Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

[Shivetya]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html

Well the Obama Administration has finally acted on the FISA abuse issues raised last year under the Bush Administration, the one where Congress kept the telecoms immune to prosecution but left the door open to go after some Bush people. Well the EFF sued and many have been waiting to see what Obama's group would do, well they made it worse.

In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad "state secrets" privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they "willfully disclose" to the public what they have learned.


So in other words, not only did they claim demand the lawsuit be tossed but they granted themselves even more authority and immunity than Bush and Co.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

This is completely unacceptable behavior.

It always annoys me when people complain about the petty things regarding Obama ("Secret Muslim"/"Didn't produce twenty forms of his birth certificate"), and the serious problems get ignored.

[leekohler]

This is completely wrong. Start e-mailing the WH folks.

[skunk]

Am I the only one who finds this neither surprising nor sinister?

[Eraserhead]

Am I the only one who finds this neither surprising nor sinister?

I'm sadly not surprised but I do think its a little sinister.

[leekohler]

Am I the only one who finds this neither surprising nor sinister?

You're the only one.

[sushi]

Not surprised in the least.

[mactastic]

Yeah, this sucks. Greenwald deserves a big hand for his work in this area. The Obama administration needs to be put on notice that they will not be given a free pass on this issue just because they aren't George W. Bush.

And Greenwald is hardly some right-wing nutter. This criticism is coming from the left. It's funny how conservatives assume we'll act like they do, and reflexively defend anyone of the same ideology.

[hulugu]

....It's funny how conservatives assume we'll act like they do, and reflexively defend anyone of the same ideology.

Well, I don't know what conservatives did for eight years, but I'm crafting a letter to the WH and my Congress critter Maverick.

The Obama administration is wrong on this.

[Cromulent]

The same is happening in Britain, and I think it is rather sickening. Still, at least I have stopped being surprised by these things.

[mactastic]

The Obama administration is wrong on this.
Scary wrong.

I'm guessing that the media suddenly "discovers" Greenwald and is generally receptive to his criticism this time around...

[Peace]

The same is happening in Britain, and I think it is rather sickening. Still, at least I have stopped being surprised by these things.


Welcome to the world of technology. Obama is slowly becoming a wolf in sheep's clothing to me.

[CalBoy]

This is completely wrong. Start e-mailing the WH folks.

Looks like it huh? I thought we could take a break after Jan. 20th. Guess not.

Thankfully I recently re-upped my ACLU membership; I might have gone complacent otherwise.

Am I the only one who finds this neither surprising nor sinister?

I think so.

I find it incredibly sinister, especially because it attempts to make the government superordinate above the law, which is a violation of the most basic premise of American Law.

Still, at least I have stopped being surprised by these things.

The day we stop being surprised and outraged, is the day justice has lost.

[.Andy]

Absolutely indefensible. I guess the new status quo was too tempting to undermine.

[skunk]

I think so.

I find it incredibly sinister, especially because it attempts to make the government superordinate above the law, which is a violation of the most basic premise of American Law.



The day we stop being surprised and outraged, is the day justice has lost.Well, I am clearly failing to make some obvious connection here, but it seems to me that some sources of information might well be too sensitive to risk their scrutiny or exposure.

[Peace]

Well, I am clearly failing to make some obvious connection here, but it seems to me that some sources of information might well be too sensitive to risk their scrutiny or exposure.

"Trust your government. They know best." is not in the vocabulary of freedom.

[CalBoy]

Well, I am clearly failing to make some obvious connection here, but it seems to me that some sources of information might well be too sensitive to risk their scrutiny or exposure.

That doesn't mean we provide immunity to the government when it violates its citizens' privacy rights and refuses to prosecute affiliates who aid and abet this behavior.

This isn't so much about what information the government retains (although that too is a suspect claim in many instances) so much as it is a question of how much intrusive power the government can employ.

It seems that like Bush, Obama is ready to toss out the 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments.

[EricNau]

. . .some sources of information might well be too sensitive to risk their scrutiny or exposure.
said the officer without a search warrant.

[Gelfin]

Well, I am clearly failing to make some obvious connection here, but it seems to me that some sources of information might well be too sensitive to risk their scrutiny or exposure.

I am actually quite surprised, as the connection is indeed so obvious I would not have expected you to miss it.

Some sources of information are indeed sufficiently sensitive that they cannot reasonably be subject to ordinary standards of public transparency. That isn't remotely the issue. The issue is that the people should not be required to rely on the essential good faith behind a unilateral and unaccountable decision that is even itself held to be too sensitive for public scrutiny. There is no such thing as a situation where that is permitted that it is not also abused.

No one is demanding that genuinely sensitive national security information be automatically published on the front page of the New York Times. What we require is a system in place and a strict standard that must be met in order to support the legitimacy of appeals to "national security." The fox cannot be in charge of the henhouse, no matter how sophisticated and well-spoken the fox.

Allegations of certain occupants of the office notwithstanding, our President is meant to be accountable for the exercise of his powers, if not to the people directly, then to a credible representative of their interests.

[.Andy]

What are some issues of national security that are genuinely too sensitive to be disclosed?

[WinterMute]

Its the issue of accountability that is most worrying.

Governments always spy on their populace, they do it legally and illegally, and when caught being illegal the populace has the recourse of law to bring them to book.

If I'm reading this right the US government has just allowed itself to break the law with no possibility of investigation or censure.

It's not surprising at all, every government would do it if they thought they could get away with it. As to sinister, that depends on your view of how benign the administration is.

The UK is moving along these lines, but has not as yet granted itself immunity from the rule of law, even if it can now see who you're talking to if not what you're talking about.

[Cromulent]

if not what you're talking about.

I'm positive they have that technology anyway.

[WinterMute]

I'm positive they have that technology anyway.

Of course they do, but they currently have to apply for a court order in order to use it as evidence, and the latest directive only applies to voice comms over the internet, not to cellular or landline comms.

The police would still have to prove they couldn't gather vital evidence in any other way in order to get permission to tap a phone line or intercept cellular comms.

Scale is still your best friend, even if you're being naughty, they have to know where and who you are in order to use the data. No-one is going to get pinged for surfing porn at work.

[Gelfin]

What are some issues of national security that are genuinely too sensitive to be disclosed?

Genuinely warrant-worthy surveillance of illegal activity becomes pretty useless if you alert the target he is being monitored. Advertising the precise details of Presidential security arrangements at a public appearance would invite disaster. Military operational security is legitimately sensitive information.

As to sinister, that depends on your view of how benign the administration is.

The principle must be formed under the presumption of a corrupt administration, hypothetical or otherwise. To do otherwise is like choosing to wear a seat belt on the basis of deciding whether you expect to be in an accident today. In the long run, the habit of doing it right every time automatically is far safer than trying to have good enough judgment to decide when it is necessary.

Never mind the fact that what corrupts an administration in the first place is giving them unchecked power.

No-one is going to get pinged for surfing porn at work.

Unless they happen to be married to the Home Secretary and billing it to the taxpayer, of course. There's always something to be said for drawing attention to yourself via rank stupidity.

[Cursor]

On a broader note: with all of the news in the past 100 days, I'm not finding a huge difference between the republican agenda and the White house agenda. Both are willing to stay in Iraq and up the ante in Afghanistan, both are pouring trillions of printed dollars (of our money) into bad investments, both are willing to spy on ordinary citizens and hide behind "state secrets". The one major difference is Stem Cell research, but that isn't enough of a difference to me.

Now is the time to start researching third party candidates. We need actual CHANGE, not just rhetoric with the same old results!

[Lord Blackadder]

There is one point I'd like to make on this:

The US government has a very long record of spying on it's own citizens when it feels inclined to do so - usually in an extralegal or illegal fashion. That's nothing new.

What is new and scary is the construction of a legal framework legitimizing it. Whether it is the government's intention or not, such activity leads us to believe that they intend to expand the scope and intensity of their snooping.

I don't like it at all, and I have to think it's unconstitutional.

On a broader note: with all of the news in the past 100 days, I'm not finding a huge difference between the republican agenda and the White house agenda.

I disagree. Just look at the Republicans' "budget", for example. IMO The Neo-Cons want to prop up/protect big business and the military-industrial complex, while the old-school conservatives favor a hands-off, do-nothing approach other than tax cuts. The Neo-Cons favor a highly interventionist foreign policy with Gitmos and black sites and puppet governments, while I see the more classic conservatives as much less interventionist, though I think they do agree about the "war on terror" in a general sense.

The Liberals are for a massive domestic stimulus program that attempts to dovetail with policies of developing alternative energy, reforming healthcare, and regulating what they see as excesses in the business world. In terms of foreign policy, they are calling for engagement rather than intervention (though the future of Iran and North Korea is still anyone's guess).

Both sides of the political Spectrum are calling for a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine, though that's just talk as always. Both sides are not (IMO) reversing some the Bush administration's abuses fast enough.

Most of the non-neo-con conservatives I talk to think that both the Republican and Democratic parties are in bed with each other and are essentially the same. I disagree. But I can understand why a conservative who favors small government would think that way after looking at the current and previous administrations. Both are heavily involved in international affairs (we always should be IMO) and favor what conservatives call a "big governemnt" approach.

But a third party? Not a hope in hell. The only thing the GOP and Dems would ever agree on is not letting another party to get in on the game.

[WinterMute]

Unless they happen to be married to the Home Secretary and billing it to the taxpayer, of course. There's always something to be said for drawing attention to yourself via rank stupidity.

Never ascribe to malice what can adequately be described by incompetence?

[mactastic]

No-one is going to get pinged for surfing porn at work.
Unless they happen to be publicly undermining your plans for invading a sovereign nation who's leader happened to once try to kill your daddy.

Just sayin'...

[Shivetya]

I disagree. Just look at the Republicans' "budget", for example. IMO The Neo-Cons want to prop up/protect big business and the military-industrial complex, while the old-school conservatives favor a hands-off, do-nothing approach other than tax cuts. The Neo-Cons favor a highly interventionist foreign policy with Gitmos and black sites and puppet governments, while I see the more classic conservatives as much less interventionist, though I think they do agree about the "war on terror" in a general sense.

The Liberals are for a massive domestic stimulus program that attempts to dovetail with policies of developing alternative energy, reforming healthcare, and regulating what they see as excesses in the business world. In terms of foreign policy, they are calling for engagement rather than intervention (though the future of Iran and North Korea is still anyone's guess).

First, people who use the term NEO-CON are just ignorant. The majority don't even know what term means and you can apply it equally to many Democrats as well. Don't be a parrot - think with your own head.

Liberals are for protecting their NY buddies in the banking industry and their rich donors in Hollywood. They have their big business interest just like Republicans, claiming otherwise is just stupid.

As for alternative energy, good luck, the liberals are very good at NIMBYing anything that comes down the pike. Well, you can have windmills if they are in poor communities... and the only working base load power source is consistently ignored by the head in the sand libs (read:nuclear which more of Europe is turning too)

I really cannot believe that people are so dense to think there is any real difference between Republicans and Democrats. They are the same thing, just different mascots. Both are wrong for this country.

[leekohler]

First, people who use the term NEO-CON are just ignorant. The majority don't even know what term means and you can apply it equally to many Democrats as well. Don't be a parrot - think with your own head.

Liberals are for protecting their NY buddies in the banking industry and their rich donors in Hollywood. They have their big business interest just like Republicans, claiming otherwise is just stupid.

As for alternative energy, good luck, the liberals are very good at NIMBYing anything that comes down the pike. Well, you can have windmills if they are in poor communities... and the only working base load power source is consistently ignored by the head in the sand libs (read:nuclear which more of Europe is turning too)

I really cannot believe that people are so dense to think there is any real difference between Republicans and Democrats. They are the same thing, just different mascots. Both are wrong for this country.

From my POV, there are huge differences between the parties- especially on social issues. Stop pretending there aren't.

[mactastic]

First, people who use the term NEO-CON are just ignorant. The majority don't even know what term means and you can apply it equally to many Democrats as well. Don't be a parrot - think with your own head.

Liberals are for protecting their NY buddies in the banking industry and their rich donors in Hollywood. They have their big business interest just like Republicans, claiming otherwise is just stupid.

As for alternative energy, good luck, the liberals are very good at NIMBYing anything that comes down the pike. Well, you can have windmills if they are in poor communities... and the only working base load power source is consistently ignored by the head in the sand libs (read:nuclear which more of Europe is turning too)

I really cannot believe that people are so dense to think there is any real difference between Republicans and Democrats. They are the same thing, just different mascots. Both are wrong for this country.
Anyone who thinks there is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans is just ignorant. I stopped listening to them after 2000.

[Lord Blackadder]

First, people who use the term NEO-CON are just ignorant. The majority don't even know what term means and you can apply it equally to many Democrats as well. Don't be a parrot - think with your own head.

Thanks for the insult; I'm sure if we had more people in government who operated on your intellectual level we'd have it all sorted out.

Neo-cons are a real phenomenon, though they certainly don't label themselves as such. The term has been around a while, and can mean several different things. I use it in the context of the big-government, outsourcing, interventionist conservatives, as opposed to the small-government, non-interventionist, protectionist conservatives. You might not like the term, but there is a discreet group who are labeled as neoconservatives, Formerly led by the Bush-Cheney cabal. Call them what you will, they fit the former group I mentioned.

Liberals are for protecting their NY buddies in the banking industry and their rich donors in Hollywood. They have their big business interest just like Republicans, claiming otherwise is just stupid.

Wrong again. You are painting liberals with the broadest possible brush, and displaying the very ignorance of politics that you just wrongly accused me of demonstrating. Some Democrats are certainly in bed with powerful business interests and I'm certainly not going to defend them. I never cast the Democratic party as totally untainted by corruption and will not do so. But you're swinging a bat in a china shop with your reckless generalizations, and you're making a big mess of it.

As for alternative energy, good luck, the liberals are very good at NIMBYing anything that comes down the pike.

Both parties are equally guilty of this, and anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant of the facts or a liar. Period. At least the Dems are talking about implementing it on a useful level, while the GOP is still denying that global warming is caused by humans.

Well, you can have windmills if they are in poor communities... and the only working base load power source is consistently ignored by the head in the sand libs (read:nuclear which more of Europe is turning too)

Europe is drawing down its nuclear power production in some places; it is certainly not expanding it greatly across the board. I'm not a strict opponent of nuclear power, at least in principle, but it's no panacea. BTW, the "base load" (if by that you mean the biggest current method of power-production) is still coal, not nuclear. Nuclear plants are still highly unprofitable and associated with very real health/environmental risks. You make it sound as if by installing a bunch of nuclear plants we'd be waving some magic wand. Not so much. Maybe someday they will be much better, but right now I think we aren't investing enough in other potential sources.

I really cannot believe that people are so dense to think there is any real difference between Republicans and Democrats. They are the same thing, just different mascots. Both are wrong for this country.

FUD. Instead of throwing up your hands and insulting people with baseless or distorted allegations, you could lift the ignorance you are accusing me of by looking more closely at the GOP and Dem platforms and their voting records to see what they are actually DOING. They aren't monolithic institutions, and they aren't the same. There is plenty of mismanagement and corruption in Washington, but we have a vote and we can change things be being informed and involved.

Or, you could just throw up your hands and go live in a shack somewhere and wait for the world to end so you could tell us "I told you so". Have fun with that. :rolleyes:

[Eraserhead]

I do think the European countries are getting more nuclear. We are also going for renewable energy - though at least in the UK we are also NIMBY a lot of the time.

[Lord Blackadder]

I do think the European countries are getting more nuclear. We are also going for renewable energy - though at least in the UK we are also NIMBY a lot of the time.

If you look at the number of plants under construction in "Europe", something like 2/3 if them are in Russia. Europe is still building nuclear plants, but I'm not sure Europe as a whole is getting "more nuclear".

Also, the expansion of nuclear power in Europe is not necessarily because of a realization that nuclear power is the future. France, for example, is highly reliant on nuclear power and as a result is fighting to cast nuclear as green, getting it classed as a "non-carbon" power source, as if that were the only environmental threat. We still don't deal with nuclear waste very well, so while the problems may be overcome it won't happen tomorrow and we should not rely too heavily on it.

NIMBY is a worldwide phenomenon; it's a demonstration of the fact that we as a society do realize that our power production currently comes at an unacceptable cost, yet we'd rather sweep it under another community's rug than try to fix it.

[skunk]

Genuinely warrant-worthy surveillance of illegal activity becomes pretty useless if you alert the target he is being monitored.This is really all I gathered from an admittedly cursory reading of the linked piece.

[Lord Blackadder]

This is really all I gathered from an admittedly cursory reading of the linked piece.

I went back and looked through the article again. I think the author is right to be suspicious of the fact that whole lawsuits can be dismissed at the drop of a hat by invoking the state secrets line. On the other hand, there are a number of legitimate activities that do need to be protected this way. If we are going to catch people undertaking terrorist activities, we can't be totally transparent about what we are doing. This is cloak and daggers stuff.

[63dot]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html

Well the Obama Administration has finally acted on the FISA abuse issues raised last year under the Bush Administration, the one where Congress kept the telecoms immune to prosecution but left the door open to go after some Bush people. Well the EFF sued and many have been waiting to see what Obama's group would do, well they made it worse.

In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad "state secrets" privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they "willfully disclose" to the public what they have learned.


So in other words, not only did they claim demand the lawsuit be tossed but they granted themselves even more authority and immunity than Bush and Co.

Both parties have a vested control in the behemoth that is Homeland Security even though the evidence shows that it does not work. Where Homeland could be going after terrorists, it's too easy for the parties to spy on each other, and too tempting. Nixon would have been very happy.

There are jobs there who hire a lot of people who vote, and on the congressional level, it's hard to counter a big military-industrialist machine that controls both aisles.

Extreme solutions, sometimes provided by the Greens and Libertarians, especially on the "fight on terrorism and money being dumped into Iraq", take a long time to get hold, even if they have merit and common sense.

Obama's Administration will have to reverse the course of Bush Co., but do it slowly lest he lose funding for his party. I think the President (being from one of the two parties in power) came in fully knowing how hard it would be to distinguish himself from the GOP, since all the funders are the same.

Like always, the dems will hold power one or two terms, people will blame Obama and the Democrats for these abuses, and then the GOP will take over, only to be thrown out for the same allegations. The lobbyists control the game and until they change, government won't either. We have some democracy on local levels, but on the corporate and national level, we have puppets, no matter how well intentioned any given President is. Obama taught Constitutional Law and knows what our founding fathers said, which were as varied as the members of that group, makes it hard for any quick change. Vested business interests colored each founding father and it's no different with government today. The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, as well as the rivalry between Adams and Jefferson, show how regional interests of an Industrialist North and an Agricultural South, led their respective parties. Back then, you could not piss off big shipbuilders/ports OR the big farmers. Today, you can't piss off corporate America or the military contractors. There are just too many jobs and too much money from contributions. Any third party who gets a hold, if this happens, will soon be bought out.