If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ACLU)   Warrantless surveillance: obvious Orwellian fascist evil under Bush, insignificant nit-picking nonissue under Obama...despite quadrupling   (aclu.org) divider line 161
    More: Obvious, Orwellian, obama, Jerrold Nadler, foia request, Electronic Privacy Information Center, polices, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Capitol Hill  
•       •       •

522 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Sep 2012 at 11:36 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



161 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-28 08:15:47 AM
The revelations underscore the importance of regulating and overseeing the government's surveillance power.

Yes; and no matter who's President, this power can be used, and most likely will. Congress needs to bring the mess under control.
 
2012-09-28 10:39:59 AM
The Obama administration is urging the Supreme Court to halt a legal challenge weighing the constitutionality of a once-secret warrantless surveillance program targeting Americans' communications

and

The Justice Department, saying "a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements (.pdf) from one place to another," is demanding the justices undo a lower court decision that reversed the conviction and life sentence of a cocaine dealer whose vehicle was tracked via GPS for a month without a court warrant.

and

A Maryland court last week ruled that the government does not need a warrant to force a cell phone provider to disclose more than six months of data on the movements of one of its customers. Two defendants had been accused of armed robbery, and a key piece of evidence against them was data about the movements of the pair's cell phones. The defendants had sought to suppress this location evidence because the government did not get a warrant before seeking the data from network providers. But last Thursday, Judge Richard D. Bennett ruled that a warrant is not required to obtain cell-site location records (CSLR) from a wireless carrier.

The Obama administration laid out its position in a legal brief last month, arguing that customers have "no privacy interest" in CSLR held by a network provider.


and

The Obama administration is urging Congress not to adopt legislation that would impose constitutional safeguards on Americans' e-mail stored in the cloud.

and

For more than two years, a handful of Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee have warned that the government is secretly interpreting its surveillance powers under the Patriot Act in a way that would be alarming if the public - or even others in Congress - knew about it.

and

On Thursday, Democratic and Republican congressional leaders agreed to a deal to extend key provisions of the Patriot Act for four years, a significant decision that generated little press attention or sustained political debate.

Certain sections of the Patriot Act, which originally passed Congress a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks with near-unanimous support, have long been criticized by civil libertarians in both political parties.

But the Obama administration and its allies on Capitol Hill have been eager to renew about-to-expire provisions that expanded domestic intelligence collection and wiretapping powers. As the AP put it, "The idea [of the deal] is to pass the extension with as little debate as possible
 

dl.dropbox.com
 
2012-09-28 11:12:03 AM
I'll encourage people who don't like this (and that includes me) to send money to the ACLU.
 
2012-09-28 11:37:44 AM
Bad regardless
 
2012-09-28 11:38:23 AM
Regardless of political affiliation, those in power fear the public.
 
2012-09-28 11:39:00 AM
There was a reason people wanted to prevent them from having these powers in the first place. I recall being told I was supporting terrorism.
 
2012-09-28 11:40:40 AM

HotWingConspiracy: There was a reason people wanted to prevent them from having these powers in the first place. I recall being told I was supporting terrorism.


You were, you commie!
 
2012-09-28 11:41:00 AM

HotWingConspiracy: There was a reason people wanted to prevent them from having these powers in the first place. I recall being told I was supporting terrorism.


www.jamesjoyce.co.uk
 
2012-09-28 11:41:31 AM
And anyone who thinks that this would change under Romney - I have a bridge available that is being offered cheap.
 
2012-09-28 11:41:55 AM
Do people really think Mitt Romney will use these powers less? That dude has control freak written all over him.
 
2012-09-28 11:42:35 AM

HotWingConspiracy: There was a reason people wanted to prevent them from having these powers in the first place. I recall being told I was supporting terrorism.


I was told putting the Democrats in power would put a stop to this evil Orwellian Bush behavior.

dl.dropbox.com
 
2012-09-28 11:44:26 AM

SN1987a goes boom: Do people really think Mitt Romney will use these powers less? That dude has control freak written all over him.


For the sake of argument, perhaps Gary Johnson or Ron Paul would use them more judiciously. Which is beside the point, since 1) they won't be President, and 2) it just kicks the problem down the road.
 
2012-09-28 11:44:31 AM
In related news, Pandora's Box remains opened.
 
2012-09-28 11:44:56 AM

sprawl15: In related news, Pandora's Box remains opened.


she needs some aspirin between her knees.
 
2012-09-28 11:45:18 AM
It's called "outrage fatigue". We're farking tired.
 
2012-09-28 11:45:31 AM
No. It's an issue.

It's a huge issue.

But Romney has given no indication he would do anything but continue the policy.

So, it's one of the ways in which both sides are bad.

/I seriously doubt any President will ever give up those tools unless the American people stop shiatting in their pants over terrorism (and their elected representatives stop exploiting that fear).
 
2012-09-28 11:46:07 AM

BullBearMS: HotWingConspiracy: There was a reason people wanted to prevent them from having these powers in the first place. I recall being told I was supporting terrorism.

I was told putting the Democrats in power would put a stop to this evil Orwellian Bush behavior.

[dl.dropbox.com image 800x192]


No you weren't. Everyone was warned. Everyone knew.
 
2012-09-28 11:46:43 AM

madgonad: And anyone who thinks that this would change under Romney - I have a bridge available that is being offered cheap.


damn, how the hell am I gonna limbo when this bar keeps going lower and lower?
 
2012-09-28 11:46:50 AM

HotWingConspiracy: BullBearMS: HotWingConspiracy: There was a reason people wanted to prevent them from having these powers in the first place. I recall being told I was supporting terrorism.

I was told putting the Democrats in power would put a stop to this evil Orwellian Bush behavior.

[dl.dropbox.com image 800x192]

No you weren't. Everyone was warned. Everyone knew.


QFT
 
2012-09-28 11:47:08 AM
This is the one big issue I have with the Obama administration. They've been terrible with the 4th ammendment.

However, I don't really remember him ever saying he would do anything different.
 
2012-09-28 11:49:37 AM

HotWingConspiracy: BullBearMS: HotWingConspiracy: There was a reason people wanted to prevent them from having these powers in the first place. I recall being told I was supporting terrorism.

I was told putting the Democrats in power would put a stop to this evil Orwellian Bush behavior.

[dl.dropbox.com image 800x192]

No you weren't. Everyone was warned. Everyone knew.


umm yeah that was the expectation. The whole "Change" thing?
 
2012-09-28 11:49:42 AM
Yay, let's take an issue that both sides propagate and turn it political by downplaying your sides role and blowing out of proportion your opponents role. This rhetorical blueprint is the base of all political campaigns these days.
 
2012-09-28 11:49:54 AM

HotWingConspiracy: No you weren't. Everyone was warned. Everyone knew.


Everyone knew that the Democrats fully intended to increase the evil Bush warrentless surveillance that amounted to "Bush wiping his ass with the Constitution"?

Obama promised to do more of it in two years than Bush did in all eight?

Citation Needed
 
2012-09-28 11:50:06 AM

SN1987a goes boom: Do people really think Mitt Romney will use these powers less? That dude has control freak written all over him.


BullBearMS: I was told putting the Democrats in power would put a stop to this evil Orwellian Bush behavior.


But but, if MITT ROMNEY gets elected, he will quadruple Obama's quadruple, which just proves the Dems are the lesser of two evils. Or something.

Are the increases in warrantless surveillance spread out, or has there been a marked increase in using the mechanism against a particular group/perceived conflict?
 
2012-09-28 11:50:55 AM

RedTank: Yay, let's take an issue that both sides propagate and turn it political by downplaying your sides role and blowing out of proportion your opponents role. This rhetorical blueprint is the base of all political campaigns these days.


Both sides are same. So vote Republican.
 
2012-09-28 11:50:56 AM

RedTank: Yay, let's take an issue that both sides propagate and turn it political by downplaying your sides role and blowing out of proportion your opponents role. This rhetorical blueprint is the base of all political campaigns these days.


Exactly. Pretty much any President will run with this stuff. Let's change the law so they can't.
 
2012-09-28 11:51:40 AM

PanicMan: However, I don't really remember him ever saying he would do anything different.


"No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient" doesn't ring a bell to you?
 
2012-09-28 11:51:47 AM
Yes, warrantless wiretapping is a terrible thing, and the expansion of the program is one of the most saddening things about the Obama administration. But here's the question: would Romney stop it?
 
2012-09-28 11:51:54 AM

crab66: RedTank: Yay, let's take an issue that both sides propagate and turn it political by downplaying your sides role and blowing out of proportion your opponents role. This rhetorical blueprint is the base of all political campaigns these days.

Both sides are same. So vote Republican.


More like both side are the same. So shoot yourself in the head.
 
2012-09-28 11:52:38 AM

skullkrusher: HotWingConspiracy: BullBearMS: HotWingConspiracy: There was a reason people wanted to prevent them from having these powers in the first place. I recall being told I was supporting terrorism.

I was told putting the Democrats in power would put a stop to this evil Orwellian Bush behavior.

[dl.dropbox.com image 800x192]

No you weren't. Everyone was warned. Everyone knew.

umm yeah that was the expectation. The whole "Change" thing?


When did he say he was changing warrantless surveillance laws?

Or are you arguing from the position that he said "change" so that meant everything was going to change? Oranges taste like apples now, shiat like that?
 
2012-09-28 11:54:39 AM
The media definitely attacks this issue with the same vigor between 2009-2012 that it did from 2001-2008, despite the large expansion during the former stated time period.
 
2012-09-28 11:54:48 AM

BullBearMS: HotWingConspiracy: No you weren't. Everyone was warned. Everyone knew.

Everyone knew that the Democrats fully intended to increase the evil Bush warrentless surveillance that amounted to "Bush wiping his ass with the Constitution"?

Obama promised to do more of it in two years than Bush did in all eight?

Citation Needed


Oh wait, skullkrusher, the change was he was going to increase the numbers. There you go.

/Cite when he said he was going to overturn these powers
 
2012-09-28 11:54:55 AM

HeartBurnKid: Yes, warrantless wiretapping is a terrible thing, and the expansion of the program is one of the most saddening things about the Obama administration. But here's the question: would Romney stop it?


Both sides are bad, so vote Democrat?

If you recall, the Republicans were the ones saying this was a good idea and the Democrats were the ones saying it was a bad idea. Until they got into power, anyway.
 
2012-09-28 11:55:38 AM

HotWingConspiracy: /Cite when he said he was going to overturn these powers


"No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient" doesn't ring a bell for you either?
 
2012-09-28 11:55:59 AM

HotWingConspiracy: skullkrusher: HotWingConspiracy: BullBearMS: HotWingConspiracy: There was a reason people wanted to prevent them from having these powers in the first place. I recall being told I was supporting terrorism.

I was told putting the Democrats in power would put a stop to this evil Orwellian Bush behavior.

[dl.dropbox.com image 800x192]

No you weren't. Everyone was warned. Everyone knew.

umm yeah that was the expectation. The whole "Change" thing?

When did he say he was changing warrantless surveillance laws?

Or are you arguing from the position that he said "change" so that meant everything was going to change? Oranges taste like apples now, shiat like that?


oh, I thought he might've been referring to one of the most egregious overreaches of the previous administration. I guess not. Ya know, the reason we elected the guy who didn't support Bush policies like McCain did?
 
2012-09-28 11:57:02 AM
We should definitely elect Romney, because I'm sure he will put a stop to this right away.
 
2012-09-28 11:58:05 AM

HeartBurnKid: Yes, warrantless wiretapping is a terrible thing, and the expansion of the program is one of the most saddening things about the Obama administration. But here's the question: would Romney stop it?


That's not the question. The question is how do we stop any president from having this power? I think our only hope right now is Chris Hedges winning lawsuit against the Obama admin. Unless we somehow end up with a libertarian or green party president we're pretty farked on this issue. I campaigned for Obama because I thought he would be against this shiat, but the second he gets in to power he goes crazy with it. I'm voting green this time around and encourage everyone I know to do the same. This is a very important issue and people need to criticize both parties for their abhorrent views on the topic. Especially before the election happens because when Obama wins his second term he will no longer have the fear of voter reprisal awaiting him and I believe he will only make things worse. I could be wrong and he could go the opposite way, but based on his past actions I can't believe he will reign things in.
 
2012-09-28 11:58:30 AM
Remember, boys and girls: The ACLU is a bunch of evil Communists who want to burn your local church to the ground and build a mosque in its place.
 
2012-09-28 11:58:35 AM

BullBearMS: HotWingConspiracy: /Cite when he said he was going to overturn these powers

"No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient" doesn't ring a bell for you either?


I don't know where you're going with that quote. Are you saying this is illegal?
 
2012-09-28 11:59:26 AM

skullkrusher: HotWingConspiracy: skullkrusher: HotWingConspiracy: BullBearMS: HotWingConspiracy: There was a reason people wanted to prevent them from having these powers in the first place. I recall being told I was supporting terrorism.

I was told putting the Democrats in power would put a stop to this evil Orwellian Bush behavior.

[dl.dropbox.com image 800x192]

No you weren't. Everyone was warned. Everyone knew.

umm yeah that was the expectation. The whole "Change" thing?

When did he say he was changing warrantless surveillance laws?

Or are you arguing from the position that he said "change" so that meant everything was going to change? Oranges taste like apples now, shiat like that?

oh, I thought he might've been referring to one of the most egregious overreaches of the previous administration. I guess not. Ya know, the reason we elected the guy who didn't support Bush policies like McCain did?


There are many Bush policies that Obama didn't support. Change.
 
2012-09-28 12:00:14 PM

The Dog Ate My Homework: We should definitely elect Romney, because I'm sure he will put a stop to this right away.


Hell, on the Politics tab it's a stretch to have the have the people who were certain this was a very bad thing under Bush not suddenly defend the very same bullshiat under Obama.

Never mind, continuing to oppose warrantless spying.

It's not like it's even difficult to get the FISA court to give you a warrant.
 
2012-09-28 12:00:51 PM
I do oppose appose warrant-less surveillance and have emailed my representatives, as well as the president about it.

I do not see voting for Romney (or any GOP candidate) as a solution to this.

Use your voice people, email makes it easier than ever to write your representatives and let them know what you think.
 
2012-09-28 12:01:01 PM

BullBearMS: HeartBurnKid: Yes, warrantless wiretapping is a terrible thing, and the expansion of the program is one of the most saddening things about the Obama administration. But here's the question: would Romney stop it?

Both sides are bad, so vote Democrat?

If you recall, the Republicans were the ones saying this was a good idea and the Democrats were the ones saying it was a bad idea. Until they got into power, anyway.


And others were saying party hardly matters, once they get the power, they don't give it up.

But again, pointing this out meant you hate America.
 
MFL
2012-09-28 12:02:03 PM
It's ok when Obama does it because racism.
 
2012-09-28 12:02:22 PM

HotWingConspiracy: BullBearMS: HotWingConspiracy: /Cite when he said he was going to overturn these powers

"No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient" doesn't ring a bell for you either?

I don't know where you're going with that quote. Are you saying this is illegal?


Oh, for the love of FSM, you complete and utter retard... Spying without a warrant is illegal.

It was illegal under Bush.

It is illegal now.
 
2012-09-28 12:02:35 PM

HotWingConspiracy: skullkrusher: HotWingConspiracy: skullkrusher: HotWingConspiracy: BullBearMS: HotWingConspiracy: There was a reason people wanted to prevent them from having these powers in the first place. I recall being told I was supporting terrorism.

I was told putting the Democrats in power would put a stop to this evil Orwellian Bush behavior.

[dl.dropbox.com image 800x192]

No you weren't. Everyone was warned. Everyone knew.

umm yeah that was the expectation. The whole "Change" thing?

When did he say he was changing warrantless surveillance laws?

Or are you arguing from the position that he said "change" so that meant everything was going to change? Oranges taste like apples now, shiat like that?

oh, I thought he might've been referring to one of the most egregious overreaches of the previous administration. I guess not. Ya know, the reason we elected the guy who didn't support Bush policies like McCain did?

There are many Bush policies that Obama didn't support. Change.


pathetic
 
2012-09-28 12:03:40 PM

BullBearMS: HotWingConspiracy: BullBearMS: HotWingConspiracy: /Cite when he said he was going to overturn these powers

"No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient" doesn't ring a bell for you either?

I don't know where you're going with that quote. Are you saying this is illegal?

Oh, for the love of FSM, you complete and utter retard... Spying without a warrant is illegal.

It was illegal under Bush.

It is illegal now.


that doesn't scream "I have something worth listening to!"
 
2012-09-28 12:03:41 PM

spelletrader: I do not see voting for Romney (or any GOP candidate) as a solution to this.


Then vote Green. Rewarding the Democrats with your vote after they break their word on this important issue only encourages this to continue.
 
2012-09-28 12:04:27 PM
When Obama changed his Senate vote on telecom immunity most of us knew he was not going to be a champion for civil liberties.

I'm extremely unhappy with the administration's stance on domestic surveillance, but I certainly won't be voting Republican because of it. Past history has shown that Republicans would be just as bad, if not worse.
 
2012-09-28 12:04:53 PM

BullBearMS: HotWingConspiracy: There was a reason people wanted to prevent them from having these powers in the first place. I recall being told I was supporting terrorism.

I was told putting the Democrats in power would put a stop to this evil Orwellian Bush behavior.

[dl.dropbox.com image 800x192]


No, you weren't. You were explicitly told back then that if these powers existed, they would be used by all Presidents, Democrat and Republican. There's a reason people were against the introduction of such powers in the first place, but they were accused of supporting terrorism by Republicans like yourself.
 
Displayed 50 of 161 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report