[Nox]

The Legal Left Cools Toward Obama

I saw this story reported on both CNN and Fox the other day and I thought I would post it here since I found a print version. In a nutshell Obama has adopted Bush’s secret surveillance policies and even expanded them by claiming that Americans have no rights to challenge secret surveillance that violates the law. This story also talks about another separate news item I have seen reported. It has to do with Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan where some detainees are being held now instead of Guantanamo. Obama has taken a page from Bush’s play book here as well and is arguing that detainees held there have no legal rights and are not entitled to representation.

The reason I am posting this is because after I first saw the stories on Obama’s secret surveillance position I talked to one of my friends about it. She’s a rabid Obama supporter (believe it or not – she once broke up with a guy she just started seeing because she found out he was a registered Republican) and one the reasons she said she was voting for Obama was because of “Bush’s Nazi wire taps”. She would go on to me about, ‘if you really oppose warrantless wire taps like you say you do, how can you not support Obama – he’s going to get rid of that crap’. So, needless to say, I was dying to find out what she had to say about this turn of events. Her response was “Well I would rather have Obama doing it than Bush.” Gone was all of the ‘Nazi’ rhetoric; gone was the ‘crapping on the constitution’ talk, now it was ‘at least we can trust Obama’.

Which brings me to my question. I know that quite a few of you supported Obama in the last election; what do you guys think now that these are Obama’s surveillance policies? I’m just curious as to whether or not the majority of agree with Chrissie or is this still an issue you consider worth shouting about?

[IcyCool]

Originally Posted by Nox

Which brings me to my question. I know that quite a few of you supported Obama in the last election; what do you guys think now that these are Obama’s surveillance policies? I’m just curious as to whether or not the majority of agree with Chrissie or is this still an issue you consider worth shouting about?

The president's name makes no difference as to just how stupid the action is. It is still wrong, no matter who is president.

I'm of the same opinion on the 'stimulus' bill as well. It was a bad idea the first time, and it's a bad idea this time.

[enderwiggin]

Originally Posted by IcyCool

The president's name makes no difference as to just how stupid the action is. It is still wrong, no matter who is president.

I'm of the same opinion on the 'stimulus' bill as well. It was a bad idea the first time, and it's a bad idea this time.

Exactly my sentiments on all accounts.

I'm sorry, but as far as the "100 day" contributions a new president is measured by, Obama hasn't done well at all. I'm not impressed and I don't regret voting for the other party at all.

[JBunny]

What do you expect? Obama has lied all through his presidency. By Obama I mean both him and his staff. Anyone remember the Bow no Bow a few days ago?

Personally I have no problem with Gitmo, nor the wire taps. But I feel I am required to say that since I did not mind it when Bush did it. What I do have a problem with is no one complaining about it when Obama does it. If it's wrong for one to do it it's wrong for another. Conversly if it's right for one then it's right for another.

BTW: Let's not turn this into a Pro-Anti wire tap conversation. The topic is is it ok for Obama to do the same thing he complained Bush did, and the lack of up roar over Obama's action when thousands complained when Bush did it.

[Sidstyler]

So, needless to say, I was dying to find out what she had to say about this turn of events. Her response was “Well I would rather have Obama doing it than Bush.” Gone was all of the ‘Nazi’ rhetoric; gone was the ‘crapping on the constitution’ talk, now it was ‘at least we can trust Obama’.

Bullshit, there's no excuse for this crap no matter who's doing it. And if in fact the article is true then to say I feel a bit cheated is an understatement...

Originally Posted by JBunny

BTW: Let's not turn this into a Pro-Anti wire tap conversation. The topic is is it ok for Obama to do the same thing he complained Bush did, and the lack of up roar over Obama's action when thousands complained when Bush did it.

Personally I don't see why anyone would be pro wire-tapping. It's such a clear and obvious violation of our human rights and completely destroys the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". The only reason most people I've seen give their support for such a thing in the first place is "Well I have nothing to hide, what are you hiding?", completely missing the entire point.

And no, it's not right, and when I voted I assumed this kind of bullshit was going to stop. I guess no matter what you do you can't get rid of Big Brother, he's hear to stay no matter which side of the political fence they're on.

[IcyCool]

Originally Posted by enderwiggin

I'm not impressed and I don't regret voting for the other party at all.

I'm entirely unconvinced that we'd be any better off at this point with the other party (about the only difference I see is that GITMO would still be around).

That said, anyone who is shocked that a politician is lying to them or screwing them in some way gets no sympathy from me.

[knightperson]

I read a bit about this recently, and I'm very disappointed. After 8 years of Bush's trampling of the Constitution, declaring "war on terror" so he can have war powers, and generally justifying whatever his cowboy ego felt like doing as "necessary for the fight against Al Qaeda", I had convinced myself that this was one anomalous fruitcake administration. I genuinely hoped that things would start to make sense again with a more sensible guy running things. I believed Obama was as close to an honest man as you can get and be successful in politics. After hearing that he's not only continuing the warrantless spying and immunity from prosecution but expanding it to mean that essentially anything the government doesn't want to talk about, regardless of how drastic an abuse, they don't have to, I don't know what to think any more. Is Obama just as big a liar as everybody else, or is there some Big Secret that makes this necessary? I've never been a fan of Grand Conspiracy theories, but a President is privy to knowledge held by very few others. Still, I can't quite convince myself that the danger is so great (or the Secret Masters of the Illuminati, or the Alien Shapeshifters, or the Knights Templar, or whatever are so powerful) that it's worth sacrificing the rights of privacy that make this country worth saving in order to save it!

[Dangerman]

A) We need to see this law before we make a solid judgement.

B) If you aren't doing anything illegal don't worry. The NSA, FBI, CIA don't need to waste their time listening to innocent uninteresting people when there are real dangerous criminals out there. It takes up too much time, effort, and resources.

C) Better in Bagram than in Gitmo. They are closer to their culture and there is a possibility for the faster processing of captured combatants. After all these people (Taliban) fight for some very very wrong ideals, not just against the west.

D) Terrorism is a threat that is very dynamic. It can change locations and personnel very quickly. When the relevant intelligence agency needs to tap a line/monitor a computer that instant they shouldn't have to go through the drawn out process of getting a judge, have them deliberate over it etc. In most cases they are already under surveillance.

[knightperson]

Originally Posted by Dangerman

A) We need to see this law before we make a solid judgement.

Agreed, but that's the problem. The Obama justice department has declared that they don't have to answer ANY questions about any domestic surveillance EVER. The official brief that states this is publicly available, and I've read a bit of it on some news sites that have commented on it. I will explore it some more if I ever end up with time to do so.

B) If you aren't doing anything illegal don't worry. The NSA, FBI, CIA don't need to waste their time listening to innocent uninteresting people when there are real dangerous criminals out there. It takes up too much time, effort, and resources.

I completely, totally, and in all other ways disagree! My private conversations should be private, regardless of how interesting or not they are. The argument that "we can trust the government not to abuse its power", which is what your statement breaks down to, is completely at odds with the theory behind the foundation of this country, as well as ample evidence throughout the world and throughout history. Governments have to be restrained by law from abusing their power, which is why we have a Bill of Rights and a the principle of Checks and Balances. Our Founders knew this, and we should too.

C) Better in Bagram than in Gitmo. They are closer to their culture and there is a possibility for the faster processing of captured combatants. After all these people (Taliban) fight for some very very wrong ideals, not just against the west.

Irrelevant. It is their status, not their location, that matters. If a nation is in a state of war and takes a prisoner on the battlefield, he is a Prisoner of War and entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. If he is not a Prisoner of War, then he is under civilian law and entitled to legal representation and other rules of that status. This whole Enemy Combatant thing is a travesty and always has been. It would be permissible, barely, in a true combat situation to make a summary judgement and execution of a captured spy if you didn't have the resources (proper jail or MP) to watch him, but once this captured spy has been removed from the battlefield, POW or civilian law should apply.

D) Terrorism is a threat that is very dynamic. It can change locations and personnel very quickly. When the relevant intelligence agency needs to tap a line/monitor a computer that instant they shouldn't have to go through the drawn out process of getting a judge, have them deliberate over it etc. In most cases they are already under surveillance.

On this one we can agree, at least in principle. However, there are proper channels for immediate wiretaps or whatever is needed. It is legal to record a conversation immediately without waiting for the warrant as long as you get the warrant before listening to the recording. The FISA court has a judge on call 24/7 that can grant a warrant within hours if not minutes when necessary. If, as you suggest, the suspect is already under surveillance, then the warrant was already granted.

While I don't have any more hard data than anybody else, I suspect that the whole "warrantless wiretapping" bit involves an automated system (computer of some kind) scanning phone calls, listening for key words or phrases, and flagging them for human review. It is well-known that the government can do this at an ISP: hang a computer on their network that watches all email that goes through the system and try to sift it for important information. Google something called "carnivore" for more information if you're willing to risk having yourself flagged as a possible terrorist by searching for such things. (I hope I'm joking there, but sometimes I wonder). The problem with systems like this (email or telephone) is the lack of oversight. I'm not that worried that a computer is listening to my conversations in case I say something like "Death to America", but there should be a warrant granted before any human listens to it. As far as I know, there is not. This sort of thing is not a targeted search like a warrant; it's a fishing expedition. There is plenty of precedent for fishing expeditions being considered invasions of privacy and information that the government has no right to without due process.

To avoid dragging this discussion too far off topic (probably about a page too late already), I'll shut up now.

[Tyndmyr]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. It always amazes me how little the two parties differ from each other, yet how much people pretend they do.

For the record, JBunny, when talking about how Obama is somehow missing uproar, Bush also had a rather quiet period. Heck, after 9-11, he could do no wrong for quite some time.

Expect the uproar to be extremely slow in coming, and when it does, people will be convinced that this time, the republican candidate is different, and will fix everything.