Slashdot Mirror
Obama Sides With Bush In Spy Case
palegray.net is one of many who writes "President Obama has publicly sided with the Bush administration on the question of whether the President should be allowed to establish warrantless wiretapping programs designed to monitor US citizens. The President has asked a federal judge to stay a ruling that would allow key evidence into the domestic spying case against the government. 'Thursday's filing by the Obama administration marked the first time it officially lodged a court document in the lawsuit asking the courts to rule on the constitutionality of the Bush administration's warrantless-eavesdropping program.'" jamie points out that Obama's views and opinions were made clear through his Senate vote and numerous public statements, but many others see this as a disappointing start to an administration promising transparency and openness.
So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.
Asshole.
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Well now, that depends on who is being held open now, doesn't it?
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Finally, change we can believe in!
Just because he promised "change" doesn't mean it'll be a "good" change!
Obama might not always be right.
Bush might not have always been wrong.
There just might be a valid reason for this (then again there might not be).
They guy has been in office less than a week. Progress has already been made.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
enjoy freedom,
enjoy while you can
Freedom? What freedom?
Free Martian Whores!
Let us think back to Bush's speeches and promises, and how he failed on nearly every one.
But, the people who screamed 'traitor' at the anti-war activist and supported Bush to the bitter end have suddenly found the ability to criticize our president during wartime.
The HURRRRRRRRRRRRrrrtastic tags tell the story of astro-turfing conservatives.
At least this economy has the low-income trailer-park republicans finally signing up to fight their war.
Blar.
one friend didn't vote because, as he sees it...
"It doesn't matter who shits in the chair, we're all going to get covered anyway".
Guess he was right on that one.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
5...4...3..2..1.. The only change we'll be seeing is the removal of our right to be able to defend ourselves. Say goodbye to your firearms, hello to more government intrusion into your life. Only now, there's no way to control government. At least he's going to live up to his promises. Change we can believe in!
Warning: Corny karma killing post above.
Everything you do pisses everyone off, equally!
Really, I'm just withholding comment until some form of long-term context is established.
-Rob
Biblical fiscal responsibility
Get what you voted...
I wonder what they think of the missiles that hit Pakistan today? I am sure they were approved by the President. You know, the "O" not the "W".
The fact that he asked for a stay doesn't indicate much of anything, particularly since a lot of the people at the DOJ right now are Bush appointees (you know the type) who really need to be fired ASAP. By all means, we should be making as much noise about this as possible, but it doesn't automatically mean that Obama is pro-wiretapping.
This is so obviously FUD. The administration ordered a stay on all pending regulation and issues from the Bush Administration and this case happens to be one of them. So, what does someone looking to nail Obama do.. "oh well, they aren't immediately disavowing this terrible, terrible injustice, therefore, well they must be complicit!" Shake, stir, and toss to the usual gang of idiots on Slashdot and voila.. A major out of context brouhahah is born! Get a grip, morons.
What would Richard Feynman do, if he were here right now? He'd do some math and he'd follow through!
> I did not trust this new Administration during his campaign
I'd argue, that trusting ANY politician or group thereof is a rather silly thing to do (that's being polite btw. Really it's just plain stupid).
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
worse, I lost any respect for Republicans for not stopping Geitner at the committee level.
This whole Administration is starting too look like Clinton The New Generation... new face at the top but the base looks rotten.
After Congress gets done stimulating themselves when will someone look at us and see what we want?
Obama was supposed to represent change yet the only change he represents is there is now a "D" next to the office affiliation. Now that he is in all the abuses of power he decried during the campaign are too valuable to be given up even though some should for what is best for America.
I was hoping we were not going to be stuck with another rubber stamping President, because in the end that was Bush's biggest fault. I don't want a President who wants to be friends with Congress. I want a President who is friends with us first. He is supposed to be the voice of the nation, not his party and certainly not special interest. He interests should be us.
There is always a chance he will grow a pair and go a new direction but it doesn't look good that he has passed the first few ramps on the interstate of government. His Gitmo decision sounded real good till you read the fine print, they have a year to change their minds. His appointment scream "continue the course" and this decision is more of the same. His recent declaration that Congress was on the right path with the stimulus package really pissed me off. Right course for who?
I guess the lesson learned under Bush will need four more years to be learned, that for every grandiose name they use just think of the exact opposite and that will be reality.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Morality aside, who would give up that much power if they were offered it?
It took Nixon and Watergate for Congress to strip the president and administration of their power the last time such powers were reduced, and 9/11 for Congress to give back that power.
Nothing short of a Congressional revolt similar to what took place during Watergate will force *any* president to give up those powers.
Obama will in all probability be a much better president than Bush, but that doesn't mean that he's going to give up those presidential powers just to win brownie points from the ACLU.
This space left intentionally blank.
Stabilize Iraq? Didn't he have to do that since he destabilized it to begin with? Giving someone credit for putting duct tape on something they broke seems a little stupid.
Folks,
This sucks. However let's keep in mind that the order to close the detention/torture center at Gitmo has gone out, and to close the CIA detention centers, and the order to err on the side of disclosure in FOIA cases.
Let's keep in mind that it's a request for stay, not the last word. But it looks like Obama isn't on our side regarding this issue, and we might have to work for a long time to win it. Consider what we are winning so far, and keep on working. We were never going to get a candidate elected who agreed with us on everything.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
What is trumping is not safety at all, but fear for your safety, which is a very different thing. I challenge anyone to show that we are actually safer now than we were 8 years ago.
Despite all the "sacrifices" that have been made regarding rights, I don't think so.
(Note: I put "sacrifices" in quotes, because it order for someone to truly sacrifice something, it has to be given not taken.)
Since you said that, I take it that if the government didn't force you to give your money towards health care, then you'd be willing to give some of it up voluntarily to a charity that deals with health care for the poor, or your local hospital?
yes: what makes you think others don't feel the same? Or are you superior to everyone else?
no: then you are a hypocrite, using authority to force people to do what you want when you wouldn't even do it yourself.
I don't even agree with half the things Obama has proposed, but I can't believe I read through half the comments only to find yours buried somewhere in there. Republican or Democratic government, we're doomed. Not because of who is in power, but because there are so few people like yourself who actually have any clue how the hell government runs. Everyone else is just paranoid.
I think it's unfair to react knee-jerk to this and denounce the new President. He's been there for three whole days and is probably still learning where all the conference rooms and restrooms are. Jumping into the middle of an ongoing court case and having the lawyers completely overhaul the strategy that they've been working on for months or years would be one of the easiest ways to throw a monkey wrench into existing operations without having a full grasp of the entirety of the issue.
Give him six months, and THEN give him hell for supporting warrantless [and unconstitutional] wiretaps.
I read a few of the comments following this story, and they all seem to have a similar theme of having a fairly negative POV about Obama's stand on this issue.
Rather than simply bitch about your spin on this, lets look at why he is doing this. IANAL, but it seems to me that he is holding on to secret information pending the outcome of legal process to determine if it is admissible evidence. This would seem to be prudent, as if it is admitted as evidence, it is no long really secret. Any lawyers out there, please jump if I am getting this wrong.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Finally, change we can believe in!
Not to defend Obama on this particular issue, but here's a brief recap of what he's done since becoming president, 72 whole hours ago:
So do these things qualify as "change"? I'd say so. Certainly none of these things would have happened with a Republican still in the White House.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Yes, but when the private sector loses money, I have CHOSEN to pay them to do it. I am to blame and I take full responsibility for any such losses. When the government loses money, they have forced the money out of me under threat of jail time.
http://www.allen-poole.com/
The fun part will be watching various conservatives do strange contortions as they try to say that, what was a necessity under the Bush administration, is now a bad thing under an Obama administration.
The fun part will also be watching various progressives do strange contortions as they try to say that, what was a bad thing under the Bush administration, is now a necessity under an Obama administration.
...that maybe, just maybe, Obama did this because when he finally got to the throne he learned the reasons this made it out there in the first place? That maybe, just maybe, there might be something, or some reason, that the mighty Slashdotters don't know? That when he sat down with everyone, he sat back and said "Oh, gee whiz, I hadn't realized that was why Bush & Co. did that. now I get it. Hmm. Maybe I shouldn't screw with it."
Baseless self confidence kills more people each year than bathtubs.
And voting to remove the immunity clause from the FISA bill doesn't indicate anything about where he stands? I personally assume that when he voted on the bill, he was voting on the bill as a whole and not solely based on the immunity provision. When he had a chance to vote on just that provision, he voted against it.
Also, voting present or abstain would have been used just the same as a 'no' vote by his opponents.
Personally, I'll consider something a meaningful representation of his stance on Bush's wiretapping when it comes from his DOJ, not the acting AAG who served under Gonzalez.
Here's hoping it's the right one. :/
The enemies of Democracy are
You pay so others can go? I'm confused, how is church payed for by the government? It's a tax-exempt organization, but it doesn't get free government handouts. Churches are funded by their members. That's completely different than free health care provided by the government.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
You're already supporting national health care. It's just not universal health care. The US government spends more per capita on health care than many countries, including Canada. But instead of putting money into the pockets of doctors, you're putting money into the pockets of insurance company shareholders.
Welcome to /.
Thank you poster. How bout the rest of you wait before succumbing to mass hysteria, ok?
No. I have no belief in the effectiveness of privately-run charity.
yes: what makes you think others don't feel the same?
How about the present state of the US healthcare system? Irritating things, facts.
no: then you are a hypocrite, using authority to force people to do what you want when you wouldn't even do it yourself.
How so? As a high-earning guy without children, I probably pay more than my "fair share", whatever that means, of taxes, so there's no hypocrisy I see in wanting them.
I am trolling
Hmm...but, you're still not paying enough in taxes you feel?
I pay plenty too, and I figure what I pay now is enough (if not too much). I don't want yet ANOTHER federal excuse to raid my paycheck for a national health care system.
We already have medicare/medicade for the truly poor and elderly. Anyone in between, can take care of themselves like most of us do.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
We also don't have eight hour waiting periods to be seen either, which is why many of you Candians come here to Vermont to have your medical procedures done. If your universal care is so wonderful, why do Canadians make up a signifcant part of patients seen at my local health care providers?
I'm not saying the US system is perfect either, but a universal system is not the answer.
You are free to do so, I also believe in that, may I recommend the organization I use do distribute my wealth?
I also give some of my money to a health insurance policy. Everyone who believes in having some security against unforeseen health problems are also free to do so. But I also believe in freedom of choice. I'm free to choose the exact level of protection I want. I don't want to be spoon-fed with a health insurance plan.
Did I make a wrong choice? Ooops! Perhaps I didn't have the health insurance I needed, perhaps I crossed the street at the wrong time, perhaps I ate the wrong mushroom. But at least it was *MY* choice, I'd rather die of a disease my health insurance didn't cover than from a disease the State Health Insurance Plan didn't provide for.
The blinders that rich people in the US use to not see the large percentage of the population which isn't well off are are amazing. There are a shitload of people for whom a 60" HDTV is just not an option, and for whom lack of health care insurance is a real hardship.
Loose lips lose spit.
about the 9/11 perpetrators running around the tribal areas of pakistan, and pakistan's inability to control the area or find the perps
or i suppose looking bad to other countries is a crime only the usa can be guilty of
the desire to see al qaeda assholes in pakistan's hinterlands punished is universal: liberal americans, conservative americans, radicals of all flavors
so remind me again about what the justified hunt for al qaeda has to with electing "liars" please?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
And this, my friends, is why I vote Libertarian. It doesn't matter which of the two big parties is in office. Either way, the government is just going to get bigger and bigger, and our list of freedoms is going to get smaller and smaller.
I only hope I'll live long enough to see the day when a president is finally elected who believes in small government and freedom for all, like our founding fathers did. As it stands now, we seem to be moving ever closer to a totalitarian regime with each new president who's elected. I just hope I can get out of here before soldiers start getting posted on every street corner.
I wonder, when America does finally get to that point, do you think the new Democratic Iraq and Afghanistan will show up to unseat our leaders? It'd be kind of ironic to hear them going on about "The Middle-Eastern Man's Burden." Maybe they'll find some weapons of mass destruction here, while they're at it.
To say that the legal proceedings are questionable and worthy of being stopped is itself questionable and in need of further investigation before you can make the claim, something Obama hasn't done, but just stopped the proceedings before investigation.
Where are we going to store these prisoners now? American prisions are overcrowed now. (Although I do agree that these people need to be getting some sort of trial before they are held indefinitely. However, if they are not American citizens, they are not subject to the bill of rights.)
(that is arguably torture. And if torture, it is merely psychological, and can arguably produce valid intel. There is a significant difference between physical torture and psychological torture.)
(True, but if you believe that the new administration is going to release anything self incriminating or of any real relevance to current intelligence issues, I have a piece of "prime" real-estate to sell you. Slashdot made much of the memo about this that Obama sent out. I would really love to know about the next
(How is this a good thing? Iran has refused to make any friendly contact with the US, and has repeated told us to collectively fuck off. When we are willing to pander to their pre-conditions while setting none of our own, it makes us week in the worlds eyes)
(Which of course the Bush Adm. didn't do at all
(True)
(While preparing to waste billions and billions of dollars on the lower class. Still the frozen salaries is a plus.)
(Once again, why is this good? Ex-Whitehouse people have just as much right to push their agendas as anyone else, as long as they do it through the proper channels)
(I can inquire about giving away free energy to America. It means nothing. Let's remember who can't even give up their damned Blackberry. If Obama were truly tech savy, he would need a particular piece of proprietary tech to do his job)
Oh, and I guess all those people who are unemployed are just "lazy bums who are leeching my tax dollars and not working", and "all fat people are just eating too much" or "all lung cancer sufferers are smokers and don't deserve any of my help to get better" or "anyone with liver disease is an alkie".
There is no doubt that obesity and smoking are major burdens on the UK health system, but everyone pays their NI, everyone is treated. The NHS run campaigns to educate people on how to eat and live healthily, but there are no rules.
I thought the US was all about "the government can't tell me what to do".
You're advocating forcing people to eat and live a certain way else they'll be denied there supposedly "universal" care. Short of making eating junk food illegal, I just don;t see how that would fly.
Americans have got to wake up and realise that the world does not always revolve around the individual. When something like national healthcare is mentioned, you cannot think of it in terms of "how will this affect me? Me me me. My money! My money will help pay for poor people to get healthcare! That's unfair! I pay my way and so should they!", without thinking about the big picture that if *everyone* is helping, then those that really can't help much (the unemployed, the extremely poor, the homeless) get help, while the better off also benefit. Try telling someone in the UK (no matter how much money they make) that your prescription can cost upwards of $100 for some meds. *All* prescriptions on the NHS cost a fixed sum, and it's £6.something.
Six quid. For any number of pills, for any medication.
I'm not sure where all that medical insurance money is going in the US, but if your drugs can cost more than $100 per month, it's not into pills.
I'm a European. My taxes seem to manage to be sufficient to fund healthcare without being excessively burdensome. I wouldn't want to live in a country without nationalized healthcare, even if it meant an overall saving to me personally.
We already have medicare/medicade for the truly poor and elderly.
How well does that work out? My impression is that in the US a lot of conditions end up getting treated a lot later (and hence both less effectively and far more expensively) than they should be, because people won't go to a doctor unless it seems serious.
I am trolling
Let's see.
Leftist Socialist Leanings = Big Government
Big Government = Loss of personal freedoms.
hmm...
Yeah, I saw that one coming a mile away.
Oh don't forget it all in the name of safety and security and think of the childern.
my quote, "if your house has bars on the windows it's not a house it's a fancy jail cell"
Don't mean to point out the obvious, but TFA states that Obama's now the defendant, not Bush, because Obama's now the president. Requesting a stay only means that he's buying some time. I'd do the same if I found myself in a new job being sued for what my predecessor did.
On the other hand, he can disagree with spying on US citizens but still support immunity for the telecoms. A private company (or individual) should not be punished for cooperating with the government when the government was doing something illegal. Sure, its a Nuremberg defense, but the difference here is that we're talking about a legally ambiguous request, not a heinous immoral act like genocide or DRM.
(Although I do agree that these people need to be getting some sort of trial before they are held indefinitely. However, if they are not American citizens, they are not subject to the bill of rights.)
Two words: Fuck you.
People like you are the reason why I won't travel to the united states, and why I've personally advised many friends against travelling there too. I reckon I've stopped more than a dozen tourists from heading there, and I'm proud of it. There are thousands or more of other people like me around the globe, and we are doing our best on this matter. Your fucking arrogant elitist attitude of "they are not citizens, they do not deserve rights" begets nothing else.
The first blow was massive appointment of Czars to take running things out of the hands of the secretaries, etc. That was a method of bypassing congress and the system of checks and balances.
This is the second blow. Trust me, there are plenty yet to come. Did you actually believe a real person would be allowed to get press coverage as a presidential candidate? Let alone be party nominated? The parties are all on the same team, and it isn't our team.
"...but I still support their being able to say it."
Do you support the continued supply of mod points to these moderators though?
Is the old metamod system still in play? Did I opt out when I went with the Beta index? If it is still around I should mention that I get mod points all the time but no metamod invitations anymore.
I refuse to follow the line of "logic" that assumes that voting for a bill automatically means full support for every individual piece of that bill. I will not follow this logic because it assumes -- and would even mandate -- that legislators deliberately avoid exercising judgement and discernment, and that they do not weigh the pros and cons of a bill. If there's a con, they must vote against it. That's simply not how it works.
The enemies of Democracy are
"but if you're obese, its YOUR fault and YOU need to get your diet under control. Instead of making excuses (or letting others do it for them) these people need to act."
Ok.....
Whole foods, and foods not built around cheap fillers and/or laden with cheap processed sugars are ....
EXPENSIVE to those less capable of funds. I used to run 50 miles or more a month, own 2 businesses, and truly believed that if you didn't have something it's because you weren't trying hard enough.
Wrong.
some are gifted with affluence and/or influence from birth. Some have a natural genetic tendency towards being thin. Some of us were born with exceptional intellect.
I have two young daughters, one eats a fair amount, the other EATS. They both don't remotely exercise enough. One has an absolutely perfect figure by magazine standards, the other will suffer verbally from ignorant asshats like you. The "fat" one eats less, btw. she is intellectually gifted. The other is very normal.
I would spew senseless vitriol at you, but instead, I recommend you try to not be completely ignorant when making definitive statements.
Stupid fuck.