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.
Finally, change we can believe in!
Just because he promised "change" doesn't mean it'll be a "good" change!
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!
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.)
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.
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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.