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.

(Some Guy) Video Let's go back to 2008 and see what candidate Barack Obama promises about illegal wiretapping, shall we?   (content.bitsontherun.com) divider line 46
    More: Video, wiretaps  
•       •       •

1954 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Jun 2013 at 1:19 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-11 07:05:53 AM  
7 votes:

Dinki: What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?


"Nothing", thanks to the Patriot Act. But if we had a SCOTUS that actually cared about the Constitution, the Patriot Act would have been thrown out years ago for various violations of  the Constitution.
2013-06-11 07:50:03 AM  
6 votes:
also remember a couple months back when Obama floated the idea that the Patriot act and all of the added powers that it gave the president should be repealed?  And how the right said he was crazy?

Now look, Obama's got the right in such a tizzy that they my repeal the act themselves.   Maybe this was Obama's plan all along.
2013-06-11 02:03:07 PM  
3 votes:

Headso: max_pooper: No this is very different. What the current administration is doing is legal*, what the Bush administration was doing was illegal. If you can not see the difference, you are just a partisan stool.

Ask W if what he did was illegal, you'll get the same answer Obama will give you about this.


Except W's opinion was based upon the Nixon standard of "if the president does it it's not illegal". The opinion that the current administration is not in violation of the law is based on the actual law.

Like I said before, you can argue that mass collection of telecom records after getting a court issued warrant should be illegal but you should be complaining about Congress not the Executive.
2013-06-11 01:33:25 PM  
3 votes:

GanjSmokr: Someday, people will figure out that a candidate's words rarely match his actions once he is elected.

Until then, people will still be shocked when their candidate does essentially the opposite of what he campaigned on.


/meh


Someday, people will be shocked to learn that legally acquiring a warrant to gather telecom data is different from illegally recording a telephone call without a warrant.
2013-06-11 12:47:18 PM  
3 votes:

vernonFL: What they are doing is NOT wiretapping.

The government is not recording or listening in on the content of the conversations.

/at least they say they aren't


Well of course they aren't.  They have computers doing that and breaking down conversations to look for key words.  Then when they find them, they listen to the conversation.
2013-06-11 12:37:00 PM  
3 votes:
1. Law is passed.
2. President sworn in to uphold law.
3. Congress sworn in to prevent President from doing anything reform minded
4. President upholds law.
5. Everybody angry.

This is what happens when you meet a stranger in the Alps. Nothing constructive gets done and everyone get entrenched. This is why compromise for BOTH parties is so important.
2013-06-11 07:26:54 AM  
3 votes:
Let's go back to 2007 and see that as a senator he voted to gut FISA.
2013-06-11 03:02:28 PM  
2 votes:
fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net
hej
2013-06-11 02:08:01 PM  
2 votes:
I thought PRISM was for digging through phone records, but all I see are people talking about wiretapping. As if the two things are the same.
2013-06-11 01:27:16 PM  
2 votes:

vernonFL: If you've ever thrown your telephone bill in the trash and put it out on the curb, it is perfectly legal for *anyone* to go through it and get the exact same information the NSA has a blanket warrant to collect.


In a lot of jurisdictions going through garbage is illegal.
2013-06-11 12:31:50 PM  
2 votes:

bongmiester: Why has Faux News forsaken their beloved Patriot Act? It's like they never supported it.


I don't watch Fox News, but it should be an interesting dance that they (and their Republicans) do here.

They're calling for Snowden to be extradited.
They've been briefed on the PRISM program, so they're either complicit or negligent.
But of course, there is some controversy, some negative coverage of Obama, so they will be compelled to press it, one way or another.
Epic amounts of concern trolling predicted.
2013-06-12 01:30:30 AM  
1 votes:
Seriously if you're playing the "It's all perfectly legal" card right now, you're on the same side as Lindsey Graham. LINDSEY EFFING GRAHAM! Lindsey Graham the man who's been empirically proven to be the dumbest man in the Senate. Lindsey Graham that's always wrong about everything.

Lindsey Graham and you see totally eye to eye on this. Think about that.
2013-06-12 12:59:52 AM  
1 votes:
I'm honestly shocked at the people who claim to be anti PATRIOT ACT but just shrug all this off and say "Well Bush did it too and everything's legal now so why all the fuss?"

Are you crazy? Do you have any idea how hard it is to make the American people give a damn about something? There's such a small sliver of time before the public shrugs and goes back to the next "scandal" of the day. Why give Obama a pass? Especially if you consider yourself a liberal, what better time is there to fight this than now? Or do you think it'll be easier to fight against the PATRIOT Act after another 4 years of living with it, possibly with the Republicans in control of the White House and Congress?

Have you just given up and accepted a permanent state of war as the norm? Are you that cynical?

And I bet some of you claim to be anti spending on the military industrial complex. Why? If you really think we shouldn't be engaged in perpetual war, why not take a chance to make a difference and make the Democrats do what we want them to do? Is it because you'd rather just biatch and feel self righteous than actually try to change the status quo?
2013-06-11 07:15:20 PM  
1 votes:

SunsetLament: theknuckler_33: SunsetLament:

LMAO - ICE is refusing to come pick up and deport illegals who are already in state and local custody.

You got citations about this? Because I'm guessing the situation isn't quite the way you are making it seem.

Sure

----------

Same shiat as Obama refusing to enforce federal drug laws.  He does what he pleases; he couldn't give a rat's ass what his duties under the Constitution are.

What the hell are you talking about?

and ... Link.


Did you even look at the results of your LMGTFY link?  One example of ICE not coming to get illegals in custody. One example. It is exactly as I suspected. And the other thing is also as I expected. I reduced focus on marijuana prosecutions is not "refusing to enforce federal drug laws". If you can't speak about things in an intellectually honest manner, I don't have time for you. There are plenty of things to not like about Obama, but your little rant was nothing but derp. All presidents have the AG give direction about how to enforce federal laws of all kinds. Every administration does it. It's the normal business of any administration.
2013-06-11 07:12:14 PM  
1 votes:

YoungSwedishBlonde: SunsetLament: theknuckler_33: SunsetLament:

LMAO - ICE is refusing to come pick up and deport illegals who are already in state and local custody.

You got citations about this? Because I'm guessing the situation isn't quite the way you are making it seem.

Sure

----------

Same shiat as Obama refusing to enforce federal drug laws.  He does what he pleases; he couldn't give a rat's ass what his duties under the Constitution are.

What the hell are you talking about?

and ... Link.

It's almost like the feds have decided they have to prioritize things. That is, unless, you support big government and big spending to cover the funding deficiencies in obtaining the resources needed to nit-pick every single one of the 11 million suspected undocumented immigrants in this country and 8 billion pot heads.


Yawn.  If a local police department calls ICE and says "We have an illegal alien in custody - come pick him up and deport him," and ICE responds with "Nah, just let him go," ... it's no longer an issue of prioritizing resources.

But, to answer your question, when it comes to federal spending, I am all in favor of increasing federal law enforcement budgets (and only federal law enforcement budgets).  If ICE or the DEA (or the US Attorney's Office) does not have enough cash to pick up people already in custody, I'm sure they (and only they) can go to the congress and the Democrats would love to give them the funding they need, right?
2013-06-11 05:59:39 PM  
1 votes:

theknuckler_33: badaboom: Nadie_AZ: 1. Law is passed.
2. President sworn in to uphold law.
3. Congress sworn in to prevent President from doing anything reform minded
4. President upholds law.
5. Everybody angry.

This is what happens when you meet a stranger in the Alps. Nothing constructive gets done and everyone get entrenched. This is why compromise for BOTH parties is so important.

Can you send this memo to Barry about Immigration laws? Since you know his job, as you stated, is to uphold the law. Thanks.

When a cop is faced with having to investigate a murder vs. who broke into my car and stole my ipod, the cop will probably concentrate on the murder and rightly so. Tracking down and deporting people that were brought to this country illegally as children who have no criminal record and are going to school or have jobs isn't exactly the best use of resources and it is pretty juvenile to insinuate that focusing resources on high priorities is the same as not upholding the law.


LMAO - ICE is refusing to come pick up and deport illegals who are already in state and local custody.  Same shiat as Obama refusing to enforce federal drug laws.  He does what he pleases; he couldn't give a rat's ass what his duties under the Constitution are.
2013-06-11 05:20:08 PM  
1 votes:

neversubmit: vernonFL: What they are doing is NOT wiretapping.

The government is not recording or listening in on the content of the conversations.

/at least they say they aren't

From 2008

Despite pledges by President George W. Bush and American intelligence officials to the contrary, hundreds of US citizens overseas have been eavesdropped on as they called friends and family back home, according to two former military intercept operators who worked at the giant National Security Agency (NSA) center in Fort Gordon, Georgia.

Intercept operators allege the NSA is listening to citizens' phone calls. "These were just really everyday, average, ordinary Americans who happened to be in the Middle East, in our area of intercept and happened to be making these phone calls on satellite phones," said Adrienne Kinne, a 31-year old US Army Reserves Arab linguist assigned to a special military program at the NSA's Back Hall at Fort Gordon from November 2001 to 2003.


O'rly?

(post Boston bombing)

On Wednesday night, Burnett interviewed Tim Clemente, a former FBI counterterrorism agent, about whether the FBI would be able to discover the contents of past telephone conversations between the two. He quite clearly insisted that they could:

BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It's not a voice mail. It's just a conversation. There's no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?

CLEMENTE: "No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It's not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

BURNETT: "So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.

CLEMENTE: "No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not."

"All of that stuff" - meaning every telephone conversation Americans have with one another on US soil, with or without a search warrant - "is being captured as we speak".
2013-06-11 04:57:14 PM  
1 votes:

mikaloyd: How do FARK moderates feel about this?


Tepid.
2013-06-11 04:53:44 PM  
1 votes:

badaboom: Nadie_AZ: 1. Law is passed.
2. President sworn in to uphold law.
3. Congress sworn in to prevent President from doing anything reform minded
4. President upholds law.
5. Everybody angry.

This is what happens when you meet a stranger in the Alps. Nothing constructive gets done and everyone get entrenched. This is why compromise for BOTH parties is so important.

Can you send this memo to Barry about Immigration laws? Since you know his job, as you stated, is to uphold the law. Thanks.


When a cop is faced with having to investigate a murder vs. who broke into my car and stole my ipod, the cop will probably concentrate on the murder and rightly so. Tracking down and deporting people that were brought to this country illegally as children who have no criminal record and are going to school or have jobs isn't exactly the best use of resources and it is pretty juvenile to insinuate that focusing resources on high priorities is the same as not upholding the law.
2013-06-11 04:30:21 PM  
1 votes:

FarkedOver: max_pooper: There are major differences between the Obama administration getting warrants to collect telecom records and the Bush administration directly recording telephone calls without a warrant.

If you can't see the difference between these two activities you are a partisan stooge.

The fact that he is using bullshiat laws to justify these bullshiat wiretaps is stupid.  You're a partisan stooge for sticking up for it just because Obama is doing it.

In short:

[t3.gstatic.com image 249x202]


I am against this gathering of information. I think Obama and his administration should not do it.  I think it should be illegal to do without a warrant. Unless the administration gives us many, many specific circumstances in which these records were used to thwart many, massive terror attacks, I want the administration to stop doing it immediately.

Nonetheless, what was done was not illegal, has not been found to be unconstitutional, and is most likely, under current jurisprudence, not going to be found unconstitutional if challenged.  If this is a problem, then contact your legislators and tell them to change the laws.  And contact the White House, if you want, and tell them to support a change in the laws.  But saying Obama should be in jail or impeached for taking actions that are perfectly legal is not going to help the debate over these practices, it will just make it more likely that the practices will be allowed to continue.
2013-06-11 04:27:11 PM  
1 votes:

The Numbers: YoungSwedishBlonde: You see, under Bush, these things were happening but Bush only targeted terrorists. Now the nig, err Obama, is using it to target me with audits from the IRS and is trying to steal my guns through my cell phone.

Classic stuff. In much the same way that Bush critics were branded as unpatriotic to undermine them, Obama critics are branded as racist.


You're right. I forgot the other possibility for the complete lack of introspection on behalf of the conservatives blaming Obama for shiat that they passed into law and championed mere years ago. They could be toddlers. Sorry for assuming that toddlers wouldn't be able to post absolutely pants-on-head retarded crap on Fark.
2013-06-11 04:26:17 PM  
1 votes:

The Numbers: max_pooper: FarkedOver: I can't believe the amount of twisting and writhing going on to justify Obama's use of these shiat programs.  They were disgusting when Bush was doing it and they are disgusting to this very day.

There are major differences between the Obama administration getting warrants to collect telecom records and the Bush administration directly recording telephone calls without a warrant.

If you can't see the difference between these two activities you are a partisan stooge.

If you think that Bush's surveillance programs being worse than Obama's somehow excuses Obama you too are a partisan stooge.


No, Bush was recording phone calls without a warrant. The Obama administration is getting warrants from a court of law to collect telecom records, which is apparently perfectly legal.

That's not excusing Obama for doing something that is perfectly legal that I don't agree with. It's pointing out that people that are saying Obama is just as bad as Bush are being partisan stooges or simply do not understand the difference in their actions.
2013-06-11 04:15:44 PM  
1 votes:

FarkedOver: I can't believe the amount of twisting and writhing going on to justify Obama's use of these shiat programs.  They were disgusting when Bush was doing it and they are disgusting to this very day.


There are major differences between the Obama administration getting warrants to collect telecom records and the Bush administration directly recording telephone calls without a warrant.

If you can't see the difference between these two activities you are a partisan stooge.
2013-06-11 03:10:14 PM  
1 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Something is either constitutional, or it is not.


sure.  So let's look at the constitution.  Is your "person, papers, or effects" inclusive of things you willfully share to third parties like Verizon, Google, or Facebook?  No, and prior to FISA, the government would go digging though that stuff without oversight. After FISA they have to get secret warrants.  Eitherway, the constution, a document written over 200 years ago, doesn't have anything to say about it -- I'd recommend we change that, but you know how people get all pissy if you suggest it's anything but the most perfect thing ever written.
2013-06-11 03:09:40 PM  
1 votes:

Headso: almandot: So is this program useless because it didnt prevent the premeditated Boston marathon bombing or are they just not being intrusive enough and should step it up?

no, no it stopped some plots you don't know about, they go to a different school...uh in canada


You know, we JUST heard about a foiled bomb plot that was supposed to remain secret, that was the whole impetus behind looking into the AP's phone records. So if the government says there are plots we foiled that they're not talking about, since we actually know of at least one where this was truly the case, I'm inclined to believe them on that one.

/sorry for jumping on you if you just wanted to make a Canadian girlfriend joke.
2013-06-11 02:43:10 PM  
1 votes:

max_pooper: Shryke: max_pooper: what the Bush administration was doing was illegal.

Mind sourcing this please?

No problem...

http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Judge-Bush-overstepped-wiretapp in g-authority-3268539.php



 how could you!   uncle george jr could do no wrong.  he was protecting Freedom.  only the Black Guy is ruining Freedom.
2013-06-11 02:35:36 PM  
1 votes:

Nadie_AZ: 1. Law Patriot Act is passed [by uncle george jr and his republican buddies as well as some dems.]
2. President sworn in to uphold law.
3. Repukelican Congress sworn in to prevent President from doing anything reform minded
4. President upholds law.
5. Everybody CONservatives/Repukelicans angry.

This is what happens when you meet a stranger in the Alps. Nothing constructive gets done and everyone get entrenched. This is why compromise for BOTH parties is so important.



Repaired.
2013-06-11 02:27:18 PM  
1 votes:

bongmiester: Marcus Aurelius: MmmmBacon: Dinki: What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?

"Nothing", thanks to the Patriot Act.

Why has Faux News forsaken their beloved Patriot Act?  It's like they never supported it.



they were fine with it until the Black Guy showed up.   now with all these lax rules that the Patriot Act gave the government, the CONservatives are crying and running to mama Limbaugh complaining and sniveling about that Black Guy who is trying to ruin America.

wow, CONservatives/Republicans have stooped to a new Low.
2013-06-11 02:24:48 PM  
1 votes:
Funny how these blustering holier than thou CONservatives apprently have never heard of the Patriot Act signed by their butt boy george Jr. and the source of all these lax rules that the government is taking advantage of.

wierd how that works. now, its the Black Guy who is wiretapping, spying, etc.

when ole' white as the driven snow george implemented things 10 years ago, no one knows a damn thing about it until Blackey show up.
2013-06-11 02:22:56 PM  
1 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: With a few more Alitos on the bench, we could gut the Constitution in its entirety.


A Few More Alitos would be a great name for a band though.
2013-06-11 02:19:45 PM  
1 votes:
I still don't understand why people think they ever had a 4th amendment right to exert over someone else's property.

This is Verizon's, AT&T's, Google's, etc.'s data. It's their business records - just because you do business with them doesn't give you any right to or over their records.

You have a right to privacy over the content of your calls and emails - but the company you use to make those contacts has the right to keep records about how their system was used. Content free.

I mean, that's the lifeblood of Google, Target, and any other retailer that uses analytics to target products at customers.

Why on earth did you not ASSUME and EXPECT the government to do the same thing in counter-espionage and counter-terrorism?

Hell I might criticize the government for being out of step with the times if I found out they DIDN'T have any kind of program to try and use anlytics to figure out who is not just viewing bomb-making YouTube videos, but also making contacts with suspected terrorists abroad, and talking on Facebook with dangerous radicals. That doesn't even broach content, and is no different than what google tries to do in targeting ads.
2013-06-11 02:17:05 PM  
1 votes:
So is this program useless because it didnt prevent the premeditated Boston marathon bombing or are they just not being intrusive enough and should step it up?
2013-06-11 01:59:18 PM  
1 votes:

ikanreed: Not illegal.  Not right either.  Reminder: bush did same thing without warrants.  Doesn't make this ok.


No, Bush conducted wiretaps without a warrant. That is not the same thing as collecting telecom records.
2013-06-11 01:57:51 PM  
1 votes:

Headso: I remember back when we invaded Iraq partly based on all of George W's lies there were a number of farkers always pointing out how he technically wasn't lying if you read the actual verbiage. Similar situation going on here.


No this is very different. What the current administration is doing is legal*, what the Bush administration was doing was illegal. If you can not see the difference, you are just a partisan stool.

*You can argue that what the current administration is doing should not be legal, but your complaints need to be directed to Congress not the executive.
2013-06-11 01:35:03 PM  
1 votes:
People seem to forget that the biggest Democratic complaint about Bush's wiretapping program is that he couldn't even be bothered to brief Congress on it or obtain appropriate FISA court oversight. This program is not illegal. You can debate whether or not the improvement in security is worth the infringement of privacy, but it's not illegal.
2013-06-11 01:30:36 PM  
1 votes:

MadHatter500: General "everyone must act ethically" laws are BS


General "everyone is considered under suspicion" laws are BS.
2013-06-11 12:40:59 PM  
1 votes:
As has been mentioned numerous times, no laws were broken, so technically Obama has not broken any of his promises. However, in the words of the Daily Show last night: "Nobody is saying you've broken any laws. What we're saying is it's kind of weird you didn't have to."
2013-06-11 12:39:25 PM  
1 votes:
What they are doing is NOT wiretapping.

The government is not recording or listening in on the content of the conversations.

/at least they say they aren't
2013-06-11 12:24:13 PM  
1 votes:

Dinki: What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?


nothing
the program is 100% legal and has not been determining to be unconstitutional. yet.
the ACLU is refiling their case because they now have standing.
everyone with a phone or email now has standing to sue the federal government

WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR????
2013-06-11 12:12:02 PM  
1 votes:
The PRISM isn't illegal, and I'm not even sure it's "wiretapping", but otherwise that is a good point.

Probably better to nail him on the "national security letters... spying on Americans that aren't suspected of committing a crime" quote.
Though they're supposedly not "using" the data for citizens, they're collecting data on everyone, so I think there's an argument to be made there.

//didn't listen to the screaming part of the video
2013-06-11 12:10:27 PM  
1 votes:
The only people really spazzing about this are those who's existence relies heavily on religion and superstition. Those easily led by fear and controversy.

And have a shortcut link to YouTube on their desktop.
2013-06-11 12:02:39 PM  
1 votes:

Mugato: MmmmBacon: But if we had a SCOTUS that actually cared about the Constitution, the Patriot Act would have been thrown out years ago for various violations of  the Constitution.

A government doesn't give up a power once it gets it, no matter who is in charge. I blame Bush for starting it and disappointed but not surprised at Obama for not ending it.


Part of the problem is that traditionally, the executive branch has to fight for and use each power it has.
2013-06-11 11:53:51 AM  
1 votes:

MmmmBacon: But if we had a SCOTUS that actually cared about the Constitution, the Patriot Act would have been thrown out years ago for various violations of  the Constitution.


A government doesn't give up a power once it gets it, no matter who is in charge. I blame Bush for starting it and disappointed but not surprised at Obama for not ending it.
2013-06-11 07:45:28 AM  
1 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: MmmmBacon: Dinki: What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?

"Nothing", thanks to the Patriot Act.


Why has Faux News forsaken their beloved Patriot Act?  It's like they never supported it.
2013-06-11 06:52:32 AM  
1 votes:
What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?
2013-06-11 02:20:45 AM  
1 votes:
link fail, page fail, site fail.
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  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