Obama adopts Bush policy on wire taps

[palehorse]

This collective knee-jerk festival in response to the words "wire tap" is absolutely f'n hilarious!

My guess is that less than 1% of you have even the slightest clue as to what those words actually mean in this context.

Seriously, you jokers are fun-knee! Keep it coming, and look out for those little black helicopters circling overhead! They're not there for you, I swear! :laugh:

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
To me, when considering how arrogant, secretive and deceptive the Bush admin. was, especially in their insistence for adopting their Unitary Executive Doctrine, I'm compelled to assume that the Obama Admin. will utilize this policy in ways that will respect the Constitution and Bill of Rights as much and more than Bush and Cheney didn't.

That's because you're naive.

 

[frostedflakes]

palehorse, I searched and bit and didn't find anything (there are a lot of threads on this subject, some of them pretty big). Could you maybe help point me to the explanation you mentioned earlier? Do you happen to remember the name of the member who posted it?

 

[SAWYER]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: tweaker2
To me, when considering how arrogant, secretive and deceptive the Bush admin. was, especially in their insistence for adopting their Unitary Executive Doctrine, I'm compelled to assume that the Obama Admin. will utilize this policy in ways that will respect the Constitution and Bill of Rights as much and more than Bush and Cheney didn't.

That's because you're naive.

I think he is tweaking:laugh:

 

[trenchfoot]

That's because you're naive.

Nah, more like optimistic. You on the other hand, while not being naive either, are willfully ignorant. Though, I must say, I do truly admire the way in which you keep your fingers stuck in your ears and still manage to bang away on the keyboard somehow. j/k

I think he is tweaking

Yeah, apparently on your last raw Bush worshiping nerve. I hope you don't mind the smell...it was the asparagus I had for lunch:laugh:

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Traitor in Chief

PAGING HARVEY

lulz next 4 years are going to be fun

Originally posted by: Sawyer

So what line will have to be crossed for Obama to become Traitor in Chief 2?:laugh:

You're laughing about this??? :shocked:

I e-mailed Obama:

If you follow through with this, you will be continuing to shred the Constitutional rights of American citizens in the same way the ex-Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush and his criminal cabal of traitors, murdrers, torturers, war criminals and general incompetents.

PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! Rethink this position, and give us back the Constitution and United States of America we were raised to believe in. Anything less is the same TREASON committed by your predecessor!

Did you really think I'd be inconsistant about this because it's Obama instead of Bush?

Our Constitutional rights were not won by pathetic jackasses like you who were unwilling to fight for them because they thought losing them was a laughing matter. :thumbsdown: :|

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
palehorse, I searched and bit and didn't find anything (there are a lot of threads on this subject, some of them pretty big). Could you maybe help point me to the explanation you mentioned earlier? Do you happen to remember the name of the member who posted it?

Instead of looking there, I'd suggest reading some James Bamford, who has thoroughly discussed the NSA's operations.

While 'The Puzzle Palace' is dates, a lot is still very useful, and while his later 'Body of Secrets' is mostly about the history, it has updates on relatively current things.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
palehorse, I searched and bit and didn't find anything (there are a lot of threads on this subject, some of them pretty big). Could you maybe help point me to the explanation you mentioned earlier? Do you happen to remember the name of the member who posted it?

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2269639&enterthread=y

Read every post in that thread by daveschroeder, and you'll begin to understand why this entire thread is nothing more than one large circular kneejerk. His posts in that thread were some of the most articulate and factual posts in the history of this forum. Reading each and every one of his posts may take a while, but it's more than worth it... that is, if you truly wish to understand this issue as much as any unclassified discussion will allow.

enjoy.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: tweaker2

Originally posted by: 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.

I agree with you, but from a very narrow interpretation of your point of view. However, I based my opinion on the overall stated agenda, ideology, philosophy and proven acts and attitudes that both administrations have shown so far.

To me, when considering how arrogant, secretive and deceptive the Bush admin. was, especially in their insistence for adopting their Unitary Executive Doctrine, I'm compelled to assume that the Obama Admin. will utilize this policy in ways that will respect the Constitution and Bill of Rights as much and more than Bush and Cheney didn't.

Hyabusa should not be simplistic. The fact is the Bush administration, while not exactly admitting it, had a radical 'Unitary Presidency' theory they were pursuing at every turn.

Obama has explicitly rejected that approach, and changed some policies while not changing others of the Bush administration.

Outrage over his copying Bush in one area doesn't mean they're 'the same' by any means. They're far from the same. Take Obama's action on the FOIA, for just one thing.

 

[GeezerMan]

Damn, the NSA just called me and asked why I was reading this thread :shocked:

 

[SAWYER]

Originally posted by: tweaker2

That's because you're naive.

Nah, more like optimistic. You on the other hand, while not being naive either, are willfully ignorant. Though, I must say, I do truly admire the way in which you keep your fingers stuck in your ears and still manage to bang away on the keyboard somehow. j/k

I think he is tweaking

Yeah, apparently on your last raw Bush worshiping nerve. I hope you don't mind the smell...it was the asparagus I had for lunch:laugh:

lol, I'm no Bush boi

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
palehorse, I searched and bit and didn't find anything (there are a lot of threads on this subject, some of them pretty big). Could you maybe help point me to the explanation you mentioned earlier? Do you happen to remember the name of the member who posted it?

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2269639&enterthread=y

Read every post in that thread by daveschroeder, and you'll begin to understand why this entire thread is nothing more than one large circular kneejerk. His posts in that thread were some of the most articulate and factual posts in the history of this forum. Reading each and every one of his posts may take a while, but it's more than worth it... that is, if you truly wish to understand this issue as much as any unclassified discussion will allow.

enjoy.

Read a little of his post and he explains it exactly how the 'right wing' media has been explaining it for years.

Obama made the right move. As long as the communication involves two people who are both outside of the US then they should have the ability to listen in if they think it is terror related.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
palehorse, I searched and bit and didn't find anything (there are a lot of threads on this subject, some of them pretty big). Could you maybe help point me to the explanation you mentioned earlier? Do you happen to remember the name of the member who posted it?

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2269639&enterthread=y

Read every post in that thread by daveschroeder, and you'll begin to understand why this entire thread is nothing more than one large circular kneejerk. His posts in that thread were some of the most articulate and factual posts in the history of this forum. Reading each and every one of his posts may take a while, but it's more than worth it... that is, if you truly wish to understand this issue as much as any unclassified discussion will allow.

enjoy.

Read a little of his post and he explains it exactly how the 'right wing' media has been explaining it for years.

Obama made the right move. As long as the communication involves two people who are both outside of the US then they should have the ability to listen in if they think it is terror related.

if there was no wrong doing then there wouldn't have been such a huge legal bruhaha over telecomm community.

sorry kids. face facts.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: OrByte
if there was no wrong doing then there wouldn't have been such a huge legal bruhaha over telecomm community.

sorry kids. face facts.

There is, was, and always has been, more than one program that the knee-jerkers, such as yourself, refer to by the all-inclusive, and technically inaccurate, "wiretap program."

"The media is saying it's a big deal, so there must be something illegal going on!!111" :roll:

I can guarantee that you know next to nothing about SIGINT... get educated, then speak.

 

[KlokWyze]

Fail

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: Sawyer

Originally posted by: tweaker2

That's because you're naive.

Nah, more like optimistic. You on the other hand, while not being naive either, are willfully ignorant. Though, I must say, I do truly admire the way in which you keep your fingers stuck in your ears and still manage to bang away on the keyboard somehow. j/k

I think he is tweaking

Yeah, apparently on your last raw Bush worshiping nerve. I hope you don't mind the smell...it was the asparagus I had for lunch:laugh:

lol, I'm no Bush boi

I stand corrected.:thumbsup:

I just wanted to come back at'chuh with some kind'a playful remark to have some fun.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: OrByte
if there was no wrong doing then there wouldn't have been such a huge legal bruhaha over telecomm community.

sorry kids. face facts.

There is, was, and always has been, more than one program that the knee-jerkers, such as yourself, refer to by the all-inclusive, and technically inaccurate, "wiretap program."

"The media is saying it's a big deal, so there must be something illegal going on!!111" :roll:

I can guarantee that you know next to nothing about SIGINT... get educated, then speak.

Sorry honey, but what you're just not getting is that your assertions count for squat. In spite of all your condescending posturing and pontificating, YOU are just another anonymous keyboard commando. Your personal opinions may be interesting, but they are not a substitute for an informed review by a court of law. That is the point, not your straw man arguments about "knee-jerker" presumptions of illegality.

If this program and other, related programs do not violate Americans' civil liberties, neither Bush nor Obama should fear legal review. (Remember, "If you have nothing to hide ...") Legal checks and balances are one of the most fundamental protections we have against government wrong-doing, something such a loudly self-proclaimed patriot like yourself should be defending with all your red, white, and blue heart. And kindly don't insult us with the red herring about state secrets. Courts can and regularly do review all sorts of sensitive information without compromising it. Such a review could clear the air ... if, in fact, the program's scope has been as limited as it claims, and no over-zealous cowboys have taken it upon themselves to expand it. The government's continuing obstruction of the case simply raises suspicions of abuse and undermines Obama's promises of transparency. That's why there's an uproar.

 

[Modular]

Sheeple voted with their "hearts". The man was a master at making you believe him, and now we are starting to pay the price.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Modular
Sheeple voted with their "hearts". The man was a master at making you believe him, and now we are starting to pay the price.

Yay, another RNC shill parroting the gratuitous attacks against Obama. You lost asshats. Get over it. I certainly have concerns about some of this administration's decisions -- like the one in this thread -- but somewhere past the age of 12 most of us learn the real world is an imperfect place. For all of its warts, the Obama administration has been a dramatic step up from the abusive and deceptive Bush regime. Has it been perfect? Hell no, but this isn't some simple-minded storybook where the porridge is Just Right and everything is sunshine and rainbows.

Even more to the point, it's only been a few months, and Obama shares power with not only Congress, but with a huge federal bureaucracy and the inertia it carries. Obama deserves adequate time to demonstrate what he can really deliver before we pass judgment.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
palehorse, I searched and bit and didn't find anything (there are a lot of threads on this subject, some of them pretty big). Could you maybe help point me to the explanation you mentioned earlier? Do you happen to remember the name of the member who posted it?

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2269639&enterthread=y

Read every post in that thread by daveschroeder, and you'll begin to understand why this entire thread is nothing more than one large circular kneejerk. His posts in that thread were some of the most articulate and factual posts in the history of this forum. Reading each and every one of his posts may take a while, but it's more than worth it... that is, if you truly wish to understand this issue as much as any unclassified discussion will allow.

enjoy.

Awesome posts by Daveschroeder in that thread. I thought it was interesting that he predicted this very topic:

FISA modernization is the single greatest accomplishment of the office of the DNI, and the affirmation of the validity of this effort will likely be that the fundamental tenets of the FISA Modernization Act of 2008 ? namely, collection within the US on non-US Persons, and the associated mechanisms and processes to support such targeting and collection ? will not be changed by the new administration. This will soundly deflate arguments that this is a political issue, when in reality it's an intelligence policy issue.

and a good summary on why people are so confused about the issue:

So here's an example of someone explaining more or less what is happening, namely, that traffic metadata is examined to determine whether or not it constitutes a foreign intelligence target, and that measures were undertaken to not intercept the content of communications of entities which are not legitimate targets, even before the legal situation was clarified. None of the news coverage or associated debate seems able to make the connection that this activity is exactly what is described is explicitly legal under:

- The temporary Protect America Act of 2007, which was in force from August 5, 2007 to February 17, 2008,
- The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which became Public Law 110-261 on July 10, 2008, and is in force at present,
- The FISC ruling

The cornerstone of the current law and the FISC decision is the protection of the privacy and rights of United States persons. The current law is even more stringent with respect to US Persons than previous law: an individualized warrant from FISC is required to target a US Person anywhere on the globe; before, US Persons did not enjoy the same explicit protections under the law outside of the US.

My take on it:

1) This case, Jewel vs NSA does not, and never did constitute ILLEGAL "wiretapping" because the telcom exibited prior good-faith behavior in a legal gray area that has subsequently been made explicitly legal with FISA 2008 in renewing the Protect America Act of 2007: "Section 404 (Continuance Procedures) allows for continued authorizations and directives to be renewed under same circumstances indefinitely; It also allowed for continuance of Immunities for persons and corporations (including but not limited to telecoms) under FISA 2008 Amendments." Link

Final verdict: Obama admin is right to dismiss this case.

2) The only possible breach of the Constitution has been the warrantless wiretapping of Americans who were believed to be talking with someone outside of the country. This is where the grey area was during the Bush admin, and still is, today. Of course the NSA has to get a warrant now in a top secret court, which is where the grey area lies: how much information on these warrants can be made public without compromising national security? How can there be a process that publically identifies information of a warrant but doesn't compromise national security?

Final verdict: This is where policy will further need to be redefined. Maybe set up a process that declassifies the warrants after x amount of time so there's some transparency? Or let the judge publically set the amount of time and decide whether to use the suspect's name in the release? It's hard to have transparency in a realm where that can compromise nat security, but we can do a better job.

3) DaveSchroeder mentioned a good point: traffic metadata monitoring is often confused with the term "wiretapping" and "spying". What safeguards are in place to ensure it's just data mining of information that leads to suspects and not mining of the actual suspects themselves (assuming they're American citizens)? Is there an independant classified organization that can monitor the NSA to more evenly distribute/regulate this power?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: OrByte
if there was no wrong doing then there wouldn't have been such a huge legal bruhaha over telecomm community.

sorry kids. face facts.

There is, was, and always has been, more than one program that the knee-jerkers, such as yourself, refer to by the all-inclusive, and technically inaccurate, "wiretap program."

"The media is saying it's a big deal, so there must be something illegal going on!!111" :roll:

I can guarantee that you know next to nothing about SIGINT... get educated, then speak.

Sorry honey, but what you're just not getting is that your assertions count for squat. In spite of all your condescending posturing and pontificating, YOU are just another anonymous keyboard commando. Your personal opinions may be interesting, but they are not a substitute for an informed review by a court of law. That is the point, not your straw man arguments about "knee-jerker" presumptions of illegality.

If this program and other, related programs do not violate Americans' civil liberties, neither Bush nor Obama should fear legal review. (Remember, "If you have nothing to hide ...") Legal checks and balances are one of the most fundamental protections we have against government wrong-doing, something such a loudly self-proclaimed patriot like yourself should be defending with all your red, white, and blue heart. And kindly don't insult us with the red herring about state secrets. Courts can and regularly do review all sorts of sensitive information without compromising it. Such a review could clear the air ... if, in fact, the program's scope has been as limited as it claims, and no over-zealous cowboys have taken it upon themselves to expand it. The government's continuing obstruction of the case simply raises suspicions of abuse and undermines Obama's promises of transparency. That's why there's an uproar.

0. what court, specifically, would you have review the NSA program(s) in question?

1. please provide an unclassified list or description of the specific program(s) you're referring to.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
[ ... ]
Final verdict: Obama admin is right to dismiss this case. ...

As with palehorse, this is where you completely miss the point. You are not qualified or empowered to declare a verdict. That is the role of the courts. Indeed, that is the very purpose of the courts, something several of you just don't seem to understand. Taking this to court is NOT a declaration of wrong-doing, it is the American process for determining IF there was wrong-doing.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: palehorse
0. what court, specifically, would you have review the NSA program(s) in question?

1. please provide an unclassified list or description of the specific program(s) you're referring to.

Sorry, not my pay grade. Nice deflection attempt, however. Doesn't change the real point a whit.

 

[BoberFett]

palehorse

What exactly is so onerous about getting a warrant after the fact from the FISA court? Why the shroud of secrecy?

If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to worry about...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
[ ... ]
Final verdict: Obama admin is right to dismiss this case. ...

As with palehorse, this is where you completely miss the point. You are not qualified or empowered to declare a verdict. That is the role of the courts. Indeed, that is the very purpose of the courts, something several of you just don't seem to understand. Taking this to court is NOT a declaration of wrong-doing, it is the American process for determining IF there was wrong-doing.

Why object to Demon's judgment on the subject, but not those of the dozens of other posters here who are running around calling the programs illegal, and Bush or Obama criminals? I must have missed the part where you berated each of them for not being "qualified or empowered to declare a verdict."

1. People do not understand the very basics of the program(s) involved. It's very difficult to discuss intelligence policy with people who don't even care to understand those basics.

2. People instantly fly off the deep end -- kneejerk -- every time they see or hear the words "wiretap." Paranoia rules the day.