Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance
politico.com
Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance
1–10 of 107 posts
Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance
#2The New Yorker wrote the "must read" article on the subject two years ago: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/16/state-of-decept...
I remember it being really good, you should read it if you have the time.
Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance
#3The charitable explanation, which this article seems to imply, is that he suddenly discovers how important these programs are and how much is at stake.
The less charitable explanation, since it's hard to believe he fundamentally agrees deep down with these programs, is that he is just another politicians and the guaranteed political fallout from surveillance and drones was far less than the catastrophic career-ending political fallout from a major terrorist attack (after dismantling surveillance programs). He chose the option that he thought would give him a second term (and then a gold plated public speaking career after the White House).
I would say his gambit paid off. The right would never love him, the left had no one else and in any case they had fallen so deeply in love with the Idea of him.
Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance
#4The NSA is part of the executive branch. Obama controls the executive branch. Reining in NSA powers is effectively giving up some of his own powers, something that people rarely do.
Most people do not walk away from power. George Washington and Cincinnatus were rare exceptions, and not at all the norm.
Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance
#5The charitable explanation, which this article seems to imply, is that he suddenly discovers how important these programs are and how much is at stake. The less charitable explanation, since it's hard to believe he fundamentally agrees deep down with these programs, is that he is just another politicians and the guaranteed political fallout from surveillance and drones was far less than the catastrophic career-ending…
A more reasonable explanation is that irrespective of what he might /want/ to do, he doesn't actually have sufficient power to do anything about the actions, assuming he's actually being accurately briefed on the matter.
It's probably more a symptom of how absolutely useless and ineffective at doing anything than consuming money to be elected for corporate interests the US congress has become.
I think at this point I might actually be better served by having representatives and senators selected at /random/ from the entire populace.
Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance
#6 This lawyerly approach to government had some surprising
consequences for civil libertarians
Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance
#7The charitable explanation, which this article seems to imply, is that he suddenly discovers how important these programs are and how much is at stake. The less charitable explanation, since it's hard to believe he fundamentally agrees deep down with these programs, is that he is just another politicians and the guaranteed political fallout from surveillance and drones was far less than the catastrophic career-ending…
A more reasonable explanation is that irrespective of what he might /want/ to do, he doesn't actually have sufficient power to do anything about the actions, assuming he's actually being accurately briefed on the matter. It's probably more a symptom of how absolutely useless and ineffective at doing anything than consuming money to be elected for corporate interests the US congress has become. I think at this point I…
Wouldn't be the first time historically speaking
Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance
#8The charitable explanation, which this article seems to imply, is that he suddenly discovers how important these programs are and how much is at stake. The less charitable explanation, since it's hard to believe he fundamentally agrees deep down with these programs, is that he is just another politicians and the guaranteed political fallout from surveillance and drones was far less than the catastrophic career-ending…
A more reasonable explanation is that irrespective of what he might /want/ to do, he doesn't actually have sufficient power to do anything about the actions, assuming he's actually being accurately briefed on the matter. It's probably more a symptom of how absolutely useless and ineffective at doing anything than consuming money to be elected for corporate interests the US congress has become. I think at this point I…
> irrespective of what he might /want/ to do, he doesn't actually have sufficient power to do anything, assuming he's actually being accurately briefed on the matter.
He definitely had enough power, but as steve19 points, he could have estimated that such actions would have probably lowered his chances for reelection.
Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
A more reasonable explanation is that irrespective of what he might /want/ to do, he doesn't actually have sufficient power to do anything about the actions, assuming he's actually being accurately briefed on the matter. It's probably more a symptom of how absolutely useless and ineffective at doing anything than consuming money to be elected for corporate interests the US congress has become. I think at this point I…
> irrespective of what he might /want/ to do, he doesn't actually have sufficient power to do anything, assuming he's actually being accurately briefed on the matter. He definitely had enough power, but as steve19 points, he could have estimated that such actions would have probably lowered his chances for reelection.
Why definitely?
If it was truly hidden from him... then who is to say he has the power to stop it?
Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
A more reasonable explanation is that irrespective of what he might /want/ to do, he doesn't actually have sufficient power to do anything about the actions, assuming he's actually being accurately briefed on the matter. It's probably more a symptom of how absolutely useless and ineffective at doing anything than consuming money to be elected for corporate interests the US congress has become. I think at this point I…
> irrespective of what he might /want/ to do, he doesn't actually have sufficient power to do anything, assuming he's actually being accurately briefed on the matter. He definitely had enough power, but as steve19 points, he could have estimated that such actions would have probably lowered his chances for reelection.
I disagree. In theory he has enough power, but if you look at how the whole system works, you don't get to become a president if you aren't a) owing a lot of people favours, and b) a kind of person that would be disruptive. If you're the uncontrollable type that would pose the risk to the status quo, you won't be allowed to rise high enough to become a president.