Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Washington Post)   Obama administration responds to wiretapping story by dusting off some old Bush excuses   ( washingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Followup, FISA, Obama administration, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court  
•       •       •

930 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Jun 2013 at 10:25 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-06-06 09:02:12 AM  
fighting back against critics who contend it goes to far.

I hate going to far. That place sucks.
 
2013-06-06 09:04:15 AM  
What wiretapping?
 
2013-06-06 09:36:20 AM  
Obama voted to gut FISA when he was in the Senate in 2007.  His fascist tendencies should surprise no one at this point.
 
2013-06-06 09:37:31 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: His fascist tendencies should surprise no one at this point.


He's a socialist fascist, too. They're the worst kind.
 
2013-06-06 09:38:49 AM  

James!: What wiretapping?


This. They aren't listening in on your conversation. They just know that at 0930 on June 6th, you called 1-900-MIXALOT.
 
2013-06-06 09:38:58 AM  
"wiretapping' is one of those words that means nothing any more isn't it
 
2013-06-06 09:40:09 AM  

vernonFL: They just know that at 0930 on June 6th, you called 1-800-I-FEEL-OK

 
2013-06-06 09:43:14 AM  
On its face, the order reprinted in the article does not allow the Government to listen in on anyone's telephone calls. The information acquired does not include the content of any communications or the name of any subscriber. It relates exclusively to metadata, such as a telephone number or the length of a call.

It's even clearly stated in the article.  I'm sure people would be upset enough about what they are collecting so by leading off with wrong information you're only hurting your own case.
 
2013-06-06 09:52:19 AM  
No, but it's OK that Obama is doing it now. Bush was still a tyrant who shat all over the Constitution though.
 
2013-06-06 09:59:05 AM  

Aarontology: it's OK that Obama is doing it now. Bush was still a tyrant who shat all over the Constitution though.


Maybe W shat over the parts that would have told constitutional law professor O that he is bordering on creating a fascist regime himself. I know what is being collected is metadata looking for patterns but I fear that this could lead to something more intrusive. How long until anybody who simply disagrees with the government on a web forum such as this is given increased surveillance without a warrant up for "security" concerns after metadata scans find constant talk about how disappointed people are with the powers that be (I'm looking at you politics tab)? I wish I was exaggerating but I don't like the way we have been trending since 9/11.
 
2013-06-06 10:01:17 AM  
And now we jump to "Okay, they aren't doing what we said, but look how slippery that slope is!"
 
2013-06-06 10:19:02 AM  

damageddude: How long until anybody who simply disagrees with the government on a web forum such as this is given increased surveillance without a warrant up for "security" concerns after metadata scans find constant talk about how disappointed people are with the powers that be (I'm looking at you politics tab)? I wish I was exaggerating but I don't like the way we have been trending since 9/11.


The Bush admin wasn't obtaining warrants in their surveillance, so one can argue that we're trending in a good direction.
 
2013-06-06 10:22:56 AM  

damageddude: How long until anybody who simply disagrees with the government on a web forum such as this is given increased surveillance without a warrant up for "security" concerns after metadata scans find constant talk about how disappointed people are with the powers that be (I'm looking at you politics tab)? I wish I was exaggerating but I don't like the way we have been trending since 9/11.


I don't think it'll go that far. I don't like how our national "Security" laws have been consistently eroding our rights since 9/11, but monitoring web forums would be mostly a waste of time and resources.

James!: And now we jump to "Okay, they aren't doing what we said, but look how slippery that slope is!"


After all, the Constitution is just a piece of paper. Don't worry. A republican president will happen sooner or later, and you can go back to being outraged.
 
2013-06-06 10:25:30 AM  

Aarontology: damageddude: How long until anybody who simply disagrees with the government on a web forum such as this is given increased surveillance without a warrant up for "security" concerns after metadata scans find constant talk about how disappointed people are with the powers that be (I'm looking at you politics tab)? I wish I was exaggerating but I don't like the way we have been trending since 9/11.

I don't think it'll go that far. I don't like how our national "Security" laws have been consistently eroding our rights since 9/11, but monitoring web forums would be mostly a waste of time and resources.

James!: And now we jump to "Okay, they aren't doing what we said, but look how slippery that slope is!"

After all, the Constitution is just a piece of paper. Don't worry. A republican president will happen sooner or later, and you can go back to being outraged.


Which part of the constitution is being violated?
 
2013-06-06 10:27:21 AM  
Remember when we had a national debate over this for the better part of ten years and the dirty anti-American terrorist-loving pro-Al Qaeda hippie liberal douches lost? Are the winners now really complaining about the fact that they won?
 
2013-06-06 10:27:44 AM  
If only there were some group that could write or amend... or maybe even retract laws

/damn... we could really use one of those now
 
2013-06-06 10:28:57 AM  
While I know how important ideas are...

Has this hurt anyone?
 
2013-06-06 10:29:04 AM  

James!: Which part of the constitution is being violated?


No part, they asked for a warrant, and the court provided it.
That said, they shouldn't have asked for such a broad warrant, and the court shouldn't have provided for it.
 
2013-06-06 10:29:40 AM  

James!: Which part of the constitution is being violated?


"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized "

Somehow I doubt that they were able to obtain millions of warrants that met the definition of probably cause supported by Oath or affirmation.

And if they were able to do that, the fact that there are millions of people who the government believes are engaging in, supporting, or sympathetic to or communicating with terrorists, well, we have a huge problem.
 
2013-06-06 10:29:45 AM  
The original AUMF was passed almost unanimously.  The Patriot Act was passed almost unanimously.  Now, when Obama asks Congress to close Guantanamo, everyone loses their shiat.  When he asks Congress to repeal the AUMF and declare the war over, everyone loses their shiat.  If the American people don't want the executive to act this way, they sure aren't showing it.
 
2013-06-06 10:32:54 AM  

Aarontology: James!: Which part of the constitution is being violated?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized "

Somehow I doubt that they were able to obtain millions of warrants that met the definition of probably cause supported by Oath or affirmation.

And if they were able to do that, the fact that there are millions of people who the government believes are engaging in, supporting, or sympathetic to or communicating with terrorists, well, we have a huge problem.


You'll be shocked to know that your phone records belong to the phone company, not to you.
 
2013-06-06 10:35:46 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: If only there were some group that could write or amend... or maybe even retract laws

/damn... we could really use one of those now


No kidding.  Most countries do better with a legislative body of some kind to write and amend laws.  Anyone know where America can get one?
 
2013-06-06 10:35:46 AM  

James!: You'll be shocked to know that your phone records belong to the phone company, not to you.


Irrelevant. Did the government demonstrate probable cause for each of the millions of communications on those records?
 
2013-06-06 10:35:49 AM  

flucto: fighting back against critics who contend it goes to far.

I hate going to far. That place sucks.


I liked going to far before it was popular.
 
2013-06-06 10:36:02 AM  
Is it too much to ask that Obama step in front of the issue and actually call it wrong even if it is legal.
 
2013-06-06 10:36:09 AM  
What wiretapping story?
 
2013-06-06 10:36:19 AM  

MindStalker: James!: Which part of the constitution is being violated?

No part, they asked for a warrant, and the court provided it.
That said, they shouldn't have asked for such a broad warrant, and the court shouldn't have provided for it.


I'm pretty sure the test for legality is a bit more than, "did a court allow it".
 
2013-06-06 10:37:15 AM  

kronicfeld: Remember when we had a national debate over this for the better part of ten years and the dirty anti-American terrorist-loving pro-Al Qaeda hippie liberal douches lost? Are the winners now really complaining about the fact that they won?


This is what tears me on the whole deal. FISA is dirty, security be damned. I don't imagine much good ever came from secret courts here or anywhere else. This also flies in the face of the Obama administration's stated goal of transparency.
At the same time, because the Executive has new broad powers granted by Congress, it would seem foolish not to use the legal tools they have for the sake of a moral gesture. The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act was one of the most insidious, fascistic pieces of legislation passed in my lifetime, and everyone that railed against it's passage saw these kind of overreaches coming from a mile away.
Cue Franklin with the liberty vs. temporary security bit.
 
2013-06-06 10:37:51 AM  

Pocket Ninja: Marcus Aurelius: His fascist tendencies should surprise no one at this point.

He's a socialist fascist, too. They're the worst kind.


He's a fascialist!
 
2013-06-06 10:38:03 AM  

Aarontology: James!: You'll be shocked to know that your phone records belong to the phone company, not to you.

Irrelevant. Did the government demonstrate probable cause for each of the millions of communications on those records?


It is entirely relevant.  It's just a fact you don't like.
 
2013-06-06 10:38:42 AM  
Yeah, I'll bet there's a bunch of terrorists out there now saying, "Holy crap, Achmed, I just heard it might not be safe to talk about this on a cell phone!".
 
2013-06-06 10:38:53 AM  
This is a very tepid, anonymous White House response. Seems like a trial balloon. TERRORISM! Hello?

Not sure that will fly so we may see different statements, maybe even on the record, soon.
 
2013-06-06 10:39:42 AM  

UrukHaiGuyz: kronicfeld: Remember when we had a national debate over this for the better part of ten years and the dirty anti-American terrorist-loving pro-Al Qaeda hippie liberal douches lost? Are the winners now really complaining about the fact that they won?

This is what tears me on the whole deal. FISA is dirty, security be damned. I don't imagine much good ever came from secret courts here or anywhere else. This also flies in the face of the Obama administration's stated goal of transparency.
At the same time, because the Executive has new broad powers granted by Congress, it would seem foolish not to use the legal tools they have for the sake of a moral gesture. The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act was one of the most insidious, fascistic pieces of legislation passed in my lifetime, and everyone that railed against it's its passage saw these kind of overreaches coming from a mile away.
Cue Franklin with the liberty vs. temporary security bit.


FTFM gorramit
 
2013-06-06 10:40:52 AM  

NateGrey: Is it too much to ask that Obama step in front of the issue and actually call it wrong even if it is legal.


This
 
2013-06-06 10:41:14 AM  

vernonFL: James!: What wiretapping?

This. They aren't listening in on your conversation. They just know that at 0930 on June 6th, you called 1-900-MIXALOT.


I don`t care if Obama knows that I like big buts. I cannot lie.
 
2013-06-06 10:41:33 AM  

Aarontology: No, but it's OK that Obama is doing it now. Bush was still a tyrant who shat all over the Constitution though.


No, it's not. But the same idiots who supported it when PATRIOT was rammed through are now against it. I would respect the outrage more if they were not hypocritical partisan turds.
 
2013-06-06 10:41:34 AM  

James!: What wiretapping?


What seizures without warrants or subpoenae?

I'm all ears if somebody wants to restructure the FISA court, but there's no equivalency with the way the Bush Administration went about their data mining.
 
2013-06-06 10:41:55 AM  
I remember yelling at the conservatives back then that they wouldn't want this power in the hands of the next Democratic president.

They didn't listen.
 
2013-06-06 10:42:14 AM  

Aarontology: No, but it's OK that Obama is doing it now. Bush was still a tyrant who shat all over the Constitution though.


It was OK when Bush did. Obama doing it means he's a fascist tyrant who shiats all over the Constitution though.


/Weeeee!
//This is fun!
 
2013-06-06 10:42:48 AM  
It's too bad Fark won't let me post all those pics of Obama's torturers beating Iraqis to death,  letting dogs loose on them, raping them, waterboarding them, stripping them naked, putting urine and feces all over them...

Same thing. Same thing. Same thing.

It's like breaking up a fight between 3-year-olds over ice cream.
 
2013-06-06 10:43:43 AM  

Wendy's Chili: damageddude: How long until anybody who simply disagrees with the government on a web forum such as this is given increased surveillance without a warrant up for "security" concerns after metadata scans find constant talk about how disappointed people are with the powers that be (I'm looking at you politics tab)? I wish I was exaggerating but I don't like the way we have been trending since 9/11.

The Bush admin wasn't obtaining warrants in their surveillance, so one can argue that we're trending in a good direction.


The next administration will require wiretappers to say please and thank you. I have a good feeling about this trend.
 
2013-06-06 10:45:33 AM  

Snarfangel: wiretappers


Who?
 
2013-06-06 10:46:14 AM  

Aarontology: James!: You'll be shocked to know that your phone records belong to the phone company, not to you.

Irrelevant. Did the government demonstrate probable cause for each of the millions of communications on those records?


I'm not a law talking person, but if the records belong to the phone company, I doubt that the government needs to demonstrate probably cause for each of the millions of communications.
 
2013-06-06 10:46:53 AM  

James!: It is entirely relevant. It's just a fact you don't like.


It's irrelevant in that the government is required by law to demonstrate probable cause, whether or not that communication belongs to me or the company. If it is necessary to monitor these communications and seize the records, then they can abide by the Fourth Amendment and demonstrate they believe that all the people on Verizon's records have some sort of tie to terrorism.

That Fourth Amendment doesn't go away just because a business is involved
 
2013-06-06 10:47:27 AM  

James!: What wiretapping?


I use wireless devices, so good luck with that.
 
2013-06-06 10:49:13 AM  

damageddude: Aarontology: it's OK that Obama is doing it now. Bush was still a tyrant who shat all over the Constitution though.

Maybe W shat over the parts that would have told constitutional law professor O that he is bordering on creating a fascist regime himself. I know what is being collected is metadata looking for patterns but I fear that this could lead to something more intrusive. How long until anybody who simply disagrees with the government on a web forum such as this is given increased surveillance without a warrant up for "security" concerns after metadata scans find constant talk about how disappointed people are with the powers that be (I'm looking at you politics tab)? I wish I was exaggerating but I don't like the way we have been trending since 9/11.


i guess i would be okay with this if they used it to throw all the furries and bronies into guantanamo

but seriously, i guess looking at it from the gov't POV that would be a massive waste of time to track everybody to begin with, i mean there's so much data out there that unless you're extremely discriminate in your data filtering then your results will constantly be skewed incorrectly, which begs the question whether this whole thing is a waste of time anyways...

i do think it's ironic (and terrible) that Obama would be so supportive of these types of tactics, the whole thing is basically set in stone now and never going away regardless of why it's there
 
2013-06-06 10:49:18 AM  
It's not any different than the police being capable of scanning and running every single license plate on the street.  Sounds scary, perfectly legal, and no good argument against it except the possibility of misuse (which is always present).
 
2013-06-06 10:50:42 AM  
Wow the constitution really is just so much toilet paper isn't it?
/but but but if you're not doing anything wrong...
//fark the NSA
 
2013-06-06 10:51:29 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: It's not any different than the police being capable of scanning and running every single license plate on the street.  Sounds scary, perfectly legal, and no good argument against it except the possibility of misuse (which is always present).


I used to respect you.
 
2013-06-06 10:52:40 AM  

Aarontology: James!: It is entirely relevant. It's just a fact you don't like.

It's irrelevant in that the government is required by law to demonstrate probable cause, whether or not that communication belongs to me or the company. If it is necessary to monitor these communications and seize the records, then they can abide by the Fourth Amendment and demonstrate they believe that all the people on Verizon's records have some sort of tie to terrorism.

That Fourth Amendment doesn't go away just because a business is involved


Involvement of a third party eliminates the expectation of privacy.  Or, at least, that's how it's been interpreted up to now.
 
Displayed 50 of 199 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report