31–40 of 321 posts
Here is the rub, if government does nothing and we get attacked people will complain. If government steps up and works to prevent an attack, people complain. Where is the balance?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree it's a complex problem, but there's a middle ground between "doing nothing" and this. And maybe even the NSA's work is in our best interests (and maybe not), but it seems disingenuous and perhaps flat-out wrong for the president to have campaigned on this specific issue, and do the exact opposite.
Unless I'm mistaken, I believe President Obama has "merely" continued the Bush-era policies and programs. Maybe they've extended, but that's because the initatives have matured and the technology has improved. To build from the original comment: What if President Obama had ceased these programs, and a (preventable) terrorist attack occurred, that otherwise could have been stopped. Playing devil's advocate, somewhat,…
> For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and "wiretaps without warrants," he said.
As I said, regardless of whether wiretaps are justified, why did he choose to campaign on this issue? Why bother making these claims to the American public?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree it's a complex problem, but there's a middle ground between "doing nothing" and this. And maybe even the NSA's work is in our best interests (and maybe not), but it seems disingenuous and perhaps flat-out wrong for the president to have campaigned on this specific issue, and do the exact opposite.
Unless I'm mistaken, I believe President Obama has "merely" continued the Bush-era policies and programs. Maybe they've extended, but that's because the initatives have matured and the technology has improved. To build from the original comment: What if President Obama had ceased these programs, and a (preventable) terrorist attack occurred, that otherwise could have been stopped. Playing devil's advocate, somewhat,…
Glad they stopped the bombing that would otherwise occurred in Boston during Boston marathon! You may have not heard because government does not like to say they did a good job, but thanks to spying on all americans they stopped that plot made by 2 Chechnyas to kill 3 Americans and amputate legs of 20 others by using bombs in pressure cookers. Good job, well done. Power to the government!
Even someone on reddit pointed out that these phone taps aren't warrantless wiretaps. First, the FISA court has given a warrant for broad information gathering (whether you agree with it or not). Second, they're only taking metadata. In addition, it seems controversial whether these tactics were targeted to domestic calls at all. Just saying.
They're not, but Obama was referring to a prior program that was basically equivalent. So by the definition that Obama himself was using at the time, these are wiretaps. Also, check out the news on PRISM, which comes much closer to the common definition of wiretaps. I'd say his administration has pretty thoroughly broken that particular promise. http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence...
"Warrantless wiretaps" refers to the program authorized by Bush in 2001 to do these wiretaps without ever notifying the FISA court.
What Obama was campaigning against in 2008 was the executive branch deciding what it could and could not do in regards to surveillance in secret without any input from the legislative or judicial branches.
What is being done now is under the FISA, an act passed by Congress and just re-authorized in 2012, and a law that the courts have upheld (at least, when they've allowed a lawsuit in the first place).
I am not defending the practice, but let's at least be strict about the terms we use. Surprisingly, no one in the government seems to mind a wiretap that has a warrant behind it.
Even someone on reddit pointed out that these phone taps aren't warrantless wiretaps. First, the FISA court has given a warrant for broad information gathering (whether you agree with it or not). Second, they're only taking metadata. In addition, it seems controversial whether these tactics were targeted to domestic calls at all. Just saying.
From: "We will fight the illegal enslaving of millions of black people across the country." To: "We have won the fight! Slavery is now legal. There is no more illegal slavery."
Chhi... Compare it with the words and deeds of Abraham Lincoln 250 years ago: "If slavery isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong." [1][2] There is a stark change in quality of leaders available today. There is so little correlation between words spoken and execution. [1] http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trt027.html [2] http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/ltoh1.jpg
On August 22, 1862, just a few weeks before signing the Proclamation and after he had already discussed a draft of it with his cabinet in July, he wrote a letter in response to an editorial by Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune which had urged complete abolition. Lincoln differentiates between "my view of official duty"—that is, what he can do in his official capacity as President—and his personal views. Officially he must save the Union above all else; personally he wanted to free all the slaves:
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery
Here is the rub, if government does nothing and we get attacked people will complain. If government steps up and works to prevent an attack, people complain. Where is the balance?
> if government does nothing and we get attacked people will complain Who says this? Do you honestly think warrantless wiretaps are a valid form of defense?
"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up,…
You are not solving the problem you just ignoring it. And I am not sure what's worse...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree it's a complex problem, but there's a middle ground between "doing nothing" and this. And maybe even the NSA's work is in our best interests (and maybe not), but it seems disingenuous and perhaps flat-out wrong for the president to have campaigned on this specific issue, and do the exact opposite.
Unless I'm mistaken, I believe President Obama has "merely" continued the Bush-era policies and programs. Maybe they've extended, but that's because the initatives have matured and the technology has improved. To build from the original comment: What if President Obama had ceased these programs, and a (preventable) terrorist attack occurred, that otherwise could have been stopped. Playing devil's advocate, somewhat,…
I'm curious what the phrase "initatives have matured and the technology has improved" means. More comprehensive spying? Quicker retrieval? Increased complicity by firms accumulating personal data?