7 ms·

Newly Declassified Documents Show How the Surveillance State was Born

178 points by tokenadult 13y ago

taproot 13y ago
Racist fuck. Oh I can't make baseless claims on the internet? What's your excuse? Look I don't really like how Obama has handles anything but laying the blame on him is pretty fucking retarded when these programs have been in the works for decades.
- kyro 13y ago
  The New Republic's owner and Editor-in-Chief is Chris Hughes, Facebook founder who coordinated Obama's online campaign for presidency, so I'd reassess your read of whatever racism you're seeing.
  - taproot 13y ago
    There wasn't any. Did you not read my post? I was trying to point out that you can't just make baseless claims like that.
    - mcherm 13y ago
      I did read your post. Perhaps you need to step back and consider carefully what techniques for communicating are most effective, given the reactions to your post by many in the intended audience.
- vellum 13y ago
  The article doesn't make that claim: In expanding the surveillance state and the White House’s wartime authorities, Obama has continued a grand and unfortunate presidential tradition—fresh details of which have quietly come to light.
  - taproot 13y ago
    Of course, none of that happened. Although President Obama could have reined in the surveillance state, as we all know, he did not. On the NSA, Obama has made the opposite calculation. Seems like it does to me.
    - sp332 13y ago
      In the part you quoted, it's clear that Obama didn't start the surveillance state. He just didn't "rein it in".
      - taproot 13y ago
        Whhat does that have to do with my post or the article?
        sp332 13y ago
        You said "laying the blame on him is pretty fucking retarded", but no one is laying the blame on him.
- sillysaurus2 13y ago
  So I've got to ask... What part of the article did you feel was racist?
  - fixxer 13y ago
    "You disagree with Obama on issue <XYZ>? Must be your inherent racism..." I'd love it if I hadn't actually met people (plural) who believe such things...
  - taproot 13y ago
    None of it... I think you missed the part about baseless claims I was getting at.
    - Kudos 13y ago
      Looks like it backfired.
MattyRad 13y ago
>When President Obama changed course and decided not to press forward unilaterally on planned strikes against Bashar Al Assad’s regime, he was effectively heeding that constitutional catechism. Congress and the public had signaled their opposition to military action, and Obama responded by acknowledging the need for congressional support. After decades of presidents ordering foreign interventions without consulting the House and Senate, his move represented a dramatic and welcome reversal It is disingenuous to claim that Obama is "bold" for not proceeding with a ridiculously ineffective plan opposed by the overwhelming majority of all Americans, up to and including his own wife, especially after Obama persisted in pushing it despite all that opposition. Further, is the author forgetting Libya? Obama didn't wait for congressional support then. Claiming Obama is heeding or has heeded a "constitutional catechism" is absurd.
- knowaveragejoe 13y ago
  Obama didn't have to wait for congress in the case of Libya, he already had their support.
  - dantheman 13y ago
    Congress never authorized anything regarding libya.
    - knowaveragejoe 13y ago
      They may never have authorized anything as would be necessary for a more escalated conflict, but they certainly supported intervention: > 1 March 2011: The US Senate unanimously passes non-binding Senate resolution S.RES.85 urging the United Nations Security Council to impose a Libyan no-fly zone and encouraging Gaddafi to step down. The US had naval forces positioned off the coast of Libya, as well as forces already in the region, including the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise.
- acjohnson55 13y ago
  To me, the situation appears to have been carefully constructed to have avoided any realistic probability of warfare against Syria.
tokenadult 13y ago
This article is about a collection of previously classified documents spanning most of the twentieth century about advice to various United States presidents on secret surveillance programs in the interest of national security. The article was a more interesting read than I expected when I first saw it on my Google News page. President Franklin Roosevelt was advised to violate a specific Supreme Court holding about intercepting telegraph communications with persons outside the United States.[1] The history, across multiple administrations, has often been a history of security concerns trumping individual liberty concerns. But on the whole the history is also hopeful. A key idea from the article that really connects to me is "just as the book shows how that apparatus has been built up, it also tells a second story: of how public outrage, loud and sustained, can tear it back down." Countries have been in danger from external enemies before, and countries have been in danger from their own leaders and complacent citizens before. When the people mobilize, they can still rein in the government. [1] From the article: "In his opinion, Assistant Solicitor General Charles Fahy had little hesitation about validating the president’s authority to intercept electronic communications to parties abroad. There was just one problem: The Supreme Court had explicitly held that the Communications Act barred such a move."
- erikpukinskis 13y ago
  I believe it said Roosevelt was advised against the wiretapping but went ahead with it anyway.
  - edmccard 13y ago
    > I believe it said Roosevelt was advised against the wiretapping but went ahead with it anyway. That case (wiretapping, advice against from Attorney General Robert Jackson) is different from the one tokenadult is referring to (intercepting telegrams, advice in favor from Assistant Solicitor General Charles Fahy).
- pvnick 13y ago
  On the mobilization front, this rally is aiming to be a large display of support for reforming the surveillance apparatus: http://rally.stopwatching.us http://rally.stopwatching.us
drakaal 13y ago
>When President Obama changed course and decided not to press forward unilaterally on planned strikes against Bashar Al Assad’s regime, he was effectively heeding that constitutional catechism. Congress and the public had signaled their opposition to military action, and Obama responded by acknowledging the need for congressional support. After decades of presidents ordering foreign interventions without consulting the House and Senate, his move represented a dramatic and welcome reversal This wasn't about the constitution it was about making sure the blame was well spread around for any actions taken. When you are entering a war that will last past the end of your term it is good for you and the party. People don't like change during war so unless you really screw up you and your party are safe for that election. If you start a war that is unpopular and you can't extend it past the end of your term then you and your party won't win the next round. I'm pretty party agnostic, and there are things I both like about Obama and things I very much dislike. But he is a good at playing crowds and making decisions based on polling. That's what was done here.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

178 points by tokenadult 13y ago

Racist fuck. Oh I can't make baseless claims on the internet? What's your excuse? Look I don't really like how Obama has handles anything but laying the blame on him is pretty fucking retarded when these programs have been in the works for decades.

kyro 13y ago
The New Republic's owner and Editor-in-Chief is Chris Hughes, Facebook founder who coordinated Obama's online campaign for presidency, so I'd reassess your read of whatever racism you're seeing.
- taproot 13y ago
  There wasn't any. Did you not read my post? I was trying to point out that you can't just make baseless claims like that.
  - mcherm 13y ago
    I did read your post. Perhaps you need to step back and consider carefully what techniques for communicating are most effective, given the reactions to your post by many in the intended audience.
vellum 13y ago
The article doesn't make that claim: In expanding the surveillance state and the White House’s wartime authorities, Obama has continued a grand and unfortunate presidential tradition—fresh details of which have quietly come to light.
- taproot 13y ago
  Of course, none of that happened. Although President Obama could have reined in the surveillance state, as we all know, he did not. On the NSA, Obama has made the opposite calculation. Seems like it does to me.
  - sp332 13y ago
    In the part you quoted, it's clear that Obama didn't start the surveillance state. He just didn't "rein it in".
    - taproot 13y ago
      Whhat does that have to do with my post or the article?
      - sp332 13y ago
        You said "laying the blame on him is pretty fucking retarded", but no one is laying the blame on him.
sillysaurus2 13y ago
So I've got to ask... What part of the article did you feel was racist?
- fixxer 13y ago
  "You disagree with Obama on issue <XYZ>? Must be your inherent racism..." I'd love it if I hadn't actually met people (plural) who believe such things...
- taproot 13y ago
  None of it... I think you missed the part about baseless claims I was getting at.
  - Kudos 13y ago
    Looks like it backfired.

MattyRad 13y ago

>When President Obama changed course and decided not to press forward unilaterally on planned strikes against Bashar Al Assad’s regime, he was effectively heeding that constitutional catechism. Congress and the public had signaled their opposition to military action, and Obama responded by acknowledging the need for congressional support. After decades of presidents ordering foreign interventions without consulting the House and Senate, his move represented a dramatic and welcome reversal It is disingenuous to claim that Obama is "bold" for not proceeding with a ridiculously ineffective plan opposed by the overwhelming majority of all Americans, up to and including his own wife, especially after Obama persisted in pushing it despite all that opposition. Further, is the author forgetting Libya? Obama didn't wait for congressional support then. Claiming Obama is heeding or has heeded a "constitutional catechism" is absurd.

knowaveragejoe 13y ago
Obama didn't have to wait for congress in the case of Libya, he already had their support.
- dantheman 13y ago
  Congress never authorized anything regarding libya.
  - knowaveragejoe 13y ago
    They may never have authorized anything as would be necessary for a more escalated conflict, but they certainly supported intervention: > 1 March 2011: The US Senate unanimously passes non-binding Senate resolution S.RES.85 urging the United Nations Security Council to impose a Libyan no-fly zone and encouraging Gaddafi to step down. The US had naval forces positioned off the coast of Libya, as well as forces already in the region, including the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise.
acjohnson55 13y ago
To me, the situation appears to have been carefully constructed to have avoided any realistic probability of warfare against Syria.

tokenadult 13y ago

This article is about a collection of previously classified documents spanning most of the twentieth century about advice to various United States presidents on secret surveillance programs in the interest of national security. The article was a more interesting read than I expected when I first saw it on my Google News page. President Franklin Roosevelt was advised to violate a specific Supreme Court holding about intercepting telegraph communications with persons outside the United States.[1] The history, across multiple administrations, has often been a history of security concerns trumping individual liberty concerns. But on the whole the history is also hopeful. A key idea from the article that really connects to me is "just as the book shows how that apparatus has been built up, it also tells a second story: of how public outrage, loud and sustained, can tear it back down." Countries have been in danger from external enemies before, and countries have been in danger from their own leaders and complacent citizens before. When the people mobilize, they can still rein in the government. [1] From the article: "In his opinion, Assistant Solicitor General Charles Fahy had little hesitation about validating the president’s authority to intercept electronic communications to parties abroad. There was just one problem: The Supreme Court had explicitly held that the Communications Act barred such a move."

erikpukinskis 13y ago
I believe it said Roosevelt was advised against the wiretapping but went ahead with it anyway.
- edmccard 13y ago
  > I believe it said Roosevelt was advised against the wiretapping but went ahead with it anyway. That case (wiretapping, advice against from Attorney General Robert Jackson) is different from the one tokenadult is referring to (intercepting telegrams, advice in favor from Assistant Solicitor General Charles Fahy).
pvnick 13y ago
On the mobilization front, this rally is aiming to be a large display of support for reforming the surveillance apparatus: http://rally.stopwatching.us http://rally.stopwatching.us

drakaal 13y ago

>When President Obama changed course and decided not to press forward unilaterally on planned strikes against Bashar Al Assad’s regime, he was effectively heeding that constitutional catechism. Congress and the public had signaled their opposition to military action, and Obama responded by acknowledging the need for congressional support. After decades of presidents ordering foreign interventions without consulting the House and Senate, his move represented a dramatic and welcome reversal This wasn't about the constitution it was about making sure the blame was well spread around for any actions taken. When you are entering a war that will last past the end of your term it is good for you and the party. People don't like change during war so unless you really screw up you and your party are safe for that election. If you start a war that is unpopular and you can't extend it past the end of your term then you and your party won't win the next round. I'm pretty party agnostic, and there are things I both like about Obama and things I very much dislike. But he is a good at playing crowds and making decisions based on polling. That's what was done here.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]