Obama is wire tapping?

[BDashe 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/31/state.secrets/index.html

"The Obama administration invoked the state secrets privilege on Friday in a lawsuit pertaining to government eavesdropping intended to intercept terrorist communications...

...the Department of Justice had used a new process designed to ensure that the privilege is used only when absolutely necessary..."

Now don't get me wrong, I actually agree with what he is doing, as I did when Bush started doing it.

Though I don't trust the government with much, I'm forced to with national security.

I find this article hysterical from a hypocrisy standpoint. A politician is a politician no matter which side of the aisle they sit. They all will say whatever is necessary to get elected, even the great Obama. Is that the change you all were sold on? Transparency and such?

I'm going to bed, have a good Monday!!!

So there I was...

Making friends and playing nice since 1983

[quade 4]

Even in the absolute most "transparent" government you can possibly imagine, you'd still have to have a few secrets for defense purposes.

The problem isn't with the Obama administration not being "transparent enough" by still retaining some secrets but rather that the previous one was completely opaque.

For example, Obama was recently blasted by the right for some of the names released on his White House visitor list. The previous Administration wouldn't release the list at all.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

They all will say whatever is necessary to get elected, even the great Obama. Is that the change you all were sold on? Transparency and such?

Well, it's not absolute, it's relative. You do not have an option NOT to elect a President, so you need to see whether he'd provide more transparency comparing to his nearest competitor. And here, I believe, it's obvious.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

They all will say whatever is necessary to get elected, even the great Obama. Is that the change you all were sold on? Transparency and such?

Well, it's not absolute, it's relative. You do not have an option NOT to elect a President, so you need to see whether he'd provide more transparency comparing to his nearest competitor. And here, I believe, it's obvious.

Ahh, all you t-leggers do know Obama is fighting, in court, to keep many, if not all, of the Bush era wire tapping programs going. THE EXACT SAME PROGRAMS!!!???

Or it is OK know because Obama is much purer of intent.........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

You have a very child-like take on this.

All responsible, diligent law-enforcement officials sometimes have to use clandestine surveillance. At times, failure to do so would be dereliction of duty to the public. It is a necessary tool of law enforcement and national security. In the US, most electronic surveillance is by court order or is otherwise authorized by law. If you're "open" about all the necessary surveillance you need to do, you blow the security of the operation.

So now you're all wet and excited because you figure that hands you a little "gotcha!" on Obama. OK, fine, you go ahead and run with that for a while.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

all you t-leggers

How old are you, again?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

all you t-leggers

How old are you, again?

old enough to know a t-legger when I see one

And why is it OK for Obama and not Bush?

Care to answer?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

Seriously? OK:

My feeling is, if it is/was done in such a way that there is/was no violation of the Constitution, it is/was probably ok for any president, of any party. And if done in violation of the Constitution, then it's probably wrong for any president, of any party. Anything else is hypochritical and risks the republic; and in a healthy democratic republic, true hypochrisy (as opposed to political point-scoring) and Constitutional violations need to be called-out publicly.

To determine on which side of the line a given case falls, each instance must be examined on a case-by-case basis, with political biases and considerations de-emphasized as much as possible.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Seriously? OK:

My feeling is, if it is/was done in such a way that there is/was no violation of the Constitution, it is/was probably ok for any president, of any party. And if done in violation of the Constitution, then it's probably wrong for any president, of any party. Anything else is hypochritical and risks the republic; and in a healthy democratic republic, true hypochrisy (as opposed to political point-scoring) and Constitutional violations need to be called-out publicly.

To determine on which side of the line a given case falls, each instance must be examined on a case-by-case basis, with political biases and considerations de-emphasized as much as possible.

So, it is NOW OK but when Bush did it, it was not.

same program exactly.

At least we see your opinon for what it is

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

Is it being done in clear violation of the Bill of Rights, like Bush did?

If not in violation, then .

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Seriously? OK:

My feeling is, if it is/was done in such a way that there is/was no violation of the Constitution, it is/was probably ok for any president, of any party. And if done in violation of the Constitution, then it's probably wrong for any president, of any party. Anything else is hypochritical and risks the republic; and in a healthy democratic republic, true hypochrisy (as opposed to political point-scoring) and Constitutional violations need to be called-out publicly.

To determine on which side of the line a given case falls, each instance must be examined on a case-by-case basis, with political biases and considerations de-emphasized as much as possible.

So, it is NOW OK but when Bush did it, it was not.

same program exactly.

At least we see your opinon for what it is

A completely idiotic twisting of what I said, when I had a moment of weakness and actually tried to engage you in a reasonable discussion.

This is why nobody wants to discuss anything with you, Warped, etc.: What the fuck's the point?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Seriously? OK:

My feeling is, if it is/was done in such a way that there is/was no violation of the Constitution, it is/was probably ok for any president, of any party. And if done in violation of the Constitution, then it's probably wrong for any president, of any party. Anything else is hypochritical and risks the republic; and in a healthy democratic republic, true hypochrisy (as opposed to political point-scoring) and Constitutional violations need to be called-out publicly.

To determine on which side of the line a given case falls, each instance must be examined on a case-by-case basis, with political biases and considerations de-emphasized as much as possible.

So, it is NOW OK but when Bush did it, it was not.

same program exactly.

At least we see your opinon for what it is

A completely idiotic twisting of what I said, when I had a moment of weakness and actually tried to engage you in a reasonable discussion.

This is why nobody wants to discuss anything with you, Warped, etc.: What the fuck's the point?

Ok, I am sorry as I mis-read your post. I agree with you, my bad

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Seriously? OK:

My feeling is, if it is/was done in such a way that there is/was no violation of the Constitution, it is/was probably ok for any president, of any party. And if done in violation of the Constitution, then it's probably wrong for any president, of any party. Anything else is hypochritical and risks the republic; and in a healthy democratic republic, true hypochrisy (as opposed to political point-scoring) and Constitutional violations need to be called-out publicly.

To determine on which side of the line a given case falls, each instance must be examined on a case-by-case basis, with political biases and considerations de-emphasized as much as possible.

So, it is NOW OK but when Bush did it, it was not.

same program exactly.

At least we see your opinon for what it is

Bush was reigned in after the 2006 elections and ageed to put his secret warrantless wiretap program under FISA supervision. The 2007 Protect America Act et seq put safeguards in place which have been upheld as Constitutional by the courts.

I see NO evidence in this article that Obama is acting outside of the current rules that have been held to be Constitutional.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Seriously? OK:

My feeling is, if it is/was done in such a way that there is/was no violation of the Constitution, it is/was probably ok for any president, of any party. And if done in violation of the Constitution, then it's probably wrong for any president, of any party. Anything else is hypochritical and risks the republic; and in a healthy democratic republic, true hypochrisy (as opposed to political point-scoring) and Constitutional violations need to be called-out publicly.

To determine on which side of the line a given case falls, each instance must be examined on a case-by-case basis, with political biases and considerations de-emphasized as much as possible.

So, it is NOW OK but when Bush did it, it was not.

same program exactly.

At least we see your opinon for what it is

Bush was reigned in after the 2006 elections and ageed to put his secret warrantless wiretap program under FISA supervision. The 2007 Protect America Act et seq put safeguards in place which have been upheld as Constitutional by the courts.

I see NO evidence in this article that Obama is acting outside of the current rules that have been held to be Constitutional.

Ya, He AGREED to that, to stop the knashing of teeth by the left and the media. There was nothing to sugest what was being done then (that was voted on by the Dems by the way) that suggested anything was being done outside the constitution

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Seriously? OK:

My feeling is, if it is/was done in such a way that there is/was no violation of the Constitution, it is/was probably ok for any president, of any party. And if done in violation of the Constitution, then it's probably wrong for any president, of any party. Anything else is hypochritical and risks the republic; and in a healthy democratic republic, true hypochrisy (as opposed to political point-scoring) and Constitutional violations need to be called-out publicly.

To determine on which side of the line a given case falls, each instance must be examined on a case-by-case basis, with political biases and considerations de-emphasized as much as possible.

So, it is NOW OK but when Bush did it, it was not.

same program exactly.

At least we see your opinon for what it is

A completely idiotic twisting of what I said, when I had a moment of weakness and actually tried to engage you in a reasonable discussion.

This is why nobody wants to discuss anything with you, Warped, etc.: What the fuck's the point?

Hey leave my name out of things dorkface!

[BDashe 0]

Quote

You have a very child-like take on this.

All responsible, diligent law-enforcement officials sometimes have to use clandestine surveillance. At times, failure to do so would be dereliction of duty to the public. It is a necessary tool of law enforcement and national security. In the US, most electronic surveillance is by court order or is otherwise authorized by law. If you're "open" about all the necessary surveillance you need to do, you blow the security of the operation.

So now you're all wet and excited because you figure that hands you a little "gotcha!" on Obama. OK, fine, you go ahead and run with that for a while.

That;s not what I'm saying at all. Maybe you missed the part of my post that I made bold where I said I'm fine with him doing this. My point is that, though I dont have anything to cite, he/ many of you were part of the anti-wire tapping train, yet here he is 'doing it on a necessary basis.' Your interpretation is 'diligent law-enforcement officials sometimes have to use clandestine surveillance.' No sh*t, well, at least when they agree with you politically.

Translate the article how you want, my guess is that he does break the constitution to do it 'when necessary.' I'm a glass is half empty guy w/r/t politics. Obama supporters are half full in this case, so he couldn't possibly be doing anything unconstitutional, right? He's just protecting us?

In this scenario I'll say it again, I'm ok with his actions/decisions. The point of the post is that all politicians are the same, they're all hypocrites, even Obama the untouchable. I vote for those that choose to have a hypocritical involvement over the fewest aspects of my/our lives, even if i disagree with them on a lot of social policy.

So there I was...

Making friends and playing nice since 1983

[kallend 2,150]

Where is the evidence that Obama is doing anything that the courts have held to be Unconstitutional?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[BDashe 0]

There isn't yet, may never be. However the article mentions he is using Bush's exact same policies which according to the left were undeniably unconstitutional. If Obama uses em I'm sure it doesn't count though.

My guess is from a national security stand point, things like this have to happen under every administration. Whether we find out about it or not is often up to those who think it is worth spending enough effort to dig and expose it, and the media deciding if it is worth reporting.

One way or the other I don't really care as I have nothing to hide. I just think he is a hypocrite, meaning he is a politician and no better than any other politician. He is no different from the guys on the right denouncing homosexuals while looking for hand jobs in airport bathrooms. Obama just solicits his BJ's from another figurative source.

Ultimately, as long as it's for national security and not someone on the telescreen making sure I'm doing my morning sit ups, go for it. Just don't sell me on change and high ethics if you're not gonna practice em.

So there I was...

Making friends and playing nice since 1983

[rushmc 23]

Quote

There isn't yet, may never be. However the article mentions he is using Bush's exact same policies which according to the left were undeniably unconstitutional. If Obama uses em I'm sure it doesn't count though.

My guess is from a national security stand point, things like this have to happen under every administration. Whether we find out about it or not is often up to those who think it is worth spending enough effort to dig and expose it, and the media deciding if it is worth reporting.

One way or the other I don't really care as I have nothing to hide. I just think he is a hypocrite, meaning he is a politician and no better than any other politician. He is no different from the guys on the right denouncing homosexuals while looking for hand jobs in airport bathrooms. Obama just solicits his BJ's from another figurative source.

Ultimately, as long as it's for national security and not someone on the telescreen making sure I'm doing my morning sit ups, go for it. Just don't sell me on change and high ethics if you're not gonna practice em.

tingly leg syndrome must kill short and long term Obama specific memory

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Ahh, all you t-leggers do know Obama is fighting, in court, to keep many, if not all, of the Bush era wire tapping programs going. THE EXACT SAME PROGRAMS!!!???

You obviously didn't read what I wrote. But I'll repeat: it's not absolute, it's relative.
Please think about it for at least 30 minutes or until you understand what "relative" means, and then understand why your comment makes absolutely no sense.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Ahh, all you t-leggers do know Obama is fighting, in court, to keep many, if not all, of the Bush era wire tapping programs going. THE EXACT SAME PROGRAMS!!!???

You obviously didn't read what I wrote. But I'll repeat: it's not absolute, it's relative.
Please think about it for at least 30 minutes or until you understand what "relative" means, and then understand why your comment makes absolutely no sense.

Exactly the same is not the same as relevant. I get it, you don't.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

They all will say whatever is necessary to get elected, even the great Obama. Is that the change you all were sold on? Transparency and such?

Well, it's not absolute, it's relative. You do not have an option NOT to elect a President, so you need to see whether he'd provide more transparency comparing to his nearest competitor. And here, I believe, it's obvious.

And to follow up,

You want to buy (another) bridge?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

And to follow up,
You want to buy (another) bridge?

Got it.
Trolls

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

And to follow up,
You want to buy (another) bridge?

Got it.
Trolls

10 outa 10

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Exactly the same is not the same as relevant. I get it, you don't.

You think you got it? Pray your Jesus more.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *