaker, I regret that due to the unexpected last-minute appearance of this measure on the legislative calendar this week, a prior commitment has prevented me from voting on the FISA amendments. I have strongly opposed every previous FISA overhaul attempt and I certainly would have voted against this one as well.
The main reason I oppose this latest version is that it still clearly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens' communications without a search warrant. That US citizens can have their private communication intercepted by the government without a search warrant is anti-American, deeply disturbing, and completely unacceptable.
In addition to gutting the fourth amendment, this measure will deprive Americans who have had their rights violated by telecommunication companies involved in the Administration's illegal wiretapping program the right to seek redress in the courts for the wrongs committed against them. Worse, this measure provides for retroactive immunity, whereby individuals or organizations that broke the law as it existed are granted immunity for prior illegal actions once the law has been changed. Ex post facto laws have long been considered anathema in free societies under rule of law. Our Founding Fathers recognized this, including in Article I section 9 of the Constitution that "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." How is this FISA bill not a variation of ex post facto? That alone should give pause to supporters of this measure.
Mr. Speaker, we should understand that decimating the protections that our Constitution provides us against the government is far more dangerous to the future of this country than whatever external threats may exist. We can protect this country without violating the Constitution and I urge my colleagues to reconsider their support for this measure.
I'm not particularly enthusiastic about Ron Paul, but claiming he would support warrantless wiretapping is a misrepresentation of his public statements on the subject.
Parent
Re:It's official... (Score:4, Informative)
So, on the statement "we are no longer a democracy", you are answering: "correct, we are not a monarchy".
Truly, check it out. There are democratic republics (apparently not the US, but let's say France and Germany), non-democratic republics (US, China), democratic monarchies (Denmark for instance), and non-democratic monarchies (Saudi-Arabia). I know that you get taught in school that the US is not a direct democracy, but a representative democracy, but given that since ancient Athens we haven't seen a direct democracy, it is safe to assume that if one utters the word democracy it is with an silent 'representative'. Correcting this with saying that the US is a republic is very close to a non-sequitur.
Parent
Let Mr. Holder (Score:5, Informative)
know how you feel:
Leadership
Eric Holder
Attorney General
Contact
Office of the Attorney General
(202) 514-2001
Re:Let Mr. Holder (Score:5, Funny)
know how you feel:
Leadership Eric Holder Attorney General Contact Office of the Attorney General (202) 514-2001
Couldn't you just call any number, and figure he's listen in?
Parent
I am really dispointed. (Score:5, Insightful)
The quote "since going forward would compromise "ongoing intelligence activities." makes me think the Obama administration is still doing this.
I don't care if it is easier. We need to respect our constitution, even if it makes our security agencies do a little more work.
Power is so hard to give up. Once people have it, it corrupts them.
Sad day in American history.
Re:I am really dispointed. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's possible, in theory, for all the current wiretaps to be completely legal, but be compromised by information that would have to be made public to have a court trial over past (possibly illegal) wiretaps.
Not that I necessarily think the current ones are all legal, though.
Parent
Re:I am really dispointed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not even that, but it's entirely possible that making available who had an illegal wiretap might either expose persons who need to be known not to be in on "ongoing intelligence activities" or that acknowledgment that X had an illegal wiretap placed might be harmful if X is still under suspicion of something but is not aware of said suspicion.
Personally, I think someone with proper clearance ought to go through the data and clear whichever taps are not part of an ongoing intelligence activity and those and only those should be used for purposes of the legal actions. If there are no such taps remaining, then set a date by which some percentage of said taps will no longer be part of an ongoing intelligence activity and go from there.
Parent
Re:I am really dispointed. (Score:5, Interesting)
Power is so hard to give up.
Of course they won't give it up: power itself is the end goal, not a means to an end as the career politician endlessly preaches. Once they achieve it, that job is done. The next concern is the next acquisition of power, not how to lose the previous one.
If you look hard enough, you'll discover that governments only expand in power and revenue throughout their lifetimes, never reduce. There's a reason why no government in history has ever significantly, permanently, and willingly reduced their level of power or revenue: because power and revenue are the ends, not the means, and the people in the business of government work for themseleves, not you and me.
Parent
Re:I am really dispointed. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you're wrong.
It's not "We need to respect our constitution, even if it makes our security agencies do a little more work.".
It's "We need to respect our constitution, even if some of us die".
By not addressing their arguments head on, you give the bad guys strength. This is a matter of principle; you don't need to hide from their safety claims.
I don't actually believe that these methods save lives in the long run. I think that these people underestimate the real, physical risks of making enemies and losing the moral high ground. But I could be wrong. It's possible that there is some increase in safety.... small, compared to the risk of say driving a car, but real nonetheless. The point is that this stuff is wrong even if it does make people safer.
Fuck the cowards. There are some things you don't do.
Parent
Knee-jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
I know the previous administration had an effect on us, but it appears to me that the current administration is actually handling this the right way. It may not be transparent to *us*, but matters of national security aren't supposed to be.
They provided the judge with the specifics, and let him decide. If the Bush White House had done that, rather than declare themselves above the law, we wouldn't be so jaded about executive privilege today.
This isn't as bad as it seems, and it's actually a huge step in the right direction.
Re:Knee-jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
I know the previous administration had an effect on us, but it appears to me that the current administration is actually handling this the right way. It may not be transparent to *us*, but matters of national security aren't supposed to be..
Gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there. I paid for it. National security, whatever that is, needs to be above-board. I have no sympathy with the fear-mongers who hyperbolically exaggerate risk just to justify their actions. Put it in perspective for once, and quit arguing that there are big-bad-scaries out there who can only be fought by lawless thugs who will just do the right thing, trust us.
Parent
Re:Knee-jerk (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>It may not be transparent to *us*, but matters of national security aren't supposed to be.
You're right that spying needs to be secret, but you're wrong when you say these warrantless searches should be allowed to continue. It's illegal. The government is a criminal and guilty of breaking the law, just as surely as microsoft was found to be an illegal monopoly. We punished microsoft, and now we must punish the United States leadership.
No man; no organization is above the law, or the will of the people, the ultimate source of all authority.
Parent
Don't blame me (Score:3, Funny)
Vote Barr next time.
Meet the new boss... (Score:5, Insightful)
...same as the old boss. But this is not just a bit of education for Obama supporters, it is a valuable lesson for Bush II supporters as well. The extraordinary powers to further your agenda that you grant to your glorious leaders today are certain to be abused to further the agendas of their successors tomorrow.
Re:Change? What change? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, Bush wasn't right. He used the US Constitution as toilet paper, and Cheney was worse.
But anyone who thought Obama was going to revoke anything Bush had done was only kidding themselves. Its always easier to just keep a bad power that your predecessor gained for the office...Obama figures the Bush administration already absorbed the damage and the heat, so why should he get rid of a nifty new super power?
Once we started down this slippery slope, there's no way to go back up.
Parent
Re:Change? What change? (Score:4, Informative)
The Bush administration based their court arguments on an extended interpretation of executive privilege [nytimes.com], whereas the Obama administration is making an argument based in precedent and case law - state secrets [wired.com].
That you've presented your argument as "See, Bush is right because Obama seems to be doing the same" shows you probably know nothing about the arguments in this case, or the executive privilege abuses Bush's administration made in the name of our country.
You do your country a serious disservice with the same old mindless "my team right, your team wrong" dittohead rhetoric. Means another ignorant voter, with no idea what their government is up to, regardless which party is in office -- and no clue how to fight it.
Parent