Slashdot Mirror
Obama Administration Defends Warrantless Wiretapping
a whoabot writes "The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the Obama administration has stepped in to defend AT&T in the case over their participation in the warrantless wiretapping program started by Bush. The Obama administration argues that that continuation of the case will lead to the disclosure of important 'state secrets.' The Electronic Frontier Foundation has described the action as an 'embrace' of the Bush policy." Update: 04/07 15:18 GMT by T : Glenn Greenwald of Salon has up an analysis of this move, including excerpts from the actual brief filed. Excerpt: "This brief and this case are exclusively the Obama DOJ's, and the ample time that elapsed — almost three full months — makes clear that it was fully considered by Obama officials."
Yeah, the kind left in your pocket.
This is a full blown leg humping.
Aside from that, business as usual I guess. No point in getting rid of all the cool toys the last guy left lying around, right?
On another note, have you begun your responsible phased withdrawal from Iraq you promised me when I voted for you, Mr. Obama?
Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 -- more than 7 years after the war began.
How's that going, by the way?
My work here is dung.
"The Obama administration argues that that continuation of the case will lead to the disclosure of important 'state secrets.'"
Well thats what happens when you use unconstitutional and illegal methods to obtain those secrets. Tough shit!
Does this remind anyone else of the argument that "when the president does it, it's not illegal"?
Nice to see that change came to town...
Unlawful. That is all that should matter, how disappointing.
I voted for him.
This is my biggest disappointment so far in his presidency. It's a signal that, for all the talk about transparency, it's talk.
I'm not saying that he's a failure as President, but I am saying that this issue marks the end of any honeymoon.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Dude. They have secret spy courts. They have secret spy courts. They have secret spy courts. Say it 3x and it's still true. The only reason to now want a wiretap OK'd through a secret spy court is because you might not get the warrant. And if you might not get the warrant, it might be illegal to do the tap. Duh.
So much for all that change Obama kept talking about.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
at 1-800-ALQ-AEDA and demand an end to warrentless wiretapping.
Thank you for your help in spreading freedom and democracy worldwide.
Yours In Communism,
Kilgore Trout
I voted for Kucinich! In the primaries, that is. Didn't vote in the general election.
he voted in support of telco immunity before being president. I don't like it, but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt insofar as this is a mess that the bush administration created, which would cause an even bigger mess in trying to forcibly reverse it without regard to consequence.
I'm not disappointed in having voted (and swaying votes, and registering voters) for him. Seriously, anyone here complaining things would be better living in the nation of Mccainistan (capitol city, Palingrad)?
I'm not. Who's going to willingly remove power from themselves once said power is already granted? Only an idealist or philosopher would do something like that..unfortunately no one fitting these descriptions is fit for the game of politics in this country..or any country holding a world power for that matter.
And the litany of broken promises and Democrat capitulation continues...
And people wonder why we have the Republicrat meme.
Any concept can be used for both good and bad. IMHO, listening in on conversations to suspected terrorist contacts outside the US can be useful if the information sheds light on terrorist operations. Listening in on conversations that occur completely within our borders? That's tres KGB or Stasi. The radical left in this country has a paranoia about its own people. Ooo, a Ron Paul bumper sticker. They must be militia members! Better call the FBI. Newsflash: dissent is protected in this country and doesn't just apply to leftist speech.
The Obama administration argues that that continuation of the case will lead to the disclosure of important 'state secrets.'
Never mind the, "Obama is just as bad as Bush," rant. What's the secret? Any guesses?
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html
I used to be against wireless wiretapping. But if our Dear Leader says warrantless wiretapping is good then it is good.
You people criticizing this policy are obviously racist.
Here in the UK Jack Straw used to make speeches about "ethical foreign policy"; he became foreign secretary and was eventually one of the biggest cheerleaders for our Iraq adventure. Every time someone who espouses those kinds of ideals actually gets in power they always seem to do a complete U-turn.
Are they all just liars? Are they being blackmailed? Or do they realise upon gaining power and seeing the whole sorry mess from the top that changing things would incriminate too many people and bring the whole system down?
Nick
i'm willing to give him the b-o-t-doubt...i certainly haven't been briefed & know enough to have an informed opinion, but that's never hindered the /. crowd;-)
Obama's voting record on this issue as a Senator is what disillusioned me during his campaign. Part of me wanted to hope that the vote in question was nothing more than ruthless pragmatism on his part, but this defense of the indefensible shows otherwise.
Just another power grab.
Some people dont have a problem with this... they kinda annoy me.
Between the promise to not hire lobbyists, the parade of appointees who have had problems paying their taxes, the proposal floated to have soldiers provide their own insurance for battle injuries (since rescinded), and now this, I hope people start to realize they voted for Obama for the wrong reason. It was more of a vote against Bush and his party than anything. and it was also a fantastically executed marketing campaign. More money was spent on the Obama campaign than any other election. They tapped into what their target audience wanted, hired the best speech writers, and pulled it off.
My user name was a mistake. Input wasn't restricted, my bad.
Well OF COURSE he is. Obama is a lying weasel who said what the stupid American people wanted to hear to get elected. Oh, I know they all do that, but he's the worst of the lying filthy scum bags. He's an idiot, he's incompetent, he's corrupt. The trifecta of a perfect politician. Having him as president in my country makes me want to weep, then die.
Pax Vobiscum
The secrets would be the techniques and procedures used by our intelligence agencies.
Call me simple, but maybe we just need to let those 'secrets' go so the public's faith can be restored.
Blar.
I feel sorry for the people who voted for Obama (I voted "none of the above"). They're getting more of Bush when they wanted to "move on". This is the exact opposite of what they expected, but it's been par for the course. Besides this, we also have his reversal on the ban on federal funding for stem cell research: one day he signed a bill overturning the ban, and two days later, he reinstated the ban in an omnibus spending bill. He definitely should have read and understood the latter before signing it. In addition is his complete 180 on earmark spending. During his campaign, and early in his election, he was adamantly opposed to earmarks. Then recently he came out in favor of them, and stated that he had always supported them.
Say one thing, do another. Just like Bush and the GOP. Were you really expecting any better from the Dems?
... after all, Obama voted FOR the FISA amendments last year -- DURING the campaign season. How could his administration do any other?
MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
Going against the grain a little, I am starting to think... maybe... just maybe there really is something important that really SHOULDN'T be out in the open for good reasons. I don't know. Even greedy people are lazy. This just seems like a whole lot of work that would need a whole lot of motivation to keep going.
Or, Maybe not... however, I'd rather be objective about it at this point, rather than screaming for everyone to get off my lawn.
I voted "none of the above", and feel sorry for you. This is the exact opposite of what was expected, but it's been par for the course. Besides this, we also have his reversal on the ban on federal funding for stem cell research: one day he signed a bill overturning the ban, and two days later, he reinstated the ban in an omnibus spending bill. He definitely should have read and understood the latter before signing it. In addition is his complete 180 on earmark spending. During his campaign, and early in his election, he was adamantly opposed to earmarks. Then recently he came out in favor of them, and stated that he had always supported them.
Say one thing, do another. Just like Bush and the GOP. Were you really expecting any better from the Dems?
that you went in as Anonymous Coward. Who says that you are anonymous?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
... Same as the old Boss.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Soylent Green is made of.. PEOPLE!
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Clearly, the President is choosing something over our ideals. It's about time that he explained what he's choosing.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
I find the increasing emphasis on surveillance technology to be worrying. Aerial reconnaisance technology developed for use in Afghanistan will eventually be used domestically in my opinion. Surveillance satellites are already used that way, with hardly any public outcry. It seems the American left that's in power cares about equality, but not so much about protecting against abuse of government power. And I don't think the philosophy has been very good for the rest of the world either. Unmanned reconnaissance followed by poorly informed airstrikes has been a big part of the reason people in Afghanistan dislike and don't cooperate with the US-led coalition.
talk about leaps of (il)logic...i think the secrets !2b disclosed weren't illegally _obtained_, they were illegally _used_;-}
and i don't think "defending at&t" == "Defends Warrantless Wiretapping" unless u make no distinction between actions & actors...
i think obama's inherited another mess from dubya, & like the financial mess i don't blame him (obama:-)
the profound difference between being an outside critic, responsible to no one; and being in charge, and responsible for the results of his actions.
Change? Ha.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
There may actually be national security issues that would come up in any lawsuits involving warrentless wiretapping.
For example, we know that AT&T has or had equipment that is patched into their network and is doing analysis on it. If this thing gets to trial, people are going to start asking questions like "What traffic is passing through this equipment", "What traffic does this equipment examine" and "what is this equipment looking for". This information could potentially be of value to a terrorist.
Note that I do not support or endorse warrentless wiretapping in any way, I am just presenting the facts.
I know there are a few others here on Slashdot like myself who did not believe a word out of this guy's mouth during the campaign (and no I did not vote McCain)
You didn't really believe half the stuff he promised would come to pass did you? His own voting record (what little of it that is) and his writings (we actually got two) pointed to a direction not in line with his campaign. Throw in the fact he had basically zero experience people either were relying on the novelty of a black President or were so partisan that anyone not "R" was the only choice.
Look at his appointees, I would swear Hillary won. I was one of the deluded types who didn't really fret over Bush having such powers and holding such views because I knew the press would be merciless. I was worried about the next guy and apparently it will be fun to see if anything gets made of it, let alone the clowns in Congress who had a cow when he did this.
So did ya'll really buy into this shit or not?
It really blows my mind that so many act surprised.
News at 11, water is wet, fire is hot, and politicians only want power for themselves.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I'd just like for it to be known that many people, myself, fucking called this. Remember when Obama caved on telecom immunity? How did anybody think that he would put away the toys that Bush left out in the play room?
My letter to him when he voted for telecom immunity instead of growing a set:
You know, as a Republican, I suppose I could take the cheap shot and say, "Hah, there you go, see, he's not really any different after all."
But...
Bashing Obama for doing something supposedly conservative is just silly. Conservatives bashing Obama for doing something conservative is even sillier still. If it was so right for Bush to wiretap, then, shouldn't conservatives be defending Obama at least on this issue? If it was so wrong for Bush to wiretap, well, conservatives, where were you for eight years?
The thing is, one could make the argument that Obama is defending Bush on warrantless wiretapping not necessarily because he plans on doing it himself, but because he wants to spare the USA the damage from some foreign policy implication of what Bush did.
If you look at his overall record, Obama is acting like the dyed in the wool hardcore liberal that he is. Come on, Obama has spent his last European trip apologizing for everything the USA has ever done - a typical liberal thing to do. Do you think Bush would ever apologize for American foreign policy? Don't think so.
This is my sig.
That is why nerds support having no boss at all
Look, I would hardly say that Obama is a Republican in sheep's clothing.
No Republican in his right mind would be running all around Europe and the Middle East apologizing for past American actions. Seriously, can you imagine Dick Cheney apologizing for, well, anything?
No Republican would offer to get rid of nuclear weapons.
No Republican would kill the F-22.
No Republican would argue that the USA needs national health care.
No Republican would argue that the USA should consider a carbon tax.
There are serious and deep differences between political parties and people saying that this one issue means that "Obama is the same as BushCo" just miss the entire point and tenor of his campaign and administration.
What do you want the guy to do to prove he's different? Wear really loud checkered golf pants and scream out "Beep" every now and then?
How's that going, by the way?
He's going to be off by three months out of sixteen. That's not too bad. He said responsible withdrawal and he meant it. The troops are leaving Iraq after the next Iraq election. IT's his trump card to play in the 2010 Congressional elections...
This is my sig.
Obama voted for FISA while in the Senate. Were people just hoping he didn't really mean it?
Look, the handwriting has been on the wall for a while. He's a politician from Chicago.
People went all crazy about him without pausing and realizing he is still a politician.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
I guess that's the case for most "classified" information, the public already has a pretty good idea about what it is.
Yup, the Solon article confirms this:
Lets look ad the definition of "secret."
1. done, made, or conducted without the knowledge of others - nope, everyone knows
2. kept from the knowledge of any but the initiated or privileged - nope, everyone knows
3. faithful or cautious in keeping confidential matters confidential; close-mouthed; reticent.- Everyone knows, so it's no longer confidential
4. designed or working to escape notice, knowledge, or observation- apparently not!
5. secluded, sheltered, or withdrawn - I don't think this applies at all.
6. beyond ordinary human understanding; esoteric. - the government spied on its citizens, what's so hard to understand about that?
7a.bearing the classification secret.
7b.limited to persons authorized to use information documents, etc., so classified.- That's it!
These so called, "secrets," aren't secret in the traditional meanings (1-6). These are secrets in that only the government is allowed to use this information.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
You people assumed that, just because the election was actually -fair- this time around, that you wouldn't wind up with a liar in office? When has there EVER been a president in the history of the U.S. that lived up to every promise he made during his campaign? In fact if anyone can name ANY politician of ANY nationality that lived up to each and every promise they made during an election I'd be quite impressed.
Obama's walked into a White House that believes it's okay to torture people as long as it serves your best interest, that thinks it's okay to start a war based on faulty intelligence and then set up their own oil companies to suck up the profits, that thinks its okay to hire civilian mercenaries to do their fighting without any sort of accountability. Tell me how you would try and immediately fix that in a practical manner. I'd really like to know.
Imagine Watergate today. The Whitehouse would just get AT&T or another friendly telco to bug their conversations and then claim state immunity. Nixon would never have resigned. Does anyone think that would have been a good idea?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Let's just think about it for a second.... Bush put a program in place to illegally monitor US citizens.
How can Obama support the lawsuits without disclosing how it was all done, and who did it? I am sure there are state secrets involved. Hey, I don't like the wiretapping thing any more than anybody else. But let's look at it realistically - Obama has to clean up the mess Bush made. I don't really see a clean way to do this. It exists for the economy (which Bush IGNORED), Iraq, wiretapping, and countless other things.
I voted for Obama, and his presidency has been somewhat disappointing thus far. But people comparing him to Bush? Let's get a grip folks, and remember that he inherited all of this crap that was created by the previous guy.
Bad analogy time - what if the country used Windows ME, and someone dumped it in your lap and said "here - you own it now - good luck". Could you fix it and satisfy all your customers in 3 months?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
...and contributing to the EFF, the ones actually pushing this issue.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
The soap box didn't work.
The ballot box didn't work.
I guess only the ammo box is left.
Viva la Revolution!
Obama very clearly opposed this, then got in office and supports it. The clear inference here is that he learned _something_ between then and now to lead him to believe this was saving lives or in some other way acceptable. I get 'those who would sacrifice privacy for security deserve neither'. I have to believe that there are pros and cons both ways to this, but that the scale tip toward the pros. (For the record, I'm not an Obama supporter on just about any other issue.)
Original article by John Goekler: http://www.counterpunch.org/goekler03242009.htmlhttp://www.counterpunch.org/goekler03242009.html
Of the top things to be scared of there is no mention of terrorism. But watch out for family members! "Over 16,000 Americans will be murdered this year, most often by a relative or friend."
Douglas N Letter. A Cheney crony and left behind.
You woinder why the republicans are nit picking the crap out of Obama Appointees? Becasue they want there peopel in place to do this type of crap.
I said it many time during the last 8 years: You need to look at the whole picture and the players. Everything else is media bullshit.
Read this case, look at the players. Do you really think the Terrorism Litigation Counsel is going to let go of the very policies that gave that office too much power?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Reigning in the military budget is change.
Help for the middle class instead of just the super rich and mega poor is change.
Things are changing...not everything I want to change is changing and some things I don't want to change are changing...but things are changing.
I'm rolling with it.
Blar.
In that case, I'm going to write-in "Anonymous Coward" in '12.
Yes we can fight with http://quin.elbruto.es/
Mr. Obama was clear to me like mountain pond water. He voted for FISA, the first bailout, hired Biden for running mate, Geithner for the Treasury... Now, when he hired Geithner I knew there would be NO change, NONE. Geithner is the biggest criminal on Wall St (not Madoff). So this goes to all the Obamanoids out there who are just flaming liberals with brains the size of a peanut. To all the "Yes We Can"'s out there: good job! You are a bunch of morons who ignored the truth when it flashed before you! You're a bunch of idiots who chose to cherry-pick things they liked about Obama and ignored the rest. You're the ones who called other candidates "unelectable" and what not. Remember when I was walking the streets with my Ron Paul sign and you laughed at me because Ron Paul was too old to be a president, was unelectable, was racist, was against abortion, was just not "presidential material", was not good-looking? Well, this is what you get now! Eat your own crap now, hopefully it tastes good! It's ok though. I think the next time, if we all get lucky to vote for someone of Ron Paul's caliber, you will, again, vote for another moron like ... like Obama. People don't get smart overnight. And most liberals think they're very smart anyway - they care about the environment, they listen to Al Gore's hogwash, they believe capitalism doesn't work (because we have poverty, expensive healthcare, etc.), they believe in helping out the neighbor by forcing everyone to chip in ... OR ELSE ... (sound of clanging handcuffs)
Now, to all the Obamanoids - get back to you ratholes and stay confused - you're just too dumb to ever understand what just happened or who you elected!
Meet the new boss.
Same as the old boss.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Sort of. They all claim to be the next jesus until they get those first few CLASSIFIED national security briefings....
I understand that those lawsuits can't move forward without incriminating some former leaders and putting others in jail.
I understand that. But maybe that's what we need and want. Maybe we want to see some former leaders go to jail to get some closure.
I understand that Obama is respecting the office, but what the fuck? Someone needs to pay the price. John Yoo should be hanged for treason. Dick Cheney should be hanged for treason. Bush should spend his life in prison because he is too stupid to know what he was doing was seriously illegal and wrong. Those people subverted the Constitution of the United States and attempted a coup de'tat. That is treason.
Bush ignored his presidential oath. You remember the one he took where he swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America? He wiped his ass with the constitution. That is impeachable. That is unforgivable. The people of the United States of America demand justice. The fact that we can't get it means we've lost our republic. Touché Mr Franklin.
They're using their grammar skills there.
They tapped into what their target audience wanted, hired the best speech writers, and pulled it off.
So, are you saying the people got what they wanted? Uhh, without being obtuse, isn't that was democracy is all about? Of course it's a marketing campaign! The whole idea of our government is a marketing campaign. We must all believe in it or it will go away and be replaced by something else. This is how revolutions happen -- the people don't get what they want. And in response, they pick up pitchforks, torches, and guns.
The achilles heal of democracies is that the voters eventually figure out they can vote themselves entitlements. Once they get to that point, it's all about who "gives them the most". Unfortunately, that is generally at odds with the economic vitality of said country. Nobody can sell tough-love to a group who only knows Gimme, Gimme, Gimme....
Back in the day, we had a mechanism to deal with this: The Senate.
You see, in years past, Senators were APPOINTED by the states. They were not elected by the general population. It was designed that way to balance the "people's" choice of representatives (congressmen). Somewhere along the way, Senators were voted into office. And things have changed dramatically since that time.
Obama has done A LOT of good and reversed many of the horrible mistakes Bush made already, even in the first weeks
Like what? Obama has done almost nothing except dramatically overspend. This completely overshadows all else he may have done or will do that is somewhat good, and points to voting for McCain as having been the wiser choice - McCain would have done all of the good things Obama has done, but not put forth nearly as onerous a budget (though he would have unfortunately continued the bailouts, but possibly not to such a scale and certainly not for the automakers).
McCain also would not have been so totally left footed in international relations, just as an aside on something else that will matter in the long run.
There's no way Obama is any kind of "lesser evil" here, on any scale you care to measure - though of course bandying around the term "evil" for either side is totally bombastic. Instead I would say, that Obama is by far the most misguided and lacking in long-term thinking than McCain was....
Not that I'm a Republican, just a Libertarian who can sadly see through the smoke and mirrors that both parties erect.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
At least this will help his popularity amongst not-partisan non-racist Republicans.
...check the premises upon which you based your expectations.
The premise here under question is that changing an officeholder, or even which party holds power, will change policy.
That's like saying the way to un-electrocute yourself is to reverse polarity and try again -- especially when the power is AC.
Maybe an even greater error in our reasoning lies in our belief that government acts as the guarantor of rights.
Rights have no meaning without power. To expect any government to respect a right when it alone has the power to protect or destroy such a thing is foolish -- even when it would seem in the government's interest to protect a right.
Only we can protect ourselves in the end.
And we can do it by committing ourselves to stop empowering government.
Stop doing things that help fund government through taxes. You don't have to starve yourself, but do you REALLY need that new gadget that pays government a certain percentage in sales taxes?
Stop using things that government owns or controls. You don't have to become the next Ted Kaczynski, but maybe you don't need to keep more than a minimum balance in your bank.
No one should think that my suggestions will work miracles or be painless -- they very well could have the opposite result. But taking the path of least resistance, i.e. writing our congressman or voting, hasn't worked very well either, has it?
....And here come the brown-shirts, claiming the article is:
a) Racist
b) Fascist
c) Something-else-ist
d) A Right-Wing Conspiracy
e) "Yeah, but Bush was WORSE!"
f) "USA SUCKS!"
e) All of the above.
Ho-hum....
Regards;
I suppose Obama is starting to realize this. You can speak passionately on just about anything, but when the ball lands in your lap and you are the one who is resposible for making the decision, perhaps what was once so black and white is now not as easily labeled as such.
I was very disappointed with Bush, but I am becoming quite frightened by Obama's lack of real experience. By the time the next Presidential election rolls around, Obama will have held that job longer than any other job he has had.
And enough with the serial apologizing about America...virtually every world leader sees that not as a sign of America's evolution into a better citizen of the world, they see it as a weakness to be exploited.
There are two Americas. Guess which one gets all the rights and breaks the rules?
Enjoy your prison state. Pay your taxes. The economy is bad for YOU the poor... but not the wealthy. The wealthy get your tax dollars through hand outs.
Steal from the poor, give to the rich. And they sold you that Robin Hood story too, just like the fairy tale that is America.
This is the pattern I'm seeing: the Obama administration is continuing some of the more distasteful legal arguments of the Bush administration. But it seems to me that there are benefits to this that liberals may not see beyond their outrage: legal precedent. The Bush administration's worst arguments for indefinite detention are being crushed in the courts, mainly because they were eventually forced to defend them in court. By not dropping the Bush administration's arguments the Obama administration is allowing legal precedent to be set when the arguments are rejected in court.
For those who haven't seen them yet:
Freedom to Fascism, by Aaron Russo
The Obama Deception, by Alex Jones
...much more information out there, but these two movies are a good start.
~ awaiting spiritual enlightenment ~
I hope all you self-described Libertarians are members of the Free State Project where there would actually be a chance to distance yourselves from the federal government.
Unrelated: didn't Obama create some .gov where we can go berate him for this kind of crap?
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
The Who in "We won't get fooled again".
The legality/morality/necessity of this depends on how the entire terrorism issue is framed. Is it a national security issue or common crime? Should the approach be military or law enforcement?
If this is a national security issue requiring a military response, then this is an "intelligence intercept of enemy communications" and is part of waging war. The legal system, courts, and warrants simply do not factor into the execution of military operations, nor would it be appropriate for a commander to get a warrant to intercept enemy military communications. The military should never have to get a warrant to intercept orders between the enemy HQ and enemy commandos who have infiltrated behind our lines and are planning an attack.
If you think this is a criminal issue requiring a law enforcement response and the suspects are going to be arrested, brought before a court, and tried, then this is a "wiretap" and part of a criminal investigation. Not only would it be appropriate to get a warrant, but it would be required, otherwise the evidence would be inadmissible in court.
So there is the dichotomy. Neither answer is completely wrong depending on the context. I think the appropriate question to frame the context is: "What will be done with the information?" If the goal is to arrest a criminal, prosecute him before a court, get a conviction, and jail him, then warrants are required. If the goal is to wage war and disrupt an enemy operation, and/or capture an enemy without any intent to legally prosecute the enemy operative as a criminal, no warrant is required.
Also, who is the target? Is it foreign enemies talking to their overseas HQ or is it Americans talking domestically to other Americans? The former is an military intercept and the latter is a wiretap.
Perhaps the problem is blurred by accident of history. The US had no meaningful intelligence service until after WWII. Before that, everything was ad-hoc. Counter-intelligence fell upon law enforcement organizations by default, because they were the only trained government investigative services. Before the formation of the FBI in the 1930s, the Treasury Department's Secret Service was sometimes used for intelligence operations. At the time, the Secret Service was the only real federal investigative organization, besides the postal inspectors, so it fell to them by default. Later (1920-1930s) the Justice Department, created the FBI for more general federal law enforcement investigative tasks and so intelligence was passed to them by default. The CIA (which is civilian, but not law enforcement) wasn't formed until after WWII, by which time Hoover's FBI was entrenched in counter-intelligence. The Army's professional Military Intelligence Branch wasn't formed until 1962. Before that, Military Intelligence was an temporary assignment from other branches. So, by the time professional organized civilian or military intelligence services were formed, counter-intelligence was firmly in the grasp of the FBI. Counter-intelligence took on a law enforcement cast, because it was being performed by law enforcement agencies, not because it was more inherently criminal than military. This has colored our perception. Had the military been doing it from the start, we would likely perceive counter-intelligence and terrorism to be a military problem instead of a law enforcement problem.
This explains his Senate vote on the FISA amendment but I don't have docs for the campaign that followed that. Anyone?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
...two legs better.
I for one welcome our new socialist overlords! Praise to the politburo!
I got about 1/3 of the way through the comments and decided to post without reading all of them. I've got other things to do today.
Maybe, just maybe Obama's decision to uphold the warantless wiretapping means that after careful review of its effectiveness, he's seen that it actually worked as originally intended. I'm a Republican, so maybe I'm just looking at this as vindication of Bush, but it seems to me that those with the best chance of determining the effectiveness of the policy are the people sitting the in the Oval Office. I'm not some optimist who believes everything my politician's/government/tv/mom/dog tell me, but it is possible that the plan hasn't been abused. I personally have no problem with a warantless wiretapping program as long as the information acquired this way is never used for criminal prosecutions. I view it as military intel in the war on terror.
However, if it does end up being linked to a domestic prosecution of say, tax fraud or even murder, then the program needs to be axed ASAP. The trick is determining if those in oversight over the program are being honest. I believe that the Bush administration was being faithful to the intent of the program. I'm even willing to extend that belief to Obama. Unfortunately, the majority of the Posts I read that were even on topic indicated that Obama agreeing with ANY decision by Bush makes him the clone of Bush. That kind of overly simplistic reasoning should only be the providence of people too young to vote.
Issues are complex and issues that involve the President of the United States are at least squared.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
The margin was 7.26%
Obama 52.87%
McCain 45.61%
See here
I voted for Kodos before it was cool :-)
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in the mud. After a while, you realize the engineer enjoys it.
...the case will lead to the disclosure of important 'state secrets.'
This really means: the case will lead to the disclosure of embarrassing stuff we'd really like to keep secret.
The biggest issue here is that the majority of Americans were voting based on the last administration; and the current ran on a platform that solidified the fear that it would only continue if we elected a member of that same party. If it had been the democrates in office last administration, the roles would merely be reversed... as has been the case for the history of American politics.
We are not, by nature, democrats or republicans; nor are most of us completely liberal or conservative. We are ordinary people. We have ideas and beliefs that stem from a life time of experiences and we are a country that prides itself on a vast culmination of diverse ideological backgrounds.
When we vote we are merely given a choice between ideologies that, in reality, do not vastly represent the diversity of life in America. We exist as constituents in a two party system where one side constantly opposes the other.
They present us with the issues that divide us the most, we get angry over who is right and wrong and we vote on those issues; while we sacrifice the other issues they distracted us from. Our beliefs, as voters, are confined within the cages of a party; even when our beliefs, as people, exist across the definition of either party.
The more they argue which party is right, the more they separate themselves; but most importantly they separate us, from each other.
Because of this we have become jaded and fail to recognize that just as life is not black and white; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not red or blue.
I agree with Nursie (632944) "Can we make 2012 a third party year? Please?"
At least that... if nothing else.
sudo apt-get lost
And technically, adding soldiers to Afghanistan is the exact opposite of "bringing our troops home"
You are aware that throughout his campaign, he was fairly consistent about the idea that we should be escalating in Afghanistan and Pakistan, right?
He didn't campaign on the idea that aren't wars we should be fighting, nor on the idea all troops should be home. He *did* focus against the Iraq war, which, as he'd been saying since 2002, he thought was a problematic conflict to begin with.
Tweet, tweet.
Go figure.
I laugh, but it really isn't funny.
For months now I've been saying that Obama was Just Like Bush. But now the Salon article clearly shows that Obama is Worse Than Bush.
We haven't yet felt all of the effects of the disastrous spending bills that have just been passed. On top of this, the money supply has increased almost 300% in the past few months. This, along with all of the spending bills will mean double digit inflation on an economy where most people are not getting raises or bonuses.
Nobody imagined (except Republicans) that we would think of the Bush term as the Good Old Days.
There is only one political party, and that is the party that believes that they should make your decisions for you. We don't need a few good people to make all our decisions for us, we are perfectly capable to making them on our own.
No sane, balanced person would run for or accept a political office. There is no good reason to take part in a process that can not ever have an acceptable result. When we vote, we are condoning the political process. I will not have my name associated with this process, I want not part of it.
Third parties are just more of the same. Will they write laws to repeal taxes? That only proves that they believe laws and politicians have the ability to solve our problems. No, the only sane choice is to not participate and encourage all your friends to do the same.
That's not change! That's more of the same!
Jeez, if you can't tell the truth don't get on the stand. The man was obviously not a good lawyer. He had no respect for the office he held, nor any morals. I am pretty sure that was why some people were mostly pissed, the fact they caught him in perjury made them legally justified in wanting him out.
the new boss. Same as the old boss.
EGOTIST, n. A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me.
Government/AT&T summary?
Gov: We want to tap into all your lines.
ATT: Um... is that legal?
Gov: It is now, here is the Executive Order giving us the authority.
ATT: Ok, here you go.
Gov: *evil laughter?*
ATT Employee: Wait a minute, I feel like this violates privacy rights!
Gov: No! We have the authority!
Public: *outrage*
Public: Sue AT&T!
ATT: Wait what? It was *legal* according to the Executive Order!
Unlike most of Slashdot, I think AT&T should be let off the hook. Technically, it *was* legal for them to allow this under the Executive Order. Instead, we should be pursuing the Bush Administration for making the Executive Order in the first place.
Obama realized this in 2008 and has spoken about it, and even voted yes on the July 08 senate bill that was about Immunity for telecoms and instead investigating the government. The Obama Administration is still considering a Bush Administration investigation, though Leahy's 'truth commission' (torture not wiretaps) is apparently a stalled idea. Obama has not publicly supported the idea since becoming President, leading some to question his commitment to pursuing any of the potential Bush Administration crimes.
Republicans have obviously opposed the investigations, apparently threatening to filibuster various Obama nominations.
For both sides, it would probably create a lot of political ill-will at a time when bipartisanship is needed.
I'll wait and see what *actually* happens though before I solidify my opinions.
Truth Commission links:
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200902/020909a.html
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3686
The last story is about students in Moldova storming government because of fraudulent elections and here you all sit quivering with nerd rage in your basements. You pretty much all agree, whether R or D or whatever, that this action by your government is unacceptable and yet you are not going to your capital to be heard, rather taking the lazy way out and complaining on some website. Pathetic.
God-bless our new president for bowing down to people of foreign unestablished precepts. Props to all my dead white homiez.
-Uncle "Mr. reverse-vitiligo" Ruckus
Don't you all watch 24? Next Monday there will be a bioweapon explosion! You insensitive bastards!
Help for the middle class instead of just the super rich and mega poor is change.
Where's the "help for the middle class" been?!? Oh, you must mean the giant bailouts we're having to pay for.
Maybe "help" is not what the middle class wants, or needs.
In any event, you've got a lot to learn:
- Republicans are only for helping the super rich.
- Democrats are only for helping the super rich and the mega poor.
What's missing from both of those? It's us, you dumb fat fuck.
That was a very sensible and cogent analysis of an intractable problem.
Thanks.
--
Toro
You fucking tools, and you all voted for him and his "change"
In the end you get the govt you deserve dumbasses
donate your spare change to the EFF!
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
So he's defending AT&T which by all accounts just did what the government asked and not illegally, so i can see that. But, he is also defending the policy of using the executive order in the first place based on national security issues.
Now that he's in office, could he actually be seeing the same issues Bush saw? The same issues we are shielded from knowing about due to national security?
Maybe, just maybe, there was a reason for these wire taps.
Maybe, Bush, was right about something?
Or is someone completely on the other side of the political fence agreeing with Bush just to make all of his supporters angry for no reason?
YES!!! You are on my friend list. Those who think they have to vote D or R to avoid "the worse party" getting power are the problem with the politico. We need to have other parties to have a chance of change. I'm very likely to never vote D or R again.
Is snail mail at all safe? I remember hearing in my innocent childhood that laws prohibit anyone tampering with the mail. I'd imagine opening, reading, and trying to seal it up again would count as tampering.
Sure, it's one thing to take a position when campaigning but now that he is in office and this decision was made you need to ask yourself if a) you think Obama is the same as Bush or b) after taking ownership of the problem they found something that, if released during a trial, actually would be a problem larger than defending the companies that cooperated?
We have the best government money can buy. All the campaign contributors have bought and sold their representation already. The decisions about the direction our nation is going in were made when the checks were being written. Sorry America this whole notion of being a democracy is just a sick joke.
Obama took contributions from a number of large corporations including AIG whom he was eager to come to the rescue of.
Obama is the best politician that our corporations could afford.
I assure you, many of his supporters are deeply disappointed in this.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
"Our buddy's at the NSA are still spying on everybody, domestic and foreign, in ways, and with volume, that even the most paranoid lunatics haven't even suspected. We kindly ask you not to stir things up and let us go about our illegal data gathering."
What do you want?
Well, tough shit. Meet the new boss. Worse than the old boss.CHANGE!
When do you want it?
NOW!
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Yes, we have a one-party, two-faced system of government in this Bush-league, Obama-nation. One party can now wiretap and search the other parties' national headquarters without a warrant by simply saying they thought the other party was involved in terrorism. (I just wish Nixon had lived to see it.) The fact that they are no longer worried about this implies that there is only one party. Keep voting for the Libertarian or Constitution party and stop voting for the Lobbiest party. I voted Libertarian.
I think this guy is the same as the other white guy and you are all in denial.
What a dick. I'm glad I didn't vote for him -- I voted libertarian. I could tell Obama was not interested in freedom the FIRST time he supported telecom immunity (while in congress.)
The more they stay the same. Is it any wonder people do not trust their government anymore? Who is left inside government willing to fight for our rights? The answer appears to be: No one.
Open Source: Eroding the Digital Divide
but their both held up by the same guy...what could possibly be the difference?
that is essentially controlled on both sides by 4 or 5 major corporations? things like warrantless wiretaps, home invasion, arrest and torture become completely justifiable to maintain classified state secrets like new copyright laws.
Good people go to bed earlier.
From Joe Walsh, (Turn to stone): "Backyard people and they work all day Tired of the speeches And the way the reasons they keep changin'... Just to make the Words Rhyme..." REVOLUTION is near as they trodden on what we hold dear,
Trying to stop a legal precedence from being made where private companies should be afraid to help their government, even when their government is with in the scope of the constitution is not the same thing as continuing an illegal spying program on the American citizens.
That's fascinating, but since AT&T was illegally spying on Americans at the government's behest, how is it relevant?
I think we should have a legal precedent made where private companies should be afraid to flagrantly break the fucking law. Don't you?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
As a Libertarian, I'm not the slightest bit surprised to see Obama take this stance. His entire -- but brief -- political career is replete with examples of such opportunism.
I suppose it must be somewhat comforting to be a member of a political movement which went out of style along with feudalism, so that you're perpetually an outsider, judging the Platonic ideal of your model against the real-world implementation of someone else's.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Here, you don't have to wait at all if you're lucky-ducky enough to lack insurance. You just go about your day and hope that the mysterious chest pain or disturbing bleeding goes away.
If it doesn't, of course, you'll end up much sicker and in the ER, which will be packed with other folks in the same situation, and if you survive, you'll walk out of there with enough debt that you may just be better off losing everything and going bankrupt.
But hey, at least it's not socialism.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
If eight excruciating years of Bush taught me one thing, it was that I didn't know how good we all had it under Clinton.
Seriously, how fucking petty does all that bullshit seem in retrospect?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Dont blame Obama, if you guys want to change something you need to start with yourself. Oh yeah, the crooked politicians are in power because this country sucks cock, not because we the people are some how above those in office.
I am an Obama supporter, and I don't agree with all that he has done. That said, I will continue to support him, especially into the next election, because the horror of more trickle-down policies is to great for me (or the USA) to bear.
Having said that, it is not surprising that the secrecy continues. I always wondered why the DOD got rid of Selective Availability in GPS systems. They now allow anyone to have pin-point accuracy. Why? The answer has to be that they have WAY more advanced stuff up their collective sleeves. The same is true in this case. The US gov is capable of things that we are completely unaware of. 9/11 changed things, and I find it interesting to watch the give and take between privacy and security. It is not possible to have 100% security without giving up 100% of our privacy. The wiretaps represent some kick-ass technology that would scare the pants off most people, so better to keep the capability under wraps and take the heat. The difference between wiretaps under Bush and wiretaps under Obama, I think, are obvious, and I will tend to trust Obama allot more than Bush in this regard. Besides, it's not like there's anything we can do about it, other than bitch and moan and polarize ourselves more...
Should'a, Could'a, Would'a... Did'na
Olbermann covered this yesterday and will be talking about it again with Kevin Bankston from EFF today. Olbermann was really pro-Obama during the campaign, and that's not stopping him from excoriating these policies and actions on his show. I'd like to see more journalistic integrity and independence such as this. This demonstrates that Olbermann was not and is not simply anti-Bush. Although he does continue to attribute the policy (correctly) to the Bush administration, I think that's just historical accuracy. From the linked clip comes the notion that the Obama administration is taking these actions to gain favor with the intelligence community. Sounds like fear, and maybe it's quite reasonable fear.
Also I wish the conservative media would take up this kind of criticism instead of presenting sensationalist stories which are mostly speculation. It could be that I'm wrong about the conservative media since I tend to ignore them.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
In pre-election polls, there is positively no reason for anyone to not waste their phone call on a third party, and so it is safe to assume that pre-election polls indicate whom everyone would vote for if no one wasted their vote.
So, if pre-election polls show that 3rd parties have positively no chance in hell of winning, what's the harm in not wasting my vote and voting for the lesser of the two evils? ...and besides, I think there's a reason no one is interested in these 3rd parties: they all suck. Libertarianism, for example, is simply idealistic nonsense which equates personal freedom with economic anarcy, all the while presuming that "the invisible hand" is actually a god who will always protect and take care of us.
The reason politicians suck is because people suck, particularly the ones who think they're one of the few blessed with the knowledge of an ideal political system. The truth is that reality is complicated and so no simple set of rules is possible. We have to think intelligently about every situation that comes up, rather than assume that our political ideologies are infallible. The problem is that few people are capable of that, and those who aren't are still allowed to vote.
Honestly, if we don't want to go the route of elitism, how much better can we possibly do than what we have now? ...and if we do go the route of elitism, how do we know that our elites are really as elite as they think they are?
The problem with politics is that the human brain hasn't evolved much in the past few thousand years, as nothing evolves very much in such a short time. What that means is, we have a society run by animals which are just barely able to maintain a society, and who really have no more intellectual capacity than those who ran societies thousands of years ago. People today aren't more intelligent, we only have more information, and that only gets us so far.
We humans are really just an intermediate step in intelligent beings. Eventually we'll create a robot which is intelligent enough to create a robot which is slightly more intelligent than itself, and this will continue until something much more intelligent than ourselves is created. If we're lucky, it might genetically engineer more intelligent humans, but then it won't exactly be the case that more intelligent humans exist, as much as that something new and more intelligent was created.
In the end, humans will simply be a historical curiosity. We'll be known as those dumb animals which somehow managed not to kill themselves long enough to create the spark of true intelligence.
Honestly, I think the only hope we have is that millions of years from now, this intelligence decides it would be cool to reincarnate us all into some sort of heaven-like zoo, so as to amuse themselves with our obsessive belief that each of us is alone in knowning the solution to all of the world's problems.
Wouldn't it be ironic if the answer to "if God created us, then who created God" was "God didn't create us, we created God?"
Anyway, Libertarians suck, so shut up!
He thinks we've fallen from the grace of our past, when slavery was legal, and women weren't quite considered human.
I suppose it looks like a libertarian revolution, if you're a white dude incapable of empathy. Oh, hey, I just described the majority of the movement.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Perhaps they make this claim as outrageous as possible in order to guarantee a loss in court and still save face overall?
I'm charmed that you seem to be following my comments since our last exchange, but I'm disappointed that you see things in such a black-and-white way.
I certainly didn't say that, as you put it, "if one thing in the past was bad, it all was bad". I'm pointing out that current perceptions of a fall from some sort of libertarian past tend to leave out things--the enslavement or systematic murder of nonwhites, the subjugation of women--which didn't affect members of the speaking group.
Like I said, if you're a white dude who's not bothered by slavery so long as it's not happening to white dudes, it looks like a pretty good setup. On the other hand, it's difficult, if you're not afflicted with the cognitive rot that seems to accompany libertarianism, to fail to notice that all of these holy, holy property rights seemed to be exercised quite regularly over the bodies of the majority of the population.
And no, I don't have to voice an opinion on fractional reserve banking, or farm subsidies, or any of a thousand other issues to point out that that's pretty damning.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Every single example stated above was in fact done away with, and replaced by, the libertarian ideals you seem to want to argue with.
Exactly! By the libertarian ideals, never sullied by any connection to inconvenient reality or history.
You're looking back from the present and attempting to claim that you'd have been on the right side of history. But the people who were waving your flag at the time--high-minded defenders of individual liberty and property rights--were arguing for subjugation and slavery. As much as you'd like to claim their opponents as your intellectual forebears, it just doesn't hold water.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca