61–70 of 321 posts
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.
Oh, that makes it all OK then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. You are not solving the problem you just ignoring it. And I am not sure what's worse...
This is why you should actively abstain instead of staying home if you truly don't like any of the candidates.
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
"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,…
Maybe we should be raging at congress for allowing these things in the first place? In secret hearings and committees with closed doors?
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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're missing the point. There are court orders behind these "wiretaps". "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…
The warrants seem rather broad though as they're receiving the information for everyone whereas warrants generally target specific individuals or organizations. This seems more like a technicality but still goes against the spirit of having warrants, kind of like a judge authorizing search and seizure of every American's home and the executives saying "well it's not warrantless because a judge said I could do this to…
...and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"particularly" is typically understood to require particularity in the warrant. One cannot say "here is a search warrant for the Island of Manhattan, go catch the bad guys."
The argument here I think is that since pen registers typically require only reasonable suspicion, a warrant is not required anyway, so the fact that it doesn't look like a valid warrant to me is probably just intended to be for the benefit of the telco.
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?
I guess you'd make a good politician.
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
There are very few people in the history of people who will look presentable standing next to Lincoln. His combination of moral strength and intellectual fortitude is unsurpassed, and probably unsurpassable. I was gullible enough to vote for Obama, who seems to enjoy making a sport out of seeing how many people he can disappoint as deeply as possible.
States petitioned to join, why shouldn't they get out? Seems reasonable to me. If I join a club I expect I can leave.
Ok the other hand, he did things I would find of dubious morals: -suspend habeaus corpus -wait to free the slaves, and then only do it in the states that were not a part of the union -engage in a bloody war of attrition that killed tons of Americans
So on the whole where do you stand on not allowing people to leave your club vs keeping slavery intact (in areas under his control), trampling on the bill of rights, and sending 625,000 people to their death?
This is a simplification of things overall, but I would argue less simplistic than "Lincoln is this perfect American hero."
There is also a video from December 15th 2005 that I cannot find online which is even more hypocritical than this one.