Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Obama Administration Defends Warrantless Wiretapping

Posted by timothy on from the high-moral-ground-is-a-grassy-knoll dept.

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."

74 of 788 comments (clear)

  1. Change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, the kind left in your pocket.

    1. Re:Change? by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "Meet the new boss.....

      ....Same as the old boss...."

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Change? by Moryath · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Change"... is all you'll have left in your pocket or bank account once Obama is done.

    3. Re:Change? by jasmusic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wait till you see all the people killed when he socializes our healthcare on the lie that "it will help the economy".

    4. Re:Change? by Sun.Jedi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He may be yet another sleazy politician, but at least as of today, he hasn't invaded another country based on lies, and gotten over 4200 American soldiers killed

      Give him time. He's only had 3 months to screw us all over. We must endure another 3 years and 9 months AND pray there is enough left for a [sleazy or not] conservative to straighten out.

      And technically, adding soldiers to Afghanistan is the exact opposite of "bringing our troops home" which only reinforces your sleazy politician comment.

    5. Re:Change? by jav1231 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's funny is watching so many who voted for Obama who still can't bring themselves to find anything to disagree with him on. There's nothing wrong with saying you find something disturbing even from someone you largely support. We've been an all-or-nothing politico.

    6. Re:Change? by laughing+rabbit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually it really has.

      You should get out more. And straighten out your eyes. They might stick that way.

      --
      No incumbents, not no where, not no how.
      Vote them out every term.
    7. Re:Change? by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, part of this is that I can promise whatever I want during my campaign, but once elected I get the good briefings, and suddenly some of my promises don't make sense anymore. Well, that's the charitable reason anyways.

      Wire tapping, Gitmo, Afghanistan, Iraq, all of Obama's timelines are looking a lot more like Bush's now.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    8. Re:Change? by severoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh no. Things were so much easier when we could move forward based on the simple algorithm Bush = bad. Now that we have to actually think about stuff, what ever will we do?

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    9. Re:Change? by Miseph · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I haven't really seen that... I've just seen a lot of anti-Obama types criticizing people who did for their unwillingness to do so before they even say anything.

      That said, I'm extremely disappointed by this, I am disappointed that he can't find a single cabinet member who knows to pay their taxes, and I am even more disappointed in these Democrats who are committing tax evasion: I am OK with paying taxes to support social services and the like, and I am willing to accept that a great deal of that money will also, unfortunately, be spent on offense (it's not "defense" anymore when you're invading nations unprovoked)... but supporting such spending and then NOT paying taxes is just beyond contempt. I'm also not thrilled with his continuation of the Bush policy of socializing completely inappropriate industries (banks, autos) rather than ignoring the "too big to fail" bullshit and letting them die like they deserve and get replaced by businesses that know how not to fail.

      On the other hand, I'm glad that he's put and end to Gitmo and started to reclaim any sort of American claim to a moral high ground, that he's put us on a path to getting out of Iraq sometime in the next decade (better than never, like Cheney wanted), that's he refocusing the US military into the legitimate military operation in Afghanistan (a lot of us never opposed this war at all, despite what the vocal fringe claims), and that's he's at least giving lip service to the idea that average working Americans are more important than a small number of extremely wealthy ones.

      In any event, he's still a dramatic improvement on the last guy. He'd have to work pretty hard not to be.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    10. Re:Change? by tsotha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the other hand, I'm glad that he's put and end to Gitmo...

      He's done no such thing. He's simply claims to have a timetable, sort of, to close Gitmo. There are lots of thorny issues to be resolved before that facility is closed, and Obama hasn't done anything to resolve them yet.

      In any event, he's still a dramatic improvement on the last guy. He'd have to work pretty hard not to be.

      I keep seeing people clinging to this desperate delusion. So far he's no improvement over Bush's first ten weeks. Not by a long shot.

    11. Re:Change? by garett_spencley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm Canadian and I always get a chuckle when Americans point to our health care system as "health care done right".

      First of all (and bare with me, the relevance will come in a second), our unemployment rate is equal that to the USA right now (around 8 or 9%). It's been pretty constant for the last decade or two. In 1999 8% was double the USA national unemployment rate.

      Canada is a borderline mercantilist state. We have very strict trade regulations (import tariffs mostly to "encourage" or "protect" national industries against foreign competition) and extremely high taxes. Our health care system costs us greatly. It costs us in terms of taxes and it costs us in terms of doctors. Our best doctors are constantly fleeing the country to better conditions. High taxes and heavy market intervention lead to institutional unemployment. But at least we can see a doctor every time we sneeze right ?

      My oldest daughter was 5 years-old before we had a family doctor. That was not due to lack of looking.

      We do have walk-in clinics where you can see a doctor for free. However, there is a trade-off. Because health care is free people go see a doctor for every minor little sniffle. The waiting rooms are usually packed, the doctors take a quick look at your throat and in your ears and send you out very quickly without taking a single glance at your medical history (they don't have it). So misdiagnoses are very high. The increased demand for medical services raises the costs of the entire system. This tends to push taxes and inefficiency way up. Of course, the government doesn't want to allow the costs to rise, so the quality of the health care suffers greatly, as many doctors leave the country and the remaining ones try to squeeze as many patients through during the day as they possibly can, since it's the only way to earn more. Not to mention the fact that the list of medical ailments that are covered gets lower and lower every year.

      Specialists are even harder to come by. If you need a major life-or-death surgery you will get it right away, but if you need something minor (and by minor I mean not life-or-death, it could be affecting your ability to walk and/or work etc.) you're put on a waiting list for months at best to years at worst. If you can afford to pay to have the surgery right away you're out of luck unless you fly to the US to get it done.

      Of course, there is so much anti-American sentiment in Canada and we get our fare share of American health care horror stories up here. So most Canadians praise the hell out of our system, because everything is black and white and they think the alternative is the US system. They couldn't imagine not being able to go see the doctor whenever they sneeze.

      So this is not to say that the American system is not screwed up. However, most economists that I read blame government health insurance and intervention. If you listen to elder doctors and politicians like Dr. Ron Paul, they talk about the good ol' days when doctors charged different rates that varied depending on the patient's ability to pay. Non-profit hospitals were set up (and these tend to pull down the cost of for-profit hospitals since they have to lower their prices to compete). No one was turned away because they couldn't pay. And even today, the vast majority of new medical "breakthroughs" occur in the USA.

      If you want to do right by health care then get the government 100% the hell out of it. This means get rid of the American Medical Association and mandatory licenses (I know I know, those unqualified evil greedy doctors would then be able to become rich by killing all of their customers! /sarcasm). With all of the health care regulation it's very difficult for non-profits and charities to get set up, and the cartel of doctors that gets to decide who is granted a medical license has a vested interest in their competition. This holds back medical research as well as raises costs. Get rid of government sponsored insurance because as it is, hospitals do business with the insurance companies, not the individuals. So there is no flexibility in payment. You either have insurance or you're screwed. The more government gets involved the worst health care will get.

    12. Re:Change? by severoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know, I was not a big Bush fan, but I also never drank the kool-aid that he's the devil incarnate either. Now that we're seeing Obama adopt some of the same positions after a careful and studied review of the facts available to the Office of the President, there are two possibilities to consider. (1) Obama is Bush III. (2) zOMG just because Bush did it doesn't automatically make it wrong and evil.

      It's easy to oversimply situations and reduce people to caricatures. It's easy, and it's a mistake, and many of you are guilty of doing it with Bush. Again, not a huge Bush fan...but do we really have to start judging Obama not based on what he does, but only based on what he does differently?

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    13. Re:Change? by Hordeking · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh no. Things were so much easier when we could move forward based on the simple algorithm Bush = bad. Now that we have to actually think about stuff, what ever will we do?

      Don't look at me. I didn't believe Hussein Obama when he first said it, then I saw proof when he voted for telecom immunity. If you honestly believed he wasn't going to do this, you really shouldn't be voting.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    14. Re:Change? by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You know, I was not a big Bush fan, but I also never drank the kool-aid that he's the devil incarnate either. Now that we're seeing Obama adopt some of the same positions after a careful and studied review of the facts available to the Office of the President, there are two possibilities to consider. (1) Obama is Bush III. (2) zOMG just because Bush did it doesn't automatically make it wrong and evil.

      Then you should consider listening to the conservatives next time, as they saw this coming a mile away. 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.

      Sorry to be such a cynic, but the truth hurts. See my tagline.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
  2. The Only Change You Can Believe In by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The little R next to the president's name indicating party changed to a D and some Wikipedia pages were updated.

    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.
    1. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by Nursie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is just so much more ammo for the "Please don't vote for either R or D!" argument.

      Choosing the lesser of two evils is not a good policy. "Throwing away" your vote on a third party is always decried as the best way to let the other guy in. No, no, no, you need to vote for whichever (R or D) is closer to your views or else all your doing is letting the other one, that you really hate, in.

      Can we agree that their both evil yet?

      Can we make 2012 a third party year? Please?

      Signed by me, a cynical brit that would love to see actual change on either side of the atlantic.

    2. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by CRCulver · · Score: 5, Informative

      The little R next to the president's name indicating party changed to a D and some Wikipedia pages were updated.

      When it comes to wiretapping, the same status quo was maintained when Bush senior yielded the presidency to Clinton. In fact, Clinton expanded wiretapping for US economic gains, claiming it would "level the playing field." See James Bamford's Body of Secrets .

      Nearly all our presidents over the last few decades have pretty much been in agreement that violation of privacy is cool. The exception is Carter, who actually tried hard to limit the intercepts. And old-time NSA employees, military and civilian, despise him for it, because a lot of them get off on unhindered access to communications.

    3. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by Em+Emalb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And old-time NSA employees, military and civilian, despise him for it, because a lot of them get off on unhindered access to communications.

      No, for them, it makes their job easier. The issue, when boiled down, is the old "greater good" argument again.

      Suppose they wiretap 1000 phones without a warrant. 999 of them are mistakes and nothing comes from it except the violation of citizen rights. (which is a huge thing, IMO) but that 1000th one yields a goldmine of terrorist activity that they would have missed had they been forced to wait for a warrant. Because of the wiretap being quickly put in place, they're able to stop a legitimate terrorist threat.

      That's a good thing, right? But it's also a hugely BAD thing as well.

      A damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. But to say it's because NSA folks get off on it is simply stupid.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    4. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by gnick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think that some people are just learning that the D's respect your privacy roughly as much as the R's. But, of course, when it's the R's doing it, the D's are very vocal about how they're violating people's rights and need to be run out on a rail. If this was a new policy and not a continuation of one from the previous administration, the R's would likely be waxing Libertarian and doing the same thing now.

      I won't go so far as to welcome "the new boss - same as the old boss" because Obama is certainly markedly different from Bush on a wide swath of issues, but some things never change. Once a government claims a power, taking it back is very, very difficult.

      Personally, I voted Barr/Root mainly because fiscal liberalism scares me and social liberalism just seems right (even though I wished that they had a better VP choice). Still, I'm holding my breath that having a charismatic president in office will have some positive repercussions domestically and internationally.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    5. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by anagama · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This last election I quit forever voting for the lesser evil. Your vote is wasted only if you vote for a candidate because the candidate can win, even if you don't really like him/her. While people may get some warm fuzzies by supporting a winner, it's sort of like picking the way you die: some ways are better than others but in the end, you're at the same spot.

      Our problem is that two private organizations, the Democratic and Republican parties, have hijacked our government. They've created self-protecting rules for elections, as if the election system was made for them. And when it all comes down to the end, they aren't all that different except on the edges. Both want to spend us into oblivion. Both are warmongers (just google up some Clinton speeches from the time she helped Bush go to Iraq) or look at Obama's lack of progress on that front. Both are out to further their parties' interests with only a glance toward their constituents interests.

      If people would quit drinking the "wasted vote" kool-aid, we'd have some hope. As it is, America is being destroyed by inches from the inside.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    6. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by vsingh165 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is just so much more ammo for the "Please don't vote for either R or D!" argument.

      Choosing the lesser of two evils is not a good policy. "Throwing away" your vote on a third party is always decried as the best way to let the other guy in. No, no, no, you need to vote for whichever (R or D) is closer to your views or else all your doing is letting the other one, that you really hate, in.

      Can we agree that their both evil yet?

      Can we make 2012 a third party year? Please?

      Signed by me, a cynical brit that would love to see actual change on either side of the atlantic.

      Can we please make 2012 a no party year? Candidates should be themselves rather than cloak themselves in stupid pointless ideologies.

    7. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by downix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except.....

      You can get the warrant retroactively through the FISA courts. If you happen to be polling, and run across something critical, you file the paperwork, BAM, warrant. If you happen to not, the data is purged.

      --
      Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    8. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      because Obama is certainly markedly different from Bush on a wide swath of issues, but some things never change

      Yeah, like gun rights. "Markedly different" doesn't always mean better.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by Gizzmonic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Suppose they wiretap 1000 phones without a warrant. 999 of them are mistakes and nothing comes from it except the violation of citizen rights. (which is a huge thing, IMO) but that 1000th one yields a goldmine of terrorist activity that they would have missed had they been forced to wait for a warrant. Because of the wiretap being quickly put in place, they're able to stop a legitimate terrorist threat.

      This happens frequently on TV shows, but has it ever really happened in real life? No.

      The entire national security apparatus is a huge expense and a bigger curb to our freedom than anything an outside enemy has ever imposed on us. And what do we get in return? Bloated bureaucracies that have no clear mission. "Homeland Security" was created after 9/11 because the "Department of Defense" failed to defend us, as did the FBI, CIA, NSA, Secret Service, etc. So what's the solution? Another nebulous bureaucracy to drain taxpayer money and entangle us in more foreign wars, all the while bickering with the other agencies for prestige. It's a raw deal if you ask me.

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    10. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No way. This is not about "national security" in the sense of busting terrorists and preventing catastrophic damage. It's about control, plain and simple. There are no credible threats. Is this, busting some loser ice cream man after paying a shady informant a quarter-million bucks (commonplace even while many Americans are jobless and starving), the best that they can do?

      Sweeping powers like rampant warrantless wiretapping will always be abused. Why care if you're not up to anything? Surely you won't mind if I follow you around and read over your shoulder, or even follow your wife into the restroom to make sure that she's not doing anything illegal. Huh. You'd think that we would be better than to allow state-sponsored voyeurism. But it's for your own good - the terrorists and pedophiles are out to get you!

    11. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by Nursie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's hard to argue that "the lesser of two evils" is bad policy when you're holding the greater of the two evils up as an example.

      But surely at some point you have to concede that the lesser of two evils really isn't that much lesser, or that different, and that it doesn't really matter which evil gets in because when it comes down to it they are actually both evil?

      So now you can be surprised. And you can be surprised again in 10 years when you look back at how we used to have the best healthcare in the world until Obama flushed it down the toilet for a more European style system.

      You don't have the best health system in the world. You have a good health system in terms of quality, and a poor one in terms of coverage and costs. You know that you already pay more in taxes towards the state health provisions in the US than I do as a UK citizen? And that you don't get the benefit of that because you or your employer have to pay for insurance on top of that?

      I also have top-up insurance, BTW, as an employer perk, but it's not quite the same thing. I only mention it to demonstrate that if you have money you can still buy your way to better accommodation, private rooms etc. in the UK.

      Well anyway, that's up to you crazy Americans to decide upon, but don't be so quick to dismiss the models used by the rest of the civilised world.

    12. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by lorenlal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem with everyone voting for the lesser evil is that it allows the two at the top to keep taking care of themselves in the name of "representing the people." It doesn't take a majority to create real change. 10% of the population can have a huge impact on the dealings of two parties that each have 40-45% of the population's support.

      But continuing the status quo is a guaranteed loser. If you are indeed truly happy voting for someone in the D or R range, then please vote for them. If you aren't, then vote for someone you actually like, not against someone you don't.

      Voting for someone (third party or not) should be a statement of who you want representing you.

    13. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by lorenlal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mod parent up.

      Just ask George Washington what he thought of political parties.

    14. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by Dark_Gravity · · Score: 5, Funny

      But with option 2 you spent 50 years with the lesser evil the whole time.

      Why vote for a lesser evil?

      Cthulu 2012

      --
      Bring back Sirius Punk!
    15. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obama's also done a lot of bad. Or, rather, Tim Geithner has. And it's just gonna get more interesting from here.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    16. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by Nursie · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, I'm saying we have universal healthcare that's up to a damn good standard, but if I want to be treated like I'm in a five star hotel then I can pay the extra for it, and I *still* pay less in tax and less in private insurance than the average american.

    17. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Obama's also done a lot of bad. Or, rather, Tim Geithner has. And it's just gonna get more interesting from here.

      I gotta say I got a kick out of the political game that the White House was playing a few weeks ago -- trying to link the GOP to Rush Limbaugh. That came right out of the West Wing, courtesy of Axelrod and Plouffe. I seem to recall Democrats complaining at the top of their lungs when the GOP used these types of tactics (say by linking every Democrat to Al Sharpton, Michael Moore or Sean Penn), so where's the outrage now that one of their own is engaged in the same behavior?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    18. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, because anybody who is opposed to gun control must agree with 100% of what the religious wing of the GOP stands for. I'd love to have a debate with you about abortion (I'm pro-choice) and stem-cell research (in favor of, but skeptical about governmental involvement) but based on the close minded remark above, I'm doubtful that you have anything interesting to say.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    19. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Considering the opposition, Cthulu might be the lesser evil!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    20. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, no, no. It's only bad when the other guy does it.

    21. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by gnick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, like gun rights. "Markedly different" doesn't always mean better.....

      Nobody ever said anything about "better" - Just markedly different. Bush, for example, would never have said that he's striving toward a world without nuclear weapons. And, even though he and Obama are both for spending huge amounts of $$ that we're borrowing from the Chinese on credit, it never would have occurred to him to spend that money domestically.

      I've got major issues with both administrations, but you have to admit that they really are different.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    22. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bush, for example, would never have said that he's striving toward a world without nuclear weapons

      Probably because for all of his faults he knew how naive such a statement was.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    23. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by MaWeiTao · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It was frustrating as hell to have to defend my desire to vote for a third party when people kept arguing that I was wasting it by not voting for the two ruling parties. So apparently I'm throwing my vote away if I vote my conscience.

    24. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can we please make 2012 a no party year? Candidates should be themselves rather than cloak themselves in stupid pointless ideologies.

      And this sums up the problem, you think the only elections that matter are the Presidential ones every four years. Why wait for 2012? Why not make 2010 a no party year? Why not make sure that the guys running the local government are doing a good job?
      If people would start putting more emphasis on local and state elections, it would have a much bigger impact on the state of affairs than any amount of effort on the Federal level.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    25. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by Sj0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've long said the left/right dichotomy is dangerous, and here's why.

      I've been called a liberal bastard, and I've been called a conservative bastard. At the end of the day, I'm a HUMAN bastard, and backing all the stupid inconsistent hypocrisy of the left/right dichotomy doesn't do a thing.

      So why do deficits matter when Obama is running them up but they're awesome when Bush is doing it? Why are rebate cheques communist when Obama is sending them out but they're awesome when Bush is sending them out? Why am I strange when I'm against the idea no matter who is sending them out?

      --
      It's been a long time.
    26. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by ArsonSmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "...because Obama is certainly marketed differently from Bush..."

      There fixed that for ya.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    27. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by equex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uhm, let's also ignore Archimedes, Kepler, Curie and Einstein. They are all dead. The founding fathers were the Einsteins of nation building. Heed their wisdom.

      --
      Can I light a sig ?
    28. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by feepness · · Score: 3, Funny

      Awesome, it's like a dictatorship with an extra choice!

      I feel bad for you.

    29. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He set a timeline to shutdown gitmo in 1 year.

      Well he signed a order to create a plan to close it. Nobody was released, and no trials will happen until the plan is worked out. Maybe they'll get a better prison? How about Buffalo?

      Stopped torture that was going on.

      Actually, stopped "for now" any techniques not in the Army Field Manual. Another task force will "study" techniques and decide how much torturing they can do in the future.

      Allowed government to support abortions.

      So he's killing babies, now? I don't even know what this is about??

      Explained that the US is not at war with Islam.

      "He said" is not "He did". And I'm pretty sure this had been said before.

      Brought closer ties to Europe and the globe merely by being closer to the global center (US left).

      Pfft. Damn you made me squirt milk out of my nose.

      Strict lobbyist rules were made. Well... comparatively strict. (doesn't allow you to make desicions about things you lobbied for in past, no gift-giving, no jumping from government into a bussiness thats lobbying you).

      And those rules were immediately broken, ignored, and/or given "waivers". See, for example:

      • Mark Gitenstein
      • Ron Klain
      • John Podesta
      • Larry Summers
      • Patrick Gaspard
      • William Lynn
      • William Corr

      So, nothing. This would have been great if he had really meant it.

      Made an order for higher fuel efficiency standards in vehicles.

      You mean the one Bush proposed? That will help.

      Opened up whitehouse.gov to have a more open converstation between the government and its people.

      He has a website? That's good governance, putting up a website? I can't find anyplace I can join the "converstation" there, anyway.

      Or barring that a very clear layout on plans, ideas and keeping the public informed.

      Having a marketing plan is not "keeping the public informed". Try finding out what's going on with ACTA.

      There was also some thing about whitehouse transperency .. saving letters or somesuch.

      Ummm... you mean the law that's been in place since the 1970's that says all whitehouse correspondence must be made public record?

      Oh and that was week 1. He's not perfect but dear god think if it was McCain. Oh and he spoke to leaders on both sides of the good/evil barrier.

      There's a good/evil barrier in D.C.? I thought it surrounded the whole city.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    30. Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In by djp928 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The point isn't that you should do whatever George Washington says because he's mofo George Washington. The point is, someone over 200 years ago realized the dangers of political parties and talked about how we should try to avoid having them at all costs.

      Nobody is telling you "GEORGE WASHINGTON HATED POLITICAL PARTIES SO YOU SHOULD TOO!" The point is, just realize that this isn't some new development, isn't some new thing--200+ years ago, our first President saw the dangers and tried to warn us, and we didn't listen--in fact, we started having fairly well developed political parties almost the instant Washington left office.

      --
      Making fun of dumb people since 2009
  3. Too bad so sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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!

  4. Does this by PuckstopperGA · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Does this by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Preface: I didn't vote for Obama, and I didn't vote for Bush. I also have never voted for any other American president, party, or political idea. I'm not an American, and I don't live in the USA.

      My point:

      Well, honestly, we can give him the benefit of the doubt, in that state secrets might actually be revealed if the case continues.

      However, this does not mean that Obama is not being a moron.

      There's a reason courts have the ability to seal records. If something that truly needs to be kept secret comes out in the court case, the judge reviews it, then orders the records for that particular part of the case sealed. It doesn't go into court records, doesn't show up on websites later, and in general, stays between those who heard it in the courtroom, with the threat of contempt of court charges if anybody ever says anything about it.

      So, Obama is either an idiot who doesn't realize the above is possible, or he's a corrupt jerk, little or no better than Bush.

      Either way, he shouldn't be running your country.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  5. One word by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unlawful. That is all that should matter, how disappointing.

  6. Biggest disappointment thusfar by mcrbids · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Biggest disappointment thusfar by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I didn't vote for Obama. I voted Libertarian. If you want to end the corruption and game playing with business, you should too. "But why should I waste my vote?" Is it really a waste? Democrat/Republican parties are two sides of the same coin. Vote for them and you vote to continue the game. We have seen attempts at change from within, and each time they are silenced quickly. In Obama's case, I can't say whether or not he was sincere, but his promises and attitudes changed VERY quickly once he got into office.

      This is more than disappointment. It's our death.

    2. Re:Biggest disappointment thusfar by nadamsieee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obama took out of his Presidential campaign to vote in favor of spying on innocent Americans.

      What did you expect?

    3. Re:Biggest disappointment thusfar by anagama · · Score: 4, Informative

      So vote for a socialist candidate. If you're trying to get to New York from Philly, your best bet is to head north, not west.

      Your libertarian comment is quite political in the truest sense, as it is the far right which has tried to paint itself as libertarian without actually being so, and the far left which has encouraged the misunderstanding to keep its own faithful. I fail to see how being anti-war, anti-empire, anti-drug war, pro-privacy, and pro-freedom are characteristics of the far right.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    4. Re:Biggest disappointment thusfar by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But it's nice that you guys on the fringe right have a party to vote for.

      Funny, when I argue libertarian positions on conservative sites, I get called "fringe left".

      "Before 9-11 I was a conservative. After 9-11 I'm a radical liberal... and my opinions haven't changed." - Jeffery McLean

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
  7. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. One man's trash... by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Read Between The Lines by Thelasko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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".
    1. Re:Read Between The Lines by Thelasko · · Score: 4, Informative
      Never mind

      They also said disclosure of whether AT&T took part in the program would tell the nation's enemies "which channels of communication may or may not be secure."

      I thought we pretty much knew this information. I guess that's the case for most "classified" information, the public already has a pretty good idea about what it is.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  10. An even bigger power-grab than Bush admin tried by fotbr · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html

  11. Re:don't act so surprised by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    insofar as this is a mess that the bush administration created,

    Is this going to be his excuse for his lack of leadership for the next 4 years? I mean really. At what point is he going to step up and say he's the President now and actually follow it up with action?

  12. The Biggest Marketing Campaign, ever by your_mother_sews_soc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  13. Re:Change we can believe in? No we can't! by Thanshin · · Score: 3, Funny

    And people wonder why we have the Republicrat meme.

    Because "Democan" sounds like a suitable name for a superhero's pet?

  14. I don't think it works that way :) by FatSean · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  15. Re:Don't blame me by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "I voted for Kucinich! In the primaries"

    You know, while I am pretty much completely against most everything Kuchinich is for, I must say, out of all the candidates, I think I may respect him the most.

    I feel with him, at least you know 100% where he stands on what, and is clear about it. He doesn't say shit just to get elected, or pander to his current audience.

    Unfortunately, with the typical 'drone' American citizen today, that can be led by the nose via TV, this means a person of this type, will never get elected.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  16. We reject as false by PMuse · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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)
  17. Be up front with us ( I have too much karma) by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  18. Defending Obama by tjstork · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Defending Obama by nothing2seehere · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Warrantless wiretapping isn't a "conservative" thing to do. We should bash Obama because what he's doing is un-American.

  19. Re:Excellent news! by anagama · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Didn't those who voted for him expect he would try to clean up the mess rather than pile more crap on top?

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  20. Umm, he voted for FISA while in the Senate by geoffrobinson · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
  21. Okay, I'm getting out my wallet... by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...and contributing to the EFF, the ones actually pushing this issue.

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
  22. What to fear by MasterLock · · Score: 3, Informative
    Quite a timely post from on Bruce Schneier's blog: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/04/what_to_fear.html

    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."

  23. I get it. by DragonTHC · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.