US Justice Department Dug Up Reporter's Phone, Bank Records 217
tripleevenfall writes "A court filing provides new details about the extraordinary measures Justice Department prosecutors are using to identify government leakers. Prosecutors obtained a suspect's telephone, credit and bank records. Lucy Dalglish, of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press said, 'This tells us the Obama administration will do almost anything to figure out who is leaking government information.'"
Tor, encryption, etc. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see how fast the government tries to nix or affect you negatively if you make a business model meant to stop them doing their oversight work on us.
Re:Tor, encryption, etc. (Score:4, Insightful)
...journalists should learn about Tor, email encryption, steganography, and other privacy protecting technologies.
They should also be using their "bully pulpits" to argue against the ongoing centralisation of databases. If our society weren't so enthused with the centralized collection of as much data as possible about its citizens, these sorts of trawling expeditions would be much more difficult to pull off.
We need policies and laws that restrict such databases to collecting and maintaining records to the minimum required for their primary purpose only. For example, call records that go back at least 6 years are completely unnecessary for billing purposes - 6 months, maybe a year at tops, should be the limit.
Re: (Score:2)
"our"? - speak for yourself, probably-American!
"society"? - are you sure it's an across the whole of society problem, or largely confined to one sector of society?
Most (not all, but most) of the drive and support for such programmes seems to come from a relatively small range of business and governmental bodies. That's not society as a whole, that's just a small number of (admittedly powerful)
Re: (Score:2)
"our"? - speak for yourself, probably-American!
Considering this a story about the freaking US government doing this to some of its citizens, what the hell country did you think I was talking about? Don't be a dumbass.
Most (not all, but most) of the drive and support for such programmes seems to come from a relatively small range of business and governmental bodies.
No, the drive comes from the companies themselves - they see immediate value to creating such databases for their primary purposes - billing, trouble-shooting, etc. But because storage is so cheap they figure why the hell not just keep the data around in case they can come up with some other uses for it. It is an extremely rare company t
Re: (Score:2)
We also need to figure out how, as a wired civilization (buy a newspaper, why when I can get infotainment for free?), we will support journalists' organizations. We need someone to watch the watchers.
Obama's been in for 6 years? (Score:2)
really? Now that IS news.
Re:Obama's been in for 6 years? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's odd. I seem to remember Bush getting railed all the time for just about anything, including gas prices in the US. Obama seems to be living the easy life, with no tough questions, or even worrying about world issues(not that there's a shortage). Personally to an outsider, who pays attention to US news, this all reeks of media whitewashing their favorite kid, because well he can do no wrong. Unlike that other guy, who ended up not being as bad as everyone thought.
Oh I'm sure people will be frothing
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like a racist, teabagging, Republican.
</sarcasm>
Just kidding, I think you're right on the money. But anytime I try to say something like that, that's invariably the response I get. Pretty infuriating.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting... I don't know a single "liberal" who likes Obama at this point. Almost every progressive person I talk to says Obama is a disgrace. From where I'm sitting here's his track record:
80% - Percent of Campaign Promises Broken
18% - Percent of Campaign Promises he attempted to fullfill knowing ahead of time they would not, to give the illusion he is "trying"
2% - Percent of Campaign Promises he has actually kept (usually the conservative ones with a few exceptions).
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I seem to remember Bush getting railed all the time for just about anything
You remember wrong. Nobody asked Bush any of the important or difficult questions, especially when they should have and it may have made a change. From the start, Bush got a free ride - and the Republican noise machine took care to drown any questions, and to paint all dissenters as un-American, traitors or worse.
Here are just a few examples (we could easily find hundreds more): Bush's whole budgeting was based on the proj
Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
"This tells us the Obama Administration will do everything that the Bush Administration did"
And that applies to a lot more than just matters of "national security".
Re: (Score:2)
"This tells us the Obama Administration will do everything that the Bush Administration did"
I, for one, am looking forward to next year's invasion of some annoying-yet-irrelevent country. Where will we fail to find the WMDs this time?
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest Jamaica or perhaps Tahiti, plenty of beaches and sun.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest Jamaica or perhaps Tahiti, plenty of beaches and sun.
Well, Tahiti, the nation that gave the world the coconut bra, is full of French people, a society that knowingly, deliberately aided and abetted Jerry Lewis' decades-long spree of crimes against comedy....
Lock and load, boys. IT'S WOOOOOAAAAARRRRRR!
Re:Correction (Score:5, Interesting)
Not exactly. Obama seems to be kicking it up a notch in the war against whistle-blowers [salon.com].
That subpoena had originally been served but was then abandoned by the Bush DOJ, but its revitalization by the Obama administration was but one of many steps taken to dramatically expand the war on whistleblowers being waged by the current President
I don't see a problem here (Score:4, Insightful)
They are investigating a crime. The guy they pulled the records on is directly linked to it (albeit not a suspect himself due to the nature of the law). They've got a warrant for it too, right and proper. And it's not something unusual in general - quote :
because subpoenas for financial records are standard practice in criminal investigations, there is no reason for the Justice Department not to use them to obtain records from journalists in leak probes. The data from credit and bank records would allow prosecutors to home in on where journalists have traveled, lunches or dinners they might have paid for, and other information that could help identify their sources for a story, the former prosecutor said.
So what's the big deal?
Re: (Score:2)
The big deal is the United States has a First Amendment to our Constitution, which guarantees freedom of the press. Traditionally, the very idea of investigating reporters was anathema, and when the Bush Administration did it, people were (rightly) upset about it. But now the Obama Administration is doing that and more, and no one seems to care.
Just another example that Democrats (and Republicans, too) really don't have principles, they just want the other side to do whatever their side is doing.
Re: (Score:3)
They are investigating this reporter because his actions are relevant to the crime commited. The reporter himself is not charged with anything so I don't see how freedom of press is supressed by this.
Re:I don't see a problem here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Do the Ends Justify the Means (Score:2)
Sooooo, it would be okay then for the DOJ to have standing taps on all communications going to all reporters and reporting agencies? After all, criminals, including those illegally reporting illegal activity, would go to reporters.
Would the DOJ, or your local law enforcement, be okay to trail you, because you met with a suspected criminal?
Back in the day, some (LAPD comes to mind first) agencies would tap pay phones, just trolling ALL of the conversations, then using the information to get search war
Re: (Score:2)
Trolling = fishing, dragging a large net to see what they can catch. Not the internet version of trolling.
Re: Do the Ends Justify the Means (Score:4, Insightful)
Sooooo, it would be okay then for the DOJ to have standing taps on all communications going to all reporters and reporting agencies? After all, criminals, including those illegally reporting illegal activity, would go to reporters.
No, because you need to be investigating some specific crime first, one that you know has happened. Furthermore, you need strong evidence that the reporter in question has actually been in contact with the person who is either the perpetrator or an accomplice.
Would the DOJ, or your local law enforcement, be okay to trail you, because you met with a suspected criminal?
Depends. If, after said meeting, I have communicated some information that indicates that I have talked to him about criminal matters, and if they believe the subpoena may help pin the suspect down, then sure - so long as they get a proper warrant (i.e. can convince the judge that all of the above hold true).
Back in the day, some (LAPD comes to mind first) agencies would tap pay phones, just trolling ALL of the conversations
That is illegal.
Maybe the first question ought to be do the ends justify the means?
Depends on the ends and the means. Mass "preemptive" surveillance is never justifiable. Surveillance of one particular person, when the "end" is specific and not vague, and when there is reasonable belief that it may be of help, can be justifiable.
Re: (Score:3)
This happens to be one of those crimes where it takes two to commit it, but only one side is a criminal. Nonetheless this means that the information on the other person involved is directly relevant to criminal invetigation and will likely help to identify the criminal. Therefore it is reasonable for it to be requested.
Maybe not on Obama's Watch (Score:3)
From the article:
Matt Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department, declined to comment on the court filing or say whether department subpoenas for Risenâ(TM)s bank and credit reports occurred under President Barack Obamaâ(TM)s attorney general, Eric Holder, or earlier, during the Bush administration, when the investigation into Sterling began. A lawyer for Risen also declined comment.
So we don't actually know under which administration the subpoenas were issued.
Therefore most of the comments on the story putting forth the idea that Obama = Bush in this case are speculation. It's also interesting to note that the information was obtained with subpoena, so due process was followed.
Re: (Score:2)
The subpoenas could have easily been executed during the Bush administration. You certainly have no evidence when it happened.
As far as the other points, I would have liked other outcomes there too. Unfortunately they didn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean "following up"? What exactly does that entail? What, EXACTLY did the Obama administration do? Please supply links/citations.
The subpoenas were issued by Bush or Obama we don't know which. In compliance to the subpoenas banks and phone companies supplied records to the DOJ as they are required to by law.
When pre-trial discovery occurred the defense found the records in the prosecution's disclosure. There is no information publicly available as to WHEN they made it into the case records at th
You have to be kidding me (Score:2)
You have to be kidding me. What planet is Ms. Dalglish from, or what is she smoking? Obtaining the telephone, credit, and bank records is pretty much standard procedure for any criminal investigation of any significance. That the administration is doing so as part of a criminal investigation tells us nothing.
They pulled records on a non-suspect (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The summary says prosecutors obtained the suspect's records. But the title has it right; DoJ pulled bank and credit records on someone not suspected of a crime. If I were the news man, I'd demand to see the warrant.
Not hundred percent sure how it works exactly, but I think only the suspect has protection of the law. If you are suspected of a crime, evidence of your crime is in my posession, and the police gets that evidence without a warrant, then my rights might be violated. So that evidence couldn't be used against me, but _you_ are not protected.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, as a military police officer, we have a saying shared by other police agencies, "Fruit of the poisonous tree". if the means in which the evidence is obtained is illegal, then the evidence cannot be used. The 4th Amendment protects every citizen, not just suspects. In fact, only suspects can be searched. Either by a warrant or a good faith search.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, as a military police officer, we have a saying shared by other police agencies, "Fruit of the poisonous tree". if the means in which the evidence is obtained is illegal, then the evidence cannot be used. The 4th Amendment protects every citizen, not just suspects. In fact, only suspects can be searched. Either by a warrant or a good faith search.
This is flat out not true, for two reasons. First, the constitution requires that there be probable cause (a very low evidentiary standard) that the search will uncover items or information useful as evidence of a crime. There is NO requirement that the person who is being searched (or whose belongings are being searched) be a suspect in that crime.
Second, a defendant has standing to object to the admission of evidence gathered in violation of the fourth amendment only if the evidence was gathered in violat
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1. Suppression of the product of a Fourth Amendment violation can be successfully urged only by those whose rights were violated by the search itself, and not those who are aggrieved solely by the introduction of damaging evidence. Thus, codefendants and coconspirators have no special standing, and cannot prevent the admission against them of information which has been obtained through electronic surveillance which is illegal against another. Pp. 394 U. S. 17
Re: (Score:2)
However it can be used as the basis of a search warrant, to re-obtain that exact same evidence legally. So the original evidence can not be used but once it is re-obtained direct from the source legally it can. Corruption occurs when sufficient time is allowed so that the original sourced can be cleansed or deleted.
As to blaming a president for everything, that is the whole idiotic US worship or celebrity, of the leader doing everything and taking credit for everything and via PR=B$ shifting blame as oft
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter in this case - nobody is claiming the evidence was obtained illegally, just the article is implying it. If you read the linked story you'll see the DOJ issued subpoenas for the information which presumably could have been challenged if they were thought to be invalid.
Re:They pulled records on a non-suspect (Score:5, Insightful)
Do some research. The reason they *never* file charges on this is because if they did it would be thrown out of court. We have something called the first amendment that trumps statute whenever the two conflict. You should also look up a guy named Daniel Ellsberg.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And it should be! The right of the people to speak about what goes on behind closed government doors without fear of prosecution is essential to the fundamental freedom of speech. Without it, there would none.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, because the terrorists, criminals and child pornographers win unless we stoop to their level.
Re: (Score:3)
What's next? Slashdotters complain that the US Gov doesn't nothing to locate leaks because they are incompetent? Can't have it both ways...
Of course we can -- it's Slashdot!
Re: (Score:2)
What's next? Slashdotters complain that the US Gov doesn't nothing to locate leaks because they are incompetent? Can't have it both ways...
Of course we can -- it's Slashdot!
Do you mean Quantum Slashdot?
Re: (Score:3)
You're wrong.
Leaking GWB gov secrets is good
Leaking BHO gov secrets is bad
Or Visa Versa. People want it both was all the time.
Re:Good Fucking Grief (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, after the Pentagon Papers were leaked to the New York Times in 1971, it showed that a number of presidents had lied to the American people and violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution. That leak helped to end the Vietnam war.
Daniel Ellsberg, the leaker and the first person ever to be prosecuted for a leak in the United States, was prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917. This act had been designed for espionage and, until that time, had never been used for anything else except to prosecute spies: those who act with the express intent to harm the US or help a foreign power. However, against Ellsberg they used a clause within the act that says only those with legal authority may publish classified documents. The same clause is now being used against Bradley Manning.
Why use the Espionage Act against leakers? Because, unlike Great Britain, the US has never had an Official Secrets Act: a law that would criminalize any and all disclosure of classified information. Efforts have been made by Congress to pass one -- the last time under Bill Clinton (which he vetoed) -- but this has never succeeded, because lawmakers have always considered that it would be too much at odds with the First Amendment. Yet, that's the way the Espionage Act is now being used.
Finally, is it not highly ironic that, even as the government prosecutes Bradley Manning, the State Dept. is promoting a documentary film that celebrates Daniel Ellsberg and his leaking of the Pentagon Papers? (see this link [tampabay.com]).
Re: (Score:3)
The party and political inclination of the POTUS has everything to do with it. When W was elected, his DoJ decided to stop investigating/charging MS for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, although Clinton's DoJ put a lot of time/money into it. Now O's DoJ has decided that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional and unenforceable, something that W's DoJ would never have done. Different administrations, different slants on things.
- doug
PS: I'm not saying that W or O had any direct inf
Re:Okay, And? (Score:5, Insightful)
How, exactly, is this news?
I think this is supposed to be news because the President who did it wasn't named 'Bush'. Though we generally expected more from Obama (eg, less of this stuff) we're all being reminded that whomever runs the show acts more like the one they replaced then we wanted/hoped.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a tiny bit dishonest to say "the X administration" unless it was a conscious policy of X, not something that you can expect to see from X-1 and x+1. It also appears in the topic sentence of the cited article, which is a tip-off:
If someone wants you to believe something that isn't true, it will appear in the first sentence, even if it logically doesn't belong there or seems jarring. That's a psychological trick that dates back to the ancient Greeks. It was reputedly a specific teaching of the soph
Re: (Score:2)
Why dishonest. It's no less good or bad just because more than one administration does it. What's dishonest is ignoring it or not pinning the blame/credit squarely on the person responsible.
Re: (Score:2)
Then we probably agree that the commentator should have identified the culprit, rather than being lazy and blaming the administration of the week.
--dave
Re: (Score:3)
Blame travels up the chain of command. The pervasive abuses carried out by DOJ, FBI, and others year after year are not the result of a bunch of peons/scapegoats acting alone, it's them reacting to the guidance of their supervisors. Their supervisors, in turn, react to the guidance of their superiors all the way up to the president.
That doesn't mean that each and every individual action is the President's personal responsibility, but it does mean that the pattern of behavior is his responsibility.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure I buy this.
When Bush did this stuff, no one could say they were surprised. Whatever you might say about the Republicans, you can't say they're deceitful. They're completely blatant and open about their motives and methods. The Democrats are worse, because they try to convince you that they're for "hope and change", that they're completely the opposite of the "evil Republicans", but when they're in power, they do the exact same thing. The Democrats are deceitful liars, and con artists.
When y
Re: (Score:2)
persecute you if you're a homosexual (Obama directed his DOJ to defend the DOMA in courts)
What? Keep up with the news, my friend.
http://www.wggb.com/Global/story.asp?S=14137011 [wggb.com]
He may not be as different as we'd like, maybe not by a long shot, but I assure you, it's still better than the other guys.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. And do you believe that he's changed his policy on DADT and DOMA now out of principle, or politics? My money is on the latter. It's getting close to election time, and getting rid of DADT and DOMA now serves two important goals for him: 1) It creates a wedge between the hardcore social conservatives and the fiscal types; potentially diluting the power of the GOP on election day. 2) It acknowledges and exploits the fact that the gay community tends to be both politically active, and more affluent
Re: (Score:2)
You're kidding me, right? Did I make any assertion about his motivation?
H E
C H A N G E D
I T
Do I care *why* he did? I do not, in fact, give a damn.
Re: (Score:3)
Because if he changed it merely to get his ticket punched, it'll whither on the vine after the next election.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually I think you may have it reversed. I think Obama's tepid defense of those policies was politics over principles. I think Obama may have abandoned those policies as it's now clear that he gains nothing from defending them. You do have to remember that Obama is a centrist politician who believes in bridging people's differences and bringing about consensus. He's not doing very well at that because he fails to recognize that the Republicans have the opposite goal. They intend to get elected by cre
Re:Okay, And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry but if someone is not prepared to take responsibility for the actions of their underlings then they are not fit to be in a position of authority. It's alright, plenty of people are not cut out for leadership just like plenty of people are not computer technicians. I don't buy the phony distinction of "conscious policies" and "unconscious policies". If you are in charge and you don't know what your underlings are doing, you're incompetent; if you're in charge and you know what your underlings are doing and you do not require them to change, it is because you approve whether this approval is stated or unstated.
Anyone who thinks that's a tough standard is free to find a job less demanding than the Presidency.
I would say that if that's all it takes to get someone to believe a lie, especially about anything important, then their love of truth and commitment to objectivity were non-existent anyway. They are soft-minded, naive, and their deceit is inevitable. The only question is who will fool them first. I wish it weren't so easy to deceive so many people but that's the reality.
Re: (Score:2)
The person who wrote the snarky comment wasn't the president, and I'm not the president, so suggesting he find an easier job is a bit off-topic.
He (or she, some year or other) is legally responsible for everything his minions do, but unless he's omniscient and has infinite time, cannot be to blame for everything. Thus conscious, stated policies of president-and-administration X are legitimate targets for personal criticisms, but holdovers from X-1 are not.
And people are more often ignorant than stupid.
Re:Okay, And? (Score:4, Insightful)
I was already quite confident that you're not Barack H. Obama. That's why it wasn't a literal suggestion. It was a way of making a point. The point is that anyone who wants to be President is going to have the entire executive branch at his or her disposal if they are elected. If that is too much for them, if it is beyond their leadership abilities, then there are better and more fit candidates available. I'll never understand why people are so eager to give Obama a pass on this when the inability to get your subordinates on board with your intentions is a very bad trait for a President.
(emphasis added)
You don't understand why that statement contradicts itself, do you?
Also, do tell me why he would need infinite time? The President interacts with members of his Cabinet to get these things done. In case you don't know, that's a small roomful of people. Each person in the Cabinet is the head of an executive branch department. All Obama would need to do is announce to his Cabinet "from now on, this is how we're going to operate". It would be up to each department head to either get it done or be replaced by someone who can. Have you never seen how any large institution is managed? By your logic no CEO could ever be expected to have any control over a company. You're clutching at straws here.
Why not? At nothing more than a whim Obama can remove and replace those holdovers. His request is all it would take. In light of the very well-established fact that the President commands the executive branch, there can only be two possibilities: he doesn't change those "holdovers" because he approves of them, or, he would disapprove of them and would change them except that he's unaware of their existence because he's incompetent.
Bear in mind that his entire platform was "change". Specifically, he called it "change you can believe in". What part of retaining holdovers who still want to do things the way the old administration did things constitutes "change", exactly? One of the biggest reasons Obama was elected is because people were getting tired of the police-state bullshit Bush was doing. This is more of the same, only now it's not under Bush's watch. That means we can add hypocrisy to everything else I have already explained.
Look, if you think no one should ever call out Obama's failures because he's such a great guy, so charismatic, because you like him so much, etc., that's fine, but call it the emotional argument that it is and acknowledge that you are disregarding the facts of the matter. If you want to be consistent, you can also view Bush's actions through such rose-tinted "but he couldn't possibly have done any better" glasses, but it's understandable if that is too much to ask since he's far less charismatic. That charisma is more important than a hard look at the facts of the matter, isn't it? If you're likable you get away with murder. If you're not, people question your every step. How typical.
Ignorance alone isn't so bad. Ignorance that does not recognize itself is a great definition of naivete. When people are ignorant about a thing and proceed as though they were not ignorant about that thing, then they are being stupid. For example, I am quite ignorant about neurosurgery, and that's okay because I won't be operating on anyone's brain. It
Re: (Score:2)
Great post; I wish I had mod points.
It amazes and galls me how Obama supporters continue to defend him, even though he's completely proven himself to be "Bush lite". I guess when someone makes an emotional investment in something, they feel they have to defend it no matter what to prove that they weren't stupid and hoodwinked.
I'd really like to see the Democratic voters grow a brain next year and nominate someone else for Obama's position, but I have no faith it'll happen. The voters in this country are u
Re: (Score:2)
Well I felt better with Bush doing it (Score:3)
because we had the press vigorously pursuing every perceived and real attack on our privacy and rights while he was there. Now I am stuck with Fox to do it and have to screen everything they print/show to make sure I am not falling for something from the paranoia side. Worse, all those screaming voices on the Democratic side of Congress are woefully silent with regards to everything our President chooses to do.
If the press rode his ass like they did Bush we would be better off, it might make him live up t
Re:Well I felt better with Bush doing it (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course. These people have no principles. They believe in nothing other than their own indulgence and selfish advancement. Their most heart-felt beliefs are determined by the way the winds are blowing. They are utterly decadent and, if you will, soul-less. That's why the same police-state shit is okay if "their guy" is doing it, but a horrible outrage if the "other guy" does it. Really, the only thing they can't stand is that the puppet performing the action doesn't sport their logo.
It will be "change we can believe in!" all over again and people will eat that shit up because they so badly want to believe it. After the warm fuzzies start to fade away, it will be "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". The masses will be surprised by this because they are shallow, so they see that this puppet figurehead is different from the last puppet figurehead -- what they fail to see is that the exact same economic and political forces choose all of the puppet figureheads. Fish in a barrel is what they are. It is what they will remain until they wake up and start wanting something better for themselves.
To further reinforce the point, I'll borrow a quote from Matthew Parris, regarding television shows:
telephoned, but only the fellow prepared to offer the requisite opinion was invited?
Yes, it is dishonest. They do that because it takes a lot of money and effort to produce a show and reach a large audience. The people who are putting up that money want some assurance that there will be a return on their investment. So they don't want just any person to offer just any opinion, because that's a wildcard, an unknown. They want exactly what they pay for.
Politics works this way. Only the fellow with the requisite political beliefs and lack of principles will be invited. The monied interests that lobby and pay for campaigns do this because it takes a lot of money and effort to fund a campaign and provide the support it takes to get someone into high office. They want a return on their investment in the form of someone who represents their interests. The voters are taken for granted, for time after time it is the well-funded darling of the media who is never seriously scrutinized, who is always portrayed as a great guy, who gets the votes.
Until you fix that it really doesn't matter what the President's name is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow, that's like no other government I've ever seen, and I've lived and paid taxes in a lot of countries. Mostly, what I've seen is governments that are not under the effective control of any one person. Most large bureacracies are so ponderous that even very deliberate changes in official policy have marginal effect on entrenched attitudes and behavior. But I guess the United States must be an exception. Oba
Re:Okay, And? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're saying that Barack Obama instructed the Justice Department to obtain this information?
Wow, that's like no other government I've ever seen, and I've lived and paid taxes in a lot of countries. Mostly, what I've seen is governments that are not under the effective control of any one person. Most large bureacracies are so ponderous that even very deliberate changes in official policy have marginal effect on entrenched attitudes and behavior. But I guess the United States must be an exception. Obama has some special power to change all this, a power that he's failing to exercise?
In a word: yes. He has. The U.S. has three branches of government. The President has no direct control over the legislative and judicial branches. However, the President is the undisputed leader of the executive branch. Every other member of the executive branch is his subordinate. If the head of an executive department will not comply with the President's wishes, the President can fire that person and replace them with someone else.
For example, Obama disagrees with what is called the "Defense of Marriage Act". Eric Holder is the Attorney General, that is, Holder is the head of the Department of Justice. The DoJ is part of the executive branch. Obama has directly instructed Holder to refuse to enforce this particular law. Holder has three choices in the matter: 1) comply with Obama's order, 2) refuse to comply and be fired and replaced, or 3) resign and be replaced. (Incidentally, this is an attack against the concept of rule of law -- the way we are supposed to deal with laws we don't like is to get them changed, not to selectively enforce them, but I digress).
Obama could absolutely require the DoJ to stop obtaining this information. He doesn't do this for one reason and one reason alone: he does not wish to.
Re: (Score:3)
One problem, with precedent, is what if the executive branch declines to enforce the law, especially if the majority gain from the law not being enforced?
I am not comparing Obama with Jackson, but just using a historical event to illustrate a weakness in our checks and balances. Look up Indian Removal Act or Worcester vs. Georgia. My favorite quote from that bit of history:
John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can. - Andrew Jackson
.
Remember too, that legal != just, further muddying the water.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
slightly off-topic, but what Obama did with regards DOMA was about as huge a grab on executive power as you can get. He's basically decided that he shall be King and decide which laws he likes to enforce and which he does not. We are now at the point that whatever political party comes to power will simply non-enforce laws with which they disagree. Even if Obama had legit concerns over this law (or any other) it is SCOTUS, not President, who determines the constitutionality.
I predict that anyone with media presence who seriously raises that question will be portrayed in the rest of the media as some kind of irrational lunatic. Just like the smear job that was performed against those who wanted to know if this man who was completely unknown prior to suddenly becoming President and spent a great deal of his childhood in Kenya does, in fact, meet the Constitutional requirement of being a natural-born citizen.
These days you're some kind of nutter if you want to know whether your
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Just like the smear job that was performed against those who wanted to know if this man who was completely unknown prior to suddenly becoming President and spent a great deal of his childhood in Kenya does, in fact, meet the Constitutional requirement of being a natural-born citizen.
Dude, you are smearing yourself. If you can't tell the difference between Indonesia and Kenya - a country Obama never saw before his 25th birthday - you can't expect anyone to take you seriously.
It's a group application of a similar strategy to the one that was used on Joe the Plumber, if you remember him. He asked the President some decently tough, decidedly non-scripted questions. Next thing you know, the media starts trying to dig up dirt on him and leaves no stone unturned in an effort to make him look bad
Gee, as I remember it the GOP adopted him as a postertool and THAT is what caused anyone to give a damn about his background. Funny how he now thinks McCain and Palin used him for their own purposes. [cbsnews.com] Surprised it took him so long to figure it out.
Just because you see conspiracy doesn't mean there is one, chances
Re: (Score:2)
Are you a birther?
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, sometimes people who are portrayed in the media as irrational lunatics are just that. As I understand, Obama's campaign released a scanned copy of his birth certificate in June 2008. Bush's eligibility should have been more questionable since there was documented evidence that he should have been dishonorably discharged for dereliction of duty. Hell, even McCain wasn't born in the United States (but he's a natural-born citizen because both his parents were).
Snopes [snopes.com]
Politifact [politifact.com]
You might be forgive
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to break it to you, but this is nothing new. The Supreme Court ruled in the mid 1800s that the Indians could not be forcibly relocated. President Andrew Jackson famously said "[Supreme Count Chief Justice] has made his ruling, so now let him enforce it.", and proceeded to carry out the infamous Trail of Tears where thousands of Indians were walked to death. What ever happened to Jackson for this? Nothing. This was over 150 years ago now.
This has always been a problem with the US's system of gove
Re: (Score:2)
They are all bought, paid for and owned by those people/organizations/companies that are rich.
They serve at their owners' pleasure, and do their owners' bidding.
And no, I am not a anti-corporation, anti-rich, or any other type.
I am just a simple realist.
Re:Okay, And? (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's face it: Obama tends to say one thing publicly, then behind everybody's back does the opposite. By now you can't convince me that it isn't his real policy, because he's done it too often.
Re: (Score:2)
um that or it is the justice department doing things as they always have, and the administration in charge knows nothing of.
When you get so many layers of beuacracy those in charge really aren't in charge, because they aren't told everything.
Being president of the USA sucks. people expect you to know every detail of the 10 million employees under you. While Bush can be blamed on lots of things and Obama is doing some really nasty shite themselves, not everything can be blamed on "the administration".
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like yet another good argument in favor of a smaller, less powerful federal government. That would be more manageable and therefore more likely to ensure accountability. Though as far as how badly it sucks to be President, remember these are people who strongly desire power. Power can and should carry a great deal of responsibility. If anything, it doesn't carry enough. I have no s
Re: (Score:2)
"When you get so many layers of beuacracy those in charge really aren't in charge, because they aren't told everything."
Doesn't matter. He said he was going to make the situation better, and he hasn't. As far as I know he hasn't even tried, and frankly I think that is on purpose.
Why? Because he promised to back off on surveillance of civilians, too, but those programs have actually increased since he took office. The Obama administration has backed not just extending, but worsening provisions of the Patriot Act, for example.
He just doesn't do what he says. Period. He has broken nearly every promise he made, and has con
Re: (Score:2)
Name one president who kept every promise, or even most of them?
you can't because there are none.
what does that say about our government?
Re:Okay, And? (Score:4, Insightful)
Name one president who kept every promise, or even most of them?
you can't because there are none.
what does that say about our government?
That it's the kind of government a bunch of fat, stupid, shallow, naive, emotionally childish busybodies have made for themselves.
You may think that's malicious. When it's not what anyone would ever want to hear, the truth can seem that way.
Re: (Score:3)
Government employees leaking information is still a federal criminal offense. From TFS, it doesn't appear like his administration did anything outside of standard police investigation to locate a suspected leak.
This rhetoric of "will do almost anything" is entirely ridiculous... when he starts TORTURING people for information, and confessions, then you can start telling me that he will "do almost anything", until then, it looks like he's willing to use proper due process to accomplish a justifiable goal.
"Bu
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"So the Justice Department used lawful means to obtain these records"
Were the means lawful? To subpoena the private records of someone who is not a criminal suspect? Remember that the journalist did not commit any crimes, and apparently was not even suspected of doing so. Yet they obtained years' worth of records on him.
Re: (Score:2)
Rule #1 of politics: You can replace the flies, but the shit will remain the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama is deeply disappointing on some issues, but he's hardly a second Bush. Or did I miss Bush deciding to push for comprehensive healthcare reform, banking regulation, ending DADT and stop defending DOMA? The President is hardly perfect, but claiming that he's a second Bush is just plain dishonest.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that the Obama administration did was delay a revolt that was about to happen by appeasing it's subjects with free healthcare promises and making you feel like you have rights by paying lip service to the basic rights of a minority group.
And it's not him personally, the whole government from local to federal is corrupt. Everywhere (look critically at your news sources) both dem's and rep's are pushing to limit your rights to and staging government takeovers of civil services (banks, car manuf
Re: (Score:2)
letting gays serve openly is just one lever to alleviate pressure before having to reinstitute the draft, something which would instantly invert popular support for the wars.
Invert eh? So there would someone supporting for the wars? I think you mistake supporting the troops for supporting the wars. We support the people doing their job, even if the job sucks and we can't get enough elected officials to stop it.
Re:Hardly surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA specifically says that they haven't commented yet on which administration, Obama or Bush, was the one that actually began the investigation
Why would it matter? The two administrations have repeatedly made the same decisions at every opportunity thus far. We were led to believe that Obama was going to do things differently, instead what we see is that Obama is doing things exactly the same as Bush. Had Bush managed to steal a third term in office, we would have likely seen the exact same policies come to fruit that we've seen since Obama's inauguration in 2009.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Almost exact. The parties agree to disagree on a few issues that are really of no importance, like gay marriage, in order to maintain the illusion that the vote matters.
Just because something is of no importance to you doesn't mean it isn't at the top of someone else's personal agenda. This is an excellent example, a classic civil rights issue. Unimportant? It sure doesn't seem that way to me.
Re: (Score:2)
They followed the rules, obtained subpoenas, and investigated a crime. This, of course, is exactly the same as secretly abducting and torturing people, because.... well, because Slashdot is full of hard-core libertarian-anarchists who would only be happy if the government was completely eradicated.
Re:LOLZ (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
There seems to be this delusion that the USA is a dictatorship, where the President can simply enact or repeal any law he desires.
Contrast that with reality -- it is Congress that makes the laws, and the President can, at best, ask them to make laws he likes, or veto newly passed laws that he doesn't like.
Indeed. And Obama was elected as a Democrat President with a Democrat Congress... you think he couldn't have got these laws repealed if he really wanted to?
Re: (Score:2)
The president can block the passage of legislation (though it will hurt his reputation with congress). The president can not, of his own volition, repeal legislation.
Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to blame one president who passed laws, but not another president who failed to repeal them.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, does any organization have a security posture that can effectively block access by a quantum neural network AI based on topological quantum computing principles, should such a thing exist?
No, they are appallingly unprepared for that possibility. What's worse, they also have absolutely no defenses against intruders who read the contents of classified hard drives via ESP, should such a thing exist. They should all be sacked for negligence.
Re: (Score:2)
"This puts almost any organization trying to track down and punish whistleblowers as automatically in the wrong."
Mod parent up.
Re: (Score:2)