Slashdot Mirror
Why No Executive Order To Stop NSA Metadata Collection?
An anonymous reader links to this editorial at Ars Technica which argues that "As chief executive, Obama has the power to reform the NSA on his own with the stroke of a pen. By not putting this initiative into an executive order, he punted to Congress on an issue that affects the civil liberties of most anybody who picks up a phone. Every day Congress waits on the issue is another day Americans' calling records are being collected by the government without suspicion that any crime was committed. 'He does not need congressional approval for this,' said Mark Jaycoxx, an Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney."
Or they can manufacture it and have demonstrated it to him.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Obama is part of the system that created the problem in the first place.
He's still got Obama's election slogans ringing in his ears "Yes we can!" and "Change!!" lol. Obama is a political animal, just like all the others in DC. Do not expect anything different from him. As another commenter pointed out, he is part of the system that created and supports the military surveillance complex.
There is serious political downside to doing this.
Consider for example what would have happened had he walked back all these subversions to our liberties 6 months before the Boston Bombing and then what would have happened in the political sphere thereafter. In the end Obama is not a courageous leader who does what is right because its right - he's a very cautious politician and makes decisions that seem to reflect just that. His administration has made "cover all the bases" types of political decisions from the beginning...unfortunately right after what happened to our civil liberties after the previous administration that is not what we, as a country, probably needed (and he campaigned as if he was something else). Is it possible they have dirt on him, possibly, but I think the political danger angle is the more likely and is also why this will have to be forced on by congress (and Republicans in particular as they would be the one's to pounce him were anything to happen after a rollback). This is also why its going to be very hard for these things to be rolled back.
Once again, this isn't it.
He's had several opportunities to do something about this. He keeps making weaselly attempts to talk about it like he's doing something without actually making any changes. It seems obvious to me that he wants this to continue, much like his equally weasel-ish approach to medical cannabis. And this way, he can blame it on a do-nothing Congress, thus giving his potential successor a talking point.
...was every bit against domestic spying as he was against gay marriage.
Maybe he should have said "If you like your civil liberties, you can keep your civil liberties."
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Executive orders can only live in grey area of no direct law. They are constitutionally questionable in the first place, but they absolutely cannot be used when there is actual law in place. The law takes precedence.
Of course Obama has pushed EOs further then any of his predecessors. He has directly modified obamacare without any legal basis. Gonna suck for the Ds when the shoe is on the other foot.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
He's on it. Its next on his list. Right after he closes Gitmo, creates transparency, reduces the income gap, and fixes heath care (again and again), all while making the world love us again.
He wants Republicans to vote no on such a change so it can make them look bad. If he just did it by EO it would make him look bad in eyes of Republicans for abusing Executive power.
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
Bullshit. These are his programs. He wants them to continue.
Hasn't anybody listened to the man's statements on the subject? He thinks the NSA metadata collection is just peachy keen. It just hasn't been "explained properly" to the public.
This is typical of our current President. If pressed on the issue, he might say that he would "prefer" the NSA not to collect phone records on all Americans, but that so far the opponents of the system just haven't been vocal enough about it for him to take any action on the subject. "Hey, Mr. President, where's all that _change_ you promised us?" I'm sure he would prefer to to do all those things, except that his donors would not be too happy about that.
To think that I voted for this guy... twice. Not that the alternatives were any better, but sometimes I wonder if this administration really is any better than the previous one. And I seriously doubt the next one will be any better. Why? Because today the donors are the ones who are actually running the country (with the recent McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling only adding insult to injury). The only solution I can think of is to attack this evil at its source by getting money out of politics.
I am constantly amazed at how naive the average American voter is. Obama was a guy who could give a good speech, but he had ZERO leadership accomplishments to his name. The most basic research into Obama's background should have given anyone pause that he could actually accomplish any of what he promised. He was a Senator, but couldn't point to a single legislative accomplishment. He was in the state senate, but had a record of just voting present on key bills and had no major bills to his name. He was a community organizer, but once again couldn't point to any significant accomplishments. He claims to be a legal scholar, but locked his school records.
For those of you who voted for Obama and are currently disappointed, I have a suggestion for you: next time do some background research on the person instead of just relying on campaign speeches and 30-second ads.
The facts do not support your statement There are dates in the Obamacare law that the president has unilaterally changed:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03...
It was a program he approved and sponsored no matter what ignorance he claims. We need to hold him accountable, but unfortunately, there is an unhealthy celebrity love affair with this president that he is using to cover the usual dirt that comes with this office.
Bush started the NSA warrantless wiretapping program...and the metadata program...Ron Wyden exposed it by talking about it openly in Senate speeches....Obama ended many of the programs Bush started
Bush started the NSA warrantless wiretapping/spying program
that's why I "blame" him for it
here's the evidence: http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news... from **2006**
"NSA Has Massive Database of American's Phone Calls"
Thank you Dave Raggett
... this is why obama is not on your side:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
They became his programs the moment he assumed office. He is the embodiment of the executive branch, and all of its power is vested in him. Congratulations, you seem to have weaned yourself off of asterisks.
None of the politicians can really stop this surveillance state. If some politician had the courage to stop it and then some terrorist incident, however minor, were to happen, the opposing party would absolutely crucify him. They all know this. This is why both parties are behaving in the same way. Something really scary happened on 9/11. The politicians promised security in exchange for freedom and people happily agreed. Nothing new there at all. The difference was that this time around, computer technology allowed the creation of a perfect police state. All police states in the past have had a fundamental problem; a society can support only so many secret policemen. Not enough secret policemen to create the perfect police state. With computer technology, that limit is erased. I am afraid this is going to become quite dystopian.
What motivation does Obama have to stop this? His liberal base doesn't seem to care.
They do - when Democrats are not in office.
Which is why you should not vote Democrats into office, because everyone assumes they are doing as they should instead of checking.
Any other party will do, the Democrats have just become too entrenched and too powerful (as they control Hollywood and the media, or at least most of those organizations will look the other way for many offenses in the case of Democrats).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
not safe.
Given how wrong you are, your sig is quite apropos.
Several of these programs date to after 2008. The rest Obama would have definitely been briefed on. Congress may not have known, but if you think he didn't you are pulling the wool over your own eyes. Just because you were in the dark doesn't mean he was. Notice how he has never claimed to not have known about what the NSA was doing? He knew because he authorized it. All of it.
These are his programs. Believing anything else is willful self-deception. It might help your cognitive dissonance, but it is ruining the country.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Sites like Salon and The Guardian broke the Snowden story, and they keep running with it. There is a very long list of left-leaning sites that keep the issue highly visible, including HuffPo, DKos, Raw Story, TruthOut, DemocracyNow! and I dare even list Ars Technica in that group. Yes, there are Obama-worshippers who try to paint anti-NSA info and sentiment as fifth-column betrayal, but overall if you sample the comments in places like DKos and DU, you'll see some skirmishes over the issue of party loyalty (and accusations of racism) with the anti-NSA crowd handily coming out on top.
As for the lack of protest, lets just say the story was still developing in the fall and its been one heck of a winter.
"On US soil" was neither claimed by the grandparent, nor is it a necessary condition for qualifying the drone strikes as misuse.
WHICH clause in the Constitution says the Fourth Amendment only applies on US soil, you totalitarian asshole?!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz