Obama adopts Bush policy on wire taps

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I find it funny that people think Obama saw an intel briefing and then decided that the way the world works requires him to violate statutory authority and the 4th amendment.

The "wiretap program" in question does neither of those things.

The only court ruling to ever rule on the merits said it did. If you really supported the Constitution as you so frequently like to wank about how you do, you would be against it too.

That lower court "ruling" was later overturned. There are plenty of junior monkey courts that make unfounded and inaccurate rulings every day, only to be later overturned or dismissed by courts run by folks with a better education and a clue.

The reason I'm not opposed to this particular program is because I've been shown exactly how it works, years ago, and I realized immediately that it does not infringe upon any citizens' rights whatsoever.

The NSA is not listening in on, or recording, your calls. Period.

But hey, believe whatever you wish...

Yes, a lot of the initial processing is handled by computers. But just because it's not actual human beings doing the monitoring doesn't make it right IMO.

And if the program is constitutional, why all the secrecy? And why pass telecom immunity after it was revealed to the public? If they did nothing wrong, why is the government trying to get court cases thrown out?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I find it funny that people think Obama saw an intel briefing and then decided that the way the world works requires him to violate statutory authority and the 4th amendment.

The "wiretap program" in question does neither of those things.

The only court ruling to ever rule on the merits said it did. If you really supported the Constitution as you so frequently like to wank about how you do, you would be against it too.

That lower court "ruling" was later overturned. There are plenty of junior monkey courts that make unfounded and inaccurate rulings every day, only to be later overturned or dismissed by courts run by folks with a better education and a clue.

The reason I'm not opposed to this particular program is because I've been shown exactly how it works, years ago, and I realized immediately that it does not infringe upon any citizens' rights whatsoever.

The NSA is not listening in on, or recording, your calls. Period.

But hey, believe whatever you wish...

Yes, a lot of the initial processing is handled by computers. But just because it's not actual human beings doing the monitoring doesn't make it right IMO.

And if the program is constitutional, why all the secrecy? And why pass telecom immunity after it was revealed to the public? If they did nothing wrong, why is the government trying to get court cases thrown out?

There was a thread a little while back where someone other than myself broke down the various programs for the laymen -- and they were right on the money with their explanations.

The program in question here has nothing at all to do with listening in on, or recording, the content of phone calls -- processed by a computer, human, or otherwise.

The secrecy exists to protect our SIGINT capabilities, methods, and sources. Period.

 

[frostedflakes]

Thanks, I'll have to search for the thread and read up on that.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The lower court was overturned on grounds of standing, not on merits. I'm glad that you, with no legal training whatsoever, figured out immediately that it didn't infringe on any rights though. Or did you pass the bar sometime recently and didn't tell anyone?

No, I just happen to know what they're doing, technically, and it's not at all what you probably imagine.

What I do know is, as mentioned before, the only court to rule on the merits happened to disagree with you.

 

[trenchfoot]

The policy on spying is just like having a gun in your hand.

As many here are so fond of saying all the time "It's not the "gun" that's the problem, it's the person that's holding it."

To assume that Pres. Obama will abuse this policy or use it for the same reasons and in the same ways that Bush did is overly presumptous and so far, his retaining this policy is only being used by his detractors to unjustly smear him with no evidence whatsoever given as to wether Pres. Obama is actively utilizing this policy or not.

 

[Robor]

I love the rightie circle jerk assuming all of the Obama supporters would give him a pass on this. Sorry, you're wrong.

Obama's position on this sucks. Period. How's that?

 

[lupi]

Lolololololol

 

[winnar111]

Damn. Cheney and Zero switch bodies or something?

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I find it funny that people think Obama saw an intel briefing and then decided that the way the world works requires him to violate statutory authority and the 4th amendment.

The "wiretap program" in question does neither of those things.

The only court ruling to ever rule on the merits said it did. If you really supported the Constitution as you so frequently like to wank about how you do, you would be against it too.

That lower court "ruling" was later overturned. There are plenty of junior monkey courts that make unfounded and inaccurate rulings every day, only to be later overturned or dismissed by courts run by folks with a better education and a clue.

The reason I'm not opposed to this particular program is because I've been shown exactly how it works, years ago, and I realized immediately that it does not infringe upon any citizens' rights whatsoever.

The NSA is not listening in on, or recording, your calls. Period.

But hey, believe whatever you wish...

Yes, a lot of the initial processing is handled by computers. But just because it's not actual human beings doing the monitoring doesn't make it right IMO.

And if the program is constitutional, why all the secrecy? And why pass telecom immunity after it was revealed to the public? If they did nothing wrong, why is the government trying to get court cases thrown out?

There was a thread a little while back where someone other than myself broke down the various programs for the laymen -- and they were right on the money with their explanations.

The program in question here has nothing at all to do with listening in on, or recording, the content of phone calls -- processed by a computer, human, or otherwise.

The secrecy exists to protect our SIGINT capabilities, methods, and sources. Period.

Yep, I figured it was more than just the knee jerk reaction of OMGWIRETAPSRBAD. Very doubtful Obama would make such poor judgement on such an issue.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
This should piss off the surprising number of people on this forum who adore and idolize Obama to the point these people consider him the second coming..

True dat.

 

[chess9]

Yet another nail in Obama's coffin. Keep this up and the Republicans will have a chance in 2012, assuming they are still a viable party.

-Robert

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I find it funny that people think Obama saw an intel briefing and then decided that the way the world works requires him to violate statutory authority and the 4th amendment.

The "wiretap program" in question does neither of those things.

The only court ruling to ever rule on the merits said it did. If you really supported the Constitution as you so frequently like to wank about how you do, you would be against it too.

That lower court "ruling" was later overturned. There are plenty of junior monkey courts that make unfounded and inaccurate rulings every day, only to be later overturned or dismissed by courts run by folks with a better education and a clue.

The reason I'm not opposed to this particular program is because I've been shown exactly how it works, years ago, and I realized immediately that it does not infringe upon any citizens' rights whatsoever.

The NSA is not listening in on, or recording, your calls. Period.

But hey, believe whatever you wish...

Yes, a lot of the initial processing is handled by computers. But just because it's not actual human beings doing the monitoring doesn't make it right IMO.

And if the program is constitutional, why all the secrecy? And why pass telecom immunity after it was revealed to the public? If they did nothing wrong, why is the government trying to get court cases thrown out?

There was a thread a little while back where someone other than myself broke down the various programs for the laymen -- and they were right on the money with their explanations.

The program in question here has nothing at all to do with listening in on, or recording, the content of phone calls -- processed by a computer, human, or otherwise.

The secrecy exists to protect our SIGINT capabilities, methods, and sources. Period.

Yep, I figured it was more than just the knee jerk reaction of OMGWIRETAPSRBAD. Very doubtful Obama would make such poor judgement on such an issue.

I wonder if you took this calm a position with the last administration. Perhaps you did. Most did not.

As for me, I'm not at all comfortable with the Executive Branch telling the Judicial side that it cannot hear a case.

Rather then saying "you can't do this", it would seem that some compromise ought to be struck where the parties involved can present evidence before a judge and the judge examine it and give a ruling. There would have to be limits on what would be revealed which could become public knowledge. In that sense, it wouldn't be a "trial" however the concerns could be addressed without revealing necessary state secrets. As it is right now, there is no justice at all.

Obama isn't offering any ideas. He is just following the same path as his predecessor. I'm highly critical of him for this.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The lower court was overturned on grounds of standing, not on merits. I'm glad that you, with no legal training whatsoever, figured out immediately that it didn't infringe on any rights though. Or did you pass the bar sometime recently and didn't tell anyone?

No, I just happen to know what they're doing, technically, and it's not at all what you probably imagine.

Awww...do TELL!

-Robert

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I find it funny that people think Obama saw an intel briefing and then decided that the way the world works requires him to violate statutory authority and the 4th amendment.

The "wiretap program" in question does neither of those things.

The only court ruling to ever rule on the merits said it did. If you really supported the Constitution as you so frequently like to wank about how you do, you would be against it too.

That lower court "ruling" was later overturned. There are plenty of junior monkey courts that make unfounded and inaccurate rulings every day, only to be later overturned or dismissed by courts run by folks with a better education and a clue.

The reason I'm not opposed to this particular program is because I've been shown exactly how it works, years ago, and I realized immediately that it does not infringe upon any citizens' rights whatsoever.

The NSA is not listening in on, or recording, your calls. Period.

But hey, believe whatever you wish...

Yes, a lot of the initial processing is handled by computers. But just because it's not actual human beings doing the monitoring doesn't make it right IMO.

And if the program is constitutional, why all the secrecy? And why pass telecom immunity after it was revealed to the public? If they did nothing wrong, why is the government trying to get court cases thrown out?

There was a thread a little while back where someone other than myself broke down the various programs for the laymen -- and they were right on the money with their explanations.

The program in question here has nothing at all to do with listening in on, or recording, the content of phone calls -- processed by a computer, human, or otherwise.

The secrecy exists to protect our SIGINT capabilities, methods, and sources. Period.

Yep, I figured it was more than just the knee jerk reaction of OMGWIRETAPSRBAD. Very doubtful Obama would make such poor judgement on such an issue.

I wonder if you took this calm a position with the last administration. Perhaps you did. Most did not.

As for me, I'm not at all comfortable with the Executive Branch telling the Judicial side that it cannot hear a case.

Rather then saying "you can't do this", it would seem that some compromise ought to be struck where the parties involved can present evidence before a judge and the judge examine it and give a ruling. There would have to be limits on what would be revealed which could become public knowledge. In that sense, it wouldn't be a "trial" however the concerns could be addressed without revealing necessary state secrets. As it is right now, there is no justice at all.

Obama isn't offering any ideas. He is just following the same path as his predecessor. I'm highly critical of him for this.

Exactly. This is becoming yet another Imperial Presidency.

-Robert

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
The policy on spying is just like having a gun in your hand.

As many here are so fond of saying all the time "It's not the "gun" that's the problem, it's the person that's holding it."

To assume that Pres. Obama will abuse this policy or use it for the same reasons and in the same ways that Bush did is overly presumptous and so far, his retaining this policy is only being used by his detractors to unjustly smear him with no evidence whatsoever given as to wether Pres. Obama is actively utilizing this policy or not.

Since we haven't any evidence to the contrary, you cannot know that Bush didn't follow the same line of thinking Obama uses. The same standard must apply.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: chess9
Yet another nail in Obama's coffin. Keep this up and the Republicans will have a chance in 2012, assuming they are still a viable party.

-Robert

Actually Robert is this bothers you voting for the Republicans isn't the solution as their viable candidates support it down the line. Your only alternative is voting for an Independent who opposes this or a Democrat in the Primary who opposes it and we know that neither of those candidates stand a chance in hell.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: chess9
Yet another nail in Obama's coffin. Keep this up and the Republicans will have a chance in 2012, assuming they are still a viable party.

-Robert

Actually Robert is this bothers you voting for the Republicans isn't the solution as their viable candidates support it down the line. Your only alternative is voting for an Independent who opposes this or a Democrat in the Primary who opposes it and we know that neither of those candidates stand a chance in hell.

Which means that none of us has a chance. Washington was right. Political parties are the greatest threat to our freedom. Two parties have become a Hobson's Choice, yet Americans are indoctrinated with the concept that this is how it was meant to be. The Loyalists of both parties ensure this cannot change.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

No, this is not acceptable. I am shocked and disappointed that Obama continued with this illegal, warantless wiretap bullshit. He's alienating some of his base with this.

 

[Druidx]

Just more proof of Obama an his criminal cabal. I think this deserves a song.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
No, this is not acceptable. I am shocked and disappointed that Obama continued with this illegal, warantless wiretap bullshit. He's alienating some of his base with this.

But in all honesty - Obama could eat a baby on national television and you would still vote for him.. so why should he care what the 'base' thinks when he has your vote unconditionally anyway?

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I guess the only change with Obama is the name on the door.

http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/04/05

Warrantless Wiretapping and Secrecy
Says Court Must Dismiss Jewel v. NSA to Protect 'State Secrets'

San Francisco - The Obama administration formally adopted the Bush administration's position that the courts cannot judge the legality of the National Security Agency's (NSA's) warrantless wiretapping program, filing a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA late Friday.

In Jewel v. NSA, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is challenging the agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans. The Obama Justice Department claims in its motion that litigation over the wiretapping program would require the government to disclose privileged "state secrets." These are essentially the same arguments made by the Bush administration three years ago in Hepting v. AT&T, EFF's lawsuit against one of the telecom giants complicit in the NSA spying.

"President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a 'secret' that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again."

Mr Obama needs to be smack around about this.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: waggy
fucking disgusting. but no suprise.

once the goverment gets power it is NOT goign to give it up. Anyone who thought Obama was going to reverse many of his policy's are neive and they are in for a shock over the next few years.


As for the patriot act its one of the most damageing laws to the constitution. It gives far to much power to the Goverment. i thought Bush and buddies were bad for doing it..but seems Obama is going to one up him with takeing over the banks and such.

+1. Makes me sick.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Right after the election there was a guy on TV who used to work on the daily briefs given to the President and he was talking about Obama's first brief and he basically said "everything Obama thought he knew about the world is going to change"

If that guy were right, and I don't agree he was, how nice for us to have a Congress voting on policies based on completely wrong information - much less the public.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Right after the election there was a guy on TV who used to work on the daily briefs given to the President and he was talking about Obama's first brief and he basically said "everything Obama thought he knew about the world is going to change"

If that guy were right, and I don't agree he was, how nice for us to have a Congress voting on policies based on completely wrong information - much less the public.

What information? Info in his briefings? If so, how can you possibly say the info is wrong, when only a handful of people know what the info is in the first place?

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Which means that none of us has a chance. Washington was right. Political parties are the greatest threat to our freedom. Two parties have become a Hobson's Choice, yet Americans are indoctrinated with the concept that this is how it was meant to be. The Loyalists of both parties ensure this cannot change.

^ This ^

Anyone who expected things to change merely bought the propaganda. There is no difference between the Ds and the Rs. They're all crooks working diligently to serve their corporate interests and to hell with us dumb citizens. Hell, put on a pretty face, make vague statements insinuating things that the public are concerned with will be addressed, poof you're elected. The day people quit backing talking points and start to look towards substance when casting their vote, things might change. Till then, this is what we'll get because most people are just to friggen stupid to see past the Hollywood glitter.