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.

32 of 906 comments (clear)

  1. So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. by Kludge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

    Asshole.

    1. Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Realistically, though, this isn't a change in what we know (or should have known, for those who didn't know this). All Obama has accomplished is shown any supporters who were still blind enough to believe him (after his Senate vote, no less) that he really doesn't support our rights like he claimed he did. His only possible excuse for his actions, that it might sabotage his campaign, has been removed, but his actions have not changed. Surprise, surprise.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    2. Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. by gnick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The cracks are showing.

      It will come as a shock to some that, even though Obama has taken office, a lot of the nation is overcast today. We still have to pay to go to the doctor. Dog poo does not yet smell like peppermint. And I've yet to get a raise or better offer this week.

      I like the guy and, although some of his plans make me nervous (I'm a pretty staunch fiscal conservative), I'm optimistic that he'll do a good job. But it is kind of satisfying to see him reveal that he's not quite the guy that so many people see up on that pedestal.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US has devolved into a place where safety trumps constitutional authorization, judicial honesty, liberty, and honor.

      The government might as well change the national motto to "Safety at Any Cost."

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    4. Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. by hobbit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      a lot of the nation is overcast today. We still have to pay to go to the doctor. Dog poo does not yet smell like peppermint.

      As someone who lives in a country with a National Health Service, it tickles me to see it sandwiched between two "impossible ideals".

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    5. Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. by happyslayer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By temperament and voter registration, I'm a Republican; however, I voted for (and hope for) an Obama win because the path the government has taken over the last 7-8 years has saddened and disgusted me. I'm glad he won.

      But, I am not a "believer." Now that the opposing party is in charge (just like the GOP was for all those years) it's going to be hard for them to put away all those neat new toys that Bush & Co. left behind. This is because it's hard for the party on top to admit that a power or capability is too dangerous to use (dangerous as in potentially or outright abusive of Constitutional rights.)

      If there were ever a prime time to hold your government's feet to the fire over policy, now is the time to do it. Otherwise, it will be fait accompli, and we'll start hearing things from this administration (and its supporters) like, "But we're not Bush; we're better than him!"

      Just my inflation-adjusted 2 cents...

      --
      Never confuse movement with action. --Hemingway
    6. Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And yet, just like most Americans, he has access to shit TV, unhealthy snacks, cheap drugs and legal pornography. What's the downside again?

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    7. Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The truly ironic part of course is that such a policy ultimately leads to loss of all safety for those who try to "protect" themselves so.

    8. Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. by eth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The government might as well change the national motto to "The Appearance of Safety at Any Cost."

      Fixed that for you...

    9. Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh come on, it took an entire 3 days for a Deputy Assistant Attorney General under Alberto Gonzales who is acting Attorney General until Obama's pick is confirmed step on that promise, I think he's doing better than bush already!

      Corrected that for you.

      --
      My hand to God. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled.
    10. Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. by stewbacca · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's a crock. My wife is having a baby next month and the whole thing will be about $4000. With negotiated rates and my company pitching in $1,000 to my HSA, it is not even a blip on our financial radar (the birth, the baby and next 18 years very much so on the radar). We've had 9-months to save up for it, and long before she got pregnant, we were planning for it. Americans will drop $5k on a 60" hdtv, but don't want to spend a dime on doctor bills to have a baby. WTF?

    11. Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's the downside again?

      Higher taxes, more governmental control over our lives and less individual freedom?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    12. Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. by assassinator42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It might not be a blip on your radar, but what about someone making $20k or less a year? And I don't know anyone who'd spend $5k on a 60" HDTV.

    13. Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. by element-o.p. · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's a crock.

      As long as there are no complications, that is. When my daughter was born, she spent the first five days of her life in the NICU due to a respiratory infection. IIRC, that was around $20K after paying for the birth and related expenses.

      While most middle-class Americans can cough up $4K with a little advance planning, a surprise of an additional $20K can be a pretty heavy load.

      So, while I really hope your baby is born healthy and there are no unwelcome surprises (I wouldn't wish five days of not knowing whether or not your baby will ever get to go home on anybody), don't fool yourself into thinking that you can plan for all medical expenses by preparing a little ahead of time.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    14. Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. by jo_ham · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The "long waiting lines" in the UK and Canadian health care systems are a myth perpetuated by US propaganda from certain special interest groups who desperately hope that the US system stays as it is.

      Sure, in a system that's not perfect you are going to see some waits, and it's not going to be quite as "lick your ass service" as a private healthcare clinic in the US (but really, how many Americans actually have access to that service).

      The national insurance that I pay is a tiny amount compared to my salary, and my taxes are not that much higher than the US (except VAT/Sales tax [15%], gasoline [70%] and alcohol/cigarettes [40% ish]), but we have ways to offset those costs.

      There's no way I pay 50% in taxes, compared to my income.

      The US insurance companies may try to play the "omg, free healthcare means crippling taxes for all citizens, even if you don;t get sick! Then you're paying for your friends and neighbours when they get sick and you're healthy! How unfair is that! It's totally like communism! Buy our healthcare and $400 prescriptions!"

      When a medicine taken by a patient costs $100 per month, and costs $5 in Cuba, you know there's someone paying off a loan on a 100 foot yacht, and it;s not the person taking the medicine.

    15. Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and my taxes are not that much higher than the US (except VAT/Sales tax [15%], gasoline [70%] and alcohol/cigarettes [40% ish])

      So your taxes aren't that much higher than the US except where they are that much higher than the US? Is that really your argument?

      There's no way I pay 50% in taxes, compared to my income.

      Well bully for you. I on the other hand make a whooping ~$30,000 and between income/social security/medicare and state/local taxes I'm paying nearly 30% of my income out in taxes. I don't know about you but I feel more confident in my ability to spend some of that $9,000 for my own benefit than I do in the ability of some government bureaucrat to spend it for me.

      When a medicine taken by a patient costs $100 per month, and costs $5 in Cuba, you know there's someone paying off a loan on a 100 foot yacht, and it;s not the person taking the medicine.

      Windows XP costs <$5 in Cuba and China but that doesn't mean that cost accurately reflects what it cost to produce that product. I'm no big fan of the pharmaceutical industry and would like to see many reforms (starting with patent reform) but this idea that they can't charge a fair price for their product is absurd.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    16. Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. by jo_ham · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These are the stories that people need to see. The old adage that anecdotes are not data just can't really apply here. There are thousands of families in exactly your position across America who are crippled by the healthcare system, but that doesn't matter - even if there's only the one family, it's too many and you really have to look at changing it.

      America is the wealthiest, most powerful country in the world, and yet, it is the same country that puts altered, injured and confused patients into cabs and gives the driver $15 to drop them off on the street outside homeless shelters wearing nothing but a hospital gown because they have no insurance and no family to pay the bill.

      And the gap between medicaid, the so-called solution for those who can't afford insurance, and the level of income you need to be able to afford insurance creates an *enormous* poverty gap like an open sore on the face of the most powerful, richest nation on Earth.

      The US has the ability to create a national healthcare system, it just needs the will to do it, and has to be prepared to piss off a lot of people who like things the way they are because they get very rich on the backs of people who need to pay for medical care.

      A society is judged not by the way it treats the well off, but by the way it treats the less well off, and in health care issues, the US is *way* down there in the toilet.

      Don;t get me wrong, I love the USA. I just hate what they've done with medicine.

  2. Re:Hail Obama, Savior of America. by Slammer64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Finally, change we can believe in!

    Just because he promised "change" doesn't mean it'll be a "good" change!

  3. Give it time by gatkinso · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Give it time by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There just might be a valid reason for this (then again there might not be).

      I can't imagine any valid reason for spying on our citizens without a warrant, personally. Or interfering with justice for those who had been violated. Maybe it exists, but I find that hard to believe.

      They guy has been in office less than a week. Progress has already been made.

      As of right now, progress is nil. He did some good things so far, but this is a really bad thing. Net gain: none.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    2. Re:Give it time by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can't imagine any valid reason for spying on our citizens without a warrant, personally. Or interfering with justice for those who had been violated. Maybe it exists, but I find that hard to believe.

      Read the PDF that the Obama administration actually filed before drawing any conclusions here.

      The PDF they filed is simply an argument over the mundane details of court procedure, the rules of evidence, which court should see the appeal, etc.

      Granted it has the effect of bolstering Bush's defense, but so what?

      If the police try to get evidence admitted on a child molester, but there is a problem with the evidence, and Obama shows up and says, well the child molester is arguing that the evidence can't be admitted and our legal analysis concludes the same thing... what then?

      Obama is siding with child molestors? Get fucking real. As destestable as child molestors and warrantless government surveillance is, the rule of law protecting them should be observed.

      This blog article is just bad journalism.

      As of right now, progress is nil. He did some good things so far, but this is a really bad thing. Net gain: none.

      Agreeing with Bush's interpretation of the law isn't a really bad thing, especially if that's what the laws say. Ask a lawyer, not a blogger to determine whether its bad or not. And if the law itself is the problem, ask that he change it so that in future we can do better, but don't ask him to break it just to prosecute Bush.

  4. Obama doesn't even have a DOJ yet... by Lendrick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Uh.. Hello! by phrackwulf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  6. Nonsense. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.)

  7. More FUD by Sta7ic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Naysayers and Doomspeakers by TiggertheMad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
  9. Re:Hail Obama, Savior of America. by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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:

    1. Halted the questionable legal proceedings against people held at Guantanamo Bay
    2. Ordered the shutdown of the prison at Guantamo Bay
    3. Ordered the shutdown of CIA "black sites"
    4. Ordered the CIA to stick to the Army Field Manual for interrogation purposes (read: no more torture)
    5. Overturned Bush's order to limit release of presidential records and FOIA documentation
    6. Began diplomatic overtures to Iran
    7. Began talking to Israel, Palestine, Egypt, etc, to hasten resolution of the Israel/Palestine violence
    8. Rescinded the Mexico City "gag rule" on government aid to agencies that provide information on abortion
    9. Froze white house salaries at existing levels
    10. Passed an executive order banning ex-White House personnel from lobbying the White House until after Obama is out of office
    11. Inquired about extending the use of open source software in government

    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.
  10. Has it ever occurred to any of you... by almitchell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.
  11. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Until that happens, I'm not going to support national health care.

    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.

  12. Do you believe in Democracy? by mangu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am a product of my society, and have no problem giving back some of my wealth to help my less fortunate fellow citizens.

    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.

  13. Mod parent up by fyoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  14. Re:Hail Obama, Savior of America. by Failed+Physicist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    (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.