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This discussion has been archived.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.
This file will self-destruct in five minutes.
This needs to get press. (Score:5, Insightful)
Change (Score:5, Insightful)
Was one hell of a marketing slogan, don't you think?
Obamunism in action (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, it's a bullshit argument, but the fact that they're actually trying it, reeks of the kind of tactics used to build up the NKVD's influence in post-revolutionary Russia. Putting even one fragment of the government "outside the law" is a very frightening precedent.
What secrets could these possibly be? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is kind of disturbing. I know politicians turn 180 at the drop of a hat but Obama's entire popularity -- and the benefits that come from it -- relies on being anti-Bush. This is a very hot issue. One of the most important ones in fact. For him to continue supporting it is almost political suicide. Yet he's doing it anyway. Which makes you think, what could possibly be so important to keep secret?
We know it has nothing to do with national defense. The crones in Washington have never had a problem with outing CIA agents in the field for political gain.
Do they have illegal records of Dick Cheney torturing kittens or something? Wait, that wouldn't surprise anyone.
Republican Lies To Be Sure (Score:4, Insightful)
Hurry, someone please shoot the messenger so we can place our craniums comfortably back into the sand.
Change (Score:0, Insightful)
and the apologists will start defending him in 3...2...
Flaws in our democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
"State secrets" and "sovereign immunity" are two concepts that have no place in any democratic country.
Re:This needs to get press. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's gratifying to see this issue getting some exposure here. God knows this is not a story that the doting MSM would ever run on its own, without significant blogosphere activity forcing them to acknowledge it.
Still, I don't expect even the blogosphere to treat Obama like it treated Bush. Where are the posts comparing Obama to Hitler? Would Stalin be a better comparison? Not that I would agree with either comparison, but I sure read from a whole bunch of people here that would apply Godwin to Bush at the drop of a hat.
Thanks a lot, Obamabots. (Score:4, Insightful)
And as for the EFF, please use well the money I just sent you, and keep up the good fight.
Re:What secrets could these possibly be? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:RTFS?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Change (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
when we're talking only about a single administration.
Yes, the Obama administration's stance is intolerable. But the problem, I believe, is not the administration -- it is the law. Repeal the PATRIOT Act. Pass a law requiring stricter oversight of government surveillance.
THAT is the answer. Not some mindless, useless "Obama is teh suxxor" bullshit.
Ya know... (Score:5, Insightful)
I distinctly remember, way back when during the Reagan years, people were crowing about how we in the U.S. had it so much better than the Soviets. We didn't have to worry about providing papers to travel (Red October anyone?), we didn't have to worry about our neighbors spying on us and reporting "unpatriotic" deeds, we didn't have to worry about government agents bursting into our homes without a warrant and we especially didn't have to worry about the government listening in on our phone calls.
Now we have two different parts of the government trying to justify why they can, whenever, they feel like it, listen to our phone conversations all in the name of stopping "them" from causing us harm. The worst part about it, the same people who 25 years ago were crowing about how free we were compared to the Soviets are now the same people (assuming they're still alive) who are defending these blatant infringements on our freedoms, all in the name of securing our freedom.
Is that like, "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it."?
Re:well and good to criticize warrantless wiretaps (Score:5, Insightful)
Concepts like probable cause, innocent until proven guilty, checks and balances on government power, government for the people and by the people, restriction on governmental power --- are best described as "quaint"?
I wish the people who want to destroy America would take up arms and revolt -- that's easy enough to put down. Insidiously destructive notions such as yours that fundamental rights for individuals and limits on government power are "quaint", ensures that American principles of government will die out. America may keep the name, but that's it.
I see two possibilities here... (Score:5, Insightful)
So it's starting to sound like one of several things is going on here:
I'm not sure which of these possibilities would worse.
It would help, however, if Obama would be more forthcoming as to the reasons behind the continuation, though; surely some more substantial explanation than "it's all a state secret" can be given without damaging national security.
Re:This needs to get press. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:well and good to criticize warrantless wiretaps (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Change (Score:3, Insightful)
yeah between 3 squares in Gitmo and Rendition to Pakistan for questioning I'll take Gitmo, thanks.
They're both in on it (Score:5, Insightful)
After Bush madness, it seems that the Dems could go on a witch-hunt. Perhaps they don't because they're better than the Rs (think back to clinton's sex life). It seems much more plausible, however, that political MAD (mutually assured destruction) is keeping everything in check. I'm suggesting that the state-secrets would be hideously embarrassing for both Dems and Rs.
Re:What secrets could these possibly be? (Score:3, Insightful)
I really wonder if the whole reason for stepping in is truly nefarious or if its to keep a few things secret to stop the lynching mob from going after Bush.
I sure hope not. That's the kind of thinking that pardoned Nixon and all it does is lower the bar for someone else to come along and do even worse.
Re:This needs to get press. (Score:5, Insightful)
Where are the posts comparing Obama to Hitler? Would Stalin be a better comparison?
The posts are comparing Obama to Bush. That's practically the same thing, nowadays.
Re:Flaws in our democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RTFS?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm....I fear now for the EFF.
It seems that these days, if you speak ill against Obama (the chosen one), you will be smitten down and piled up upon by anyone that was a fervent disciple during the election or of a democratic leaning.
It is weird, but, while Bush was in office, people criticized him on a constant basis (IMHO, much of it deserved in the last years), but, you didn't risk the vitriol, public shunning and public crucifixion that you seem to get if you speak ill of the Obama administration today.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is my position that Bush was a horrible president because he weakened our constitution, was an ugly warmonger, and spent money like it was water.
It is my position that Obama is about the same with the only difference being who gets some of the wastefully spent money.
Both "sides" treat the populace like we're their own public goatse waiting patiently to get stretched just a bit wider by some Republican prick or a Democratic cock.
Re:well and good to criticize warrantless wiretaps (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry man, but your argument flies in the face of what this country was built around: the US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.
Violating our constitutionally guarenteed rights is unacceptable, period.
Here's a refresher for you. I've bolded the important bits: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
You might argue that the Constitution is outdated or wrong, but that's the beauty of it. If it's wrong, we can amend it. (Just like we did for prohibition). To ignore it because it doesn't currently fit in with our needs is a very dangerous road to be on, and not one that my fellow citizens should tolerate in any way.
Your claims that we should accept this and just move on are, frankly, unamerican. In America, we're subject first and foremost to the constitution. We believe that our government gets its power from us, as granted explicitly by the Constitution. Your proposal is utterly unacceptable.
Oh, and since you didn't rtfa, let me spell out the scariest bit of Obama's position on this issue: his adminsitration has taken the position that the federal government is immune from prosecution because of sovereign doctrine. Therefore, they're claiming that you can't sue the government. If that's not opaqueness, I'm not sure what is.
And I voted for Obama. Clearly I should've voted for Mickey Mouse.
Re:Change (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you get the terrorists to stop violating human rights?
Wow. Way to play the "if terrorists do it, it's OK for us to do it, too" card.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and it's working out so well for the folks that thought we'd have a return to civil liberties, a responsible budget, and an end to the Iraq war.
Re:Flaws in our democracy (Score:2, Insightful)
Right. Everyone deserves to know the secret nuclear passcodes.
Re:This isn't a 180 (Score:3, Insightful)
Or they were aware of his stance on this issue, and dissapointed in it - but when all other issues are brought into the picture he's lightyears ahead of the other candidate for president.
but obviously not. nobody could ever make a decision based upon more than one factor.
Yes i think you have it! All voters are single issue voters.
So... people who oppose warrentless wiretapping like myself had a choice between: A black guy who supports warrentless wiretapping, and a white guy who supports warrentless wiretapping.
damn... cannot vote i guess by your theory. /Voted for Obama because despite his moronic position on this he's a vasty better person to have as president than Bush, Et al. Or McCain/Palin
Consolidation of power is a huge threat (Score:3, Insightful)
Warrant-less wiretapping and the patriot act represent consolidation of power KGB style. Society can go pretty dark places when power is consolidated. This is a *huge* long-term threat to our society.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:4, Insightful)
but, you didn't risk the vitriol, public shunning and public crucifixion that you seem to get if you speak ill of the Obama administration today.
Yeah you were just called a terrorist sympathizer.
Re:Change We Can Listen in On! (Score:3, Insightful)
Like I said before the election, you might end up getting what you asked for, but it sure won't be what you wanted.
Re:This needs to get press. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Change (Score:3, Insightful)
They are just misunderstood. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. They are blowing up markets for freedom.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you, we can agree on all those points.
My problem is your characterization of it as "the Bush road". This particular "road" stretches back decades, across many administrations and both major political parties.
This "road" belongs to the people that continue to vote for Presidential candidates that follow it. And it really pisses me off that anyone thought Obama was going to be any different. Even his abbreviated voting record demonstrated exactly what he believed.
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.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree, there was a time during Bush's presidency where to criticize or question Bush's policy was equated to being an unpatriotic traitor. I'm pretty sure the Dixie Chicks experienced a lot of the vitriol, public shunning and public crucifixion you don't seem to remember anymore.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:2, Insightful)
We are apparently continuing fast down the Bush road to a completely independent, unaccountable, all-powerful presidency.
Another knee-jerk "bad thing? Bush's fault!" reaction.
Please.
Let's see... presidents pushing federal policy that is directly in opposition to the Constitution and increases government or executive power? That goes at least as far back as, oh, John Adams [wikipedia.org].
Now, I'm not a Bush supporter, or even a Republican; his administration did a lot of things that I very strongly disagreed with. But this disingenious "blame Bush for everything bad, whether it's actually his fault or not" thing is getting real old.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the funniest part of your post. I believe Phil Donahue lost his job on TV because he wasn't pro-bush/war enough. There were reports of people with Anti-Bush shirts and bumper stickers being pulled over by police. Over the past few weeks, Obama's been called everything from the anti-christ to a fascist, and that's just on Fox news. They seem to be doing just fine.
Go watch Jon Stewarts shown on Tuesday night (apr 7) the middle section, it's a little history lesson for you.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Change (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:RTFS?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget the upcoming gun ban 'to protect Mexico'. From the worst Attorney General in a long time.
He has stated specifically that both the 1st and 2nd amendments should not apply. Way to uphold the law. How the guy was employed as a US Attorney with those motivations is inexplicable- putting him in charge of the DOJ is inexcusable.
The last four AGs I thought: well this is as bad as it gets, can't get any worse. Then look what happened:
Reno -> Ashcroft -> Gonzales -> Holder
Each one outdoing the last for destroying the constitution.
Re:This needs to get press. (Score:4, Insightful)
Bush's anti-following was born, ready made, from the Florida fiasco, which before anyone starts in, even the NYTs and the WaPo plus others say he won no matter how you counted.
I suspect the popular vote result and widespread ignorance of how the electoral college works is what inflamed the majority of the wild-eyed Bush haters from the start.
Unprecedented corruption (Score:1, Insightful)
From the article linked in the Slashdot story: "The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying - that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes."
And: "This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one - not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration - has ever interpreted the law this way." [emphasis added]
In recent years, the U.S. government has carried other corruption to levels never seen before: 1) A higher percentage of its people in prison [wikimedia.org] than ever before in the history of the world. 2) More countries invaded or bombed than any other country in the history of the world. (24 since the end of the 2nd world war.) 3) More government debt [brillig.com] than any other country in the history of the world. 4) More people killed during undeclared wars than any other country in the history of the world. (11,000,000 killed directly and indirectly in 24 countries.) 5) More money spent on secret surveillance than any country in the history of the world.
The book House of Bush, House of Saud [amazon.com], tells about how Bush and his friends and family took money to support the Saudis against the best interests of the United States.
One guess is that someone told the Obama administration a huge number of lies to get people to allow the corruption. That's what they did with the Bush administration.
The U.S. government is no longer under control of the people, it is a dictatorship of the corrupters. What does it matter if a majority vote for a change if there is no change?
Re:This needs to get press. (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, it's not like he won 25 electoral votes by a margin of 537 votes out of 6 million in a state with rampant reports of election fraud.
Re:This isn't a 180 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:RTFS?? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also good to see that this time around, politics seems to be irrelevant to the core debate. The principal credible criticisms of Obama have been coming from ostensibly "liberal" sources (not surprising, since the most die-hard conservatives among us are still caught up in inane mid-decade partisanship - questions of whether the president is a Muslim, or has a valid US birth certificate, or will take away your guns and re-educate you as a socialist). The left wing seems content to substantively criticise "their own" leader, which I think entirely contradicts the GP's assertion that it's dangerous to criticise "the chosen one."
I haven't been optimistic for a while, but that speaks very well for the future of these debates. If the left had let this sort of thing slide and made the vacuous argument that it's OK as long as their own party does it, we'd be back in the bad old days of pointless partisan bickering. This is a far cry from the 2000 election when Republicans everywhere decided recounts of disputed close elections had become spontaneously illegal.
ah, the fallacy of the slippery slope (Score:4, Insightful)
as if no one is aware of the issues at stake except you
the issue is prevent government abuse, right? that's what i am fighting for. that's what i care about. that's what i am trying to do MOST EFFECTIVELY HERE. rather than cling to a notion that has passed its sell-by date
so: transparency, independent review with authority to punish, any and all wiretapping efforts
got me?
"It isn't a ridiculously hard standard -- warrants are issued daily and routinely."
no, no, no
that's my whole point: technological change HAS made it ridiculously hard. your average al qaeda goon or timothy mcveigh is not calling up his #2 on the rotary phone. they are using skype, they are using a friend's computer one moment, getting an sms text on another friend's cell phone the next moment. do you see that?
the avenues of communication, the protocols, the endpoints: they are ridiculously huge in number, convoluted, and fluid. such that, yes: i am asserting that getting a wiretap first is an antiquated, quaint notion. that no reasonable person can expect anyone to be able to elucidate and enunciate all of the communication avenues of a suspect they ar einterested in beforehand
nevermind the stereotype of senator palpatine or agent smith out to take away all of your rights for the sake of some b-grade hollywood fantasy, i am talking about the well-meaning fbi agent on the trail of a genuine suspect: do you honestly expect him to be aware of all of the terminals of communication and avenues of communication being used by that suspect beforehand? do you really?
the era of the warrant to wiretap has been destroyed
destroyed NOT by some insidious ideology. destroyed by simple technological change
understand me yet? I AM FOR THE FIGHT AGAINST GOVERNMENT ABUSE
i aam simply asking you to recognize that this battle is lost
now mod me into obvlivion and declare me your eternal ideological foe, and completely and utterly miss my point
zzz
The Alternative (Score:4, Insightful)
I gave him the benefit of the doubt because the alternative really didn't leave me much choice.
The alternative was McCain, who at least had a track record of refusing to add earmarks and supporting tax decreases.
The person who has the federal government spend and gather less is the best one to vote for because the more money the government has, the more trouble it can get into. You can't wiretap as many people if you lack the funds...
It's a simple rule to follow and will always serve you well. Note that Bush for example was someone who also spent wildly.
First off, the arguments are legit (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem here is the PATRIOT act. That needs to be addressed specifically. Until that happens every administration will legally use it.
That said, this article is incorrect.
"Again, the gulf between Candidate Obama and President Obama is striking. As a candidate, Obama ran promising a new era of government transparency and accountability, an end to the Bush DOJ's radical theories of executive power, and reform of the PATRIOT Act. But, this week, Obama's own Department Of Justice has argued that, under the PATRIOT Act, the government shall be entirely unaccountable for surveilling Americans in violation of its own laws."
No, they argued that THIS particular surveillance is legal under the PATRIOT act; which it is.
Does that make it good? no, but we must be accurate. Throwing your critical eye to the wind becasue something confirms a bias is not good.
Look who is in the DOJ that pushed for this power, Hint: They have the word terrorism in their title.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you can check the records...Phil lost his show due fully to dismal ratings. Wasn't his last show on MSNBC? I mean...if a liberal talk show guy can't even make it on THAT network....well...
Re:RTFS?? (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, I agree with you. They run the news, and a practical commentary, even if it has jokes in it.
Broadcast news is suppose to run unbiased news. They spew facts. Commentators have their own shows where they babble about the news, but their agendas are usually way off from reality.
The comedy news shows have no sense of "we have to...." They do what plays well for the audience. So, their audience likes hearing about current events, AND getting that person's opinion on them at the same time.
I'd love to see, but I know it wouldn't happen, for a major network nightly news anchor to say how they feel.
"North Korea launches communication satellite. Japan and the UN stand by cautiously.
What the fuck? The difference between a rocket with a satellite on top, and a rocket with a ICBM warhead targeting Europe, is just what they put on the top. My crazy ex changed her hair color from red to green. Just because she had green hair didn't make her any less dangerous. "
The major networks would give the first line. I'm sure many of their anchors want to say more, but it's a huge game, involving the government, advertisers, and viewers. Can they risk their viewership, or offend advertisers? Hell no. If the viewers leave, the ratings drop, and the advertisers go away. If the advertisers are offended, they go away. And, if the government is offended, the station or network can be fined to oblivion.
It's the old business calculated risk. They have a working format, that's worked for decades, they can't change it. So, they read nice, sanitized news that makes everyone happy and at least somewhat informed. The comedians get their news from anywhere they can, and say how they feel. In that, the comedians end up with the more informative news.
Of course, comedians also get to cherry pick their news. On my site, I get to pick what I write on (like, because it's mine), but the other staff fill in the blanks. The blanks are huge most of the time. The other editor cherry picks what he wants to comment on, but other than that, it's bland news. Watch your local nightly news, and really look at the anchors. Their minds are turned off, and they're just smiling and reading the teleprompter. You can spot it when they're reading, and smiling, and without change continue with "and in other news, 14 died, mostly women and children in a tragic explosion at an orphanage. And now sports with Bob..."
I hope you deal with disappointment well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because this won't be the last of it.
Re:Flaws in our democracy (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's a sound military strategy, it wouldn't matter if it's posted or not. Good strategies are ones that guarantee victory before the battle's even started.
This notion that the government has to be empowered or the boogie-man will come and get you is absolute fear-mongering. The judicial branch would not all of a sudden be tied down if they were open to lawsuits. They have been for the past 300 years of this country's existence and seem to operate just fine.
False claims of "oh we can't protect you from the brown people if we can't operate like the KGB" are just that: false. The government has plenty of legal and transparent avenues to pursue criminals. Look at any police district. They deal with people with far more access to the U.S. population than a foreign national.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:5, Insightful)
What the Dixie Chicks experienced came from private citizens, not the Bush administration. Big difference.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. During the Vietnam war, newspapers were really a powerful influence in public policy due to their honesty about the cost of the war.
We're just wrapping up the longest war the US has been involved in since World War 2 and until recently it was illegal to publish pictures of dead soldiers to quell public outrage. Had we seen daily pictures of dead soldiers on TV for seven years, the public acceptance would have been far lower and diminished far faster than it did.
Now, yeah the news is a farce. They split us down the middle every 4 years to turn the nation against one another, simplifying our political decisions into an us versus them, red versus blue game.
Now, the only credible news are the comedians comfortable with criticizing the government by exposing their ridiculous actions.
Sadly, the comedy is in the absurdity of the truth they tell.
Re:We're working on it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok on many other points, but, I just cannot even come close to believing this was the motivation. I mean, we certainly aren't benefiting in any manner from Iraqi oil.
It isn't shipped to us for free, nor used really to repay any war costs, etc.
If the war was for oil, and US imperialism to take over that country for oil, I'd have thought we'd at least have seen the oil benefits by now.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bush's speaking tone was always either patronizing grandfather talking to newborns, or strident anger at not getting his way. That's the only reason why nobody ever let him slide. Obama's tone is smooth, clipped, and does not reach a condescending tone. Even if his policies are the same/worse, his delivery is 1000% times better and will let him get away with much more.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Please put your strawmen away before they get burned. The only side that seems to call obama the "chosen one" are republicans.
They may not use the exact phrase "chosen one", but I know quite a few Democrats (even party officials) who compared him to Jesus. "Pontious Pilate was a governor, and Jesus was a community organizer." If that's not a messiah hero-worship complex, I don't know what is.
Can we all stop singing Kumbaya now? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:We have to root out the neocons (Score:5, Insightful)
You can ship out the neocons just as soon as your buddies who said they would leave the country if Bush got (re)elected actually leave the country and renounce their citizenship.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:5, Insightful)
no, no difference.
parent poster replied to a post that also dealt with (private citizen) response to somebody criticizing Obama; that poster arguing that criticizing Bush never led to e.g. the plethora of comments deriding a person's (negative) opinion of Obama (the person, his actions, ideas, or even the government under him).
parent poster, in turn, pointed out that we all too soon forget that there were -plenty- of public derisions toward those who were critical of Bush - *especially* just before, during, and shortly after the invasion of Iraq. The Dixie Chicks thing being a prime example because it was in the media -far more- than just some 'nobody' disagreeing with the war and their neighbors labeling them a terrorist sympathizer and yelling at them "if you're not with us, you're against us", "UN-AMERICAN!", etc.
so yeah, no difference in terms of this particular comment thread branch.
Re:Can we all stop singing Kumbaya now? (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean besides the fact that he is actually a social conservative who knows what what the pro gay marriage folks have been finding out, namely that religious bigotry and oppression are easier to accomplish on the local and state level than on the national level?
Re:What secrets could these possibly be? (Score:4, Insightful)
You have to keep in mind that a large percentage of the anti Bush crowd weren't really informed on the issues. They were anti Bush because it was fashionable to anti Bush. All their friends were, all the blogs they read were, much of the other media they were exposed to were. And they went right along with the herd.
Meanwhile, those few of us who (regardless of our personal stance on Bush) tried to explain that the two parties never give up powers and perks gained by the other party were shouted down as 'haters' or ignored as 'irrelevant fossils' or even worse pejoratives. Obama Wasn't Bush - and that was all they needed to know. Those of us who didn't toe the fashion zombie line were cast beyond the pale.
It has nothing to do with anything that must be secret, or national defense, or Cheney, or anything other reason. It's all about the little quid pro quo that goes on in Washington. The two major parties may tear down each others programs - but never the perks and powers, because they want them there when their guy takes the office.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have no doubt that it goes back way before Bush. For all his faults, Bush seemed rather upfront about his powergrabs so I don't really feel bad naming the road after him. But you are quite correct -- we've been on this road for longer than we likely know.
Bush has been quite brazen about it, but no more or less so than his predecessors.
We've apparently been on this road for longer than you know. :-) I'm quite aware of how long we have been on it, 'cause I've been involuntarily along for the ride for longer than I care to admit.
But, I'll retract my admonishment to "grow up", and instead suggest that you spend some time with a history book -- preferably a different one than the propaganda they distribute in the public schools.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:RTFS?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then scrap the damn bureacracy. When the public demand change in huge numbers then they should damn well get it fast.
That said, I never did believe that Obama would change anything much. Hoped, a little. Believed, no.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:2, Insightful)
until recently it was illegal to publish pictures of dead soldiers to quell public outrage. Had we seen daily pictures of dead soldiers on TV for seven years, the public acceptance would have been far lower and diminished far faster than it did.
Sorry for being sensitive to the families of the dead soldiers and not letting the corpses of their dead sons be posted everywhere in "stop the war" posters.
Now, yeah the news is a farce. They split us down the middle every 4 years to turn the nation against one another, simplifying our political decisions into an us versus them, red versus blue game.
I always saw it used as the American Idol for the news networks myself.
Re:FTFA (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason is simple. People WATCH comedy (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't blame the news for pampering to the customers tastes. If the customer wants celebrity gossip to be on the front page, then the customer gets just that.
If you don't want the press to dance to their customers wishes, then make an independent press. How? No idea. Sooner or later everyone has to be paid and will listen to the one doing the paying. Only wives don't follow that golden rule.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:3, Insightful)
To be honest, the only time I EVER hear those labels is from the left, when they're deflecting criticism like so:
Pissed off redneck conservative: Your policies are going to destroy the economy!
Aging liberal hippie douche: HOW DARE YOU CALL ME UNPATRIOTIC!
Note that while the original charge may or may not have had any founding in reality (And was usually the latter), it in no way implied unpatriotic behavior. And yet, that's how it was usually met.
Whatever. I'll go back to hating both sides for being filled with loud angry douchebags more concerned with wining that improving things.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:3, Insightful)
my opinion of a responsible budget
Fixed it for you.
Some of us want to have social services, jobs, roads, infrastructure, etc... And don't find spending for these to be wasteful. Some of us don't find these important at all.
Some economists thing that Obamas budget will equalize, and turn into a gain after the original spending. Some don't.
All value judgments on it depend on your individual, raw, naive, ideology.
He has though done more for civil liberties than Bush, at least we're not torturing people (perhaps). At least we're not ADVOCATING torture as a great national pass time, and advocating invading harmless (to us) countries, and slaughtering their civilians because it seems politically expedient to us.
Yes, the wire tapping crap has to go, and his arguement that the government should be immune from consequences is absurd, and immoral. But, on the whole, he is still better than Bush, not that is hard.
As for Iraq, it is REALLY naive (and rather immoral) to have thought that we could just pull completely out. We can't leave a power vaccuum, it would bite us in the butt eventually. Nor can we just leave the average Iraqi to their fates, after screwing them, and removing all form of law. We hit them, now we have a responsibility to fix our mess, or they suffer.
This is one of the reasons I was against the war to begin with, which wasn't a popular opinion. And now I'm against pulling out completely, which, again, isn't popular.
Re:This needs to get press. (Score:2, Insightful)
Reagan won in a landslide in 1984, taking 49 of 50 states, with about 60 percent of the vote. Obama was nowhere close, with under 53% of the vote. More people attended and watched his inauguration as well.
The media and the democrats would like you to believe it was a landslide, but the fact of the matter is it really wasn't.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Gee, that's exactly what W tried to do.
I love the immigration debate, its the only thing that ignorant ideologues on both the right and left agree with; we should allow unfettered access to our country to anyone from Latin America (and only Latin America).
The right loves it because it breaks unions, and brings down wages.
The left loves it because it brings in voters, and that whole liberal ideal that all people should be lovely and decked in flowers regardless of real world consequences.
I love Arizona, where most of our citizens are solidly against them being here at all, but our Newspapers (both the right leaning Republic, and the far-left-lunatic-fringe New Times) are all about giving them a carde blanche, as are our two lunatic-right-wing congress critters, and Phoenix' left leaning mayor, and our ex-governor (Napolitano). Her to the point of trying to bar our sheriff from enforcing the law, because illegal immigrants are being "unfairly" arrested.
I don't thing any issue brings out more ideological morons than illegal immigration.
Hell, in my opinion put anyone who knowingly employs an illegal out of business, and give any illegal who reports such a business free citizenship.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the AC you were responding to should have said:
What the Dixie Chicks experienced came from country and western fans, not the Bush administration. Big difference.
Most didn't have a problem with the Dixie Chick's stance towards the President. The problem was that they bashed the President of the United States in a foreign country during a time of war. My problem was with what they said. Maines said something along the lines of, "we are ashamed that the President is from Texas." I'm from Texas and very few Texans felt that way. I'm a little pissed that this EX-Texan is in Britain trying to speak for me.
Also, much of what the Bush administration said that you have a problem with was actually plagiarized. [orwell.ru]
Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that 'according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be "objectively pro-British".' But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious 'freedom' station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.
--Orwell
(granted, he's talking about the Germans and Japanese of WWII, but the argument is the same.)
Re:RTFS?? (Score:2, Insightful)
I have no doubt that it goes back way before Bush. For all his faults, Bush seemed rather upfront about his powergrabs so I don't really feel bad naming the road after him. But you are quite correct -- we've been on this road for longer than we likely know.
It goes back at least to Woodrow Wilson [wikipedia.org]. Thanks to him we have the private Federal Reserve [house.gov], the income tax [wikipedia.org], etc. Plus he had the Sedition Act of 1918 [wikipedia.org] to jail people who criticized him.
Re:This needs to get press. (Score:3, Insightful)
even the NYTs and the WaPo plus others say he won no matter how you counted.
This may be true. But, I'm not pissed because of that, I'm pissed because somehow the supreme court gained the ability to elect presidents. It isn't constitutional, and is a pretty dirty tactic.
Re:This needs to get press. (Score:2, Insightful)
The intent was to keep uneducated masses from electing a populist president and then keeping him in office forever (i.e. see Franklin D. Roosevelt).
However over time, we have been collectively convinced by our elected leaders to erode that protect in the name of democracy. Yet the simple fact is we never were a democracy and should never be because true democracy is little more than mob rule.
If you want to see mob rule in action watch the moderation around here or over at Digg.com.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:5, Insightful)
She wasn't speaking for you. She said she was ashamed he was from Texas. Not Texans are ashamed he is from Texas.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:3, Insightful)
What the hell? Bush had his honeymoon period, too. But you have to remember to look at it in relative terms. Think of how his reception was when he got into office. Obama didn't get in with a slim majority and complaints of unfair counting casting a shadow over him. Republicans generally have a honeymoon period too, it's just the last one to have a real one was before the Clinton administration.
People who compare the beginning of the Bush presidency to the beginning of the Obama and complaining about how they are different are comparing apples to oranges. They are different. But that doesn't mean they won't end the same way.
Right now, most people, including people in foreign countries, are cautiously optomistic about Obama. They want to see if he manages something with the economy. Even Iran is an itty bitty bit more open right now. But if things continue the way they are for the next two years, it is entirely possible people will start viewing Obama as the next Bush. But that will take time.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently you missed the news that McCain supporters were pulled over by police. Or that Ron Paul supporters are dangerous militia kooks.
I don't think it's a Republican/Democrat thing. When a group comes to power that feels they have been oppressed, the first thing they do is exact revenge. Sometimes that's lopping off heads, sometimes that's making fun of the opposition.
Regardless, the theme continues throughout history.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:1, Insightful)
Bullshit. The Dixie Chicks have their views and we have ours. BTW, Pelosi says it is un-American to enforce our immigration laws. How does that grab you?
The Dixie Chicks have every right to speak their mind. I have every right to disagree with them and not give them any more money.
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.
A huge point of American democracy is that we can criticize our government in public. It's not disloyal, it's the POINT of our society, you dumbass.
Re:First off, the arguments are legit (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem here is the PATRIOT act. That needs to be addressed specifically. Until that happens every administration will legally use it.
I'm pretty sure the constitution overrides the "patriot" act.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow are you seriously self-delusional. I work for a Government Agency that has ties to both Unions and Educators and from *all* sides, all I hear is how great he is, how much hope he has given them, how he can do no wrong, how bad Bush is and how the entire mess we are in now is his fault (*cough* go see Carter & Clinton's Fair Housing legislation for one root cause). Those stupid "Hope" posters are up on nearly every cube and if you dare say a word against "Him", you get dirty looks and are accused for being a racist. The man is bring worshiped as a god who can do no wrong. You Lib's act it out, we just call it as we see it.
Regarding your Donahue comment, you are dead wrong. Go look up the ratings for his show; nobody watched him, that is why he got booted. Pretty sad for a Liberal commentator on MSNBC.
Finally, your implication that the Conservatives gave Bush a pass is dead wrong. Conservatives (I'm not speaking for Republicans, just Conservastives) held to task when he went off the reservation. Its a 4-letter word here, but if you ever bothered to listen to Rush Limbaugh, you'd know I'm right.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:3, Insightful)
I do understand that Fox has no credibility criticizing this since they were so nakedly in favor of Bush.
Conservatives often attacked Bush when we went against their philosophy... illegal immigration being a biggie.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only disappointing to those naive enough to think a big difference would happen overnight. To the small minority of us who understand how politics work, it is business as usual. The reality is that change only works at the speed of bureaucracy.
There seem to always be 2 responses to every criticism of Obama:
Obama even uses them himself. Unfortunately they just don't hold water. If Bush's excessive spending is such a problem, how is spending 3 times as much making an improvement at all? So if Bush left a $700 billion dollar deficit, that makes it okay to expand it to a $1.8 trillion dollar deficit? This just all sounds like childish excuses and finger-pointing to me.
There will be no change. None that will help anyone but the bankers and wallstreet, anyway, while the people of the US are sold down the river.
At the current rate of spending, the US will have a national debt of $23 trillion in 10 years. That's 100% of GDP (assuming there won't be more contraction.
How do you deal with a debt that's 100% of GDP? You can't. Your currency is trash, your economy crashes, and your country is doomed. It may already be too late.
Re:RTFA - I did and it's depressing (Score:1, Insightful)
Thankfully, the Constitution of the United States of America places the sole *duty* of dispatching a tyrant upon its people.
Unfortunately, said people are too scared to take arms and execute these tyrants out of fear of being labeled a murderer, or worse a traitorous assassin.
I feel the government should be the ones fearing us people, and that we are in current times living ass backwards from how our founding fathers intended.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Please put your strawmen away before they get burned. The only side that seems to call obama the "chosen one" are republicans"
You're blind. Democrats are taking personal loyalty oaths to Barrack Obama. I thought the Right hero-worshipped Reagan, but they have nothing on the slobbering boy-band love that Democrats display for Obama. At least the Republicans waited until Reagan was out of office.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is what the republicans didn't understand. (Score:3, Insightful)
my fear is that he is minimally extending Bush policies. He ran on a promise to dissolve those policies, so even a minor extension is a drastic difference from original expectations. Repeal the shit already.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:5, Insightful)
For those who care, there's an interesting contrarian view here [digg.com], from a former government lawyer.
-------
DOJ and the FISA Lawsuit: The Lawyers are Doing Their Job
by wmtriallawyer
After reading throughout the Netroots some of the concern vis a vis the latest Motion to Dismiss filed by the Department of Justice in the FISA lawsuit, I thought I would give my perspective, as a local government attorney, on what is going on.
Regardless of the context, if you work in government as an attorney, and you litigate (i.e. go to court), the first thing you do if you are sued is to look for a way out of the lawsuit. It's that simple. And there are plenty of immunities available to governments, whether federal, state, or local, to accomplish that goal.
I put the disclaimer up front: I'm no expert on FISA, the current lawsuit, or even all the immunities available to federal government at this point. But I have read the Motion to Dismiss in the case (available here), and I give some of my very basic thoughts below...
[b]Fact #1: This is a civil lawsuit for money damages and/or equitable relief.[/b] Plain and simple, the Plaintiff seeks monetary damages against the Defendants. I.e., you committed a wrong, and the only way to make up for that wrong is pay money. Or in the alternative, it seeks equitable relief -- i.e., an injunction -- to prevent a future wrong.
[b]Fact #2: The Motion to Dismiss was filed by the government Defendants in their official capacity.[/b] Two important points here. First, this is a Motion to Dismiss claims, or in the alternative, for summary judgment. I can tell you as a matter of legal practice, any time a government is sued, there is a Motion to Dismiss filed, primarily to see if you can "knock out" at least some of the claims, or if you get lucky, the whole lawsuit. Second, the "official capacity" part is key. Simply stated, DOJ is moving to dismiss Defendants "The United States of America," "President Barack Obama," "Attorney General Eric Holder," etc. in their official capacity. Official capacity is just like it sounds...you've been sued by virtue of the fact that a. you are a government agency or b. you work for that government agency in some official way.
[b]Fact #3: As a general rule, governments and government official have immunity for acts in their official capacity.[/b] This is nothing new. It is the concept of "sovereign immunity" which has been around for hundreds of years. The general rule is established so that Joe Blow cannot simply "sue the government" for every perceived wrong that government does, because it would not be in the public interest for ALL for the government, as an entity, to have to defend said lawsuits or pay out damages in its official capacity. However, and this is critical, this does NOT mean a Plaintiff can't sue a government employee for wrongful acts committed in the scope of their employment in their personal capacity. Indeed, in the lawsuit at hand, DOJ makes clear that they are filing this Motion for the government Defendants sued in their official capacity, despite the fact that many, many more are sued in their official capacity. Keep in mind, there are immunities available to those in their personal capacity as well, which DOJ also raises. But those immunities are generally not as strong as the immunity provided for those acting in an official capacity.
[b]Fact #4: Asserting a defense in a lawsuit does not in any way equate official government policy.[/b] Trust me on this one. I've had to assert defenses to lawsuits early on in the stages of litigation, as is the case in the FISA lawsuit. And it does NOT mean in any way that it is some sort of policy declaration. It is doing what is necessary to defend my client from the relief sought by the Plaintiff. Plain and simple. And that is especially true at the Motion to Dismiss stage. Indeed, these issues are going to be litigated not only at the t
Re:RTFS?? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're just a US State now. You will never be independant of the US, and you don't *want* to be, as you'd last about a month without the federal infrastructure.
Imagine, if we will, that we flipped the amount of income tax we paid the federal government and state government. We could come OUT from under the blackmail that is the Federal Government denial of funding if we don't do as we are told. For example, the Consitution does not grant the federal government any say in education. BUT ... since they tax the crap out of us, they get a say by taking our tax dollars and refusing to give them back unless we are good little states and do as we are told. The same is true of the majority of federal programs.
The only real power the federal government was granted by the US constitution and its amendments was the right to handle foreign affairs, national defense, levy taxes, and interstate commerce. By creating a tax system that returns money to ALL states and using the bludgeon that is interstate commerce, they have effectively created states that are little more than living off the welfare of the US teat.
The real tax reform should be a slow and methodical reduction in federal taxes and federal funding programs while states increase their taxes to take up the burden and get the federal government out of the business of telling states how to conduct theirs. I'm not against 'spreading the wealth around' a little bit to make sure poor states have adequate roads, education, and basic necessities, but it shouldn't be based on what the federal government is charged with by the constitution and its amendments, not by being our nanny.
Main Stream Naivete... (Score:2, Insightful)
Something seems very wrong with this country these days, and the world in general....
Forgive the doomsday tone, but I don't like the fact that the mass majority of people are completely unaware that their privacy and defense-against-the-government rights are being hacked and slashed like no tomorrow. At least when the Patriot Act was pushed through, we saw throngs of people bitching about it in the streets and media. Why the sudden happy complacency now?
You must've been under a rock then (Score:2, Insightful)
For those who don't follow, let me make this easy for you: The term 'flip-flop' existed because Rove & Co. were using it to nail anyone who wished to support the troops but also dissented from the President's edict for fighting terrorism without question. In other words, if you said "87 Billion with no known limit might be unreasonable," but then voted for it because it was the only available option given to you by a party that had no intention to negotiate, you were nailed to the fencepost by the conservative mouthpiece machine.
This has to stop now (Score:2, Insightful)
Obama made it clear during the campaign that he would not prosecute Bush administration officials in the interest of "bringing the country back together" or whatever.
Nothing shows as clearly as this why that is a bad idea. In an effort to protect Bushies from prosecution, he is now in danger of making things far, far worse from the perspective of anyone interested in the rule of law. For f*ck's sake, are we going to throw the Magna Carta out the window along with the constitution?
This whole thing is becoming absurd. Obama needs to bite the bullet and figure out which of the Bushies were guilty and which ones were innocent. Protecting the Bushies is doing enormous damage to the rule of law, and has all kinds of unintended consequences like this one.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is NOT some private client. This is the government and the lawyers themselves exist not to assert any defense they can to win but to represent their clients. Anything done by a government attorney on behalf of the government is by definition policy. If policy says the government was wrong, rolling over is exactly what the government should do.
Even in a private case this is not okay. The lawyer is representative of the defendant and should never present a case on the defendants behalf that is not the position of the defendant!
It isn't win by any means necessary, its win if you have a position and that position is right not merely legally but ethically.
Presenting a defense that isn't at least believed to be true should be grounds to disbar the attorney in question and should bring something akin to perjury on the defendant. That may sound extreme but the consequences of these actions are extreme. First they thwart actual justice. Second in a case like this such action could result in a legal precedent that could haunt our nation for hundreds of years.
Re:You must've been under a rock then (Score:5, Insightful)
I can remember most of the Hollywood-hating folk telling outspoken actors to GTFO and go to Canada/Europe.
Actually I believe that was directed at the hysterical actors/actresses who claimed they would leave but then failed to actually do so. Any information to the contrary?
Hell, do you really think the 2004 election went the way it did if not for the GOP implying that most Democrats were unpatriotic?
It's always easy to make excuses for being unpopular (see Republicans today). Are you REALLY claiming that you believe that the Republicans won big in 2004 merely because you think "the GOP impl[ied] that most Democrats were unpatriotic." I think you've got to back up that first of all, that actually happened, and second of all, the alleged mere act of claiming somebody is unpatriotic changed votes from Dem to Republican.
For those who don't follow, let me make this easy for you: The term 'flip-flop' existed because Rove & Co. were using it to nail anyone who wished to support the troops but also dissented from the President's edict for fighting terrorism without question.
What utter BS, and just goes to show how you are lacking any and all introspection for your beliefs/party here. The term flip-flop didn't come to characterize Kerry because of "Rove Co" but because of KERRY. Talk about not taking responsibility!
Amazing...as someone who did not vote for Obama, I have to say that I was never that disappointed that he was elected. For one, I wasn't a McCain fan, and secondly, I thought it would mean an end to the tireless squawking about evil BushCo and Cheney. I'm actually still waiting for that... Despite Obama's messages of chance and unity, it seems a lot of people are having trouble moving on!
Re:RTFS?? (Score:3, Insightful)
"If the government does it, then it isn't illegal"
Where have I heard that argument before? It was a pretty famous president as I recall.
Or are they arguing that it probably is illegal, but you can't bring it up or take them to court over it cause they're the government. Is that functionally any different?
I will also second the "meet the new boss..." sentiment.
The only "change" we got was which direction the assault on our liberties comes from.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:4, Insightful)
"The problem was that they bashed the President of the United States in a foreign country during a time of war."
How is that a problem? Are we required to check our constitutional rights at the door as we leave the country? Our free-will stuffed in an airport rent-a-locker, for the duration of our travels?
Personally, I bashed him everywhere I went. And besides, they bashed the MAN, not the country.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:2, Insightful)
She wasn't on a USO tour, and she wasn't talking about troops. You must be one of those people who think its impossible to criticize the policies that our government decides to enact which result in armed conflicts without denigrating the military volunteers who are doing their sworn duty.
The reason they are fighting (in theory at least) is to that Maines CAN say what she wants to say about the President. How can you not understand that?
First, here entire quote was, "Just so you know, we're on the good side with y'all. We do not want this war, this violence, & we're ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas."
The "good side"? Is that the side that is opposed to the war? The people planting road side bombs in Iraq were against the war. Were they on the "good side" too?
Listen, she has the right to say whatever she wishes, wherever she wishes. That's what free speech is all about. However, it shows a true lack class to air your dirty laundry over seas. You don't go to another country and bad mouth your home country. It's in bad taste. Also, that same freedom of speech is what allows people like to me to call her out on it, and you to call me out on calling her out and so on.
Also, I never said she bad mouthed the troops. She bad mouthed their mission. When she says the war is wrong, she is also saying that those carrying out the war are wrong. Like it or not, you can not oppose the mission without opposing the troops who are risking their lives to carry out that mission. She could have criticized the war without actually criticizing the missions. She should have said something like, "We wish we could have found a peaceful resolution and we hope that this war is over as soon as possible so that the good people on both sides of this mess can get back to enjoying their lives."
And to end this, I think that Maines got a bum wrap. I do feel what she said was wrong, but when she said, "As a concerned American citizen, I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful. I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect... We are currently in Europe & witnessing a huge anti-American sentiment as a result of the perceived rush to war. While war may remain a viable option, as a mother, I just want to see every possible alternative exhausted before children & American soldiers' lives are lost. I love my country. I am a proud American." it should have been the end of it.
Re:Please... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an excellent example of missing the point. Here's the set up:
1. People enter the country illegally.
2. Then then birth US Citizens
3. Illegal parents are packed off.
4. The baby Citizens are left behind.
Think logically. The solution isn't to quit throwing out the criminals. The solution is to delete the technicality that creates such heartbreaking situations in the first place: birth citizenship. Then you can ship them all back as a family and not have to deal with illegal residents or stranded kids. I think high-profile politicians like Pelosi are being intentionally dense on this issue, because they'd rather do something big and spectacular than a quick, boring solution that makes the problem go away with no power, fame, legacy and re-electability.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Had we seen daily pictures of dead soldiers on TV for seven years, the public acceptance would have been far lower and diminished far faster than it did.
The return of our soldier's bodies should be handled in a solemn and respectful way. Part of what bothered many folks, and a reason why it's taken until now to allow reporters in (and even now only IF the families agree), is that a lot of the push for this access was purely for the reason you just described - sensationalism and anti-war advocacy/propaganda.
The country was fully aware of the human cost of the war. The cumulative numbers of the slain were on TV practically every night. Every setback we ran into was the latest news story. There were stories about the burdens on military families back home, stories about what it was like for soldiers in Iraq, stories about Iraqis' suffering, stories about supposed futility of keeping the Sunnis and Shiites from killing one another. There were stories about the huge dollar cost of the war, and stories about its many human costs. The country knew what was going on.
But the support for the war effort didn't drop as fast as some would like, so they wanted the press to publish lots of pictures of flag-draped coffins. Not because they thought the press wasn't already informing the public, but because they thought that the public should be bombarded with emotional imagery until everyone turned against the war.
That sort of frenzy I suspect is exactly why the DoD waited until now to allow reporters access. It means the slain soldiers can come home to the solemn environment they deserve, rather be used as pawns in a political war.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:3, Insightful)
On the contrary, sometimes it's necessary. I have no time for the "My country, right or wrong" attitude that some promote - whether explicitly, or by complicit silence in certain company.
Re:RTFS?? (Score:3, Insightful)
you can't translate what they are doing to defend their client as a policy decision.
Sure we can. The Obama administration isn't ignorant of the moves their lawyers are making, and to allow an attempt for such precedence to be made is no different than Obama advocating it in a public address. It is a statement of policy, cut and dried. Politicians by definition cannot make any other form of public statement. Last I checked the courts are a public forum.
Granted, I can't imagine even the Supreme Court has the authority to grant such unilateral immunity to a government as a whole, so it's a moot argument. That's what's so weird - if the defense doesn't have a prayer of succeeding, why take the political damage from the statement it makes? "Do as I say, not as I do" is in direct conflict with the platform by which Obama was elected, and will upset everyone who voted for him, worse yet those who fought tirelessly to get him elected.
So I do in fact consider the Obama administration either two-faced or unacceptably insensitive as a result of this situation. Not sure which is worse. Hopefully it's just a bump in the road.