Following Bush lead, Obama moves to block challenge to wiretapping program

[PokerPacker]

Of course, you say this knowing exactly what is at stake, right?

Or do you not trust the wisdom and credibility of our President?

:rotflmao:

[Larry]

Or do you not trust the wisdom and credibility of our President?

Trust, but verify.

[Prosperity]

I trust the President more than the previous one, and objectify he is a very credibly politician, as such I think I'll let him handle the national security matters as long as it is clear that due process is upheld, and torture is stopped.

[Special K]

This policy is fine with me and I am happy to see Obama upholding this. Good for him.

[Larry]

And yet, it has been pointed out that once the government is granted a power, that power is never relinquished.

As evidence of that theory, I present . . .

[zoony]

Trust, but verify.

There are better ways to verify than handing over documents pertaining to our National Security to any action group who demands to see them.

....

[Larry]

There are better ways to verify than handing over documents pertaining to our National Security to any action group who demands to see them.

....

There are better arguments to use than straw men.

The government isn't claiming the right to not hand over documents to the Communist party. They're claiming the right to not hand over documents to the Judicial Branch.

They are further claiming that no person has the authority to sue them, because no person can prove that they were abused, while simultaneously claiming the right to refuse to reveal who was abused.

[Larry]

This policy is fine with me and I am happy to see Obama upholding this. Good for him.

Just out of curiosity, what policy?

The government is claiming that you aren't allowed to know what the policy is. (Nor is anyone else.)

How do you approve a policy when you don't know what it is?

(BTW, please, anybody, feel free to answer this.)

[zoony]

There are better arguments to use than straw men.

The government isn't claiming the right to not hand over documents to the Communist party. They're claiming the right to not hand over documents to the Judicial Branch.

No straw man here.

And if the Judicial Branch decides the documents are relevant to the outcome of the case?

[Larry]

No straw man here.

You could have fooled me.

The administration is claiming the right to refuse to turn over evidence to the Judicial Branch.

They're not claiming that the plaintiff doesn't have jurisdiction. They're claiming that the court doesn't.

Your response is to trot out "any action group who demands them".

Where did he come into the picture?

And if the Judicial Branch decides the documents are relevant to the outcome of the case?

So, your assertion is that the Executive Branch is justified in concealing evidence from the Judicial, because the Judicial might rule against the Executive?

[zoony]

So, your assertion is that the Executive Branch is justified in concealing evidence from the Judicial, because the Judicial might rule against the Executive?

In matters of National Security, yes. Thankfully we have elected officials who are accountable to the people making these decisions.

...

[SparkleMotion]

Illegal when Bush did it. Illegal when Obama does it.

Just because you have a good feeling about the guy in charge now has nothing to do with the legality of the policy we're talking about.

In light of that MIAC report that characterized third party, strict constitutionalists as members of far right militias, how long will it be until saying a certain political party or figure's name triggers the recording device.

[LaxBuddy21]

Of course, you say this knowing exactly what is at stake, right?

Or do you not trust the wisdom and credibility of our President?

Now you have just created a liberal conundrum. Liberals (on the whole) did not trust the wisdom and credibility of the last president but the current president is doing many of the same things (with regards to national security especially. Either the last president actually knew what he was doing or the current president doesnt know what he is doing.

I personally think Obama is being smart with his security policies and am glad to see his is doing what he is doing but I think its a slap in the face to everyone who voted for him because he was so different and things were going to change. I don't see a whole lot of change so far but to me that is a good thing.

[Larry]

Illegal when Bush did it. Illegal when Obama does it.

Just because you have a good feeling about the guy in charge now has nothing to do with the legality of the policy we're talking about.

In light of that MIAC report that characterized third party, strict constitutionalists as members of far right militias, how long will it be until saying a certain political party or figure's name triggers the recording device.

Something suspicious about them Quakers. I hear they're opposed to The War.

[SparkleMotion]

Just out of curiosity, what policy?

The government is claiming that you aren't allowed to know what the policy is. (Nor is anyone else.)

How do you approve a policy when you don't know what it is?

(BTW, please, anybody, feel free to answer this.)

The "policy" to me means the blanket ability to wiretap as you see fit and not be held accountable, more so than the specific details about to whom, why, and how the wiretapping is being done.

[81artmonk]

At least Obama is smart enough to understand what's going on here. I applaud him for it.

Even if there were items that needed attention, he cannot release them. If only a small amount of sensitive material is held in them, it wouldn't be prudent.

[GibbsFactor]

Well hell. If Obama supports it, I might have to change my whole opinion of the PATRIOT Act.

Nope... it still sucks! It needs to end soon, I don't think we are going to like these surveillance acts sticking around forever.

[Special K]

Just out of curiosity, what policy?

Wiretapping and monitoring of suspicious individuals as it relates to our national security.

There are some things that I am willing to give the government a little more leeway with: national security is one of them.

[Hubbs]

Of course, you say this knowing exactly what is at stake, right?

Or do you not trust the wisdom and credibility of our President?

"What's at stake" is exactly why this is bad news.

[SparkleMotion]

Wiretapping and monitoring of suspicious individuals as it relates to our national security.

There are some things that I am willing to give the government a little more leeway with: national security is one of them.

Even when you have no idea what it takes for the government to classify you as a suspicious individual?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Wiretapping and monitoring of suspicious individuals as it relates to our national security.

There are some things that I am willing to give the government a little more leeway with: national security is one of them.

How can you verify that that is what the program is doing: "monitoring suspicious individuals." There is no one to even check that that's what the program is for.

[deejaydana]

-1 for rhetoric.

I will say that it will be hard for the Democrat Congress to prosecute Cheney/Rove/Bush on this stuff if current administration continues a bulk of the policy.

The Dems were NEVER going to prosecute Cheney/Rove/Bush. Never. I don't know why people bought into that empty campaign boast/threat in the first place.

With that said, I don't have a problem w/Obama extending what Bush was doing.

[redskins0756]

Just think how many terrorists Jack Bauer captured with this technology

[Gunny Highway]

OH MY GAWWWWWWD!

My 4th Amendment rights!

My 1st Amendment rights!

The Patriot Act!

Brown Shirts!

Evil Bush/Hitler

Oh wait.......

[Larry]

Wiretapping and monitoring of suspicious individuals as it relates to our national security.

There are some things that I am willing to give the government a little more leeway with: national security is one of them.

Suspicious according to whom?

When I read that the FBI wiretapped Tony Sopranno, I don't get concerned, because I know that before they did it, they went to an impartial person, who was vested with authority based (supposedly) on his integrity, and then selected from a pool by a random process, and that person looked at the evidence presented, and concluded that yes, there was a good enough reason to justify invading the privacy of this, particular, individual, in this particular case.

And the decision, and the evidence that went into making that decision, are available for later review, by people whose agenda is to prevent this system from being used without sufficient reason.

What I see here is well, somebody, who we will not identify, based on reasons we will not reveal, decided to monitor a number of people (and we won't even identify the approximate number), and we claim that no one, anywhere, ever, has any authority to argue against the decision, or to even find out if there's a reason to argue with it, because, well, we claim that we had good motives.

I'll even point out that part of this program was, supposedly, the collection of all of the phone records of all of the conversations of all of the people in the US.

What the government, as near as I can tell, is arguing for is a change from a system in which the procedure is:

A crime is committed.

A suspect is established.

Evidence against the suspect is collected.

That evidence is submitted to an impartial party.

The impartial party rules that there is probable cause to suspect the suspect, and authorizes closer scruitny.

The closer scrutiny begins.

To one of

The Executive conducts surveillance against

everybody

.

The Executive uses the results of that surveillance to decide who to subject to the next level of surveillance.

The Executive applies the next level of surveillance.

The Executive claims that at no point is it

ever

necessary to present it's case for surveillance to

anybody

who isn't in the prosecutor's office.

Please, tell us. (I've decided I'm royalty, now. )

If this claim of power stands, what, exactly, does the Fourth Amendment prohibit?