Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 107 posts

Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

#11

Post by acqq »

deadfish wrote: post #9
acqq wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Note: "assuming he's actually being accurately briefed" so here nobody discussed the "truly hidden" variant.

Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

#12

Post by [deleted] »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #10
acqq wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

#14

Post by tempodox »

yc1010 wrote: post #13

There is another scary explanation, is that they have collected enough dirt on him and other politicians to become "untouchable"

Since the NSA increasingly knows everything about everyone, it is only a question of time until they will be able to blackmail just about anyone. How politicians, who are naturally especially vulnerable in that department, can let this cancer grow unchecked, is beyond me.

Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

#15

Post by richardw »

steve19 wrote: post #3

The 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…

> the catastrophic career-ending political fallout from a major terrorist attack

Any rational person would consider preventing a major terrorist attack far more important than keeping their job for four years. People with the opposite motivation do exist, but generally I'd consider them pretty close to evil. Someone like that would probably have had a different 2 terms to Obama, in my opinion.

Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

#16

Post by cubancigar11 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #10
acqq wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That is a very absurd argument, one I have heard several times in liberal circles. President of United States of America is the most powerful man in the world. He doesn't owe anyone anything. We elect him thinking he will do what he promised and the only retribution for him is that he will either be impeached or not get re-elected.

That's it. That is democracy. Unless he had 'an offer he could not refuse', he is guilty of a lot of betrayal (apart from crimes he can commit from a presidential position).

He is not there to do physics, he has been given power to explicitly do what cannot be done without power. Apologetic my ass.

Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

#17

Post by duncan_bayne »

mjevans wrote: post #5
steve19 wrote: post #3

The 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…

Don't knock that approach - it's known as Sortition ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition ) and I'm personally convinced that it's a much better way of achieving democracy than any other.

Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

#18

Post by TeMPOraL »

cubancigar11 wrote: post #16
TeMPOraL wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is a very absurd argument, one I have heard several times in liberal circles. President of United States of America is the most powerful man in the world. He doesn't owe anyone anything. We elect him thinking he will do what he promised and the only retribution for him is that he will either be impeached or not get re-elected. That's it. That is democracy. Unless he had 'an offer he could not refuse', he is guil…

> We elect him

Out of how many candidates were you selecting? 300 million? Or just a few, with long political careers? You don't get to the point of being an actually electable candidate if you could stir up a real mess within the establishment.

Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

#19

Post by makomk »

richardw wrote: post #15
steve19 wrote: post #3

The 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…

> the catastrophic career-ending political fallout from a major terrorist attack Any rational person would consider preventing a major terrorist attack far more important than keeping their job for four years. People with the opposite motivation do exist, but generally I'd consider them pretty close to evil. Someone like that would probably have had a different 2 terms to Obama, in my opinion.

It's not clear that these surveillance programs actually help stop terrorist attacks, just that if one did happen after Obama stopped them it'd be a career-ending move because it'd be perceived to be his fault.

Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

#20

Post by dagw »

acqq wrote: post #8
mjevans wrote: post #5

Earlier 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.

He definitely had enough power

Assuming he could get his party behind him.

Post reply on HN