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!
You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
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,
..Oh bummer =(
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!
"Don't be evil*"
*for small values of "evil"
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
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.
That's a very misleading way to state it. What happened, was, the Obama people asked for a stay of the Judge's motion pending appeal.
It's not an endorsement, as you might think from the summary and linked article, of the policy. It's a procedural move.
I'm not saying that Obama doesn't or won't back Bush's view. Just that this particular filing doesn't support that conclusion in a meaningful way.
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.
Warrantless wiretaps are good now. You see, they weren't good before. But they are good now.
Anyone who can't see that is a racist reactionary.
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!
Let us think back to Bush's speeches and promises, and how he failed on nearly every one.
What about the part where he promised to help stabilize Iraq?
What about where he promised we'd see no new terrorist attacks on American soil?
There's a lot of things to dislike Bush over, like spending for one. But Bush has delivered on some huge promises, as much as many here are not willing to admit that or dislike some means uses to accomplish this end.
It only stands to reason that Obama would like to continue successes on both agendas.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
> 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).
The summary and the article it links to make it seem like much more of a big deal than it actually is:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/alharamainobama.pdf
It's a procedural motion for a stay pending appeal. It's not a policy endorsement, it's them looking to have the judge's ruling put on hold until appeals are over.
That's not to say that Obama won't wind up agreeing with Bush on this, just that this particular filing doesn't actually indicate that.
It was politics all along.
A court just recently affirmed the legality of it. Obama continues in the tradition.
The reality is that this stuff has done on for decades. The tradition is that any intelligence collected could not be used to build a case against a US citizen. It is not admissible in court. You cannot be prosecuted based on the intelligence.
Call Detail Records and metadata are owned by the telco's and are therefore proprietary and not private. They can do whatever they want with them.
The *only* thing that has changed is that the wall between the FBI and the NSA built during the Clinton administration was torn down. NSA/CIA can now give leads to the FBI that can be taken to a FISA court. The court can provide a retroactive warrant. Only after FISA court approval can the FBI and the Justice Department use the lead to build a case.
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.
Didn't it occur to anyone here that Obama's attorney general pick hasn't even been confirmed yet? Obama is only nominally in charge of the DOJ at this point. So who do you think it is filing these papers? Well, the names are right in the PDF, starting with Michael F. Hertz. Yes, Michael F. Hertz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General under Alberto Gonzales.
My hand to God. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled.
I don't go to church, but I pay so others can go even though I think it is a hateful waste of time.
I am a product of my society, and have no problem giving back some of my wealth to help my less fortunate fellow citizens.
I do not agree with most 'welfare' programs that hand out money, but health care is worth the cost.
Blar.
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.)
in this document? Does that look like his Attorney General's name to you? No, that's Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michael F. Hertz, who served under Alberto Gonzales; Obama's AG hasn't been confirmed yet.
The US government didn't magically transform itself at the stroke of noon on Tuesday.
My hand to God. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled.
My take: let's wait this out. It's very important to keep in line, but keep in mind that the AG and new justice dept. aren't even appointed.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Let's hypothesize that Bush/Obama are acting in good faith, and let's use as many weasel words in their favor as possible.
That leaves us with a situation where it appears (apparently deceptively) that the government broke the law. The government does not want a court to review their actions to clear them of this wrongful accusation, because the evidence is a national security secret and could result in the deaths of many secret agents and programs and an inability to gather foreign intelligence in the future.
It is insufficient to seal this evidence and let the court review it behind closed doors, because...
I come up with a total blank. What am I missing? They think the judge will blab to Osama? I can't come up with a best case scenario that doesn't involve something ridiculous.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Obama is blocking almost every policy matter still pending from Bush. This is just one of many issues being blocked until the Obama administration can get caught up and take an official stance on it. He may well "side with Bush", but he hasn't really done so yet.
Hikery.net - The best hiking site ever. Made by yours truly.
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 do not agree with most 'welfare' programs that hand out money, but health care is worth the cost.
No, it's not. Not until people are expected to take reasonable care of themselves. People aren't "hardwired" to eat more today any more than they were 50 years ago. It's a personal choice, and people like to sugar coat the truth or say "it's not your fault," 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.
Until that happens, I'm not going to support national health care. And before you tell me it costs more to treat other symptoms related to obesity, I say cut off health care to treat those as well. You want to be fat and get diabetes? Fine, don't expect anyone to help you pay your related medical bills.
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.
It's like a choose you own adventure post
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
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!
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/
It's a personal choice, and people like to sugar coat the truth or say "it's not your fault," but if you're obese, its YOUR fault and YOU need to get your diet under control.
These are the same people that probably sugar coat the truth and then eat it.
The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments. - Nietzche
...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 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.
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
The only thing that could make this post better would be a flow chart.
Sic Semper MicroSoft
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.........
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.
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.
Just make sure it's not that peppermint-flavored dog poop.
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
Eight hour waiting lines?
This is big news to me. Maybe I'm not living in the same Canada you're hearing about.
We also don't have eight hour waiting periods to be seen either
I guess you've never had to visit the ER.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
To anyone wondering how many of these racist ACs are actually registered users in good standing you should check out the mod on parent comment.
ATM it is 0 Flamebait with the following percentages:
50% Flamebait
30% Insightful
20% Underrated
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.
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.
no: then you are a hypocrite
False. It's the sort of thing that only works if everyone does it. This relates to the concept of cooperative play in game theory, and one of the reasons why we have an evolutionary drive towards tribalism.
Think of it this way. Let's say five of us have access to a fishery. It can indefinitely support each of us catching one fish per week. If any of us overfish it, however, then the fishery goes dry (i.e. runs out of fish) and is permanently destroyed.
We understand that this is the case, and would like to keep it indefinitely. Are we just going to restrict ourselves out of own volition? Of course not; it doesn't work. All it takes is one guy to decide to overfish it, and the fishery is destroyed. In fact, you know of several people who will overfish it unless they are stopped.
So are you a hypocrite if you overfish it? Not at all. It's going to be destroyed by your neighbors; you may as well take what you can.
The only way this can work is if we ALL agree to band together: should anyone step out of line, the rest of us have to punish that person. In tribal times, this would simply be violence or death; nowadays it's prison or a fine. With this system, we can work together, and the fishery can be sustained indefinitely.
You can see in this example why you have such a wide range of base instincts and why they are so useful. This is why people are altruistic; it is necessary for this scenario to happen. This is why these same people are vengeful; possibility (or certainty) of revenge or punishment is a strong disincentive towards taking advantage of someone.
As an aside note, this is *exactly* how wildlife regulations currently work in the civilized world. You have an allotment of fish or mammals you are allowed to fish or hunt; if you poach, you get a fine or prison.
Like your 'donations' scheme, it only works if everyone does it. I'm not going to donate to health care in a two tier system when a negligible percentage of the population does it. It won't make a difference and I'm wasting my money.
If you haven't guessed, I am Canadian, and I like the system we have here. I am never sick, but I am more than happy to pay my share, because everyone does. We are a better country for it.
"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.