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

Obama Sued by Rand Paul Over Phone Surveillance Program

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 97 posts

Re: Obama Sued by Rand Paul Over Phone Surveillance Program

#41

Post by saraid216 »

dmix wrote: post #38
wutbrodo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty _horrible_ example of the parties coalescing into a single viewpoint, since intentionally defaulting on our debts is an extremist view by any definition. That's like saying "clearly the two parties are basically the same because they both don't support nuking Russia". "Both parties agree not to act like lunatics" is a terrible example of "the parties are merging". A much less bizarre example would be…

This is not an extreme example. The alternative was conditional terms on expanding the debt limit, not defaulting on the debt. The bill passed without any additional restrictions on spending or changes to collection. The national debt is one of the biggest issues in the country right now and both parties are doing little to stop its expansion. As I said in my original comment, the fringe are the ones who are legitima…

> The national debt is one of the biggest issues in the country right now

I disagree with this claim. Unfortunately, it is also the claim upon which the rest of your claims are founded, so I'll have to disagree with everything else you said, too.

Re: Obama Sued by Rand Paul Over Phone Surveillance Program

#42

Post by gizmo686 »

saalweachter wrote: post #7

My two minutes of internet research says that this is going to get tossed. A President can't be sued for actions taken as President, but can be sued for personal actions. A Daily Beast article mentions this: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/30/can-bachman...

Minor nitpick, a president can be sued, however they have the right to refuse to be sued.

Re: Obama Sued by Rand Paul Over Phone Surveillance Program

#43

Post by rohunati »

ryguytilidie wrote: post #33
jdreaver wrote: post #3

Take a look at the comments section if you want to see political tribalism at its best. > I thought Bush orchestrated the Patriot Act... who knew..? > Regardless of your opinion of the surveillance, you gotta see this as a cynical political move. Bet he wouldn't sue a Republican president. Isn't good enough to disagree with Obama - a candidate has to demonstrate outrage with him to gain cred with the base. Everything…

That is the main problem I see with modern politics. It basically becomes "stereotypes of the left versus stereotypes of the right". A friend of a friend told me that he didn't see Gay marriage being outlawed in many states as a civil rights issue. I said I did. At this point, he asked "so you're a democrat?" I said "not really, I don't think of myself as associated with either party" and his answer was, no joke, "we…

This is exactly the problem. We could be having deep, analytical discussions about the principles and philosophies that form the basis of our political convictions. Instead, our conversations are tainted by partisanship.

Re: Obama Sued by Rand Paul Over Phone Surveillance Program

#44

Post by abtinf »

Aloisius wrote: post #27
troym wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would a similar suit by Pelosi also be theater to you?

It depends. Filing a lawsuit against Obama is political theater regardless of who does it simply because he is immune from civil lawsuits for actions relating to his job. However, suing everyone and anyone else (as Paul seems to have done), isn't. So what Paul has done is a little political theater and a little practical. If Polosi had done the same thing, the result would be the same. As a legislator though, it seem…

There is already a law that makes it illegal: the fourth amendment, further backed by extensive case law.

And the Fourth Amendment was intended for exactly this case. One of the last actions of the English which precipitated the American revolution was a general warrant issued in a secret court in England which gave English soldiers authority to search any American's home at any time without any reason for suspicion.

Re: Obama Sued by Rand Paul Over Phone Surveillance Program

#45

Post by gizmo686 »

higherpurpose wrote: post #8

Good stuff, but it kind of bothers me that so much focus is put on the phone surveillance program, when I find the surveillance of private Internet communications so much more damaging, especially since they are also the future of all communications.

If you want a reference point on creating change through the courts, you should look into the civil rights movement. The general idea is that you make cases that you have a good chance of winning, and slowly build up legal precedent. If we tried to protect all internet communications (through the courts), and loose, then that precedent will take a long time to overturn.

Re: Obama Sued by Rand Paul Over Phone Surveillance Program

#46

Post by gruseom »

nhebb wrote: post #26
jdreaver wrote: post #3

Take a look at the comments section if you want to see political tribalism at its best. > I thought Bush orchestrated the Patriot Act... who knew..? > Regardless of your opinion of the surveillance, you gotta see this as a cynical political move. Bet he wouldn't sue a Republican president. Isn't good enough to disagree with Obama - a candidate has to demonstrate outrage with him to gain cred with the base. Everything…

Ever since reading about the Robbers Cave Experiment [1], I have trouble looking at politics without seeing it through that lens. [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/lt/the_robbers_cave_experiment/

That study is a classic that belongs alongside Milgram (obedience to authority) and Zimbardo (Stanford prison experiment). I'm not sure why it isn't better known. The three go together perfectly.

Re: Obama Sued by Rand Paul Over Phone Surveillance Program

#47

Post by x0054 »

jdreaver wrote: post #3

Take a look at the comments section if you want to see political tribalism at its best. > I thought Bush orchestrated the Patriot Act... who knew..? > Regardless of your opinion of the surveillance, you gotta see this as a cynical political move. Bet he wouldn't sue a Republican president. Isn't good enough to disagree with Obama - a candidate has to demonstrate outrage with him to gain cred with the base. Everything…

I would venture to guess that their are a lot of people in United States who believe in cutting government spending and fiscal responsibility but at the same time are socially liberal, and believe that people should be given opportunities and left alone to do what they will with their life and have sex and marry who ever they want (assuming consent and free will). Basically, something tells me that there are a lot of people who understand that the problems we are facing are more complex than the sound bite solutions which our politicians provide. Why isn't there a 3rd party. I am not talking about libertarians, or anarchists, or the Green Party. I want to vote for the party of "reasonable" people who will use logic, science, and well documented facts to get my vote, not rhetoric and scare tactics. The "balance" party perhaps.

Re: Obama Sued by Rand Paul Over Phone Surveillance Program

#48

Post by nickff »

Aloisius wrote: post #27
troym wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would a similar suit by Pelosi also be theater to you?

It depends. Filing a lawsuit against Obama is political theater regardless of who does it simply because he is immune from civil lawsuits for actions relating to his job. However, suing everyone and anyone else (as Paul seems to have done), isn't. So what Paul has done is a little political theater and a little practical. If Polosi had done the same thing, the result would be the same. As a legislator though, it seem…

The party named in the lawsuit corresponds to the conventions of the court where the complaint is filed. If you would like to see a good example of this, I would refer you to the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act (A.K.A. Obamacare) lawsuit, where the parties named in the suit varied by the jurisdiction where the law was challenged.

Re: Obama Sued by Rand Paul Over Phone Surveillance Program

#49

Post by dmix »

saraid216 wrote: post #41
dmix wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not an extreme example. The alternative was conditional terms on expanding the debt limit, not defaulting on the debt. The bill passed without any additional restrictions on spending or changes to collection. The national debt is one of the biggest issues in the country right now and both parties are doing little to stop its expansion. As I said in my original comment, the fringe are the ones who are legitima…

> The national debt is one of the biggest issues in the country right now I disagree with this claim. Unfortunately, it is also the claim upon which the rest of your claims are founded, so I'll have to disagree with everything else you said, too.

> I disagree with this claim.

Unsupported opinions are pretty meaningless. How is it not one of the biggest issues?

The national debt story has been making constant front-page of news for 3+ years now. Anyone who doesn't see the huge long-term significance of the massive debt is exhibiting significant ignorance to economics. The USA is making a serious gamble that the economy will be strong and fast-growing for the next 5-10 years. If not, it's going to get nasty.

Re: Obama Sued by Rand Paul Over Phone Surveillance Program

#50

Post by cpr »

wutbrodo wrote: post #23
dmix wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both parties are slowly merging into one anyway: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/politics/boehner-to-... The only notable difference these days is the fringes (where Rand Paul and Tea Party reside) vs the single party.

That's a pretty _horrible_ example of the parties coalescing into a single viewpoint, since intentionally defaulting on our debts is an extremist view by any definition. That's like saying "clearly the two parties are basically the same because they both don't support nuking Russia". "Both parties agree not to act like lunatics" is a terrible example of "the parties are merging". A much less bizarre example would be…

Actually, as Rand Paul himself said, defaulting on our debt is the last thing we should do, and by bringing it up, Obama was playing a very cynical card.

The feds have no problem paying the debt service (though of course the growing debt is a problem); it's everything else they can't afford.

Ultimately, it's Congress' problem, not Obama's. He doesn't pass budget bills. But there are almost zero folks in Congress with enough backbone to do anything about it.

Post reply on HN