Skip to main content

View Diary: Why Is Obama Continuing Unconstitutional Bush Policy of Warrantless Surveillance? (107 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Obama ENDED warrantless wiretapping (5+ / 0-)

    You're only about 14 months behind the news cycle.

    http://www.nytimes.com/...

    The Obama administration, especially AG Holder ENDED warrantless wiretapping.  

    You are confusing defending the government against liability for Bush era wire taps (a legal defense, which of course is constitutional to make in court) and the actual practice of continued wiretapping.

    In fact, Holder found some rogue NSA wiretapping around April 2009 and shut it down.

    Unfortunately, DemocracyNow reported the next day that wiretapping was continuing 3 months into the Obama administration without reporting that the administration was shutting it down after finding it.  Ever since, it has been in impregnable urban myth of the perpetually "poutraged" faction of progressives that it is continuing.

    It isn't.  There is no warrantless wiretapping going on with administration's consent.

    •  Yeah, as far as you know. (5+ / 0-)

      Do you really believe that?  That's freakin' hilarious.

      •  You can be as black helicopter (0+ / 0-)
        as you want, but the key thing here is that this case doesn't tell us that Obama has continued the program.
        •  This reminds me of the diaries that proclaim (5+ / 0-)

          that Obama ended MTR coal mining because he (or the EPA, more precisely) denied one company's permit.

          All the while approving 2 or 3 others . . .  The point being, don't be a sap and fall for the smokescreen.

        •  Warantless wiretaps NOT ended under Obama (12+ / 0-)

          From the NY Times Editorial on 4/3/2010

          This ruling does not end warrantless wiretapping. The particular program The Times uncovered has been suspended; there are still others, however, and the 2008 FISA amendments permit warrantless spying.

          It is not comforting that Obama is fighting against any accountability for those who have commited known criminal acts a la his stance on torture.

          Obama is in effect giving de-facto clemency to those who spy illegally (or torture) and reducing such acts to mere partisan disagreements.

          Way to move the Overton window Barack.

          •  Link to info on other programs? (0+ / 0-)
            The key question, bear in mind, is whether they're illegal.  I'm happy to suss that question out, but need more than a pro forma accusation.
          •  The editorial you cite was BEFORE the news story (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bobdevo, Radical def

            And in fact, the editorial you cite is irrelevant.  It's about the lawsuit against the Bush administration.  The sentence you quote is that the lawsuit did not end wiretapping -- ie force any program if it exists to end -- which is a correct statement about the court's decision.

            Twenty-two days later, however, in the article I cite, the Times reported that AG Holder was forcing the NSA to comply with FISA and shutting down a program he had discovered that did not comply with FISA.

            In June 2009 the Obama administration DOJ again discovered a remnant NSA program and shut it down.

            How do you reconcile this series of news reports about the Obama administration trying to force the NSA to conform to FISA with an unsupported accusation that they are continuing warrantless wiretapping?

            There are complicated technical issues this process of shut down faces.  For example, it has always been legal and constitutional to wiretap foreign communications, and this has been going on for decades before the Bush administration.  The complication is how to do that when one party may be in the US and how to filter emails etc arising in the US from those arising overseas when data pipelines don't necessarily make a distinction.  The programs that have run into trouble during the Obama administration have been described as "overcollection" of data in this context.  

            But months after the editorial you cited, the same newspaper, the times, concluded this about the Obama administration's stance on these technical problems -- that it was not continuing the Bush administration's efforts to carry out unconstitutional wiretaps:

            http://www.nytimes.com/...

            We do not believe that Mr. Obama is deliberately violating Americans’ rights as Mr. Bush did, and it is to his credit that the government acknowledged part of the problem in April. But this nation’s civil liberties are not predicated on trusting individuals to wield their powers honorably. They are founded on laws.

      •  Do I really believe the NY Times? (0+ / 0-)

        The newspaper and reporters (Risen) who broke the Bush warrantless wiretapping program story in the first place?  As opposed to believing unsubstantiated unsourced accusations on an internet discussion board?

        •  Is this the same NY Times that refused to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nippersdad

          run this story for a considerable period of time so as to not influence the 2004 election?

          Yeah, like they're credible on this issue.

          And I was chuckling about this earlier (see above), but now I'm flat out ROTFLMAO . . . .

          •  That was the first thing I thought of too. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Roadbed Guy

            They tend to have a problem admitting the truth about things like ACORN as well. They eventually backtrack, but habitual corrections on the bottom of page twenty six months later tends to undermine their credibilty with regard to anything they say today.

            A Republican is someone who can't enjoy his privileged position unless he is certain that somewhere, someone is in excruciating agony. I Love OCD

            by nippersdad on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 08:03:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  They don't need to wiretap, they have the census. (5+ / 0-)

        "Ignorance breeds monsters to fill up the vacancies of the soul that are unoccupied by the verities of knowledge." H Mann

        by the fan man on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 06:09:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Where is the Executive Order? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bobdevo, corvo

      You say Obama "ended the warrantless wiretapping? Prove it. Show me the executive order!

      •  Where is the Papal Bull? (0+ / 0-)

        You say the program is continuing.  Show me the Papal Bull!!!

        The fallacy of your argument is that although proof has been provided in the form of several NY Times articles and editorials, you insist on a form of official verification that may not even be applicable.

        By the same token, I could ask for proof that it is continuing in the form of a Papal Bull.

    •  Because it was in the NY Times? Puh-leeze. n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nippersdad

      "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

      by bobdevo on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 07:36:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  OK so let's discard the NY Times evidence (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Radical def, StepLeftStepForward

        which is the only evidence we have in this thread.  What is the evidence warrantless wiretapping is continuing despite the administration's announcements to the contrary?

        Btw, the NY Times reporting that the DOJ was shutting down these programs was by the same reporter (James Risen) who broke the story that the Bush administration had carried out warrantless wiretaps.

        So if you don't believe the Times when it says the program was ending, do you believe them when they say that Bush had carried out the illegal wiretaps?  Or do you only agree with the Times when it's conclusions conform to your pre-existing opinions.

        If your response to the Times is just "puh-leeze," does that mean it's safe to conclude that the Bush administration never carried out warrantless wiretaps in the first place?

        How does that work in trying to figure out what's going on?  When do you believe a media source and when do you discard it?

        •  The question is: do I believe the government? (0+ / 0-)

          and the answer is:  NO.  The Times was merely parroting government denials . . . ff you want to believe that this administration has stopped warrantless surveillance, or torture . . . go right ahead.

          "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

          by bobdevo on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 11:09:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And that's why your belief is an urban myth (0+ / 0-)

            You are indicating that no amount of evidence could convince you.  Your belief in the continuation of warrantless wiretapping -- despite the reporting by the very same journalist who broke the story about Bush's wiretapping in the first place, DOJ investigations, and the administration's public pronouncements -- is an article of faith not based on balancing evidence.  That's basically what you are now admitting.

            Fine.  

            I don't argue with people who have faith based views of politics anymore than I would argue with devout Catholics about the transfiguration of the communion wafer, or than I would argue with a birther about whether Obama was born in Kenya or Hawaii, or than I would argue with those who believe that Neil Armstrong actually took one small step for man on a sound stage in Los Angeles.

            But don't expect to convince anyone whose analysis is primarily fact based and who considers himself part of the reality based community.  If you want to convince us that it is continuing you would have to present some evidence other than that you just know it's continuing.

            •  Evidence? Where's your fucking evidence? (0+ / 0-)

              Take your patronizing urban myth crap and shove it. Are you retarded?  

              We know that past Administrations have warrantlessly wiretapped, some so blatantly they forced Congress to draft specific legislation making it illegal.

              When the Bush Administration began warrantlessly wiretapping American citiznes, the DoJ refused to prosecute illegal wiretappers. Obama then cooperated in retroactively protecting those criminals and the corporations that aided and abetted the crimes.

              We KNOW this to be fact.

              SO one announcement from an Attorney General who represented Chiqita banana death squads, and you claim Ino amount of evidence could convince me?

              That is disingenuous baloney, and you are the delusional actor here, not me.

              "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

              by bobdevo on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 12:28:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's a conspiracy I tell ya! (0+ / 0-)

                It's not just Holder that's in on it.  It also has to be James Risen, the journalist who broke the wire tap story in the first place, and reported on how Holder was forcing the NSA to conform to FISA.  

                It also has to be the NY Times editorial board that wrote that it doesn't believe the wire tap program is continuing.

                And just because Obama won the election and the Democrats replaced the Republicans, just because Obama promised to end warrantless wire taps, and just because he appointed a critic of the warrantless wiretap programs to head a section of the DOJ that overseas the NSA, and just because the NY Times reports it's over don't mean it's so!!!!

                Is that your basic point?

                •  Funny thing about your New York Times . . . (0+ / 0-)

                  if - AS YOU CLAIM - the NY Times editorial board says they don't believe the wire tap program is continuing . .  then please tell me WHY THE FUCK they conclude their editorial on April 4 saying:

                  Senator Obama promised repeatedly in the 2008 campaign to reverse Mr. Bush’s many abuses of power. This was one of them. President Obama should read this court ruling with chagrin and eliminate warrantless spying. It is also far past time to stop hiding behind spurious, often ludicrous, claims of national security.

                  If it's already eliminated, as you claim, then why are they suggesting it?

                  And while your belief in the truthfulness of the government is touching . . . perhaps you'd be interested in this bridge I have for sale in Brooklyn.

                  "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

                  by bobdevo on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 01:41:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And did you read what they wrote later? (0+ / 0-)

                    after Risen reported in June about what appeared to be over collection of bulk electronic data?

                    We do not believe that Mr. Obama is deliberately violating Americans’ rights as Mr. Bush did, and it is to his credit that the government acknowledged part of the problem in April. But this nation’s civil liberties are not predicated on trusting individuals to wield their powers honorably. They are founded on laws.

                    http://www.nytimes.com/...

                    These are stories about the Obama administration using the first six months to figure out what Bush had been doing and what holdover programs were continuing to do, acknowledging what they had found, and forcing the NSA to comply with FISA.

                •  And another thing!!! Your sainted Mr. Risen also (0+ / 0-)

                  says, on April 1 in the NY Times:

                  But since Mr. Obama took office, the N.S.A. has sometimes violated the limits imposed on spying on Americans by the new FISA law. The administration has acknowledged the lapses but said they had been corrected.

                  Let me help you here - Risen does NOT say the Obama Administration has stopped warrantless wiretapping.  Rather he says they HAVE violated the law since Obama took office, but they CLAIM they no longer do.

                  Maybe a remedial reading course would help.

                  "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

                  by bobdevo on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 01:47:28 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Can't you read and understand this very article?? (0+ / 0-)

                    The article is saying that since Obama took office, Holder discovered NSA programs that violated the limits imposed by FISA AND SHUT THEM DOWN OR FORCED THEM TO COMPLY WITH FISA.  The article by Risen is about that process -- the Obama administration coming in and reviewing these programs and forcing them to comply.

                    Or did you think that the inauguration simply caused all these violations to magically disappear and free ponies to be delivered to all?

                    Did you bother to read the article you're citing?

                    Can you read?  

                    •  You, sir, are muy loco. (0+ / 0-)

                      Where in this article does it mention Holder shutting down any programs? Where does it mention anyone forcing compliance?

                      "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

                      by bobdevo on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 02:51:13 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site