4 ms·

A campaign promise Obama made was to revisit the PATRIOT Act and when it came up for renewal to implement better oversight for NSL's and sneak-and-peak warrants

by nikcub 13y ago

A campaign promise Obama made was to revisit the PATRIOT Act and when it came up for renewal to implement better oversight for NSL's and sneak-and-peak warrants. The Patriot Act was reauthorized in 2009 without a single modification, despite there being a bi-partizan bill on the floor of congress that looked to implement many more checks and balances, as Obama wanted. Here is what candidate Obama said in opposition to the FISA extension bill in 2008: > "I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty." Guess what he did when he became President .. He also said he would kill warrantless surveillance, but by extending the FISA Act. they changed the warrantless period from 48 hours to a week, at the same time banning states from requesting information and plugging a lot of other loopholes that legal challenges to FISA and warrantless wiretaps could have used in courts. Obama did a complete 180 on civil liberties (there were other issues as well - Gitmo, habeas corpus for enemy combatants, the coke/crack sentencing disparity, assassinating US citizens with drones etc.) and for some reason seems to enjoy the tough on crime/tough on terrorism stance.

mistermann 13y ago
I will continue to say: the President has no power. He is a figurehead to placate the citizenry, he takes his marching orders from higher powers (I don't claim to know who that might be). Call me a conspiracy theorist all you want, but look at the reality.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  The president has the power to use his veto when needed. That he may be pressured not to do so or not is irrelevant. On a personal basis, Obama is clearly taking part in all this and is an accomplice.
  - rosser 13y ago
    Great, so he's an accomplice. I don't think very many people actually dispute that. I certainly don't. So fucking what? What does identifying him as an accomplice to the surveillance actually do? Does it make the surveillance somehow magically stop? Does it delete all the data the NSA, CIA, FBI, and other TLAs have about you from their databases? Or does it just serve to stoke your righteous indignation over getting fooled by yet another politician? When can we stop bickering over whose goddamned fault it is and start, you know, fixing it?
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      How can you begin to approach a problem in a representative system if mentioning the names of problematic representatives is considered taboo?
      - ak39 13y ago
        He's not saying it's taboo to name drop. He's saying don't be so naive to play in the hands of a system designed to deflect from taking real action to fix the erosion of civil liberties.
        jlgreco 13y ago
        > "He's saying don't be so naive to play in the hands of a system designed to deflect from taking real action to fix the erosion of civil liberties." Conveniently, he is saying that every time somebody merely mentions a name.
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      You seem to be doing all of the bickering. Whenever anyone says that they're disappointed and/or angry at Obama for this, you respond by accusing people of being ignorant or lazy. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that not many Obama voters are disappointed in Bush for this, because they didn't think highly of Bush, and never voted for him. In fact, their landslide for Obama seemed primarily a response to policies just like this from his predecessor. Now, they see those confirmed escalated, rather than ended or even slowed. That's a threat to the entire idea of American democracy. So when are you going to stop bickering about who's fault it's not, and start fixing it?
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >The president has the power to use his veto when needed. That he may be pressured not to do so or not is irrelevant. It's not irrelevant at all. It's a real pragmatic issue. The president (all of them, I mean) has advisors, pressuring him to do this or that. He has lobbies going for some things. He can be blackmailed or exposed for some peripheral BS (think of Clinton). He has pressure from his party. He might be complicit and make a quick buck (thing of Halliburton and such). In the end, if he's too difficult to work with, he might even be shot (some presidents have. Was it all the work of "madmen"?). The fact is: the president is the president only after he is elected. And to get to that point, he is vetoed himself so much by the party, lobbyists etc, he has to pass so many "loyalty" tests, he is screened so well in order to get campaign funds and support, that nothing really unpredictable can come out of him against the whole system. Despite the BS "profile" articles, it's not like any random guy gets elected president. Even if he is a "Chicago community organiser", the above process makes sure he is the RIGHT "Chicago community organiser" -- a tame one, that will satisfy all requirements, and wont affect much change.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    A supermajority vote in Congress nullifies the veto; I'm not sure if any President has ever vetoed a bill following supermajority passage. As a practical matter, I don't think Obama can take on the Patriot act until after the war in Afghanistan is brought to a close and the AUMF terminated.
    - talmand 13y ago
      You know, it would be nice to have a President that would veto in the face of a supermajority vote when disagreeing with the law. Especially after publicly disagreeing with it. The reason being is that if the President disagrees with the law and Congress overrides his veto, then the President can state he has nothing to do with the potential negative outcome of the law. If Obama didn't like these laws then he should have manned up and told Congress to own their decision for themselves. I also seriously doubt the Patriot Act will ever go away without some form of major effort because too many people find it useful for their needs regardless of whether that need has anything to do with terrorism.
- sixQuarks 13y ago
  Do you think Ron Paul would have succumbed to the same thing?
  - ImprovedSilence 13y ago
    No, which is exactly why he is deemed "un-electable".
- gmoore 13y ago
  your a conspiracy theorist...
- snupples 13y ago
  It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. It's a simple fact that the President is the single most powerful individual in the nation. But given that fact, there are still thousands of power relationships that he has to deal with, so he can't just dictate things. Think of the example of a stock-holder with 5% of the stock -- doesn't sound like a lot, but he has the microphone, and the next most powerful person in the room has less than .05% of the stock.
ck2 13y ago
Go watch his speech from December 15th 2005 That Obama and this Obama are like alternate dark universes.
- flinty 13y ago
  It's like we are living in the darkest timeline and what we have is evil Abed

by nikcub 13y ago

mistermann 13y ago

I will continue to say: the President has no power. He is a figurehead to placate the citizenry, he takes his marching orders from higher powers (I don't claim to know who that might be). Call me a conspiracy theorist all you want, but look at the reality.

ekianjo 13y ago
The president has the power to use his veto when needed. That he may be pressured not to do so or not is irrelevant. On a personal basis, Obama is clearly taking part in all this and is an accomplice.
- rosser 13y ago
  Great, so he's an accomplice. I don't think very many people actually dispute that. I certainly don't. So fucking what? What does identifying him as an accomplice to the surveillance actually do? Does it make the surveillance somehow magically stop? Does it delete all the data the NSA, CIA, FBI, and other TLAs have about you from their databases? Or does it just serve to stoke your righteous indignation over getting fooled by yet another politician? When can we stop bickering over whose goddamned fault it is and start, you know, fixing it?
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    How can you begin to approach a problem in a representative system if mentioning the names of problematic representatives is considered taboo?
    - ak39 13y ago
      He's not saying it's taboo to name drop. He's saying don't be so naive to play in the hands of a system designed to deflect from taking real action to fix the erosion of civil liberties.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        > "He's saying don't be so naive to play in the hands of a system designed to deflect from taking real action to fix the erosion of civil liberties." Conveniently, he is saying that every time somebody merely mentions a name.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    You seem to be doing all of the bickering. Whenever anyone says that they're disappointed and/or angry at Obama for this, you respond by accusing people of being ignorant or lazy. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that not many Obama voters are disappointed in Bush for this, because they didn't think highly of Bush, and never voted for him. In fact, their landslide for Obama seemed primarily a response to policies just like this from his predecessor. Now, they see those confirmed escalated, rather than ended or even slowed. That's a threat to the entire idea of American democracy. So when are you going to stop bickering about who's fault it's not, and start fixing it?
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- coldtea 13y ago
  >The president has the power to use his veto when needed. That he may be pressured not to do so or not is irrelevant. It's not irrelevant at all. It's a real pragmatic issue. The president (all of them, I mean) has advisors, pressuring him to do this or that. He has lobbies going for some things. He can be blackmailed or exposed for some peripheral BS (think of Clinton). He has pressure from his party. He might be complicit and make a quick buck (thing of Halliburton and such). In the end, if he's too difficult to work with, he might even be shot (some presidents have. Was it all the work of "madmen"?). The fact is: the president is the president only after he is elected. And to get to that point, he is vetoed himself so much by the party, lobbyists etc, he has to pass so many "loyalty" tests, he is screened so well in order to get campaign funds and support, that nothing really unpredictable can come out of him against the whole system. Despite the BS "profile" articles, it's not like any random guy gets elected president. Even if he is a "Chicago community organiser", the above process makes sure he is the RIGHT "Chicago community organiser" -- a tame one, that will satisfy all requirements, and wont affect much change.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  A supermajority vote in Congress nullifies the veto; I'm not sure if any President has ever vetoed a bill following supermajority passage. As a practical matter, I don't think Obama can take on the Patriot act until after the war in Afghanistan is brought to a close and the AUMF terminated.
  - talmand 13y ago
    You know, it would be nice to have a President that would veto in the face of a supermajority vote when disagreeing with the law. Especially after publicly disagreeing with it. The reason being is that if the President disagrees with the law and Congress overrides his veto, then the President can state he has nothing to do with the potential negative outcome of the law. If Obama didn't like these laws then he should have manned up and told Congress to own their decision for themselves. I also seriously doubt the Patriot Act will ever go away without some form of major effort because too many people find it useful for their needs regardless of whether that need has anything to do with terrorism.
sixQuarks 13y ago
Do you think Ron Paul would have succumbed to the same thing?
- ImprovedSilence 13y ago
  No, which is exactly why he is deemed "un-electable".
gmoore 13y ago
your a conspiracy theorist...
snupples 13y ago
It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. It's a simple fact that the President is the single most powerful individual in the nation. But given that fact, there are still thousands of power relationships that he has to deal with, so he can't just dictate things. Think of the example of a stock-holder with 5% of the stock -- doesn't sound like a lot, but he has the microphone, and the next most powerful person in the room has less than .05% of the stock.

ck2 13y ago

Go watch his speech from December 15th 2005 That Obama and this Obama are like alternate dark universes.

flinty 13y ago
It's like we are living in the darkest timeline and what we have is evil Abed