Skip to main content

View Diary: Breaking: Chief Justice John Roberts, Not the Obama admin is the Power Over NSA Surveillance (562 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Doesn't really matter (47+ / 0-)

    What's done by the agencies under him is his responsibility.  Goes with the job description.  If he lets himself get snowed by bullcrap shoveled by Keith Alexander and his minions, that's on him.  He's smart enough to educate himself if he doesn't understand it well, and after 4 1/2 years in the Oval Office I can only assume he would have learned more if he had chosen to.

    We have always been at war with al Qaeda.

    by Dallasdoc on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 07:35:41 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Remind me Doc (7+ / 0-)

      What did the sign on Harry Truman's desk say?

      •  And Truman (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vcmvo2, JohnB47, Tony Situ, caseylaw

        Sent many people to Germany to spy on scientists working on the bomb.

        And there were a few Americans who sympathized with the, then, Soviet Union. These few believed it was not fair that America should be the only country to have the bomb.

        So those who worked on the Manhattan Project gave the info to Stalin.

        And remember, the Manhattan Project was a secret to Americans.

        •  Strawman (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dallasdoc, freakofsociety

          That has nothing to do with the point I was making.

          But you knew that.

          •  Of course it does (0+ / 0-)

            You quoted Harry Truman in contrast to Pres. Obama. He/she is pointing out that Truman, architect of the National Security State, would hardly be in a position to criticize Pres. Obama for covert intelligence operations.

            The man who authorized the creation of the CIA isn't someone to cite when it comes to transparency and accountability in matters of intelligence gathering.

            Nothing human is alien to me.

            by WB Reeves on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 01:31:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Why do people treat Truman's saying as unassailabl (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WB Reeves

        Maybe it was simple minded hubris, this idea that every single thing that happens in a government that has hundreds of thousands of employees is to the blame or credit of one person.  Not even for pharaohs was that actually the case.

        Regarding FISA and NSA, the system was created based on law passed by the legislative branch, and the legal framework under which it operates was developed by the judicial branch.  Now, if the executive branch voluntarily decided to not make full use of the powers created by the other two branches, that decision would only last until the next administration took over the executive branch; the next administration could resume using those powers created by the other two branches to their full extent.  That's the problem with aiming all one's ire at the executive branch.  

        Even if the buck really does stop at the president's desk, the person behind that desk won't be there forever.  If you want lasting change, the other two branches of government are where to go.

    •  NCTC. Has anyone heard those initials before? (16+ / 0-)

      In a program discussed and approved wholly within the Obama administration in 2012, the  NCTC was given vast access to all federal government department's databases  on all citizens for pattern analysis and investigation:

      Top U.S. intelligence officials gathered in the White House Situation Room in March [2012] to debate a controversial proposal. Counterterrorism officials wanted to create a government dragnet, sweeping up millions of records about U.S. citizens—even people suspected of no crime.

      Now, NCTC can copy entire government databases—flight records, casino-employee lists, the names of Americans hosting foreign-exchange students and many others. The agency has new authority to keep data about innocent U.S. citizens for up to five years, and to analyze it for suspicious patterns of behavior. Previously, both were prohibited. Data about Americans "reasonably believed to constitute terrorism information" may be permanently retained.

      The changes also allow databases of U.S. civilian information to be given to foreign governments for analysis of their own. In effect, U.S. and foreign governments would be using the information to look for clues that people might commit future crimes.

      "It's breathtaking" in its scope, said a former senior administration official familiar with the White House debate.

      That is 100% on the Barack Obama administration, signed, sealed and delivered by the Obama administration, approved in the White House itself.

      This administration is not a passive actor in any of this. They are pushing it farther and farther. This new authority did not exist under Bush.

      Note the part saying anyone who reasonably appears connected to "terrorism" (OWS? Greenpeace? Friends of the Earth?  Keystone XL opponents? who defines "terrorism?") is retained permanently.

      The Obama administration has fingerprints all over the surveillance state because they are intentionally pushing it farther and farther.

      "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

      by YucatanMan on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 08:54:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The acrobatics are incredible (18+ / 0-)

      The way people are twisting and writhing, trying to find a way to absolve beloved Obama over this, it's really a sight to behold.

      He's just not that into you. The President we worked so hard to put into office either doesn't exist or never existed. The President we have may technically be a Democrat, but he doesn't share any of the values that drive this site or progressivism in general. Trying to find a way out where Obama was an innocent bystander just hurts us that much more.

      •  Best post in the thread. n/t (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        saxoman1, OutcastsAndCastoffs, pgm 01

        It turns out that the skill set required to get elected is completely different than the skill set required to effectively govern.

        by VictorLaszlo on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 11:36:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The continual sexualizing (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        freakofsociety, caseylaw

        of people's attitudes towards Pres. Obama, whether pro or con, is disturbing.

        Nothing human is alien to me.

        by WB Reeves on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 01:33:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It may result from the difficulty many of us have (0+ / 0-)

          trying to understand why some of you twist themselves into pretzels, distort facts and blind yourselves to reality all to protect some politician.

          The behavior reminds us of spurned lovers in denial, religious fanatics whose idol has betrayed their trust, or hirelings whose job it is to spout the boss's line no matter how ridiculous.

          After nearly 5 years of this, as support has peeled away layer by layer, you've kept plugging away. oblivious to reality.

          That's why some of us wonder out loud in the comments what mysterious power has hold on your minds--those of you who aren't shills.

          •  So you have no problem (0+ / 0-)

            with using sex as a weapon? A rhetorical weapon admittedly but a weapon nonetheless.

            Interestingly, While I made no distinction between pro or anti "sides" in my comment, you treat it as a partisan attack.

            I find the weaponizing of sex disturbing regardless of who engages in it. I'm afraid that includes your response.

            Nothing human is alien to me.

            by WB Reeves on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 03:46:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Are you serious? (0+ / 0-)

              It's using a metaphor or analogy.

              It's fairly common among human beings, at least during the last couple of millennia or so.

              To answer my own rhetorical question, of course you're not "serious" in the sense of participating in good faith in this discussion.  You're out to protect Obama no matter what.

              •  I take that as a "yes." (0+ / 0-)

                The fact the metaphor is widely abused justifies nothing. Using sex as a weapon both figuratively and literally is widespread in our culture and society. You either support and enable that or you don't.

                Nothing in my comment amounts to a defense of the President and your absurd belief in your ability to read my mind doesn't alter the fact.

                The bigoted partisanship is all on your part.

                Nothing human is alien to me.

                by WB Reeves on Tue Jul 09, 2013 at 01:36:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Well first of all (0+ / 0-)

            This diary isn't about protecting Obama. And I'm not protecting Obama. I just don't think his intentions are evil and I feel like many other people do. Probably gonna get attacked for this post but I really don't care anymore.

            "Disappointment is anger for wimps," -Dr. Gregory House

            by freakofsociety on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 04:25:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Should have listened to the gays... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ...we warned y'all. Obama hadn't even stepped foot in the WH when we were screaming about the betrayal of Rick Warren to lead his first inaugural invocation.

        As elated was I was both times Obama won, I would say he is an individual with some topsy-turvy priorities.

        What separates us, divides us, and diminishes the human spirit.

        by equern on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 02:14:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Umm DADT (0+ / 0-)

          And DOMA have been overturned, in case you've been asleep or something... But I guess Obama is still anti gay just because of Rick Warren...

          "Disappointment is anger for wimps," -Dr. Gregory House

          by freakofsociety on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 04:27:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, you missed the point (0+ / 0-)

            Yeah, Obama has "evolved" substantially on gay issues. Many of us thought he might by 2012 (ahem) anyway.

            No, the point I was making is that Obama isn't always the "big liberal" we expect him to be, and sometimes appears to be tone-deaf on some pretty important points.

            What separates us, divides us, and diminishes the human spirit.

            by equern on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 03:32:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Indeed (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dallasdoc, happymisanthropy, Joieau

      Obama regularly issues signing statements to the effect that he will permit no interference (even Congressional) with his perceived sole authority to run all activities involving classified information.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site