Obama Keeps His Blackberry (And Gets a Sectera)

InternetVoting writes "After all the controversy surrounding Obama's Blackberry, word has come that he will get to keep it. Few details are available and neither the National Security Agency nor the White House are talking. The current rumor is that the Blackberry will be used exclusively for personal use and a Sectera Edge will be used for official communications."

Comments

So, all this talk about Bush emails and...

[tjstork]

It turns out, that, after trashing Bush and Cheney for eight years for not making all of their communications public, the first thing the new Democratic President does is get for himself a means of making private communications based on his word that it will be for personal use only.

Frankly, I don't dispute the right of any President to have secret communications. He needs to be judged by his work product and not be constantly subject to the Congress. It was wrong for Republicans to harrass Clinton during his Presidency and it was wrong for Bush to be harrassed as well. IT's not because, ideally, the President is above the law, but it is because, he (or she!), is not subjugated to the Congress. They are equal branches of government.

Re:So, all this talk about Bush emails and...

[AdmiralXyz]

No one is complaining about Bush's private communications with his family and friends, which is presumably what Obama will continue to use his Blackberry for. That information can and should remain private. The "Bush-trashing" is coming from the refusal of the Bush administration to release communications between, say, administration and intelligence officials, which can and should be a matter of public record, and probably contain a great deal of enlightening information on the administration's many illegal activities (torture, wiretapping, etc.)

Re:So, all this talk about Bush emails and...

[jmyers]

The big problem with email and any recorded communication really is that is can be used to craft almost any story you want to tell. Your enemies will always want access to all of your communications. This way they can edit them and release to the public in a way to paint a picture of you using your own words.

Many people have been slandered this way for many years. So much that you would think that the general public could tell the difference between propaganda and reality. The problem remains that people believe what they want to hear and discount anything they don't want to hear. Give them an irrelevant email out of context and they will eat it up.

I would recommended against any public figure using email.

Re:So, all this talk about Bush emails and...

[tjstork]

My point is that, as soon as you allow the President to have a means of making "private" communications, then don't you think he or she would use that to keep his or her own deliberations secret? Your guys are chasing after Bush on a presumption of guilt of something, and you demand a right to all of his communications because they exist and prove your point. If Obama were to fall under the same accusations, there's no way that those communications could ever even exist, and therefor, it makes it impossible to even bother trying to go after him. He's got a relatively blank check now, that Bush never had. That's my point.

My other point is, I think its good that the President have something of a blank check because the last 16 years of Clinton/Bush subpoenas and evidence gathering did little more than to undermine the power of the Presidency relative to the Congress, and right now, the Congress is completely out of control. The job of the Congress is to manage legislation and the federal purse and its failed at both. Meanwhile, it blames its own failures on the Presidency and thus , its not only wrecking itself, it wants to drag another branch of government down with it.

The bottom line is, Dick Cheney is right. The Presidency needs to be more powerful relative to the Congress, and that is why Obama should get to keep his Blackberry, and -gasp-, even a cell phone, if he could get a secure one.

Re:So, all this talk about Bush emails and...

[SuiteSisterMary]

My point is that, as soon as you allow the President to have a means of making "private" communications, then don't you think he or she would use that to keep his or her own deliberations secret?

Ok. Where do you draw the line? The President can't use a non-official phone? The President cannot ever be alone with somebody? The President cannot write a birthday card to his Auntie Mabel without a copy going into the permanant record?

After all, 'best birthday wishes' might be code for 'buy Haliburton; we's invadin' another o'l country!' and 'best wishes on your birthday' might be code for 'sell Microsoft; we're sending Gates to Guantanamo tomorrow!'

Re:So, all this talk about Bush emails and...

[Orne]

Don't worry, the press will treat this as fairly as they did when it was revealed that Governor Palin of Alaska had an email account for work use, and a separate email account for home use.

Re:So, all this talk about Bush emails and...

[WindowlessView]

the last 16 years of Clinton/Bush subpoenas and evidence gathering did little more than to undermine the power of the Presidency relative to the Congress, and right now, the Congress is completely out of control.

Forget about the Blackberry/phone stuff, what parallel universe did you just jet in from?

The bottom line is, Dick Cheney is right. The Presidency needs to be more powerful relative to the Congress,

Yeah, screw that whole balance of power thing the founders set up. It's inconvenient.

Re:So, all this talk about Bush emails and...

[sandbenders]

the last 16 years of Clinton/Bush subpoenas and evidence gathering did little more than to undermine the power of the Presidency relative to the Congress

I think if anything, the last 16 years has done the opposite- the power of congress (the *only directly elected representatives* we have in Washington) has been greatly diminished compared to the the presidency.

The congress used to have exclusive rights to the declaration of war, yet neither of the last two wars (nor any since WWII) were 'declared' by the congress and indeed would have proceeded without their approval.

The congress used to have the 'power of the purse' yet when they declined to prop up the car companies the president did it anyway.

The congress used to have not just the power to oversee, but the *responsibility* for oversight. Yet when they asked to see documents concerning various potential violations of the law, including items regarding the outing of Valerie Plame, CIA interrogation techniques, warrantless wiretapping etc. the President refused to acknowledge their subpoenas.

I for one want my directly elected representatives to be given their power back. I have some respect for Obama, and I hope that he will have the balls to put the power back where it belongs.

Or in /. terms: Obama- please be Galadriel, not Saruman. Thanks.

Re:Should be interesting...

[crmarvin42]

the need for security does not stem from fear of those that elected him, but from fear of foreign interests getting their hands on sensitive information. I could care less if China, Al-Queda, Russia, etc. get their hands on his emails from his wife. I do care if any of them were to get their hands on sensitive information like internal comments about on-going negotiations on pending legislate, trade agreements, or human rights issues.

Re:Should be interesting...

[theaveng]

Whatever. "I am the head of the Executive Branch. I will use my crackberry, and you will find a way to make me untraceable just the same as you found a way for me to walk down a D.C. street without getting shot. Is that clear?" "Yes Mr. President."

The end.

Probably the solution is as simple as, "Don't use your Blackberry's wireless connection." But I don't know; that's what security experts are for. Everyday I see Congressmen using cellphones; if those can be secure enough to carry day-to-day government business, why not other wireless devices?