EFF Says Obama Warrantless Wiretap Defense Is Worse than Bush 904
SonicSpike writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation has just said that 'In the warrantless wiretapping case, Obama DOJ's new arguments are worse than Bush's.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker
Re:Change (Score:5, Informative)
Re:RTFS?? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This needs to get press. (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know, this _is_ anti-obama... Ahem... [foxnews.com]
This isn't a 180 (Score:5, Informative)
Obama voted yes for the telecom immunity bill. He supported the wiretapping program in the Senate, why do you think he'd stop supporting it when he was elected President?
Re:And Krugman says his bank bail out... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This needs to get press. (Score:5, Informative)
Still, I don't expect even the blogosphere to treat Obama like it treated Bush. Where are the posts comparing Obama to Hitler?
Bush had years to build up a reputation. Obama is still in the process of tearing down his original reputation. Give him two years and if he's done anything near what Bush did two years into his first term I think you will see plenty of people making such comparisons.
Bush's motorcade was pelted with snowballs on the way to his inauguration [salon.com] while Obama got a party. With the except of a couple of months after 9-11, Bush was pretty much relentlessly attacked by the media, Hollywood elites and blogosphere for all eight years.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:2, Informative)
Lol. Why do people come here and make these outrageous posts? Arguing that they have soverign immunity from ANY federal laws? Not required to follow the constitution? You sir are an idiot.
Even if I hated Obama I'd not listen to hyperbole like this.
Stop being part of the problem, like the press. Talk about facts not your made up self serving fantasy world hype.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:3, Informative)
in other words, the Federal Government is not required to follow statutes or the constitution
Anyone here old enough to remember that Newt Gingritch used similar Democrat stupidity (House Bank scandal, House & Senate exempting themselves from following worker safety laws, etc) to sweep into power back in 1994?
Re:Change (Score:2, Informative)
Meh. As long as the whole violation of human rights thing has stopped I don't care.
The thing is, it hasn't. Shutting down one sector of Guantanamo Bay is not the same as cessation of human rights violations. Extraordinary rendition is still a fact. Moreover, there have been recent moves to reopen a USAF base in Kazakhstan - a base that was shut down under the Bush admin because of the appalling human rights track record in that country (and how bad does something had to have been for Bush to have distanced himself from it?). A former British ambassador to Kazakhstan has recently petitioned to have his evidence heard in a British hearing claiming that he saw intel passed to MI6 via the CIA that was obtained from extraordinarily renditioned prisoners in Kazakhstan ( http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/03/trying_again_my.html [craigmurray.org.uk] ) - a number of whom were tortured to death whilst extracting information. This is political sleight of hand - closing down a section of Gitmo gives the impression that something is being done to address human rights issues - shipping kidnapped suspects off to other parts of the world to be subjected to interrogation under torture simply reveals that all this human rights talk was simply lip service being paid to garner public support during the election campaigns.
Author of the Motion (Score:5, Informative)
I'm a bit cynical about the Obama Administration willingly giving up powers it has been given in the long run. But I'm not ready to say this motion represents the will of the Administration yet.
The author of the piece, ACTING Assistant Attorney General Michael F. Hertz, is a leftover from the Bush administration and is due to be replaced once his successor is confirmed.
Re:Change (Score:1, Informative)
I know where you're going with this:
If you defend him, you're an "apologist" (not that I see many people doing so)... ... But if you attack him, then it just proves you're super-extremo-leftist-marx-loving whackjob.
I think you'll find that erstwhile Obama supporters are sticking a lot more to their principles at this point in time than an equivalent look at Bush's ("humble foreign policy") supporters were at similar turning points.
Sure, you can shift all the blame to 9/11, but regardless of your excuse you ought to examine Obama's previous/current support in context with other Presidencies.
P.S.: Glenn Greenwald is one of my favorite bloggers, and I suggest you look at his critiques of Obama vs. his critiques of Bush to see the intellectual consistency among "that crowd".
Re:RTFS?? (Score:4, Informative)
Obama is going to fix that with amnesty and citizenship for the 20 million or so illegals in the country.
Don't like the current voters, get new ones who are more agreeable.
Re:This needs to get press. (Score:1, Informative)
yeh but here's a rationale critique of Obama. It's Olbermann and Professor Turley of George Washington hammering the administration on actual points at issue not blathering speculation.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677#30096358 [msn.com]
Re:RTFS?? (Score:5, Informative)
FTFA: "Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying â" that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes. "
So yes, in a sense that's exactly what Obama and his team are arguing. Arguing that you cannot ever sue the government for breaking a given law sets a precedent that you can't ever sue them for breaking any laws.
Re:This isn't a 180 (Score:4, Informative)
I guess we were all hoping he would stick to his original 'principles': [cnet.com]
For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and "wiretaps without warrants," he said. (He was referring to the lingering legal fallout over reports that the National Security Agency scooped up Americans' phone and Internet activities without court orders, ostensibly to monitor terrorist plots, in the years after the September 11 attacks.)
It's hardly a new stance for Obama, who has made similar statements in previous campaign speeches, but mention of the issue in a stump speech, alongside more frequently discussed topics like Iraq and education, may give some clue to his priorities.
In our own Technology Voters' Guide, when asked whether he supports shielding telecommunications and Internet companies from lawsuits accusing them of illegal spying, Obama gave us a one-word response: "No."
Re:This needs to get press. (Score:3, Informative)
Bush's motorcade was pelted with snowballs on the way to his inauguration while Obama got a party.
Big deal, all presidents get some kind of protest - "thousands" really isn't much, more of a snowball than an avalanche.
Bush got an inauguration party too - about as big as Obama's for his 2nd term even - `$42M for Bush and ~$41M for Obama.
With the except of a couple of months after 9-11, Bush was pretty much relentlessly attacked by the media, Hollywood elites and blogosphere for all eight years.
And Obama has had no criticism at all, eh? Oh wait, it is some immeasurable way "less" than Bush. Right.
Re:Change (Score:2, Informative)
Re:RTFS?? (Score:5, Informative)
Your post is hilarious. Just look back at the slashdot comments from the left during the campaign. You're just as bad as Obama himself; say one thing during the campaign and a completely different thing once elected.
And "Stay the Course" McCain? You mean like staying in Iraq for years, continuing bailouts, acting above the law, etc? Glad we didn't get any of that!
Re:RTFS?? (Score:3, Informative)
Don't forget statistical sampling [washingtontimes.com] in the 2010 Census.
That would actually be a good thing. Correctly done, statistical sampling would provide greater accuracy at less cost. Republicans (and I'm libertarian, but generally vote Republican) oppose it because the attempt to make a "complete" count tends to underestimate low-income folks, who tend to vote for Democrats.
In any case the Supreme Court has already ruled on this, and statistical sampling can't be used.
Re:Author of the Motion (Score:2, Informative)
Re:RTFS?? (Score:5, Informative)
At the time of the show's cancellation, Donahue had the highest ratings on MSNBC [wikipedia.org].
Re:RTFS?? (Score:3, Informative)
We're just wrapping up the longest war the US has been involved in since World War 2
lolwhut. Our involvement in Vietnam was longer than WW2 (1965-1972 for combat units, and advisors from 1950-1975). We've been in Iraq for six years and Afghanistan for seven, with no end in sight for the latter, so this misbegotten and mismanaged war is going to be the longest we've ever been in.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This needs to get press. (Score:3, Informative)
These days, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the electoral college to be removed completely.
Republicans need to lose an election because of electoral votes but win in the popular vote. Once that happens, the remaining 50% of the country will agree with you and the Electoral College will be no more. Right now only one party got burned in recent memory, so only half the electorate harbors any distain for the EC.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:5, Informative)
Here are some examples to support your point.
Here [msn.com] is Kevin Bankston, EFF on Olbermann last night. MSNBC is not the mouthpiece of the right wing. Olbermann was about as enthusiastic for Obama as anyone I saw during the campaign.
Here [salon.com] and here [dailykos.com] are some current left wing blogs being very critical of this policy stand as they were when it was Bush's stand. Meanwhile the right wing media like Fox are spreading FUD and holding up Michelle Bachmann as an exemplar. I do understand that Fox has no credibility criticizing this since they were so nakedly in favor of Bush.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:3, Informative)
Um, WW2 operations in Germany continued into the 50s. Nazi death squads continued to operate for several years.
And don't forget Korea, which is still an active, albeit very low key right now, war.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:4, Informative)
Obama's only redeeming quality is that he has a talent for reading speeches from a teleprompter. I seriously doubt that he even wrote any of them.
You do realize that all high level politicians, 1) read speeches off teleprompters if at all possible, due to its assistance in allowing the speaker to make eye contact with the audience, and, 2) very rarely write their own speeches, don't you?
I keep seeing this "Obama uses a teleprompter" meme over and over again, with the implication that it is somehow new and/or unique to Obama's public speaking. I assure you, it is not.
Please... (Score:5, Informative)
Pelosi says it is un-American to enforce our immigration laws. How does that grab you?
It "grabs me" that you're misrepresenting what she said. What she actually said [youtube.com] was first that the values of immigrants who struggle to make it in America is in itself part of the American spirit:
"that optimism, that hope, that courage, that determination of immigrants of your families when you arrive here make America more American."
She then asked her audience:
"How then could America say it's okay to send parents of children away? What values system is that? I think it's un-American." Later she added "who in our country would not want to change a policy of kicking in doors in the middle of the night and sending a parent away from their families? It must be stopped."
She is clearly attacking as Un-American the value system that believes kicking in doors at night and separating families is good. If you want to generalize that to "Pelosi says it is un-American to enforce our immigration laws", that's your own business, but it's clearly not what she was saying.
I do take offense when Americans go off to France, for example, and criticize our President or our country. All they are doing is selfishly making themselves more important at the expense of the rest of us. Its a kick in the teeth to the brave soldiers risking their lives for our safety.
You must be pretty damn insecure about your country then. And totally missing what's great about America-- for criticism of America by its own citizens is what makes our country strong- because American can withstand that criticism and also change for the better when appropriate. This country's strength is that it's in a way an "open-source" country (at least when its at its best.) . The more eyeballs who can find flaws and suggest improvements means that its flaws are discovered, debated, and hopefully corrected. It is the national right (and duty) to be critical of this country and speak about how we can be a better people that is one of the many great strengths of America. Self-analysis and criticism of America by Americans anytime, anywhere should be encouraged and celebrated. It is, in fact, the essence of our country of, by, and for the people, and is what our soldiers are fighting for.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:4, Informative)
It was a joke. The previous speaker at that event had a problem with teleprompter so when Obama started speaking he made a joke of it by pretending to read his introduction.
These desperate attempts by the right-wing to pretend Obama is as dumb as Bush are really pathetic.
Re:This isn't a 180 (Score:4, Informative)
*sighs* The Saddam9/11 crowd was never that large a subset of bush supporters.
*sighs*
Source [usatoday.com].
So no, not a large subset, but a MAJORITY of Republican supporters (and Democrat supporters too, for that matter) were part of the 'Saddam/911 crowd'.
Re:You must've been under a rock then (Score:5, Informative)
>>>if you said "87 Billion with no known limit might be unreasonable,"
And now Obama and the Democrats are spending 3000 billion, and yet we're all supposed to smile and act happy about it. Bush's war was bad, but Obama's credit-card spending spree is about 400 times more expensive!
Re:RTFS?? (Score:1, Informative)
I believe Phil Donahue lost his job on TV because he wasn't pro-bush/war enough.
Of course it could have been because his ratings sucked eggs. Naw. Couldn't have possibly been that.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:3, Informative)
How do you deal with a debt that's 100% of GDP?
OK, I am in no way pro-Obama (I voted Libertarian). I also think that a 25 trillion debt is horrifyingly insane. Having said that, we'd deal with it as a country the same way my wife and I deal with having a mortgage that's more than we earn in a year.
You are the 2nd person to make this analogy, so let me just point out why it's false.
First, GDP is not federal government income. It's everybody's income. So for now, you not only owe $200,000 on your mortgage, you also owe $70,000 for the national debt. That's for the $11 trillion that is owed right now.
Put another way, the annual service on the debt (the amount of interest paid each year) was $455 billion in 2008, from revenues of about $2.5 trillion. So if the debt doubles, we'll be paying at least a trillion dollars for the interest payments, leaving only about $1.5 trillion for running the government, paying for medicare/medicaid (growing), social security (growing a lot), defense, transportation, everything. Oh - and that new universal healthcare system everybody's screaming for. Of course that assumes that interest rates remain around 1 - 1.5% like they were in 2008 (very unlikely).
So... NOW do you see the problem?
And in case you're thinking that increasing taxes on "the rich" will take care of all that additional revenue that's needed, according to the CBO, in order to raise an additional $1 trillion, you need to raise taxes significantly on everyone making more than $42,000/year. Unfortunately, that won't even cover the current $1.8 trillion deficit.