Slashdot Mirror
EFF Says Obama Warrantless Wiretap Defense Is Worse than Bush
SonicSpike writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation has just said that 'In the warrantless wiretapping case, Obama DOJ's new arguments are worse than Bush's.'"
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Without much more than a speculative sentence in the summary, what is slashdot going to talk about? We're not going to RTFA no matter how hard you try!!
*WE SHALL WE SHALL NOT BE MOVED!!*
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
If they don't tap the phones, how will they know that we're getting the "Change we can believe in"?
Tibbon
tibbon.com
Hey, you asked for a government that would listen to the people...
Now that you've got one, you're all mad and stuff. Man, this democracy stuff is weird. There's just no pleasing you people!
This is kind of disturbing. I know politicians turn 180 at the drop of a hat but Obama's entire popularity -- and the benefits that come from it -- relies on being anti-Bush. This is a very hot issue. One of the most important ones in fact. For him to continue supporting it is almost political suicide. Yet he's doing it anyway. Which makes you think, what could possibly be so important to keep secret?
We know it has nothing to do with national defense. The crones in Washington have never had a problem with outing CIA agents in the field for political gain.
Do they have illegal records of Dick Cheney torturing kittens or something? Wait, that wouldn't surprise anyone.
Well, at least Guantanamo is being shut down, so we in the rest of the world can relax a little, while things stay the same for the actual US citizens..
which is totally what she said
"State secrets" and "sovereign immunity" are two concepts that have no place in any democratic country.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Obama voted yes for the telecom immunity bill. He supported the wiretapping program in the Senate, why do you think he'd stop supporting it when he was elected President?
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
when we're talking only about a single administration.
Yes, the Obama administration's stance is intolerable. But the problem, I believe, is not the administration -- it is the law. Repeal the PATRIOT Act. Pass a law requiring stricter oversight of government surveillance.
THAT is the answer. Not some mindless, useless "Obama is teh suxxor" bullshit.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I distinctly remember, way back when during the Reagan years, people were crowing about how we in the U.S. had it so much better than the Soviets. We didn't have to worry about providing papers to travel (Red October anyone?), we didn't have to worry about our neighbors spying on us and reporting "unpatriotic" deeds, we didn't have to worry about government agents bursting into our homes without a warrant and we especially didn't have to worry about the government listening in on our phone calls.
Now we have two different parts of the government trying to justify why they can, whenever, they feel like it, listen to our phone conversations all in the name of stopping "them" from causing us harm. The worst part about it, the same people who 25 years ago were crowing about how free we were compared to the Soviets are now the same people (assuming they're still alive) who are defending these blatant infringements on our freedoms, all in the name of securing our freedom.
Is that like, "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it."?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Concepts like probable cause, innocent until proven guilty, checks and balances on government power, government for the people and by the people, restriction on governmental power --- are best described as "quaint"?
I wish the people who want to destroy America would take up arms and revolt -- that's easy enough to put down. Insidiously destructive notions such as yours that fundamental rights for individuals and limits on government power are "quaint", ensures that American principles of government will die out. America may keep the name, but that's it.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
So it's starting to sound like one of several things is going on here:
I'm not sure which of these possibilities would worse.
It would help, however, if Obama would be more forthcoming as to the reasons behind the continuation, though; surely some more substantial explanation than "it's all a state secret" can be given without damaging national security.
Still, I don't expect even the blogosphere to treat Obama like it treated Bush. Where are the posts comparing Obama to Hitler?
Bush had years to build up a reputation. Obama is still in the process of tearing down his original reputation. Give him two years and if he's done anything near what Bush did two years into his first term I think you will see plenty of people making such comparisons.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
The economy was cruising on the downslope after the internet bubble burst in mid-2000. That happened on Clinton's watch.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
Still, I don't expect even the blogosphere to treat Obama like it treated Bush. Where are the posts comparing Obama to Hitler?
Bush had years to build up a reputation. Obama is still in the process of tearing down his original reputation. Give him two years and if he's done anything near what Bush did two years into his first term I think you will see plenty of people making such comparisons.
Bush's motorcade was pelted with snowballs on the way to his inauguration while Obama got a party. With the except of a couple of months after 9-11, Bush was pretty much relentlessly attacked by the media, Hollywood elites and blogosphere for all eight years.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Where are the posts comparing Obama to Hitler? Would Stalin be a better comparison?
The posts are comparing Obama to Bush. That's practically the same thing, nowadays.
Can you get the terrorists to stop violating human rights?
Wow. Way to play the "if terrorists do it, it's OK for us to do it, too" card.
I'm a bit cynical about the Obama Administration willingly giving up powers it has been given in the long run. But I'm not ready to say this motion represents the will of the Administration yet.
The author of the piece, ACTING Assistant Attorney General Michael F. Hertz, is a leftover from the Bush administration and is due to be replaced once his successor is confirmed.
I mean, it's not like he won 25 electoral votes by a margin of 537 votes out of 6 million in a state with rampant reports of election fraud.
This has nothing to do with Obama (other than that his DOJ is making the argument), and it is not a bullshit argument from a legal standpoint.
It's called sovereign immunity, and we brought it over to our legal system from the British system when we declared independence. To put it shortly, it's exactly what you quoted: Congress has to waive its immunity in order for you to sue the federal government. There are a few laws on the books outlining cases in which they automatically waive that right. I don't know if this would be one of them, except to say that the DOJ obviously feels there's at least an argument to be made that it isn't.
I agree with what somebody else said in another thread earlier: Sovereign immunity has no place in a democratic society. That said, though, it's here and as frightening as it may be, it's far from a bullshit legal argument to have a lawsuit dismissed. It's a good one.
You can ship out the neocons just as soon as your buddies who said they would leave the country if Bush got (re)elected actually leave the country and renounce their citizenship.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Pelosi says it is un-American to enforce our immigration laws. How does that grab you?
It "grabs me" that you're misrepresenting what she said. What she actually said was first that the values of immigrants who struggle to make it in America is in itself part of the American spirit:
"that optimism, that hope, that courage, that determination of immigrants of your families when you arrive here make America more American."
She then asked her audience:
"How then could America say it's okay to send parents of children away? What values system is that? I think it's un-American." Later she added "who in our country would not want to change a policy of kicking in doors in the middle of the night and sending a parent away from their families? It must be stopped."
She is clearly attacking as Un-American the value system that believes kicking in doors at night and separating families is good. If you want to generalize that to "Pelosi says it is un-American to enforce our immigration laws", that's your own business, but it's clearly not what she was saying.
I do take offense when Americans go off to France, for example, and criticize our President or our country. All they are doing is selfishly making themselves more important at the expense of the rest of us. Its a kick in the teeth to the brave soldiers risking their lives for our safety.
You must be pretty damn insecure about your country then. And totally missing what's great about America-- for criticism of America by its own citizens is what makes our country strong- because American can withstand that criticism and also change for the better when appropriate. This country's strength is that it's in a way an "open-source" country (at least when its at its best.) . The more eyeballs who can find flaws and suggest improvements means that its flaws are discovered, debated, and hopefully corrected. It is the national right (and duty) to be critical of this country and speak about how we can be a better people that is one of the many great strengths of America. Self-analysis and criticism of America by Americans anytime, anywhere should be encouraged and celebrated. It is, in fact, the essence of our country of, by, and for the people, and is what our soldiers are fighting for.
I can remember most of the Hollywood-hating folk telling outspoken actors to GTFO and go to Canada/Europe.
Actually I believe that was directed at the hysterical actors/actresses who claimed they would leave but then failed to actually do so. Any information to the contrary?
Hell, do you really think the 2004 election went the way it did if not for the GOP implying that most Democrats were unpatriotic?
It's always easy to make excuses for being unpopular (see Republicans today). Are you REALLY claiming that you believe that the Republicans won big in 2004 merely because you think "the GOP impl[ied] that most Democrats were unpatriotic." I think you've got to back up that first of all, that actually happened, and second of all, the alleged mere act of claiming somebody is unpatriotic changed votes from Dem to Republican.
For those who don't follow, let me make this easy for you: The term 'flip-flop' existed because Rove & Co. were using it to nail anyone who wished to support the troops but also dissented from the President's edict for fighting terrorism without question.
What utter BS, and just goes to show how you are lacking any and all introspection for your beliefs/party here. The term flip-flop didn't come to characterize Kerry because of "Rove Co" but because of KERRY. Talk about not taking responsibility!
Amazing...as someone who did not vote for Obama, I have to say that I was never that disappointed that he was elected. For one, I wasn't a McCain fan, and secondly, I thought it would mean an end to the tireless squawking about evil BushCo and Cheney. I'm actually still waiting for that... Despite Obama's messages of chance and unity, it seems a lot of people are having trouble moving on!
>>>if you said "87 Billion with no known limit might be unreasonable,"
And now Obama and the Democrats are spending 3000 billion, and yet we're all supposed to smile and act happy about it. Bush's war was bad, but Obama's credit-card spending spree is about 400 times more expensive!
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall