Obama Sides With Bush In Spy Case 906
palegray.net is one of many who writes "President Obama has publicly sided with the Bush administration on the question of whether the President should be allowed to establish warrantless wiretapping programs designed to monitor US citizens. The President has asked a federal judge to stay a ruling that would allow key evidence into the domestic spying case against the government. 'Thursday's filing by the Obama administration marked the first time it officially lodged a court document in the lawsuit asking the courts to rule on the constitutionality of the Bush administration's warrantless-eavesdropping program.'" jamie points out that Obama's views and opinions were made clear through his Senate vote and numerous public statements, but many others see this as a disappointing start to an administration promising transparency and openness.
So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:5, Insightful)
So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.
Asshole.
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:4, Insightful)
The tragic optimist in me wants to say that Obama doesn't want to open that particular can of worms until he and his staff have had a chance to really examine what's involved.
That's an admittedly optimistic view, though. I'm still worried how it will actually pan out.
=Smidge=
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:4, Insightful)
The cracks are showing.
It will come as a shock to some that, even though Obama has taken office, a lot of the nation is overcast today. We still have to pay to go to the doctor. Dog poo does not yet smell like peppermint. And I've yet to get a raise or better offer this week.
I like the guy and, although some of his plans make me nervous (I'm a pretty staunch fiscal conservative), I'm optimistic that he'll do a good job. But it is kind of satisfying to see him reveal that he's not quite the guy that so many people see up on that pedestal.
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:5, Insightful)
a lot of the nation is overcast today. We still have to pay to go to the doctor. Dog poo does not yet smell like peppermint.
As someone who lives in a country with a National Health Service, it tickles me to see it sandwiched between two "impossible ideals".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
oh you pay for it. and if you don't go to the doctor much, you probably pay more for it than you would if it was private.
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the downside again?
Higher taxes, more governmental control over our lives and less individual freedom?
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:5, Informative)
Citing Health care In Canada [wikipedia.org]
A February 28, 2006 article in The New York Times stated, "Accepting money from patients for operations they would otherwise receive free of charge in a public hospital is technically prohibited in this country, even in cases where patients would wait months or even years before receiving treatment...Canada remains the only industrialized country that outlaws privately financed purchases of core medical services."
emphasis mine. Canadian citizens are not allowed, by law, to spend their own money to receive medical treatment if they desire to, unless of course they go across the border into the United States. Which makes sense, because
According to a 2007 article from CTV News, the Canadian medical profession is suffering from a brain drain. The article states, "One in nine trained-in-Canada doctors is practising medicine in the United States... If Canadian-educated doctors who were born in the U.S. are excluded, the number is one in 12."
The doctors themselves are leaving to work in the US.
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:4, Insightful)
A February 28, 2006 article in The New York Times stated, "Accepting money from patients for operations they would otherwise receive free of charge in a public hospital is technically prohibited in this country, even in cases where patients would wait months or even years before receiving treatment...Canada remains the only industrialized country that outlaws privately financed purchases of core medical services."
emphasis mine. Canada is the exception, not the rule.
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:5, Interesting)
And they aren't denied in the US? Senior citizens have a high rate of being uninsured in the US you know. However, I don't think the UK has the best healthcare plan in Europe (France probably has the best).
They must be doing something right in Europe though because every country I've checked on the CIA's factbook has a higher life expectancy for both men and women and a lower rate of infant mortality than the US.
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:5, Interesting)
My US born wife lives with me in Canada. When she was living down in the states, she was a retail worker who made retail worker wages. Her health insurance through her employer cost her 500$/month.
Making some reasonable assumptions for hourly salary and assuming she was working a full 40 hrs (she usually didn't), that means she was paying 28% of her salary for health care.
Put another way, in Canada with the same income, she'd be paying 25% for her whole income tax load. Therefore her health insurance ALONE was costing her more then her entire income tax burden in Canada. (I made the assumption she was living in an expensive province, with the highest provincial tax rate, her taxes would be lower in most other provinces).
We just had our first daughter. The entire out of pocket cost was 300$, because we upgraded to a private room. My wife was pre-eclamptic, which meant they needed to induce. We spent 4 days in Labour and Delivery due to complications, with 24 hr specialist nursing care (they sat in our room most of the time, and were 15 seconds away when they weren't).
After 4 days of complications the doctors recommended a C-section (our choice to do it or not), we accepted their recommendation and my wife was C-sectioned. Our daughter had a touch of Jaundice, so they wheeled a light unit into our room and we spent another 4 days in the hospital.
My wife is of the opinion that even with good medical coverage in the states (like the package that I was offered when I looked for work down there), we'd be out of pocket probably 10K in co-pays for the whole experience (we were high risk, so there were about 10 ultrasounds, 4 cardiac exams, etc). Let me repeat that number again: 300$ out of pocket, and it would have been 0 if we hadn't decided on a private room for the last part of our stay (Labour and Delivery was private anyways, so those days don't count).
Now in my particular case, most years, yes, I probably am a net contributor to the medical system, given my salary. I'm OK with that, knowing that someone else who goes through what we went through will have the same care I and my wife did. Being proud of my country counts for something, and I'll pay for that feeling.
Min
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:5, Interesting)
A better way to think about which system has better outcomes is to pretend that you have not yet been born. You do not know if you will be born into a rich family or a poor one. You do not know if you will be given healthy genes that give you the opportunity to live to 100 or a cancer gene that will kick in when you are 12. Which health care system would you prefer to be born into? One that you pay for through taxes, that guarantees everyone a basic level of care, and covers major problems up to some age or cost limit (many Euro countries) or one that each person is expected to pay for themselves based on their own personal medical history and, well, too bad if you were, say, born with diabetes (the U.S. system)?
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:5, Funny)
search /. and look for all the posts I've read from Canadians bitching just about how much they pay in taxes.
Doesn't everyone bitch about taxes? I thought that was the universal principle that unites all of humanity.
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:5, Insightful)
The "long waiting lines" in the UK and Canadian health care systems are a myth perpetuated by US propaganda from certain special interest groups who desperately hope that the US system stays as it is.
Sure, in a system that's not perfect you are going to see some waits, and it's not going to be quite as "lick your ass service" as a private healthcare clinic in the US (but really, how many Americans actually have access to that service).
The national insurance that I pay is a tiny amount compared to my salary, and my taxes are not that much higher than the US (except VAT/Sales tax [15%], gasoline [70%] and alcohol/cigarettes [40% ish]), but we have ways to offset those costs.
There's no way I pay 50% in taxes, compared to my income.
The US insurance companies may try to play the "omg, free healthcare means crippling taxes for all citizens, even if you don;t get sick! Then you're paying for your friends and neighbours when they get sick and you're healthy! How unfair is that! It's totally like communism! Buy our healthcare and $400 prescriptions!"
When a medicine taken by a patient costs $100 per month, and costs $5 in Cuba, you know there's someone paying off a loan on a 100 foot yacht, and it;s not the person taking the medicine.
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:5, Insightful)
and my taxes are not that much higher than the US (except VAT/Sales tax [15%], gasoline [70%] and alcohol/cigarettes [40% ish])
So your taxes aren't that much higher than the US except where they are that much higher than the US? Is that really your argument?
There's no way I pay 50% in taxes, compared to my income.
Well bully for you. I on the other hand make a whooping ~$30,000 and between income/social security/medicare and state/local taxes I'm paying nearly 30% of my income out in taxes. I don't know about you but I feel more confident in my ability to spend some of that $9,000 for my own benefit than I do in the ability of some government bureaucrat to spend it for me.
When a medicine taken by a patient costs $100 per month, and costs $5 in Cuba, you know there's someone paying off a loan on a 100 foot yacht, and it;s not the person taking the medicine.
Windows XP costs <$5 in Cuba and China but that doesn't mean that cost accurately reflects what it cost to produce that product. I'm no big fan of the pharmaceutical industry and would like to see many reforms (starting with patent reform) but this idea that they can't charge a fair price for their product is absurd.
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:4, Interesting)
Well bully for you. I on the other hand make a whooping ~$30,000 and between income/social security/medicare and state/local taxes I'm paying nearly 30% of my income out in taxes.
You should move to Canada. The federal tax rate on the first 38k is only 15%. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html [cra-arc.gc.ca] I haven't looked up provincial rates, but I kind of doubt they are higher than the federal rate. They seem to be making up the difference by having a federal sales tax (~12% combined federal and provincial, depending).
Windows XP costs If Microsoft really is making 75% margins, given most OS sales are discounted OEM sales, $5 is probably not far off form the actual cost.
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:5, Interesting)
I would take nationalized crap health care vs no healthcare any day. I'd be willing to pay 35% or so in flat income taxes with no returns.
Insurance for my family (me, wife, 2 kids) through my employer would cost $1,200/month. I make 30k/yr. Do the math. That's half my salary BEFORE taxes. I don't qualify for Medicaid. That's with the employer paying a chunk and that's a plan with a $2,000 deductible.
Now I've got the state putting tax levies on me because I couldn't pay for the last year on a $12,000 hernia surgery that my wife needed and my son's visit for a ruptured ear drum. They are talking about seizing my property. I make just enough to make my rent and basic utilities. I have had impacted wisdom teeth for 4 years. I need dentures as well. I drive a paid-for beat-up vehicle with 200,000 miles on it because I can't afford a car payment. My wife is unable to work due to the cost of daycare for the kids in proportion to what she'll make with little experience in the workforce.
So if they are against people like me, an educator and a community-oriented person who goes out of their way to help people having access to health care then FUCK THEM. I deserve to live too. Just because I'm not some privileged prick or some bottom-feeder unemployed welfare case, doesn't mean I don't deserve health care too.
In my opinion, even as a libertarian, ensuring everyone has affordable equal access to health care (via taxes if necessary) falls right in line with securing the rights of the people. The right to LIFE. Part of remaining alive means remaining healthy. Allowing hospitals to destroy my livelihood financially without even a court hearing just because I want to stay alive and no longer be in pain is the opposite of securing MY rights.
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:5, Insightful)
These are the stories that people need to see. The old adage that anecdotes are not data just can't really apply here. There are thousands of families in exactly your position across America who are crippled by the healthcare system, but that doesn't matter - even if there's only the one family, it's too many and you really have to look at changing it.
America is the wealthiest, most powerful country in the world, and yet, it is the same country that puts altered, injured and confused patients into cabs and gives the driver $15 to drop them off on the street outside homeless shelters wearing nothing but a hospital gown because they have no insurance and no family to pay the bill.
And the gap between medicaid, the so-called solution for those who can't afford insurance, and the level of income you need to be able to afford insurance creates an *enormous* poverty gap like an open sore on the face of the most powerful, richest nation on Earth.
The US has the ability to create a national healthcare system, it just needs the will to do it, and has to be prepared to piss off a lot of people who like things the way they are because they get very rich on the backs of people who need to pay for medical care.
A society is judged not by the way it treats the well off, but by the way it treats the less well off, and in health care issues, the US is *way* down there in the toilet.
Don;t get me wrong, I love the USA. I just hate what they've done with medicine.
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you're paying for your friends and neighbours when they get sick and you're healthy!
Yeah, I hear that all the time, and it makes no sense because: that's how insurance works. The whole point of insurance is to play the law of averages. The larger the group, the better the law of averages works out. This is part of why group health insurance is so much cheaper than individual.
Cheers.
So? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't go to church, but I pay so others can go even though I think it is a hateful waste of time.
I am a product of my society, and have no problem giving back some of my wealth to help my less fortunate fellow citizens.
I do not agree with most 'welfare' programs that hand out money, but health care is worth the cost.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
yes: what makes you think others don't feel the same? Or are you superior to everyone else?
no: then you are a hypocrite, using authority to force people to do what you want when you wouldn't even do it yourself.
Re:So? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So? (Score:5, Interesting)
no: then you are a hypocrite
False. It's the sort of thing that only works if everyone does it. This relates to the concept of cooperative play in game theory, and one of the reasons why we have an evolutionary drive towards tribalism.
Think of it this way. Let's say five of us have access to a fishery. It can indefinitely support each of us catching one fish per week. If any of us overfish it, however, then the fishery goes dry (i.e. runs out of fish) and is permanently destroyed.
We understand that this is the case, and would like to keep it indefinitely. Are we just going to restrict ourselves out of own volition? Of course not; it doesn't work. All it takes is one guy to decide to overfish it, and the fishery is destroyed. In fact, you know of several people who will overfish it unless they are stopped.
So are you a hypocrite if you overfish it? Not at all. It's going to be destroyed by your neighbors; you may as well take what you can.
The only way this can work is if we ALL agree to band together: should anyone step out of line, the rest of us have to punish that person. In tribal times, this would simply be violence or death; nowadays it's prison or a fine. With this system, we can work together, and the fishery can be sustained indefinitely.
You can see in this example why you have such a wide range of base instincts and why they are so useful. This is why people are altruistic; it is necessary for this scenario to happen. This is why these same people are vengeful; possibility (or certainty) of revenge or punishment is a strong disincentive towards taking advantage of someone.
As an aside note, this is *exactly* how wildlife regulations currently work in the civilized world. You have an allotment of fish or mammals you are allowed to fish or hunt; if you poach, you get a fine or prison.
Like your 'donations' scheme, it only works if everyone does it. I'm not going to donate to health care in a two tier system when a negligible percentage of the population does it. It won't make a difference and I'm wasting my money.
If you haven't guessed, I am Canadian, and I like the system we have here. I am never sick, but I am more than happy to pay my share, because everyone does. We are a better country for it.
Re:So? (Score:4, Interesting)
I do not agree with most 'welfare' programs that hand out money, but health care is worth the cost.
No, it's not. Not until people are expected to take reasonable care of themselves. People aren't "hardwired" to eat more today any more than they were 50 years ago. It's a personal choice, and people like to sugar coat the truth or say "it's not your fault," but if you're obese, its YOUR fault and YOU need to get your diet under control. Instead of making excuses (or letting others do it for them) these people need to act.
Until that happens, I'm not going to support national health care. And before you tell me it costs more to treat other symptoms related to obesity, I say cut off health care to treat those as well. You want to be fat and get diabetes? Fine, don't expect anyone to help you pay your related medical bills.
Re:So? (Score:5, Funny)
It's a personal choice, and people like to sugar coat the truth or say "it's not your fault," but if you're obese, its YOUR fault and YOU need to get your diet under control.
These are the same people that probably sugar coat the truth and then eat it.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're already supporting national health care. It's just not universal health care. The US government spends more per capita on health care than many countries, including Canada. But instead of putting money into the pockets of doctors, you're putting money into the pockets of insurance company shareholders.
Re:So? (Score:4, Informative)
We also don't have eight hour waiting periods to be seen either
I guess you've never had to visit the ER.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you believe in Democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are free to do so, I also believe in that, may I recommend the organization I use do distribute my wealth? [salvationarmy.org]
I also give some of my money to a health insurance policy. Everyone who believes in having some security against unforeseen health problems are also free to do so. But I also believe in freedom of choice. I'm free to choose the exact level of protection I want. I don't want to be spoon-fed with a health insurance plan.
Did I make a wrong choice? Ooops! Perhaps I didn't have the health insurance I needed, perhaps I crossed the street at the wrong time, perhaps I ate the wrong mushroom. But at least it was *MY* choice, I'd rather die of a disease my health insurance didn't cover than from a disease the State Health Insurance Plan didn't provide for.
Re:Do you believe in Democracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
You cross the street at the wrong time and a car sends you flying across the sidewalk. Someone calls 911, the EMS arrives to find you still alive but unconscious. Should they check your wallet and see if you've got health insurance before putting you into the ambulance? Should they call the insurance company that you've chosen and see what sort of coverage they provide for this sort of thing? What if you don't have an insurance card on you? Should they assume that you've chosen not to buy insurance and leave you there to die?
And that's not even getting into the the huge group of people who would like to have health insurance but can't afford it for themselves and/or their families.
All that being said, I think it very unlikely that a US universal healthcare system would involve a mandatory state level insurance plan. It's waaaay more likely that you'll be free to choose from any of the private healthcare companies that you can afford, as well as there being financial assistance available for those who couldn't afford it on their own.
Re:Do you believe in Democracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
But at least it was *MY* choice, I'd rather die of a disease my health insurance didn't cover than from a disease the State Health Insurance Plan didn't provide for.
See, in a decent public health-care system, it doesn't work that way. Basically everything is covered. Sure, many actual medications may require you to pay some of their costs, but that's about it. Sure, some quality-of-life exceptions are made (some chiropractic treatments for instance), but basically anything life-threatening that you need, you get.
Isn't it better to know that nationally, everyone's paying on average what they should? That the averaging effect ensures that those who can afford to pay a little more do, and those that can't don't, while everyone gets treated well regardless? That there isn't a question of your coverage being insufficient... you're just treated because you're ill?
Doesn't it sound like a Good Idea to have the system operate as a non-profit, with no Insurance Company middle-man getting rich by denying services whenever and wherever he can? Doesn't it sound SMART to not have an adversarial relationship between the sick and those who can make him better? Doesn't it sound wise to send 100% of whatever you pay into a system goes to the actual health-care provider, and none of it to some magic company who wants their (very significant) cut?
National health care might not be perfect but it does cut out all layers of greed.
Finally, I'd like to add that Canada's doctor brain-drain has come to be primarily because we imposed a cap on the number of reimbursable treatments per year an individual doctor could make. This was done primarily to make sure doctors weren't scamming the system and pumping through a hundred "clients" per day. If you're capped at a very, very reasonable salary, there's no point in gaming the system. Sure you can still treat people quickly and badly to artificially increase your $/hr but the overall $ don't increase.
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:5, Funny)
oh you pay for it. and if you don't go to the doctor much, you probably pay more for it than you would if it was private.
Exactly why we shouldn't allow this sort of thing in America! For that matter, when did my taxes start subsidizing wasteful government spending on things like fire departments and the army? My house is not on fire or being invaded by a foreign country, so why should I have to pay for those things?
Obviously what we should do instead is set up multiple competing private institutions with the goal of making a profit through distributing the costs of those services across arbitrary subsets of the population while also artificially inflating those costs...duh!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:5, Interesting)
This will probably get me modded for flamebait, but...
The developing perception is that people should not have to pay for health care--at least, they do not wish to perceive paying for it. It can be argued that a government would wish for its population to be healthy and productive, but I can make all of my other health choices for myself: I pay for what quality of food I want, buy tobacco or alcohol at my discretion, and purchase gym memberships/exercise equipment/etc. with my own money. If I want to spend less on good food for a good computer, I should be able to. I don't expect my tax money to go to a national food program which will hand me vouchers for my meals.
When looking at the situation from that perspective, it's odd that one can choose all of those things, but expect the government to assist with or choose healthcare. If I want good healthcare, I'll save my money, and negotiate with the healthcare providers to pay them if I cannot do so right away; I have done this for expensive emergency trips to the hospital without insurance.
Being without health insurance doesn't doom us, but it does change what we have to do. I would rather have the choice of insurance, and pay when I need healthcare, than no choice to pay for everyone's insurance and a compulsory 'safety net' for myself.
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent up (Score:5, Insightful)
The blinders that rich people in the US use to not see the large percentage of the population which isn't well off are are amazing. There are a shitload of people for whom a 60" HDTV is just not an option, and for whom lack of health care insurance is a real hardship.
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet, statistically speaking, the poor are having far more children than the rich. Somehow they're affording it.
No they're not. They're just not going to the doctor. Which means no prenatal care. Lucky! And when labour hits, they just go to the emergency room, since the hospitals can't turn them away. And once the child is born, they can't afford a doctor, so the child won't get proper preventative care, such that they'll only see a doctor when... yup, you guessed it, they have to go to the emergency room (and, BTW, that applies to their own healthcare as well)!
Yup. It's a great system you Americans have... at least double the cost of every other universal system out there, while excluding millions. Brilliant!
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a crock.
As long as there are no complications, that is. When my daughter was born, she spent the first five days of her life in the NICU due to a respiratory infection. IIRC, that was around $20K after paying for the birth and related expenses.
While most middle-class Americans can cough up $4K with a little advance planning, a surprise of an additional $20K can be a pretty heavy load.
So, while I really hope your baby is born healthy and there are no unwelcome surprises (I wouldn't wish five days of not knowing whether or not your baby will ever get to go home on anybody), don't fool yourself into thinking that you can plan for all medical expenses by preparing a little ahead of time.
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you have Netflix, stream the documentary "The Business of Being Born". Among other topics, it goes into some of the history of how a natural part of life has been usurped by MDs who think they know better than human nature and how it is now essentially being sold as an illness that needs "fixing". Personally, I think $5k for a uneventful birth is a fleecing upon society.
My wife went all natural with our 2nd (her 1st being too big to turn, resulting in a C-section). No drugs (pushed on us), no C-section (pushed), no epiziotomy (pushed), not even a circumcision for our son (gently pushed). We were insured at the time, but the costs were still mind-boggling, coming in around $5k. The doctor alone billed $1500 to "catch" (as my wife likes to say) the last 15 minutes of a 6-hour event. To add insult to injury, I didn't get a discount for cutting the damned cord myself! This didn't even include all the prenatal checkups/procedures, the costs of which elude me at the moment.
But birthing is just one example.
Other routine, low-risk, easy procedures cost an arm and a leg. I've had two extended family members get appendectomies over the last few year: $15k each. WTF is up with that?!?
My guess is that doctors/hospitals bill so much because they can, due to near-ubiquitous health insurance in our country. Most people don't pay bills like these directly, so it's like monopoly money to them. They don't care. So a doctor can -- and will -- charge the standard $1500 fee for a delivery, then pocket the $1000 insurer is willing to pay. However, if an uninsured person tried to pay $1000, they turn it over to collections. The US health care system is so completely fucked it hurts to think about it.
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry, I can't fault him for not being rash. That's what got us into this perdiciment to begin with. Also, there are others that seem to be making it difficult to acomplish some of his goals. Like the Sentator that somehow claims that the people in Gitmo are somehow more "dangerous" than any other human in custody.
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:5, Interesting)
Buahahahahha.....oh wait you were serious let me laugh even harder.
I'm reminded, completely coincidentally of course, of something I've been meaning to ask for a while now... Can someone explain to me the difference between 'Troll' and 'Flamebait'?
It's the same diffrence as funny and insightful but only applies to people you disagree with.
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:5, Insightful)
By temperament and voter registration, I'm a Republican; however, I voted for (and hope for) an Obama win because the path the government has taken over the last 7-8 years has saddened and disgusted me. I'm glad he won.
But, I am not a "believer." Now that the opposing party is in charge (just like the GOP was for all those years) it's going to be hard for them to put away all those neat new toys that Bush & Co. left behind. This is because it's hard for the party on top to admit that a power or capability is too dangerous to use (dangerous as in potentially or outright abusive of Constitutional rights.)
If there were ever a prime time to hold your government's feet to the fire over policy, now is the time to do it. Otherwise, it will be fait accompli, and we'll start hearing things from this administration (and its supporters) like, "But we're not Bush; we're better than him!"
Just my inflation-adjusted 2 cents...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it just demonstrates that you believed the summary because it said what you wanted to hear and didn't actually read the document in question and thus don't know what his actions are.
Yeah I'm surprised too.
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:5, Insightful)
The US has devolved into a place where safety trumps constitutional authorization, judicial honesty, liberty, and honor.
The government might as well change the national motto to "Safety at Any Cost."
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite all the "sacrifices" that have been made regarding rights, I don't think so.
(Note: I put "sacrifices" in quotes, because it order for someone to truly sacrifice something, it has to be given not taken.)
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:5, Insightful)
The government might as well change the national motto to "The Appearance of Safety at Any Cost."
Fixed that for you...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They should do! It would win votes!
That's the problem here. People don't want liberty they want safety.
It's not just a problem in America but in the whole of the western world.
I'm not sure how it can be fixed other than through the horror of a brutal dictatorship or two.
Maybe that's what we need to rediscover the value of liberty.
You are wrong (Score:5, Funny)
Warrantless wiretaps are good now. You see, they weren't good before. But they are good now.
Anyone who can't see that is a racist reactionary.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fun part will be watching various conservatives do strange contortions as they try to say that, what was a necessity under the Bush administration, is now a bad thing under an Obama administration.
The fun part will also be watching various progressives do strange contortions as they try to say that, what was a bad thing under the Bush administration, is now a necessity under an Obama administration.
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:4, Funny)
Oh come on, it took an entire 3 days for him to officially step on that promise, I think he's doing better than bush already!
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh come on, it took an entire 3 days for a Deputy Assistant Attorney General under Alberto Gonzales who is acting Attorney General until Obama's pick is confirmed step on that promise, I think he's doing better than bush already!
Corrected that for you.
Read the filing itself (Score:5, Informative)
The summary and the article it links to make it seem like much more of a big deal than it actually is:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/alharamainobama.pdf [wired.com]
It's a procedural motion for a stay pending appeal. It's not a policy endorsement, it's them looking to have the judge's ruling put on hold until appeals are over.
That's not to say that Obama won't wind up agreeing with Bush on this, just that this particular filing doesn't actually indicate that.
Naysayers and Doomspeakers (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather than simply bitch about your spin on this, lets look at why he is doing this. IANAL, but it seems to me that he is holding on to secret information pending the outcome of legal process to determine if it is admissible evidence. This would seem to be prudent, as if it is admitted as evidence, it is no long really secret. Any lawyers out there, please jump if I am getting this wrong.
Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see how requesting a stay in a case involving the potential release of classified information and for which there were in-progress appeals at the moment his government took over is the same as endorsing Bush's wiretapping program...
Sounds to me more like they need more time to consider the case, and don't want state secrets released by default in the meantime. The only thing I see that is in agreement with Bush is that executive privilege exists.
Hail Obama, Savior of America. (Score:5, Funny)
Finally, change we can believe in!
Re:Hail Obama, Savior of America. (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally, change we can believe in!
Just because he promised "change" doesn't mean it'll be a "good" change!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
one friend didn't vote because, as he sees it...
"It doesn't matter who shits in the chair, we're all going to get covered anyway".
Guess he was right on that one.
Re:Hail Obama, Savior of America. (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally, change we can believe in!
Not to defend Obama on this particular issue, but here's a brief recap of what he's done since becoming president, 72 whole hours ago:
So do these things qualify as "change"? I'd say so. Certainly none of these things would have happened with a Republican still in the White House.
Re:Hail Obama, Savior of America. (Score:4, Insightful)
(Although I do agree that these people need to be getting some sort of trial before they are held indefinitely. However, if they are not American citizens, they are not subject to the bill of rights.)
Two words: Fuck you.
People like you are the reason why I won't travel to the united states, and why I've personally advised many friends against travelling there too. I reckon I've stopped more than a dozen tourists from heading there, and I'm proud of it. There are thousands or more of other people like me around the globe, and we are doing our best on this matter. Your fucking arrogant elitist attitude of "they are not citizens, they do not deserve rights" begets nothing else.
Re:Hail Obama, Savior of America. (Score:5, Informative)
I stated a fact. The bill of rights only protects citizens of the USA. It doesn't protect anyone else. That doesn't mean that foreigners should not have any protections, or that the Bill of Rights shouldn't apply. It doesn't and legislation would have to be made to make it apply. Although you would be correct in that I don't think all of it should apply. I am surprised you got modded up as "Insightful". I think a better modding would have been: "Inciteful".
You did NOT state a fact. You stated your personal belief. That does not make it a fact, no matter how hard you try. Tell me where in the Bill of Rights it says that it applies ONLY to U.S. Citizens?
Ninth Amendment - Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Did you see the word citizen in there? There was a reason why the founding fathers specifically used the word PEOPLE and not CITIZENS. If the Bill of Rights only applied to U.S. Citizens, then the Government could just strip away your citizenship and do whatever the hell it wanted to you.
In fact, if you read any of the Amendments that compose the Bill of Rights, you will not see the word citizen, but only people. Citizenship is not implied. As long as you are legally on U.S. soil, or are being held in the capacity of the U.S. Government, you have rights.
Bill of Rights [wikipedia.org]
The Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, affirms an individual right to keep and bear arms and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Again, please inform us where it ONLY applies to citizens?
Oxen (Score:4, Insightful)
Well now, that depends on who is being held open now, doesn't it?
Give it time (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama might not always be right.
Bush might not have always been wrong.
There just might be a valid reason for this (then again there might not be).
They guy has been in office less than a week. Progress has already been made.
Re:Give it time (Score:5, Insightful)
There just might be a valid reason for this (then again there might not be).
I can't imagine any valid reason for spying on our citizens without a warrant, personally. Or interfering with justice for those who had been violated. Maybe it exists, but I find that hard to believe.
They guy has been in office less than a week. Progress has already been made.
As of right now, progress is nil. He did some good things so far, but this is a really bad thing. Net gain: none.
Re:Give it time (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been seeing this "scoreboard" meme regarding Obama on a couple of FP stories now.
Discussing politics as a zero-sum game is stupid. It's that kind of mentality that entrenches the two-party system and helps keep one of the biggest and richest nations on earth from actually getting any shit done.
Re:Give it time (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't imagine any valid reason for spying on our citizens without a warrant, personally. Or interfering with justice for those who had been violated. Maybe it exists, but I find that hard to believe.
Read the PDF that the Obama administration actually filed before drawing any conclusions here.
The PDF they filed is simply an argument over the mundane details of court procedure, the rules of evidence, which court should see the appeal, etc.
Granted it has the effect of bolstering Bush's defense, but so what?
If the police try to get evidence admitted on a child molester, but there is a problem with the evidence, and Obama shows up and says, well the child molester is arguing that the evidence can't be admitted and our legal analysis concludes the same thing... what then?
Obama is siding with child molestors? Get fucking real. As destestable as child molestors and warrantless government surveillance is, the rule of law protecting them should be observed.
This blog article is just bad journalism.
As of right now, progress is nil. He did some good things so far, but this is a really bad thing. Net gain: none.
Agreeing with Bush's interpretation of the law isn't a really bad thing, especially if that's what the laws say. Ask a lawyer, not a blogger to determine whether its bad or not. And if the law itself is the problem, ask that he change it so that in future we can do better, but don't ask him to break it just to prosecute Bush.
Indeed. (Score:3, Insightful)
Let us think back to Bush's speeches and promises, and how he failed on nearly every one.
But, the people who screamed 'traitor' at the anti-war activist and supported Bush to the bitter end have suddenly found the ability to criticize our president during wartime.
The HURRRRRRRRRRRRrrrtastic tags tell the story of astro-turfing conservatives.
At least this economy has the low-income trailer-park republicans finally signing up to fight their war.
Re:Give it time (Score:5, Funny)
Bush might not have always been wrong.
You take that back. YOU TAKE THAT BACK RIGHT NOW1!!!1!
Obama subscribes to the Google Motto (Score:5, Funny)
"Don't be evil*"
*for small values of "evil"
Bad summary of bad article (Score:5, Informative)
That's a very misleading way to state it. What happened, was, the Obama people asked for a stay of the Judge's motion pending appeal.
It's not an endorsement, as you might think from the summary and linked article, of the policy. It's a procedural move.
I'm not saying that Obama doesn't or won't back Bush's view. Just that this particular filing doesn't support that conclusion in a meaningful way.
Re:Bad summary of bad article (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Bad summary of bad article (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, sorry. Bad habit of mine.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have to wonder if this is another example of a trend I've seen lately, where anything that isn't seen as "smooth sailing" and "virtuous follow-through", no matter how small or misleading the "anything" might be, is cause for alarm and panic -- a secret indicator of Obama's true political boogeyman ways.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And voting to remove the immunity clause from the FISA bill doesn't indicate anything about where he stands? I personally assume that when he voted on the bill, he was voting on the bill as a whole and not solely based on the immunity provision. When he had a chance to vote on just that provision, he voted against it.
Also, voting present or abstain would have been used just the same as a 'no' vote by his opponents.
Personally, I'll consider something a meaningful representation of his stance on Bush's wire
The problem with being president... (Score:3, Insightful)
Everything you do pisses everyone off, equally! [nationalreview.com]
Really, I'm just withholding comment until some form of long-term context is established.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Pray tell then, what the hell are you doing on Slashdot?
Vote for Liars (Democrat/Republicans) (Score:4, Insightful)
Get what you voted...
I wonder what they think of the missiles that hit Pakistan today? I am sure they were approved by the President. You know, the "O" not the "W".
Obama doesn't even have a DOJ yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that he asked for a stay doesn't indicate much of anything, particularly since a lot of the people at the DOJ right now are Bush appointees (you know the type) who really need to be fired ASAP. By all means, we should be making as much noise about this as possible, but it doesn't automatically mean that Obama is pro-wiretapping.
Uh.. Hello! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is so obviously FUD. The administration ordered a stay on all pending regulation and issues from the Bush Administration and this case happens to be one of them. So, what does someone looking to nail Obama do.. "oh well, they aren't immediately disavowing this terrible, terrible injustice, therefore, well they must be complicit!" Shake, stir, and toss to the usual gang of idiots on Slashdot and voila.. A major out of context brouhahah is born! Get a grip, morons.
I knew it! (Score:5, Interesting)
It was politics all along.
A court just recently affirmed the legality of it. Obama continues in the tradition.
The reality is that this stuff has done on for decades. The tradition is that any intelligence collected could not be used to build a case against a US citizen. It is not admissible in court. You cannot be prosecuted based on the intelligence.
Call Detail Records and metadata are owned by the telco's and are therefore proprietary and not private. They can do whatever they want with them.
The *only* thing that has changed is that the wall between the FBI and the NSA built during the Clinton administration was torn down. NSA/CIA can now give leads to the FBI that can be taken to a FISA court. The court can provide a retroactive warrant. Only after FISA court approval can the FBI and the Justice Department use the lead to build a case.
Calm Down. (Score:4, Insightful)
Folks,
This sucks. However let's keep in mind that the order to close the detention/torture center at Gitmo has gone out, and to close the CIA detention centers, and the order to err on the side of disclosure in FOIA cases.
Let's keep in mind that it's a request for stay, not the last word. But it looks like Obama isn't on our side regarding this issue, and we might have to work for a long time to win it. Consider what we are winning so far, and keep on working. We were never going to get a candidate elected who agreed with us on everything.
Bruce
Re:Calm Down. (Score:5, Informative)
Bush's DOJ still there.. new AG isn't confirmed (Score:5, Informative)
My take: let's wait this out. It's very important to keep in line, but keep in mind that the AG and new justice dept. aren't even appointed.
What is the BEST case scenario? (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's hypothesize that Bush/Obama are acting in good faith, and let's use as many weasel words in their favor as possible.
That leaves us with a situation where it appears (apparently deceptively) that the government broke the law. The government does not want a court to review their actions to clear them of this wrongful accusation, because the evidence is a national security secret and could result in the deaths of many secret agents and programs and an inability to gather foreign intelligence in the future.
It is insufficient to seal this evidence and let the court review it behind closed doors, because...
I come up with a total blank. What am I missing? They think the judge will blab to Osama? I can't come up with a best case scenario that doesn't involve something ridiculous.
I wouldn't be so hasty (Score:5, Informative)
Obama is blocking almost every policy matter still pending from Bush. [bloomberg.com] This is just one of many issues being blocked until the Obama administration can get caught up and take an official stance on it. He may well "side with Bush", but he hasn't really done so yet.
More FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's unfair to react knee-jerk to this and denounce the new President. He's been there for three whole days and is probably still learning where all the conference rooms and restrooms are. Jumping into the middle of an ongoing court case and having the lawyers completely overhaul the strategy that they've been working on for months or years would be one of the easiest ways to throw a monkey wrench into existing operations without having a full grasp of the entirety of the issue.
Give him six months, and THEN give him hell for supporting warrantless [and unconstitutional] wiretaps.
Has it ever occurred to any of you... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:so? (Score:4, Insightful)
enjoy freedom,
enjoy while you can
Freedom? What freedom? [kuro5hin.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Le Roi est mort. Vive le Roi!
Same as the old boss... *literally*. (Score:5, Interesting)
Didn't it occur to anyone here that Obama's attorney general pick hasn't even been confirmed yet? Obama is only nominally in charge of the DOJ at this point. So who do you think it is filing these papers? Well, the names are right in the PDF [wired.com], starting with Michael F. Hertz. Yes, Michael F. Hertz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General under Alberto Gonzales.
Re:Same as the old boss... *literally*. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the answer. See Emptywheel's analysis, here [firedoglake.com], which reaches the same conclusion.
She makes the point that the Bushies are probably stalling the Holder confirmation so that the statute of limitations can begin to run out on Bush's FISA wiretap crimes. There is a specific block of time in 2005 where the taps were illegal, between when James Comey refused to reauthorize the program and when Congress rolled over for Bushie and shafted the American people once again.
The SoL on the criminal portion of FISA is four years, and in about seven weeks we're going to hit that four-year anniversary. So if they can keep Holder out for another few months that's one less act of treason they have to worry about.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> I did not trust this new Administration during his campaign
I'd argue, that trusting ANY politician or group thereof is a rather silly thing to do (that's being polite btw. Really it's just plain stupid).
Tell me, where is Obama's name (Score:5, Informative)
in this document [wired.com]? Does that look like his Attorney General's name to you? No, that's Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michael F. Hertz, who served under Alberto Gonzales; Obama's AG hasn't been confirmed yet.
The US government didn't magically transform itself at the stroke of noon on Tuesday.
Re:USA becomes UK in... (Score:4, Insightful)
5...4...3..2..1.. The only change we'll be seeing is the removal of our right to be able to defend ourselves. Say goodbye to your firearms, hello to more government intrusion into your life
[Citation needed]