3 ms·

It's interesting that the article mentions then Sen. Obama's change of heart re: the FISA Amendments Act - saying he would filibuster it and then voting for it.

by 1001101 10y ago

It's interesting that the article mentions then Sen. Obama's change of heart re: the FISA Amendments Act - saying he would filibuster it and then voting for it. I wonder what led to his change of heart. I haven't heard that explained.

andy_ppp 10y ago
Probably that he was running for president and wanted to appear on the side of the security services? Then when in office it clearly must be a useful tool to start build profiles of everyone and be able to mine their activities.
- grandalf 10y ago
  Exactly. I think it also underscores Obama's unprincipled, opportunistic nature. This is not a criticism of Obama, I think it applies to all presidents, and likely most elected officials worldwide.
  - ak4g 10y ago
    Pragmatism is a principle.
    - grandalf 10y ago
      > Pragmatism is a principle. Sure, but toward what end? Himself being elected? Surely most politicians are of the opinion that simply by having their butt in the chair in the office, good has been done. This sort of reasoning is considered sociopathic in most other contexts.
      - ak4g 10y ago
        Towards any end at all. IRL, there are no points for effort, and certainly no points for purity of intent. The proof is in the pudding. And so, no, I don't see good/effective politicians as having some quality that would otherwise have them be considered sociopaths. I expect a competent elected leader to behave along the lines of what I'd expect from a competent co-worker.
        grandalf 10y ago
        > The proof is in the pudding. Exactly, and while Obama promised "no surveillance pudding" he actually went into the kitchen and made "massive metadata surveillance pudding".
- thinkling 10y ago
  It's easy to be principled when you're not calling the shots yet and not confronted with all the realities of the choice. I imagine once Obama was in office, he was told what had been accomplished so far using this kind of intelligence (terrorists killed, plots prevented, lives (allegedly) saved, etc) that the US would give up if the intelligence dried up. Who will chose to accept that attacks might happen on your watch as President when the tools to avoid them are already in hand?
  - andy_ppp 10y ago
    Yes, but it's clearly illegal to search everyone under the constitution, so these sort of advances in counter terrorism should never have been allowed. Hard to argue with tracking everyone once it's happening without uproar, I imagine it's very very useful.
solotronics 10y ago
JFK.

by 1001101 10y ago

andy_ppp 10y ago

Probably that he was running for president and wanted to appear on the side of the security services? Then when in office it clearly must be a useful tool to start build profiles of everyone and be able to mine their activities.

grandalf 10y ago
Exactly. I think it also underscores Obama's unprincipled, opportunistic nature. This is not a criticism of Obama, I think it applies to all presidents, and likely most elected officials worldwide.
- ak4g 10y ago
  Pragmatism is a principle.
  - grandalf 10y ago
    > Pragmatism is a principle. Sure, but toward what end? Himself being elected? Surely most politicians are of the opinion that simply by having their butt in the chair in the office, good has been done. This sort of reasoning is considered sociopathic in most other contexts.
    - ak4g 10y ago
      Towards any end at all. IRL, there are no points for effort, and certainly no points for purity of intent. The proof is in the pudding. And so, no, I don't see good/effective politicians as having some quality that would otherwise have them be considered sociopaths. I expect a competent elected leader to behave along the lines of what I'd expect from a competent co-worker.
      - grandalf 10y ago
        > The proof is in the pudding. Exactly, and while Obama promised "no surveillance pudding" he actually went into the kitchen and made "massive metadata surveillance pudding".
thinkling 10y ago
It's easy to be principled when you're not calling the shots yet and not confronted with all the realities of the choice. I imagine once Obama was in office, he was told what had been accomplished so far using this kind of intelligence (terrorists killed, plots prevented, lives (allegedly) saved, etc) that the US would give up if the intelligence dried up. Who will chose to accept that attacks might happen on your watch as President when the tools to avoid them are already in hand?
- andy_ppp 10y ago
  Yes, but it's clearly illegal to search everyone under the constitution, so these sort of advances in counter terrorism should never have been allowed. Hard to argue with tracking everyone once it's happening without uproar, I imagine it's very very useful.

solotronics 10y ago

JFK.