Live data from Hacker News

Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

news.cnet.com

241–250 of 321 posts

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#241
post #36

"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,…

Carlin was a great comedian and I'm a big fan but I'm not about to agree with this simply because the late great George Carlin said it. This is totally backwards and you have to do some mental gymnastics to believe it. In the end, this is what it is, a joke. If you don't vote you have done nothing to even try to elect someone who you, in good faith, believe will do what you deem the right thing. Yeah, politicians are…

My problem with "I don't vote because it's a sham" is in two parts:

1. It's very often just a pseudo-intellectual justification for not bothering to educate yourself about any of the issues, politicians or policies at hand, or to actually define your own philosophical/policy position and have it subjected to possible challenge and critique. It's laziness and cowardice masquerading as superiority.

2. It's also very popular as a defense mechanism for fantasists and fundamentalists who refuse to accept that: reality is messy, none of us has all the answers, none of us has quite the same experience or expertise and thus even those disagreeing with us have much value to bring to the table, that there's no rational reason to expect 300 million people with different experiences with different policies and different parts of the country to ever agree on where the problems are nor how to fix them, and -- most of all -- that we ourselves might actually be wrong about some of our fundamental assumptions and the people disagreeing with us might not only have a point, but that we might be standing behind the wrong policy.

If you can accept these things, you can accept that compromise is not awful or evidence of failure in and of itself and that democracy is very rarely about 'right' and 'wrong' choices. You would recognize the messy process of compromise and politics is itself a feature.

Progress is a messy, irregular march not from A to B, but from A[n] to B[n], where not every path is straight, or known, or necessarily moves forward on each tick of the clock. Much of the time the destination isn't even known when we have to decide a course (whether it exists, where it is, whether it's fixed or floating -- even whether it's fundamentally knowable) and sometimes we're not even sure where it is that we're starting from.

Now, if you want to argue that there are problems (primarily, that money has corrupted the system) I will enthusiastically agree. But there's no solution to those problems that hinges on not voting.

There are things that we can do other than and in addition to voting. But they don't in any way preclude voting or benefit from our abstaining from voting.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#242
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not, you're apparently just not fully aware of what's going on. They don't only have access to phone records ; they also have access to our communications, and they have had that access for at least the last 6 years without a warrant, not even one from a FISA court.

Source? The only records taken from Internet companies pertain to non-citizens living outside the U.S. Even then, a secret court order is needed.

The FISA courts have been being essentially bypassed since the Bush Administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_co...

This is not what you do if you're only going after call records. This is what you do if you're siphoning off communications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#243
post #91
post #46

Is the headline trying to mislead? A) Phone records are not wiretaps. B) They weren't warrantless. However, secret warrants can be misused, and gathering data on domestic calls needs further scrutiny than this collection of every call.

Yeah, there's a very real difference between the collection of metadata and actually recording phone conversations and text messages. Both leave a bad taste in my mouth, but conflating the two is dangerous and dishonest.

They're not just collecting metadata.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepting_v._AT%26T

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not, you're apparently just not fully aware of what's going on. They don't only have access to phone records ; they also have access to our communications, and they have had that access for at least the last 6 years without a warrant, not even one from a FISA court.

"they also have access to our communications" is too ambiguous for a discussion like this, it helps no one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepting_v._AT%26T

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#245
post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then beat them. Let them spend all the money they spend trying to get you to vote, then use that vote to cast a ballot for a third party candidate that best reflects your beliefs. Being able to get a substantial number of votes is a HUGELY BIG DEAL for third parties, as at some point (I can't remember the number exactly, I think it's 4%) they start getting federal funds to aid in future elections. A viable third part…

The problem is that FPTP mathematically guarantees a 2 party system in a steady state. So long as you own the 2 parties, you effectively own the government. What's worse is that it also actively works against additional parties. We also have a rampant issue of uninformed voting. I'd bet there are close to 50M people who just "vote with the party" and follow their biased news network rather than learning about the can…

I think you're overstating the situation there. My understanding is that FPTP tends to result in a 2 party system, but I have not heard it asserted that it guarantees such. And there are counter-examples listed on the Wikipedia page for Duverger's Law[1], so we know it doesn't always happen.

It's also important to keep in mind what "two party system" really means. In the US, for example, it is not the case that every elected official belongs to one of two parties. There are both independent ("unaffiliated") office-holders (in what would be considered partisan positions) and 3rd party office-holders. The Libertarian Party, for example, usually claims approximately 600 elected officers nationwide (not all in partisan positions however) in average years.

So, net-net, while FPTP is a bad system in many ways, one should not feel that there is no value in voting for 3rd party or unaffiliated candidates in such a system. Under some circumstances they do win, and in other cases they at least affect the outcome, which - in turn - affect the public discourse - and they may impact the Overton window as well.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not, you're apparently just not fully aware of what's going on. They don't only have access to phone records ; they also have access to our communications, and they have had that access for at least the last 6 years without a warrant, not even one from a FISA court.

"they also have access to our communications" is too ambiguous for a discussion like this, it helps no one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepting_v._AT%26T

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not, you're apparently just not fully aware of what's going on. They don't only have access to phone records ; they also have access to our communications, and they have had that access for at least the last 6 years without a warrant, not even one from a FISA court.

It's not like these programs just got setup without approval. I'm sure they have secret rulings from FISA to justify all this stuff (not that a secret ruling makes anything legal, but hey). The problem with secret courts is obvious.

They've been essentially bypassing the FISA courts since 9/11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_co...

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sue them? Did they sign a legally binding contract with terms guaranteeing the closure of Gitmo and a moratorium on domestic spying? Did this contract provide for immediate impeachment on breach of terms? Sorry pal, but "promises" are worth the paper they're written on. It's simply your fault for being credulous. This game's been going on for hundreds of years.

Thanks, Samuel Goldwyn. "If you vote for me, I will " sounds like an oral contract to me, since it involves consideration in the form of a vote. Oral contracts when done before witnesses may be enforceable in some jurisdictions, except when the type of contract in question explicitly requires a written counterpart, such as in the conveyance of property. I'm curious if this could be solved at the federal level via che…

> I'm curious if this could be solved at the federal level via checks and balances provided at the state level. i.e. could a State legislate that it is illegal for candidate for US federal office to make false campaign claims when in that state.

No, states can't enforce laws which would penalize federal officials for how they perform official duties. This is pretty well established Constitutional jurisprudence.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the Constitution, the federal government is given broad, exclusive, power over national security and defense Like "privacy", "national security" appears nowhere in the Constitution. The federal government is given certain specific powers that can be grouped under the umbrella "national security", just as it is given certain specific limits based on particular rights that can be grouped under the umbrella "privac…

"National security" falls under the umbrella of "common Defence" (which appears twice in the Constitution). Indeed, one of the motivating forces behind the creation of a stronger federal government under the Constitution was Shay's Rebellion, which was a purely internal threat. The term ("privacy") does not appear in the Constitution, and the specific limits on federal power that do appear can't be generalized to fit…

> National security" falls under the umbrella of "common Defence" (which appears twice in the Constitution).

Both in reference to the purpose of the Constitution and the scope of purposes supported by Congress taxing power, but neither reference is to a general federal blanket power with regard to "common defense".

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"National security" falls under the umbrella of "common Defence" (which appears twice in the Constitution). Indeed, one of the motivating forces behind the creation of a stronger federal government under the Constitution was Shay's Rebellion, which was a purely internal threat. The term ("privacy") does not appear in the Constitution, and the specific limits on federal power that do appear can't be generalized to fit…

> National security" falls under the umbrella of "common Defence" (which appears twice in the Constitution). Both in reference to the purpose of the Constitution and the scope of purposes supported by Congress taxing power, but neither reference is to a general federal blanket power with regard to "common defense".

Powers under the Constitution are generally read to be complete within a particular domain except to the extent they are counter-balanced by affirmative rights. See Gibbons v. Ogden ("If, as has always been understood, the sovereignty of Congress, though limited to specified objects, is plenary as to those objects...").
Post reply on HN