|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 04/10/2009 : 05:27:06 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
It seems that protecting whatever state secrets would be exposed by allowing the court cases on the previous administration's wiretapping and rendition activities must mean that the Obama administration intends to continue doing those same activities, huh?
I find that conclusion ludicrous, but it seems that everyone in the thread so far has decided that it's true to some extent or other. |
Are we supposed to just go on his campaign pledge that he wouldn't warrantless wiretap? When asked about this by Keith Olberman madam Pelosi said that she TRUSTED Barack Obama. What?!?!?!?!?!? Here is the trouble with that, Bush people trusted Bush with illegal wiretapping privileges, while the opposition went crazy. Now that their man is in the white house we are just supposed to trust them! I don't think so. That is not the desire of the founding fathers, but rather checks and balances, for all.
How would we ever even know if he is tapping or not? If we ask they will claim "state secrets". If we sue them to find out they will claim "immunity". Whether they are tapping or not is really not even the main point. The main point is that Mr. Civil Liberties has set the stage so the government can continue to wiretap if they want, or start the practice back up in the future. And he has also given them immunity from any recourse on top of it. And this should have every ACLU card caring member up in arms and ready for war. Would you feel comfortable passing these privileges on to the next administration, even if it was a hard right administration? I would not, just as I don't trust this one. Trust them? Ha, these are politicians we are talking about here!
| I expect that sort of short-sightedness fron Bill scott, not from the others. |
And you can be a pompous azz much of the time, but I have come to expect that.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2009 : 05:34:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
| It seems that protecting whatever state secrets would be exposed by allowing the court cases on the previous administration's wiretapping and rendition activities must mean that the Obama administration intends to continue doing those same activities, huh? |
Not necessarily.
But the illegal wiretapping was a violation of people's civil rights. Whoever did it has be be held accountable, or people will lose confidence in due process. It's seriously undermining the respect for rule of law.
If certain aspects of the illegal wiretap are state secrets, and exposing it seriously compromises national security (which I doubt), then those specific facts could be withheld. No need to dismiss the entire case!
And if those state secrets got exposed in the course of the legal process regarding the illegal wiretaps, then charge the idiots who initiated the wiretaps, because it was their decision to wiretap that exposed those secrets in the first place.
The Obama administration had the opportunity to draw the line and say "the buck stops here, you can't sign acts to cover the ass of people who do illegal things just because the vice President wanted you to". Instead this sends a powerful signal that "anything goes, we'll cover your ass - regardless if you were Republican or not". And the wheel of abuse of power can continue to roll unimpeded.
On the other hand, if people knew that sooner or later there will be hell to pay for abusing power, then they will start thinking twice about committing illegal and unethical stuff.
Edited spelling
|
Well said, Doc. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2009 : 06:22:35 [Permalink]
|
Eisenhower was prez when I went into the service. I liked Ike, but at the same time the drunken scumbag, Joe McCarthy, was polluting the Senate like runoff from a hog farm. There was Stalin to contend with and Mao's Little Red Book was China's Bible. Back in that time, I came to the conclusion that there was no such thing as an entirely trustworthy government of any sort. I have not yet been proven wrong. Nor, I think, will I be -- the Foul Patriot Act Power-Grab confirms it yet again.
I can't predict what's going to happen, but I can predict that it ain't gonna be good, not for a while anyway. Obama might turn out to be a truly great president -- he certainly has the talent for it -- but what with this over-protection of virtually lawless officials and the Republicans in Congress acting like the Three Stooges on meth, his task has become a lot more difficult.
He should let those who deserve hanging be hanged, and get on with the country's business.
I still vigorously support him, but not quite as rabidly as before. And that too, can change, one way or another.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2009 : 06:42:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by moakley
I have recently finished reading "American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House" where I learned that he was the first to greatly expand the power of the presidency. Unfortunately, I don't see Obama giving back anything or having it taken from him. |
Not only is he not giving the warrantless wiretap back, but he is expanding it to protect the government from prosecution or suit from those that were spied upon.
|
As has been pointed out we have no way of knowing what state secrets are being protected. To suggest that he is expanding warrantless wiretapping is well ... without warrant. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2009 : 06:48:45 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by filthy |
| I came to the conclusion that there was no such thing as an entirely trustworthy government of any sort. I have not yet been proven wrong. Nor, I think, will I be -- the Foul Patriot Act Power-Grab confirms it yet again. |
I could agree with you here anymore then I already do.
| I can't predict what's going to happen, but I can predict that it ain't gonna be good, not for a while anyway. Obama might turn out to be a truly great president |
Can you be a little more specific here?
| -- he certainly has the talent for it -- |
What makes you think this guy is so talented? He can't even give a St. Patricks day speech without his teleprompter. And then when using his teleprompter he starts reading the other guys words and has to start over. Bush was a lousy speaker but at least that was him up there speaking.
| but what with this over-protection of virtually lawless officials |
That is nothing but your assumption.
| and the Republicans in Congress acting like the Three Stooges on meth, his task has become a lot more difficult. |
Can you give some examples?
| He should let those who deserve hanging be hanged, and get on with the country's business. |
Again, this is just your assumption that he is doing this to protect Team Bush. Many will say this has nothing to do with Bush and is just another Obama power grab. He wants to control the banks, the car companies, energy providers, why not throw private communication on the heap?
| I still vigorously support him, but not quite as rabidly as before. |
Baby steps are a start in the right direction.
| And that too, can change, one way or another. |
Only time will tell. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2009 : 06:56:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
| It seems that protecting whatever state secrets would be exposed by allowing the court cases on the previous administration's wiretapping and rendition activities must mean that the Obama administration intends to continue doing those same activities, huh? |
Not necessarily. |
That was my point.| But the illegal wiretapping was a violation of people's civil rights. Whoever did it has be be held accountable, or people will lose confidence in due process. It's seriously undermining the respect for rule of law. |
Unfortunately, it has always been the case that lawsuits against the Feds progress only when the Feds say "okay." And the power to declare state secrets means that they don't have to explain why they're not saying "okay."
If we assume that people have actually been harmed by Bush's illegal wiretaps, then it's possible that Obama is saying that more people would be harmed by the disclosure of the sorts of stuff that would come out in a court case about those wiretaps.
After all, the people who actually did the work - people who are not high-ranking administration officials - would be subject to subpoena, and depending on who was being wiretapped, they could find that their lives are at risk. People who could easily have been lied to, themselves ("uh, yeah, we've got a court order for this").If certain aspects of the illegal wiretap are state secrets, and exposing it seriously compromises national security (which I doubt), then those specific facts could be withheld. No need to dismiss the entire case!
And if those state secrets got exposed in the course of the legal process regarding the illegal wiretaps, then charge the idiots who initiated the wiretaps, because it was their decision to wiretap that exposed those secrets in the first place. |
If only things were so easily separable.| The Obama administration had the opportunity to draw the line and say "the buck stops here, you can't sign acts to cover the ass of people who do illegal things just because the vice President wanted you to". |
It is the "just because" part of your objection with which I disagree. Even for Bush.| Instead this sends a powerful signal that "anything goes, we'll cover your ass - regardless if you were Republican or not". And the wheel of abuse of power can continue to roll unimpeded. |
Actually, what would send a much more powerful message would be if Obama moved to repeal the USAPATRIOT Act and other such laws which have high potential for abuse by the Executive. Laws that Congress passed, and so implicitly have the blessing of We the People.| On the other hand, if people knew that sooner or later there will be hell to pay for abusing power, then they will start thinking twice about committing illegal and unethical stuff. |
Abuse of power is always a problem. And so is cleaning up other peoples' messes. Bush has left a real shit sandwich behind.
If we had evidence that Obama plans on actually continuing the wiretaps or renditions, I'd be right there with you guys. Until then, I think it's more reasonable to guess (which is all we can do right now) that what's happened is nothing more than an admission that the mess isn't as easily cleaned up as we'd all like.
And then we watch the current administration like a hawk. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2009 : 07:08:41 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by moakley |
| To suggest that he is expanding warrantless wiretapping is well ... without warrant. |
I think you misunderstood. When I said he was expanding the warnantless wiretapping I meant that in the sense that not only is Obama setting the stage so the government can continue the tapping, if so desired, but now they are immune from recourse. And the expanding is the fact that Obama even took it a step further then Bush and he gave the federal government immunity form any prosecution if and when the government does more tapping. Whether or not team Obama actually has continued the tapping is not the main point! The man point is that Team Obama set the stage so they could, and then went a step further and gave themselves immunity if they did.
Again, would you feel comfortable to pass this privilege on to the next administration if a hard right candidate was elected to office? If you say yes then the ACLU and I will have serious problems with that.
If you say no then why should we trust team obama with the same privilege? "I trust Obama" is not going fly here. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2009 : 07:17:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
And the expanding is the fact that Obama even took it a step further then Bush and he gave the federal government immunity form any prosecution if and when the government does more tapping. |
The difference between a criminal prosecution and a civil lawsuit is not trivial, here. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2009 : 07:24:47 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Actually, what would send a much more powerful message would be if Obama moved to repeal the USAPATRIOT Act and other such laws which have high potential for abuse by the Executive. Laws that Congress passed, and so implicitly have the blessing of We the People. |
I would support this in a heartbeat.
| Abuse of power is always a problem. And so is cleaning up other peoples' messes. Bush has left a real shit sandwich behind. |
But my point is that Obama is not even trying to clean it up but rather is taking it a step further by giving the government an untouchable status.
| If we had evidence that Obama plans on actually continuing the wiretaps or renditions, I'd be right there with you guys. |
So are we to assume it has stopped based on his campaign pledge?
| Until then, I think it's more reasonable to guess (which is all we can do right now) that what's happened is nothing more than an admission that the mess isn't as easily cleaned up as we'd all like. |
Or some might say this has nothing to do with Team Bush and is all about Team Obama getting more and more and more power.
| And then we watch the current administration like a hawk. |
We should do this regardless of anything. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2009 : 07:30:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Bill scott
And the expanding is the fact that Obama even took it a step further then Bush and he gave the federal government immunity form any prosecution if and when the government does more tapping. |
The difference between a criminal prosecution and a civil lawsuit is not trivial, here.
|
Why give them imunity at all? Am I missing something here? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2009 : 08:03:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
But my point is that Obama is not even trying to clean it up but rather is taking it a step further by giving the government an untouchable status. |
Apparently, you missed the part about the government having "an untouchable status" ever since it was formed.| If we had evidence that Obama plans on actually continuing the wiretaps or renditions, I'd be right there with you guys. |
So are we to assume it has stopped based on his campaign pledge? |
Then there would be no reason to watch them like a hawk, now would there?| Or some might say this has nothing to do with Team Bush and is all about Team Obama getting more and more and more power. |
Some might say that Obama isn't a U.S. citizen, or that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks, or that the Moon landings were hoaxed, or that there are no transitional fossils. What counts is evidence, not what "some" might say.
You also asked:| Why give them imunity at all? Am I missing something here? |
Yes, yes you are. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2009 : 08:19:15 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Apparently, you missed the part about the government having "an untouchable status" ever since it was formed. |
Why expand the untouchable status?
| Then there would be no reason to watch them like a hawk, now would there? |
So are you assuming that they are not wire tapping based simply on his campaign pledge? Myself, I would like more then that, but that is just me. And how are we to watch them like a hawk when they calim "state security" and imunitiy? Your "watch them like a hawk" is much easier said then done.
| Or some might say this has nothing to do with Team Bush and is all about Team Obama getting more and more and more power. |
Some might say that Obama isn't a U.S. citizen, or that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks, or that the Moon landings were hoaxed, or that there are no transitional fossils. What counts is evidence, not what "some" might say. |
What evidence do you have that team Obama has stopped the warrantless wiretaps, besides his campaign pledge and "I hope he has."? And what evidence do you have that this this is just a ploy to protect Bush?
You also asked:
Why give them imunity at all? Am I missing something here? |
Yes, yes you are. |
Then explain it.
And, so are you then willing to pass this new privilege on to the next administration, even if a hard right administration gets in? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 04/10/2009 08:24:11 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 04/10/2009 : 08:34:58 [Permalink]
|
| I can't predict what's going to happen, but I can predict that it ain't gonna be good, not for a while anyway. Obama might turn out to be a truly great president |
| Can you be a little more specific here? |
Hardly. I am not Sylvia Browne.
| -- he certainly has the talent for it -- |
What makes you think this guy is so talented? He can't even give a St. Patricks day speech without his teleprompter. And then when using his teleprompter he starts reading the other guys words and has to start over. Bush was a lousy speaker but at least that was him up there speaking. |
Link 
So no other politicians use teleprompters, and if they did, none would make mistakes? Does that cover reading from notes as well?
| but what with this over-protection of virtually lawless officials |
| That is nothing but your assumption. |
And that is nothing but a mined quote. Anyone who keeps up with the news has read about this.
| and the Republicans in Congress acting like the Three Stooges on meth, his task has become a lot more difficult. |
| Can you give some examples? |
There's plenty of examples around; all you have to do is read something besides right-wing blogs and listen to Rush.
| He should let those who deserve hanging be hanged, and get on with the country's business. |
| Again, this is just your assumption that he is doing this to protect Team Bush. Many will say this has nothing to do with Bush and is just another Obama power grab. He wants to control the banks, the car companies, energy providers, why not throw private communication on the heap? |
Link
I have only a suspicion of the why of it. He is still trying to get some Republican coopration for his programs. It ain't gonna happen.
And names: Cronyn, Bohner, Inhofe, and Bachmann, among many others are doing everything they can to cause Obama to fail. And if he fails, the country fails. To me, this smacks of treason.
| I still vigorously support him, but not quite as rabidly as before. |
| Baby steps are a start in the right direction. |
But that still won't ever get me to support the sort of wretched leadership shown by the Republicans, who haven't put forth an honorable, presidential candidate since the afore-mentioned Ike, and since '96, damned few congressional ones.
| And that too, can change, one way or another. |
Indeed. But in the meantime, I shall continue to enjoy what is looking like the beginning of the ecshaton of the Republican Party.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2009 : 09:01:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Why expand the untouchable status? |
I don't see them "expanding" anything. They're saying that the lawsuit cannot go forward because of national security interests. This has a long precedent.| Then there would be no reason to watch them like a hawk, now would there? |
So are you assuming that they are not wire tapping based simply on his campaign pledge? |
Again, Bill, if I were to make such assumptions, I would see no need to watch the administration carefully. You've asked this same thing twice now, and I've given you the same answer twice now.| And how are we to watch them like a hawk when they calim "state security" and imunitiy? Your "watch them like a hawk" is much easier said then done. |
The wonderful thing about human beings is that they generally suck at keeping secrets. Unless you're willing to concede that Obama's people are going to be more competent than Bush's - something I won't concede - then what we watch for are the accidental leaks. Because once a secret is out, it's no longer a secret, and the state can't claim it is.| What evidence do you have that team Obama has stopped the warrantless wiretaps, besides his campaign pledge and "I hope he has."? |
I don't have any evidence that you aren't beating your wife, either, Bill. Shall I assume, because of my lack of evidence, that you are?| And what evidence do you have that this this is just a ploy to protect Bush? |
I never suggested any such thing.I already did. There's more at stake than just some Bush administration officials.| And, so are you then willing to pass this new privilege on to the next administration, even if a hard right administration gets in? |
This isn't a "new privilege," and the next administration is going to use it, too, regardless of their political leanings. The only way the privilege will vanish is if we decide to stop doing anything that requires secrecy, including (but not limited to) legal counterterrorism intelligence gathering. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2009 : 14:01:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
If certain aspects of the illegal wiretap are state secrets, and exposing it seriously compromises national security (which I doubt), then those specific facts could be withheld. No need to dismiss the entire case! |
The problem with that is that judges are not allowed to know state secrets, which would mean someone internal would have to determine which parts are secrets, and the judge would not be able to ensure the internal person did not withhold more than he/she should have. Maybe one of Obama's appointees with the necessary security clearance could be used as an arbiter to make sure they hold back only the right things, which may work to some extent, but there would still be room for hiding unnecessary information. I agree it is worth a try.
And, really, we should not just repeal the entire Patriot Act because it does actually do some good in improving law enforcement's ability to prevent terrorism in ways that do not harm civil rights. We could certainly repeal large parts of it which are undoubtedly unconstitutional without removing more useful things.
The more useful aspects of the act include redefining "terrorist" to include those who fund attackers, improving inter-agency communication, and generally defining the strategy of combating terrorism (combining domestic law enforcement investigation and international intelligence gathering, which necessitates inter-agency communication). |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Read my lips…
