5 ms·

Many of the comments here are complaining about the partisanship of this request. I think such complaints are shortsighted. Yes, it's annoying that the represe

by elwin 13y ago

Many of the comments here are complaining about the partisanship of this request. I think such complaints are shortsighted. Yes, it's annoying that the representative is trying to make the administration look bad and further his own party. But political embarrassment and partisan show victories are exactly what motivates politicians to do things. These partisan actions are the kind of actions the Obama administration will notice. Or he could remain neutral and abstract and introduce a hastily written bill that purports to solve the problem, like Rand Paul. And nothing will happen. The partisan political system responds to partisan political incentives. To see many interesting examples, try studying the period leading up to the American Civil War.

resu_nimda 13y ago
There are a lot of idealists here. They know that's how the system works. They're not complaining because they think this partisanship will be ineffective, they're complaining because it's depressing and inhibits meaningful social progress. Even though in this particular instance the partisanship is aligned with (y)our goals, it's rather frustrating to know that this guy doesn't actually give a shit about the matter like we do, he just wants to score points in this BS game.
- bhb916 13y ago
  "...it's rather frustrating to know that this guy doesn't actually give a shit about the matter like we do, he just wants to score points in this BS game." Wait. How do you know that? Isn't it possible and actually likely that he gives a shit AND wants to score political points? After all, what good is supporting a cause if you don't use it to score political points?
  - obviouslygreen 13y ago
    Isn't it possible and actually likely that he gives a shit AND wants to score political points? Possible? Absolutely. Likely? That's impossible to know without knowing him and his motivations, and I would not call it a reasonable assumption given the generally self-serving state of US politicians (most others as well, but in this case they're the most relevant).
    - iamdave 13y ago
      Metaphorically speaking, it sounds like you're convicting the guy without even giving him a trial. The political system is by-and-large a big bowl of FUBAR, but I'd rather see a politician give the other side a dose of their own medicine when something as clandestine as this Datagate (Yes I used the -gate postfix, sue me) scandal happens. Especially given one critical notion very few people seem to be talking about: Why are phone records made by the citizenry deemed worthy of being 'classified' unless the government has some sort of interest other than fighting terrorism that would prevent them from disclosing on their own what they do on our behalf or even the results? If this is so critical to fighting terrorism, show me what you've thwarted. Oh wait, that's classified too. Seeing the trend/problem here? I'm absolutely fine with what this Congressman did.
    - inportb 13y ago
      Let me introduce some circularity: if he personally cared about the issue, then it might be self-serving of him to request the subpoena. But why would he give a shit? Perhaps he's one of the Americans (a rather interesting one, to boot) with something to hide.
  - _delirium 13y ago
    Well, I live in his district, and while that doesn't give me a perfect insight into his motivations, I would be pretty surprised if has undergone a conversion from hardcore conservative to civil-liberties advocate. Opportunistic partisan point-scoring would be a lot more consistent with past behavior: antagonizing "liberals" (always pronounced in a sneering way) is probably one of his top-3 political positions, along with supporting guns and opposing immigration. I would, however, welcome it if this is signalling that he's going to take a more cautious line on police powers going forward, and drop some of his more over-the-top proposals for how to fight illegal immigration. Here's a taste of his usual style: https://twitter.com/SteveWorks4You https://twitter.com/SteveWorks4You
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      There go some more IQ points. This is a shining example of why I don't use Twitter.
  - balabaster 13y ago
    The point is that many people don't have the political clout to use the Whitehouse/NSA's own arguments against them. This guy does - who cares what he's using it for if it achieves what each of you would dearly love to do yourself. ... the enemy of your enemy ...
jeremyjh 13y ago
I agree. Its really short-sighted to dismiss it as partisan. The partisanship can be considered a lever to get his own party on-board with this. He seems to be intentionally and graphically demonstrating the risks of this sort of surveillance.
- davesque 13y ago
  It's not short-sighted at all. The man is an extremist. It only takes a little bit of investigation to see that. He is not interested in the issue at hand. He only cares as far as he can use it to make his enemies look bad. Honestly, I cannot believe the number of comments I am seeing here that ignore this fact, as though anyone who agrees with the notion that the NSA programs are bad should be trusted.
Steko 13y ago
So prosecutorial/investigator overreach is ok, as long as it's not against hackers, got it. The NSA looking at your phone logs is a huge illegal fishing expedition but fishing expeditions are ok when done to trump up charges to impeach the president. Got it.
- detst 13y ago
  It's not as if the president is an uninterested party. He very much supports the NSA, is in a position of power on the matter and if he's got nothing to hide then he has nothing to worry about, right?
- elwin 13y ago
  No, I don't think the request is a brilliant idea, and I hope the investigation doesn't ask for the records of anyone's private phone numbers without some more justification. My point was that instead of dismissing it as partisan nonsense, we should see it as a skillful tactic that might accomplish something.
- woah 13y ago
  You seem to be missing the blatantly obvious fact that the president himself authorized this program, and as such, is one of the only people who deserves to be snooped on under it (in contrast to a member of the public who was kept in the dark about it).
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- marshray 13y ago
  Yes, transparency for the government, privacy for the individual. I'm fully in support of phone call data between government offices and high-level government officials being available for review by Congress.
davesque 13y ago
As _delirium pointed out, just look at the Twitter feed: https://twitter.com/SteveWorks4You https://twitter.com/SteveWorks4You It's pretty obvious where this guy stands. Here's one of my favorites: "House told us to secure windows because of flash floods. On the third floor. On a Hill. Same government claims it can predict climate change" We don't need people like this chiming in on this issue.
- recursive 13y ago
  How is your favorite example even relevant? I'm not seeing the connection.
  - davesque 13y ago
    Sorry, I probably should have explained a bit. My point was that he's willing to hold an irrational view for the sake of his politics. I don't think people like that have anything important to say about issues like the NSA programs.
  - davesque 13y ago
    Here are some articles covering one of the most controversial bombs he has thrown during his career, accusing the government of conspiring to kill the followers of David Koresh in Waco, Texas on account of their gun ownership. I couldn't find the original article in question, which appeared in Guns and Ammo magazine. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Texas-Lawmaker-Says-Waco-Was-a-Setup-GOP-3033544.php http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Texas-Lawmaker-Says-Waco-... http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=19950513&id=gyhSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DzYNAAAAIBAJ&pg=1031,3718458 http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=19950513&id=gy... It only takes a little bit of research to see that the man is an extremist with a very consistent record of partisan-centered politics.

by elwin 13y ago

resu_nimda 13y ago

There are a lot of idealists here. They know that's how the system works. They're not complaining because they think this partisanship will be ineffective, they're complaining because it's depressing and inhibits meaningful social progress. Even though in this particular instance the partisanship is aligned with (y)our goals, it's rather frustrating to know that this guy doesn't actually give a shit about the matter like we do, he just wants to score points in this BS game.

bhb916 13y ago
"...it's rather frustrating to know that this guy doesn't actually give a shit about the matter like we do, he just wants to score points in this BS game." Wait. How do you know that? Isn't it possible and actually likely that he gives a shit AND wants to score political points? After all, what good is supporting a cause if you don't use it to score political points?
- obviouslygreen 13y ago
  Isn't it possible and actually likely that he gives a shit AND wants to score political points? Possible? Absolutely. Likely? That's impossible to know without knowing him and his motivations, and I would not call it a reasonable assumption given the generally self-serving state of US politicians (most others as well, but in this case they're the most relevant).
  - iamdave 13y ago
    Metaphorically speaking, it sounds like you're convicting the guy without even giving him a trial. The political system is by-and-large a big bowl of FUBAR, but I'd rather see a politician give the other side a dose of their own medicine when something as clandestine as this Datagate (Yes I used the -gate postfix, sue me) scandal happens. Especially given one critical notion very few people seem to be talking about: Why are phone records made by the citizenry deemed worthy of being 'classified' unless the government has some sort of interest other than fighting terrorism that would prevent them from disclosing on their own what they do on our behalf or even the results? If this is so critical to fighting terrorism, show me what you've thwarted. Oh wait, that's classified too. Seeing the trend/problem here? I'm absolutely fine with what this Congressman did.
  - inportb 13y ago
    Let me introduce some circularity: if he personally cared about the issue, then it might be self-serving of him to request the subpoena. But why would he give a shit? Perhaps he's one of the Americans (a rather interesting one, to boot) with something to hide.
- _delirium 13y ago
  Well, I live in his district, and while that doesn't give me a perfect insight into his motivations, I would be pretty surprised if has undergone a conversion from hardcore conservative to civil-liberties advocate. Opportunistic partisan point-scoring would be a lot more consistent with past behavior: antagonizing "liberals" (always pronounced in a sneering way) is probably one of his top-3 political positions, along with supporting guns and opposing immigration. I would, however, welcome it if this is signalling that he's going to take a more cautious line on police powers going forward, and drop some of his more over-the-top proposals for how to fight illegal immigration. Here's a taste of his usual style: https://twitter.com/SteveWorks4You https://twitter.com/SteveWorks4You
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    There go some more IQ points. This is a shining example of why I don't use Twitter.
- balabaster 13y ago
  The point is that many people don't have the political clout to use the Whitehouse/NSA's own arguments against them. This guy does - who cares what he's using it for if it achieves what each of you would dearly love to do yourself. ... the enemy of your enemy ...

jeremyjh 13y ago

I agree. Its really short-sighted to dismiss it as partisan. The partisanship can be considered a lever to get his own party on-board with this. He seems to be intentionally and graphically demonstrating the risks of this sort of surveillance.

davesque 13y ago
It's not short-sighted at all. The man is an extremist. It only takes a little bit of investigation to see that. He is not interested in the issue at hand. He only cares as far as he can use it to make his enemies look bad. Honestly, I cannot believe the number of comments I am seeing here that ignore this fact, as though anyone who agrees with the notion that the NSA programs are bad should be trusted.

Steko 13y ago

So prosecutorial/investigator overreach is ok, as long as it's not against hackers, got it. The NSA looking at your phone logs is a huge illegal fishing expedition but fishing expeditions are ok when done to trump up charges to impeach the president. Got it.

detst 13y ago
It's not as if the president is an uninterested party. He very much supports the NSA, is in a position of power on the matter and if he's got nothing to hide then he has nothing to worry about, right?
elwin 13y ago
No, I don't think the request is a brilliant idea, and I hope the investigation doesn't ask for the records of anyone's private phone numbers without some more justification. My point was that instead of dismissing it as partisan nonsense, we should see it as a skillful tactic that might accomplish something.
woah 13y ago
You seem to be missing the blatantly obvious fact that the president himself authorized this program, and as such, is one of the only people who deserves to be snooped on under it (in contrast to a member of the public who was kept in the dark about it).
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
marshray 13y ago
Yes, transparency for the government, privacy for the individual. I'm fully in support of phone call data between government offices and high-level government officials being available for review by Congress.

davesque 13y ago

As _delirium pointed out, just look at the Twitter feed: https://twitter.com/SteveWorks4You https://twitter.com/SteveWorks4You It's pretty obvious where this guy stands. Here's one of my favorites: "House told us to secure windows because of flash floods. On the third floor. On a Hill. Same government claims it can predict climate change" We don't need people like this chiming in on this issue.

recursive 13y ago
How is your favorite example even relevant? I'm not seeing the connection.
- davesque 13y ago
  Sorry, I probably should have explained a bit. My point was that he's willing to hold an irrational view for the sake of his politics. I don't think people like that have anything important to say about issues like the NSA programs.
- davesque 13y ago
  Here are some articles covering one of the most controversial bombs he has thrown during his career, accusing the government of conspiring to kill the followers of David Koresh in Waco, Texas on account of their gun ownership. I couldn't find the original article in question, which appeared in Guns and Ammo magazine. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Texas-Lawmaker-Says-Waco-Was-a-Setup-GOP-3033544.php http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Texas-Lawmaker-Says-Waco-... http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=19950513&id=gyhSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DzYNAAAAIBAJ&pg=1031,3718458 http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=19950513&id=gy... It only takes a little bit of research to see that the man is an extremist with a very consistent record of partisan-centered politics.