Obama now even worse than Bush on civil liberties? (UPDATE)

rickonker

rickonker

CAGiversary!
First, there was Obama continues Bush policy on state secrets privilege.

Now, the Obama administration is going even further in defending illegal wiretapping.

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

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.
Click to expand...


Now let's see who here will still defend Obama. :lol:

UPDATE: The EFF doesn't hold back: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush

It's an especially disappointing argument to hear from the Obama Administration. As a candidate, Senator Obama lamented that the Bush Administration "invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court." He was right then, and we're dismayed that he and his team seem to have forgotten.

Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes.

This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented.
Click to expand...

The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and claims that the US PATRIOT Act also renders the U.S. immune from suit under the two remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. Essentially, the Obama Adminstration has claimed that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes.

Again, the gulf between Candidate Obama and President Obama is striking. As a candidate, Obama ran promising a new era of government transparency and accountability, an end to the Bush DOJ's radical theories of executive power, and reform of the PATRIOT Act. But, this week, Obama's own Department Of Justice has argued that, under the PATRIOT Act, the government shall be entirely unaccountable for surveilling Americans in violation of its own laws.

This isn't change we can believe in. This is change for the worse.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What was it Nixon said? "It's not illegal if the president does it?" Something to that effect.

I'm upset, but not surprised, that a leader is unwilling to give up the power they inherited.
 
[quote name='rickonker']Now let's see who here will still defend Obama. :lol:[/quote]

He ...

I, uh ...

It's Bush's fault?

That is about as good as anybody can do.

To be honest, Obama is just #44 of the gangbang.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
I'm upset, but not surprised, that a leader is unwilling to give up the power they inherited.[/QUOTE]

2nd.
 
I think the better question is whether or not Obama would have created these powers if Bush hadn't. As it is, he just inherited them. It doesn't surprise me that he isn't in a hurry to give them up, but they weren't his idea either.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I think the better question is whether or not Obama would have created these powers if Bush hadn't. As it is, he just inherited them. It doesn't surprise me that he isn't in a hurry to give them up, but they weren't his idea either.[/QUOTE]

I am not trying to single you out personally, but to me it is scary to me that people in general continue to buy into this political PR BS (bolded in quote). Regardless of what the previous administration did, Obama could easily reverse it. Look at how easily he reversed stem cell research (good move IMO btw), certain tax cuts, and various other things that were against his agenda - literally days in these things were changed because they were not aligned with his agenda. But, if it is something people really don't like such as this or his bloated budget all of the sudden the problem is "inherited" and thus not his fault. Plain and simple B.S., if Obama did not want this he could reverse it like everything else. Bottom line is, Obama wants it and thus he should get even more heat than Bush did, since this legislation goes a step further. But like as someone else mentioned, most of the media is in love with Obama... Thus this slips under the radar. :/

Its just another piece of Obama's "big government" puzzle he is assembling.
 
Is anything i said untrue?

Oh and don't forget all the republicans who blamed Clinton for 9/11. You know, Bush just inherited the problem from him.
 
What you said wasn't untrue, but it is irrelevant whether Obama would have created them.

He didn't have to vote in favor of FISA last year, he didn't have to keep wiretapping in place and/or expand it. He could have done away with it via executive order. Those things are 100% on him.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I think the better question is whether or not Obama would have created these powers if Bush hadn't. As it is, he just inherited them. It doesn't surprise me that he isn't in a hurry to give them up, but they weren't his idea either.[/QUOTE]

And here we go!

Seriously, what the fuck? If some dude is gunning down innocent civilians, and he hands you the gun and you keep shooting, is that supposed to be OK because you "inherited" the situation and it wasn't your idea?

And anyway, you're too late JolietJake, because there was already a thread on Obama using the same powers Bush did. This thread is about Obama CLAIMING NEW POWERS THAT BUSH NEVER DID. So your bullshit defense doesn't even fucking apply!

Why are you so in love with the guy? Is it some kind of battered person syndrome? And it's obviously not just you, so that's good...right?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']What you said wasn't untrue, but it is irrelevant whether Obama would have created them.

He didn't have to vote in favor of FISA last year, he didn't have to keep wiretapping in place and/or expand it. He could have done away with it via executive order. Those things are 100% on him.[/QUOTE]

Good response, totally agree.

It's rich to see Bush supporters complaining about this sort of thing. They should have understood that when you expand these sorts of powers, even in the legally nebulous (or even false) ways they were expanded, they are expanded for everyone who holds the office from that point forward. This is the reason our federal government has grown from the massive spending of a $3.1 billion budget under Hoover to the $3.6 trillion (with a T) one under Obama.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']It's rich to see Bush supporters complaining about this sort of thing.[/QUOTE]

Link?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']What you said wasn't untrue, but it is irrelevant whether Obama would have created them.

He didn't have to vote in favor of FISA last year, he didn't have to keep wiretapping in place and/or expand it. He could have done away with it via executive order. Those things are 100% on him.[/quote]
Of course they are on him, but i don't want people forgetting who created it in the first place.
 
[quote name='rickonker']And here we go!

Seriously, what the fuck? If some dude is gunning down innocent civilians, and he hands you the gun and you keep shooting, is that supposed to be OK because you "inherited" the situation and it wasn't your idea?

And anyway, you're too late JolietJake, because there was already a thread on Obama using the same powers Bush did. This thread is about Obama CLAIMING NEW POWERS THAT BUSH NEVER DID. So your bullshit defense doesn't even fucking apply!

Why are you so in love with the guy? Is it some kind of battered person syndrome? And it's obviously not just you, so that's good...right?[/quote]
:lol: Whatever dude. I never said it was ok for him to continue this, but like i already said, i don't want people (you) forgetting who created these new powers in the first place either. Should he stop, absolutely. Did he start the ball in motion, nope.

If he had never had the powers in the first place, we wouldn't be arguing about whether he should give them up.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']:lol: Whatever dude. I never said it was ok for him to continue this, but like i already said, i don't want people (you) forgetting who created these new powers in the first place either. Should he stop, absolutely. Did he start the ball in motion, nope.
[/quote]
You obviously didn't read, or didn't understand, the original post, the linked article, or the post you quoted. So, for a fourth time: Obama is now claiming new powers that Bush never did.

So you're telling me not to forget something you don't even understand yet. :lol:

If he had never had the powers in the first place, we wouldn't be arguing about whether he should give them up.
Click to expand...

And now, for a fifth time, he never had the new powers. Do you still not get this?
 
JolietJake may be making the case that he couldn't claim the extended powers if he didn't have the powers Bush already put in place.....which I guess I could see.

But it still doesn't excuse it or take any blame off of Obama. I'm mostly liked what he's done so far, but this is one thing I vehemently disagree with him on.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']JolietJake may be making the case that he couldn't claim the extended powers if he didn't have the powers Bush already put in place.....which I guess I could see.[/QUOTE]

I don't think JolietJake is making that case, but even if he were, it wouldn't be correct. Obama easily could've done it anyway.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']^ Link?[/quote]

Proof? Me? Got a bonesaw, a few electric probes and a brain memory playback device (NTSC format, not PAL)?

He said it on his radio show while I was delivering pizza. It was shortly after the Patriot Act was passed. So, it was either late 2001 or early 2002. If you have his show on archive, I'll go diving for it. If not, you'll just have to trust me.

I think he was trying to insinuate Hillary would misuse these powers, but that part of the memory gets a little fuzzy.
 
[quote name='rickonker']Link?[/QUOTE]

You haven't seen the numerous conservative articles complaining about Obama's expansion of executive powers?
 
The only thing you should wonder is why isn't all the media scowling at Obama because he's using this power all the while it was evil as hell under Bush. Funny that no one cares now, don't you think?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']You haven't seen the numerous conservative articles complaining about Obama's expansion of executive powers?[/QUOTE]
No, I haven't seen Bush supporters complaining about this power expansion, which is why I asked for a link...it should be good.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']The only thing you should wonder is why isn't all the media scowling at Obama because he's using this power all the while it was evil as hell under Bush. Funny that no one cares now, don't you think?[/quote]

You cannot criticize a popular president no matter how correct or ahead of the curve you are.

dixie-chicks1.jpg
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Here's a quick one. Mind you, I've read several similar kinds of things but this was one I just found by searching.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,511325,00.html[/QUOTE]
I've seen things like that. What I meant was Bush supporters complaining about this particular power expansion. That would be fun to see.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='rickonker']I updated the OP with some quotes from the EFF.[/quote]

Wow. That sucks.

I don't think Zombie and Shit for Brains would be doing any better, but I'm just amazed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top