It Takes Jon Stewart To Finally Ask Obama About Civil Liberties... But Lets Him Off The Hook On Bogus Answer
from the sad dept
In the various Presidential debates, no one seems to want to bring up President Obama's near complete about-face on his promises concerning civil liberties. It's so ridiculous that the Democratic party simply removed the issue from their platform -- and that's because he hasn't just continued former President Bush's abuses of civil liberties, he's gone even further with them. And no one seems to want to ask the candidates about it... except a comedian. When President Obama appeared on The Daily Show recently, Jon Stewart actually asked him about this:However, as the EFF explains in great detail, President Obama's answer is simply not true. It's not even close to true.STEWART: I think people have been surprised to see the strength of the Bush era warrantless wiretapping laws and those types of things not also be lessened—That the structures he put in place that people might have thought were government overreach and maybe they had a mind you would tone down, you haven’t.
OBAMA: The truth is we have modified them and built a legal structure and safeguards in place that weren’t there before on a whole range issues.
To the contrary, there’s no indication that the still-active warrantless wiretapping program—which includes a warrantless dragnet on millions of innocent Americans’ communications—has significantly changed from the day Obama took office. With regard to the FISA Amendments Act, the Obama Administration has actively opposed all proposed safeguards in Congress. All the while, his Administration has been even more aggressive than President Bush in trying to prevent warrantless wiretapping victims from having their day in court and has continued building the massive national security infrastructure needed to support it.They then go on to look more closely at all of these different promises from President Obama related to this, all of which he's fallen down on. Unfortunately, Stewart doesn't push back on this point, as they then go straight to a joke, before moving on to another topic. Of course, for those of us who aren't shackled to a party and, instead, find civil liberties to be a key issue, we're left with two major candidates who don't seem to care about massive abuses by the federal government.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: barack obama, civil liberties, jon stewart, warrantless wiretapping
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Lies lies and more lies.
Racists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
His interview with Obama was disappointing to say the least, but the fact that nobody else asks about these issues is even more disappointing.
And from Obama's perspective, there just aren't enough people that care to make an issue out of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
On a daily basis they are stressing about their job, health, the hole in their roof, debt, kids, the environment, etc.
How can we expect them to make a stink that may jeopardize their job or security, when they might not even be educated enough to fully comprehend the issue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm a big proponent of the Being Loudly Wrong method of crowdsourcing the perfecting of arguments. It's not like there aren't plenty of people who're quite happy to tell you how you're wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think most people care a lot, they just aren't aware of the issue at all, largely because the media doesn't care and so it doesn't get widely covered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I care, and therefore Obama doesn't get my vote this time.
NC is very close, although is highly likely to go to Romney, and Obama doesn't need it to win anyway. Too bad I don't live in Ohio, where either candidate would do almost anything for a few more votes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I have yet to see one dress up like a chicken and dance the Macarena.
They'd get my vote in a heartbeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(Hate to the grammar nazi, but it's in the title.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No? Or do you just hate the grammer Nazi above? ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
terrirists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
TERRORISTS!! TERRORISTS!!!
That's why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
MOTHERFUCKING EAGLES ! ! !
is why, bitchez...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But. . . but. . . TERRORISM!
Couldn't resist the softball.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It might help identify the dead after a successful attack!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This wireless tapping is a huge problem for me because the sight of my Cthulhu love tentacle during the Men's Wearhouse annual naked twister party causes most people to recite the ramblings of the Mad Arab Abdul Alhazred, but in a higher octave, and we know what the government thinks of Arabs.
My first solution would be to clean out Obama's ears with my writhing flesh snake, but unfortunately that would kill him. I guarantee it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"my Cthulhu love tentacle" Hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I've got first words to burn...done!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Funny...First word is gone, but it doesn't appear to have been made the first word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
so they will always always always, pick a safe bet on who wont challenge them and if possible someone who knows how to ask questions that make them look good like "so how did u find bin laden?" "how much worse would the ression be w/o those bailouts?" "just how much do u hate terrorism?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If he actually asked hard questions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where the power lies
And let's not forget what happened to the last President who acted decisively against the wishes of one of the agencies. No other president has taken that chance for fifty years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where the power lies
Iraq for sale... see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where the power lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where the power lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where the power lies
His answer still sucked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/civil-liberties
https://www.facebook.com/govgaryjohnson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1984 Issue is one of my real big hates about Obama.I do have some more hates but the hell with it.
We all must Vote !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I vote for the person I think is the best, last time I voted for all 3 parties (different positions) and i will again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Can I have a patch-work president? I want 10% of Romney, 40% of Obama ... I'm not sure where the rest should come from. Are there any politicians out there truly interested in reducing the executive branch's over-reach and improving civil liberties with more than lip-service?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I always vote for the best individual candidate whose track record closest matches my viewpoints. People voting party lines is how a lot of these worthless politicians get in and stay in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and no, democrats is probably are greater of two evils if u think they are the lesser;
for example(assuming ur biggest selling point is peace) it rarely matters which side is in power for things but when in comes to extreme cases like cannadas debt issues a few decades ago, the leftys in government cut spending quite well, why? cause the lefty werent whining, currently people believe the war is over, why? because the leftys arent whining about obama being the violent warlord
so yes the government is full of evil men who will screw u over if they get a dime BUT their biggest goal is to stay in power(not to destroy the world) so voting the opposite party in means people of the "ur" party will be on the lookout of flat out evil things being done while they would ignore it if "they" won
or in other words the neo-cons are better about ending wars and the socialists are better at removing terrible regulation, a rightwinger would be able legalize pot when the prison system is getting to big for even the corrupts own good and the left will cut spending better when the system is risking hyper inflation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Seriously, I got a headache trying to parse that. One piece of garbage I'll point out though is "neo-cons are better about ending wars". Like the 'lefty'-instigated wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?
I'm wondering if you got your left and right mixed up here... since I think the 'left' would be more likely to legalise pot, and for all that I'm a Liberal, the left aren't renowned for cutting spending. Or, I'm just totally confused by your baloney!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The executive branch has never given up any power, once they take it. The longer they have the power, the harder the power to take back.
If you think about it, it's an inherent trait of an "executive". Their mandate is to execute policy (law, etc.) Clearly, the more power they have, the easier their job is (ask any CEO or dictator). Why would they do something to make their job harder like giving up some power?
The check on executive power is the legislature (not good - too disperse), judicial, and "the people". Those groups are multi-party. The executive is single party. Originally, per the US Constitution, the executive was split. VP was almost guaranteed to be opposition party. I think the lack of that balance has burt the US, longer term.
Anyway, the lack of executive will to give back a power is why Bush should have been taken to task when the power grab happened. "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither."
History has show this pattern: executive takes power at each opportunity. Usually for a reason (sometimes a valid one). But they never give it back when the "crisis" is over. Thus, the system eventually collapses (aka: re-boots)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not sure I care
Here is the thing:
I just don't care. It does not impact me on a daily basis. Moving on now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not sure I care
buts heres the thing:
i just dont care. it doesnt impact me on a daily basis. i'll pay the fee and move along
why do u call yourself a supporter? and if it doesnt impact u, why are u playing their little game of voting?
"I am very fond of truth, but not at all of martyrdom." voltare
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not sure I care
Maybe I'd vote for Jimmy Hoffa, he's probably done more good for the country...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's a Corporatist in drag...
I think it's time to throw them all out and start over...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]