Obama expands domestic spying powers

[bascule]

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_Administration_quietly_expands_Bushs_legal_0407.html

 

Ugh,

 

I'm not exactly a huge Ron Paul supporter, but there were parts of him that I liked, and one of those parts was that he would never do anything like this. He would do the opposite, dismantling this unconstitutional program and shutting it down for good.

 

This is the sort of thing I was worried about with Obama (although moreso worried about it with Hillary)... I'd really like to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and try to convince myself the program must have some merit, but uhh yeah, no. F*ck that. Don't compromise essential freedoms for temporary safety, thanks.

[padren]

I don't generally say this but I'd be willing to eat some teargas to voice my disfavor on this.

 

It's absolutely appalling in my opinion, not sure what else can be said.

[Pangloss]

It's an EFF opinion piece. I think the book is still out on what the Obama administration's overall policy will be in this area. He's no doubt feeling the same pressures as previous administrations, and having to make some tough calls. Let's see what happens, but certainly there's nothing wrong with telling him what we think on the matter.

[GutZ]

What group would want this so badly that they could convince Obama crew to broaden domestic spying?

 

What happen to all the talk about constitutional rights? Was he not a civil rights lawyer who taught constitutional law?

 

I was confused by this the first time he voted for it, now he's expanding it?

[CaptainPanic]

What group would want this so badly that they could convince Obama crew to broaden domestic spying?

 

You're assuming that there's a lobby behind this.

 

I think that it's different:

 

Obama might have asked some commission to investigate how the country can be made safer (without any restrictions on types of measurements).

The conclusion of this commission has been to increase spying. It's obvious: remove a threat before it becomes a problem. It's cost-effective, because it can be done by computers and technology already exists. If you don't care that you arrest an innocent person every now and then, and if you accept zero privacy, then this is a solution.

Please note that this is speculation. I have not read this anywhere.

[Dudde]

I don't generally say this but I'd be willing to eat some teargas to voice my disfavor on this.

 

It's absolutely appalling in my opinion, not sure what else can be said.

 

Nice! If you find a way from eating tear gas to make your opinion voiced, let me know and I'll join you my friend.

[ParanoiA]

"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," Greenwald wrote. "Yet they responded exactly as the Bush DOJ would have. This demonstrates that the Obama DOJ plans to invoke the exact radical doctrines of executive secrecy which Bush used -- not only when the Obama DOJ is taking over a case from the Bush DOJ, but even when they are deciding what response should be made in the first instance."

 

"Everything for which Bush critics excoriated the Bush DOJ -- using an absurdly broad rendition of 'state secrets' to block entire lawsuits from proceeding even where they allege radical lawbreaking by the President and inventing new claims of absolute legal immunity -- are now things the Obama DOJ has left no doubt it intends to embrace itself," he adds.

 

I don't know about that last bit as I'm not sure Obama has settled in enough to have established any sort of pattern. I'm sure he's thought about their position and what they're going to do - I'm just not sure we know exactly what that is yet.

 

I'm trying to be fair to Obama, but it's not looking good for him. So far, his method has been honest and sincere, but his decisions haven't matched the rhetoric. This is the most egregious, if it doesn't get reversed, somewhat.

[SH3RL0CK]

I think it is now becoming clear, and the anti-Bush crowd may eventually have to agree, that there is not much difference between each political party in terms of actual deeds. One reason for this is that the President (Clinton, Bush, Obama, McCain - had he won, etc.) has to react to the realities of the world. As such, the actions to be taken by said President are constrained to the point where the end result is almost the same regardless of the person in charge.

 

In the case of the AQ terrorists, most methods available with any realistic chance of stopping them involve becoming unethical yourself (such as performing these wiretaps). So Obama, since he cannot afford an AQ attack, will be VERY tempted to push hard for wiretapping and the like in an attempt to stop them. In fact, it could be considered wrong for him to NOT authorize these wiretaps if by doing so he could have prevented another 911.

[The Bear's Key]

Before the election, certain people went on about how Obama's a muslim and didn't trust him -- practically scared about it really. Bush followers (hanging on too much radio and emails). I used the opportunity to inform them how if elected, Obama was going to now have at his disposal all the executive powers amassed over the last 8 years....and how that's precisely why you don't f* around with Constitution, because if the wrong person gets in...

 

Of course I like Obama, didn't think him the wrong person, and much rathered him elected than for Palin to be so freakin near the President's seat.

 

But this is a major disappointment on Obama's part. I hope that he'll catch a whiff of the disappointment on his Blackberry.

 

 

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9126258

"It's just one tool among a number of tools that I'm trying to use, to break out of the bubble, to make sure that people can still reach me," he told CNN.

 

"If I'm doing something stupid, somebody in Chicago can send me an e-mail and say, 'What are you doing?'

 

"I want to be able to have voices, other than the people who are immediately working for me, be able to reach out and send me a message about what's happening in America."

 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28780205/wid/11915829?GT1=40006

The BlackBerry's symbolism and use is key to Obama personally. "I think he believes it’s a way of keeping in touch with folks," and not "getting stuck in a bubble,"

....

Obama views the connection to the outside world as vital, seeing it as a tool to help him “stay in touch with the flow of everyday life,”

....

"I've been working with Barack Obama since before the election, and I know that without his virtual connection to old friends and trusted confidants beyond the bubble that seals off every president from the people who elected him, he'd be like a caged lion padding restlessly around the West Wing, wondering what's happening on the other side of the iron bars that surround the People's House,"

[Mr Skeptic]

I hope that this ends in the removal of the Patriot Act.

[bascule]

I think it is now becoming clear, and the anti-Bush crowd may eventually have to agree, that there is not much difference between each political party in terms of actual deeds.

 

I am surprised, and saddened, by what Obama has been doing in this regard.

 

In the case of the AQ terrorists, most methods available with any realistic chance of stopping them involve becoming unethical yourself (such as performing these wiretaps).

 

I still do not see why the existing FISA provisions (especially the ones which provide for retroactively seeking warrants in extreme cases) were insufficient. Perhaps Obama knows something I don't... meanwhile Obama is, at least in my mind, violating the US Constitution by continuing this program.

 

So Obama, since he cannot afford an AQ attack, will be VERY tempted to push hard for wiretapping and the like in an attempt to stop them. In fact, it could be considered wrong for him to NOT authorize these wiretaps if by doing so he could have prevented another 911.

 

I consider it wrong to violate the US Constitution and the sacred trust citizens place in the government not to spy on them without warrants, but maybe that's just me. What exactly is gained by not trying to seek warrants retroactively? It's not like we're preventing people from doing their jobs... they can do all the warrantless spying they want provided they can justify their actions to a judge after the fact. Why is this insufficient?

 

Are you seriously arguing the only way to "prevent another 9/11" is to allow the government to perform surveillance they can't justify?

 

I am extremely unhappy to live in a country that spies on its own citizens private communication without warrants.

 

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

-- Benjamin Franklin

[Pangloss]

I wonder what ol' Ben would think of airport screenings.

 

Probably not a whole lot, especially in their current state.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

According to this article Obama is declining to prosecute CIA torturers.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8003537.stm

[SH3RL0CK]

I am surprised, and saddened, by what Obama has been doing in this regard.

 

 

 

I still do not see why the existing FISA provisions (especially the ones which provide for retroactively seeking warrants in extreme cases) were insufficient. Perhaps Obama knows something I don't... meanwhile Obama is, at least in my mind, violating the US Constitution by continuing this program.

 

 

 

I consider it wrong to violate the US Constitution and the sacred trust citizens place in the government not to spy on them without warrants, but maybe that's just me. What exactly is gained by not trying to seek warrants retroactively? It's not like we're preventing people from doing their jobs... they can do all the warrantless spying they want provided they can justify their actions to a judge after the fact. Why is this insufficient?

 

Are you seriously arguing the only way to "prevent another 9/11" is to allow the government to perform surveillance they can't justify?

 

I am extremely unhappy to live in a country that spies on its own citizens private communication without warrants.

 

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

-- Benjamin Franklin

 

 

Well, I'm only proposing what I believe to be the explaination for them.

I'm certainly not trying to justify these actions, and I agree with your counter-points. Too bad it seems that so very few of our elected leaders in the past few years (or is it generations?) also agree.

[ParanoiA]

I consider it wrong to violate the US Constitution and the sacred trust citizens place in the government not to spy on them without warrants, but maybe that's just me. What exactly is gained by not trying to seek warrants retroactively? It's not like we're preventing people from doing their jobs... they can do all the warrantless spying they want provided they can justify their actions to a judge after the fact. Why is this insufficient[/i']?

 

No, it's not just you. And I agree wholeheartedly with this whole paragraph. Even without retroactive warrants, I've always suspected the best solution was to do it anyway, while remaining illegal. In that way, they can't divulge any private information or use it against the citizenry - which is essentially why we're against such methods - while simultaneously providing authorities with access to information they could act on, in the case of preventing some attack.

 

Now maybe that makes prosecution a little more difficult, after the fact, if they can't use that information illegaly obtained. But I find it hard to believe there will be no other evidence for such prosecutions.

 

But yeah, like you say, retroactive warrants seem to make the most sense here. I do not see how that hampers their efforts. The only thing it seems to do is ensure they're not abusing the practice.

[SH3RL0CK]

The problem with doing the illegal wiretapping "anyway"; I presume you mean without the warrants, is that inevitably (with the Freedom of Information Act), these actions will become known. Then what follows is a lawsuit and possible prosecution of the investigator(s) for breaking the law.

[ParanoiA]

The problem with doing the illegal wiretapping "anyway"; I presume you mean without the warrants, is that inevitably (with the Freedom of Information Act), these actions will become known. Then what follows is a lawsuit and possible prosecution of the investigator(s) for breaking the law.

 

Then doesn't that create a natural check on their usage? Don't want to get caught doing it, then better not abuse it.

 

And isn't that the condition with retroactive warrants? If you fail at getting the warrant, then all of that wiretapping was illegal wasn't it?

[Mr Skeptic]

But yeah, like you say, retroactive warrants seem to make the most sense here. I do not see how that hampers their efforts. The only thing it seems to do is ensure they're not abusing the practice.

 

Maybe they are abusing the practice.

[ParanoiA]

Since that's the only thing to be gained, it does stand to reason doesn't it?