Irony Alert: Obama Opposes Amash Amendment Because It's A 'Blunt Approach' And Not A Product Of 'Open' Process
from the now-they're-just-fucking-with-us,-right? dept
Okay, someone in the White House just feels like giving people who believe in protecting civil liberties a giant middle finger today. As a quick review, the President and the administration have been hiding behind secret court orders with secret interpretations of the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act to use a very blunt instrument: collecting pretty much all digital data around, and keeping the whole thing totally quiet for years. In response, Rep. Justin Amash is seeking to pull funding from one of the key NSA programs -- the one that involved a secret interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act by a secret court to pretend that language that clearly applied to only limited data now meant the NSA could order AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and others to hand over every call record on every phone call. And, this is a program that no one knew about until Ed Snowden leaked it to the Guardian and the Washington Post.Okay, having reinforced those basic points, check out the giant "screw you guys" the White House just pushed out in the form of a "statement" in response to the Amash Amendment. I'll bold the key guffaw-inducing lines:
In light of the recent unauthorized disclosures, the President has said that he welcomes a debate about how best to simultaneously safeguard both our national security and the privacy of our citizens. The Administration has taken various proactive steps to advance this debate including the President’s meeting with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, his public statements on the disclosed programs, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s release of its own public statements, ODNI General Counsel Bob Litt’s speech at Brookings, and ODNI’s decision to declassify and disclose publicly that the Administration filed an application with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. We look forward to continuing to discuss these critical issues with the American people and the Congress.Let me repeat that again: This blunt approach is not the product of an informed, open, or deliberative process. As opposed to the blunt process of collecting all data on everyone which was arrived at via an "informed, open and deliberative process -- known as totally secretly interpreting the plain language of a law in a secret ruling from a secret court to mean something almost entirely different than what the language itself said?
However, we oppose the current effort in the House to hastily dismantle one of our Intelligence Community’s counterterrorism tools. This blunt approach is not the product of an informed, open, or deliberative process. We urge the House to reject the Amash Amendment, and instead move forward with an approach that appropriately takes into account the need for a reasoned review of what tools can best secure the nation.
This is a joke, right?
Only someone who really has a sick sense of humor would try to argue that a bill looking to slow down the rampant spying on pretty much all Americans comes from a lack of an "informed, open, or deliberative process" when the process to create that massive surveillance infrastructure was all done in complete darkness.
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: appropriations, barack obama, debate, irony, justin amash, nsa, nsa surveillance, open, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well, of course it isn't informed: we don't know EVERYTHING about how they're spying on us yet, so until we know everything about it, we can't make an informed decision. Of course, all of those methods are classified, so we can't tell you about them, but just as soon as you know all about those methods, we can talk about them. It all makes PERFECT sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Almost right...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Asshole alert
And to think, I used to like this jackass....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Asshole alert
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Asshole alert
Bill Clinton was a good president with a tarnished reputation. He wrote and pushed two workers' rights bills that are VERY important today. The Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, and after a worker at the Groom Lake, Nevada Nuclear Disposal Test Facility (aka Area 51) was denied workman's comp after being injured on the job because his job description was "classified"...FOIA.
Bush Jr. was shady at times but you could tell he usually had the best of intentions at heart. He was a former alcoholic and his first presidential campaign was his rehab.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Asshole alert
What was it said about getting involved in land wars in Asia? How's that working out for you (again)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Asshole alert
Learn your history, don't reinvent it to fit your political bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Asshole alert
Are you seriously pissing on my face and calling it rain?
Are you saying Bush Jr and the Bush Jr administration didn't go balls out insane and attack Iraq due to "weapons of mass destruction" that were never there? That some other administration did that? Or are you saying that never happened because that's what your crack addict mom told you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Asshole alert
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Asshole alert
Bwah!?!? In what way is Afghanistan not in Asia?
"and a lot of his antics were due to the extreme pressure from liberal media outlets who seemingly went out of their way to report every gaffe he had."
They certainly reported all his gaffes, but not because the media is liberal, they're just sensationalist assholes. Or have you missed all the fun Joe Biden has provided us?
"Learn your history, don't reinvent it to fit your political bias."
This from someone who previously said Clinton was a good President and Bush had his heart in the right place. Bullshit. Clinton was a narcissistic liar, money-corrupt to the bone, ran his White House the way he ran Arkansas (open to the highest bidder). Oh, and he committed sexual assault and/or rape in Arkansas on top of it. That the economy happened to do well during his Presidency due to an exploding internet market and good fiscal policy from Congress is his only real claim for strong governance. And it's a shitty claim.
As for Bush, I'll never forgive him for taking a perfectly necessary war that could have been honestly sold to the public, if not the world, and fucking it all up with talk about WMDs. True, Iraq had used them before and wanted to use them again, but that wasn't the only or even primary reason to oust him. That, coupled with Bush's insane love for Reaganomics puts him squarely in jackass territory. Granted he didn't rape anyone, other than the economy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Asshole alert
But Obama has disappointed me in even my extremely modest expectations.
I never once got the impression he had the best of intentions at heart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this response unexpected?
(The Bush White House would make a reply that sounded hollow but was a fairly explicit fuck-you. So this isn't necessarily better or worse.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this response unexpected?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You get back what you give out
The funny part though is that the Amash Amendment is far more a product of 'Open, informed processes', as it's out there for everyone to read, is based on verifiable information, and has no 'secret interpretation'(at least not yet anyway, I'd imagine more than a few will crop up if it gets passed) angle to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You get back what you give out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You get back what you give out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I want my Constitution Back, I want my privacy back and I'd like to see you & all your cohorts in "CRIME" put behind bars and the keys thrown away
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I demand the 16th amendment repealed.
I demand the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the Bank that it created DEMOLISHED.
I demand the government to be the sole agency permitted to create and issue currency. No fractional reserve.
I demand the Patriot Act be repealed and then made illegal by constitutional amendment.
I demand campaign contributions and corporate involvement in government be banned.
I demand all for-profit private banks to be closed and be replaced with non-profit state banks. Our money is not a commodity for rich people to leverage.
I demand corporate charters stripped back to their finite life spans (10 to 30 years) and restore their obligation to the stakeholders as a priority above the shareholder.
I demand government agencies to ban any private sector employee from taking office that regulates an industry they previously worked in (i.e. no revolving door for industry regulators and corporations).
I demand a single-payer health care system and an emphasis on preventative medicine so that the health care system isn't overburdened with cases that could have been prevented.
I demand the war on every ephemeral "enemy" of the people be yielded and refocus those resources into expanding lagging infrastructure (e.g. sustainable energy, internet, transportation, pollution control, housing, education)
I demand the complete and total repeal of the copyright act in whole. The internet does a far better job of promoting the progress than what copyright continually fails at doing.
Most of all, I demand the bill of rights be restored as the most sacred rights in this nation. The 1st, 4th, and 8th amendment especially. It should be the highest priority to prevent the conviction of innocent citizens. Convicting an innocent citizen is a higher crime than letting a guilty one go free. Capitol punishment should be deemed illegal by the 8th amendment for reason previously stated. Innocent would be at risk of being executed.
This is want I expect the government to do to atone for the damage they've done. Then, they can all hit the unemployment line so we can elect (by popular vote, no fucking electoral college) new government officers to actually represent us. They will maintain a constant dialog with their constituents by social networks set up by the government. Any citizen should be able to offer comment to their representative at any time and have it discussed by other constituents and reviewed by the representative. Accountability will be ensured by constant contact with the citizenry. No gate keepers at the phone, just open forum discussion.
Then, I might start feeling better about this nation and its government. I'd feel even better if "I" became "we the people."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Are you a member of the Obama administration, by any chance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That can only end well, then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm...
Regarding banking, there are a lot of efforts to restore post great depression banking legislation that worked pretty well for over 40 years, until deregulation started in the late 70's and early 80's.
I'd like to see huge swaths of the central government cut myself. As to any amendments to the constitution, it would be nearly impossible these days... Far easier to pass dismissive legislation and have the courts uphold it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm...
Me, I think the government ought to be made up only of professionals who take a sabbatical from their profession to serve the public good - a one-time, limited term thing. There should be no such thing as a career politician.
On the other hand I'd also like the jetpack I was promised, so I'm not going to hold my breath...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm...
It might be difficult, but the alternative is a revolving door of corporate agents using regulatory capture to benefit their bosses for a cushy position and a huge pay raise after their term is up.
"Regarding banking, there are a lot of efforts to restore post great depression banking legislation that worked pretty well for over 40 years, until deregulation started in the late 70's and early 80's."
None of which dealt with the core problem: Fractional reserve and interest. That's the real problem. They can't cut labor wages directly to maintain profit because people would be upset. However, if you institutionalize the constant devaluation of their wages through inflation, it ensures that capitalists can continue to profit because it takes more wages to pay for fewer goods. In essence, inflation gives capitalists the ability to take a portion of the value labor creates and keep it as profit.
This comic strip says it all:
https://gs1.wac.edgecastcdn.net/8019B6/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lteibwweWC1qdc32wo1_500.png
"I'd like to see huge swaths of the central government cut myself. As to any amendments to the constitution, it would be nearly impossible these days..."
Yes, it would be hard. But anything that should be done can't be deterred because it's hard. Revolting against England was hard, but it had to be done. If we had rolled over because it was hard, then we'd all be citizens of the United Kingdom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmmm...
So the capitalists own the the machines? They paid for it with the value generated by the laborers, not profit. Profit is a fiction.
Go back further. Where did they get the money to pay for the initial costs to start a business? Either they come from a family with money (i.e. They've been leveraging the lower class for generations) or they seek out a loan/investors (which is financed by the same people). Either way, the money that funds a business came from skimming from the value of labor.
To put it bluntly, everything that the capitalists own came from the labor of others. The capitalist is just another middleman skimming value by controlling the flow of goods between the workers and the consumers. They're not rich because they "earned" it. They're rich because they leveraged resources that were transformed into commodities by other people.
Without the labor, the capitalists would have nothing. Their contribution to the economy is private property ownership. They have influence on the economy because they own resources the rest of us need. They didn't create the resources, they already existed, but they control them. Since they control them, they can exploit people that need those resources.
Capitalists don't create economic wealth (i.e. all the resources and labor that possess economic utility), they make money. In short, a capitalist is nothing more than a resource exploiter. They simply exist to exploit that which they own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm...
You've created this elaborate narrative where 'capitalists' are on one side and 'labor' is on another and one is good and the other is bad and you're now pointing to that narrative to explain why the cartoon doesn't just completely ignore reality but the thing is your bullshit narrative isn't reality either. You're just spinning in circles using one made up narrative to justify another without ever actually basing anything on a real argument about the real world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm...
So without the machines, the worker can only make a hypothetical $15 worth of products. However, there was a point where they didn't have those machines and the laborers made products without them. The capitalist used the money from those products to buy the machines, yet the labor made the products that made the money to pay for the machines. No matter how you try to twist it, the laborers are the ones that earned the money used to buy the machines. You're the one that isn't basing anything on reality.
The bottom line is, the capitalist paid for the machines with the labor value that his workers created, so the laborers are the ones that really paid for them. The capitalist didn't create any of the value, the workers did and he kept a big chunk for himself. Then, he used it to buy machines that increased the volume of products he could sell. So the capitalist made $15 on every product, paid a portion of that to the laborer, and kept the rest for profit and resources. Which he used to buy machines so that the laborer could produce $100 worth of product and pay him $25.
My narrative is correct, yours is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You demand banks be exclusively state run? So in essence you demand that every person's day to day finances be available to the government at all times and in perfect detail. You demand they know who has how much money, who pays them, who they pay with it, and when?
You demand there be no income tax (with you on that point) but you also demand a state run health care program? How were you imagining this would be funded? Magic? Are we going to replace the income tax with a flat tax or a sales tax to fund it?
You demand campaign contributions be banned? Isn't that basically a ban on political speech, a cornerstone piece of the 1st amendment? Can you explain how a ban on campaign contributions and corporate involvement would avoid banning legitimate political speech at the same time? Do I suddenly lose my right to petition my government for a redress of grievances if I'm a small business owner that incorporated for legal reasons or do I simply lose that right if the grievance has something to do with my business? Let's say the local government wants to rezone the land my business is currently operating on. Why shouldn't I be allowed to campaign against that with, say, a print ad in a local paper or a TV spot during the local news?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You would prefer that private banks pull money, that doesn't exist and backed by nothing, out of the ether and require you to pay it back and with interest that is also backed by nothing? Do you want your income constantly devalued in this way? The reason being that this is how they hide the reduction of your income without seeing any cuts on your paycheck. That's your alternative if you refuse a state bank. I don't know of any other non-profit, usury-free bank systems. If my other demands are met (i.e. upholding the 4th amendment), then what do you have to worry about in a state bank?
Income tax and health care:
Yes and no. State Funded, not state administered. It should be administered by a board of doctors. You forget that without the banks making money out of thin-air for profit, the government can create money out of thin-air for the public good. They have the exclusive power to create currency. If they create the money by using it to pay for essential infrastructure, in supplement to sales tax, they can expand the money supply when needed and pay for health care at the same time.
Campaign contributions:
Money is not speech no matter what the damn courts say, because those with more money would have more power of speech and in this country all citizens are to be given equal rights. Giving the rich the power to use money in order to expand their speech is a violation of equal rights. So no, contributions should be banned. You can still have a campaign with out monetary contributions from others. It's called "volunteer workers". You win your election by commanding the support of the people, not by the size of your wallet.
However, there are some monetary requirements that are beyond a single person's financial capacity, so all campaigns would require some kind of state stipend that is the same for every candidate and every penny must be accounted for to the distributing agency. Any negligent waste or abuse of funds will be met with an order to repay all issued funds effective upon notice and all authorized uses will be clearly explained to the candidate.
If you want to petition the government to not rezone the land your business is on, then I suggest you go door to door and ask your community to sign a petition if they feel they need your business to stay where it is. If you have established yourself as an essential member of your community, they should support you and going against the will of the community will not go well for the city council's re-election. You know, "grass-roots" politics? That's how it should be done. That's how the rest of us without gobs of cash on hand do it. Get it? Have the community tell them that they want you there and not the other thing. If they refuse to sign, then you're in no less trouble than those that lose their homes to eminent domain.
You have not lost any free speech by not being able to leverage money to further your political ideals. By removing money from politics, we've actually leveled the field for those that don't have the monetary power of a corporation so that the people's voice is superior to the corporations. The government serves the people, not fictional legal constructs. If a corporation can compel the community to support their petitions to the government, then so be it. But it's only by the will of the people that a corporation shall be granted the government's ear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You put a lawyer ina position of power to make laws and he will defend it like it was his guilty client no matter what others say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
THAT should tell you how little I regard him now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forget comparisons to Bush, comparing him to Mao or Stalin is hardly a stretch anymore. The only differences between him and them are fewer (and smaller) gulags, a body count that's not even close to the millions, and a personality cult that's nowhere near as heavily enforced; I have a feeling that all of the above is about to change with the way things are going...
[ 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:
Operation Snow White:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_SnowWhite
Operation Freakout:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freakout
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
True. They only advocate/assist the slaughter of dissidents one individual at a time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've said it once and I'll say it again. We need to stop trying to secure and protect the nation and focus on protecting the constitution. The government cannot protect a nation, only the citizens can protect a nation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They got it wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or...
We'd still have the dialogue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll g e them a solution!! or " I'll take the Obsma administration's solution and cram it up their asses!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'll g e them a solution!! or " I'll take the Obsma administration's solution and cram it up their asses!"
Ok problems aside. The Obama Administration can take their tripe and cram it up their own asses.
Here's the solution...if you are here visiting on temporary visa or green card, and if we get a warning from your government to our immigration office about you...you will be spied on as a foreigner. No if's, and's, or buts. That would have saved the US government a ton of money in the long run.
It should be noted that Obama was quite keen on "debating" the issue with SOPA until the Internet blackout and Hillary Clinton had to explain it to him. I find it extremely disturbing that Obama is, once again, allowing for an "open" (and by that i meant to say "one-sided") and transparent debate. I mean doesn't he even know how the ENTIRE WORLD is against the unwarranted spying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What's your point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ 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 ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which political party held majority in both house and senate during the Bush Jr. Administration again?
DNC dude.....
Obama's Administration took things way above and beyond what any other president has done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not even close!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I demand the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the Bank that it created DEMOLISHED."
and all of the gold they have stolen returned to Ft Knox.
"I demand the government to be the sole agency permitted to create and issue currency. No fractional reserve."
and based on hard currency, such as gold or platinum or palladium. No more imaginary money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Gold is a VERY bad thing to base currency on.
By definition, it's a very rare and valuable metal, thus only the rich have access to large quantities of it.
It's better to have the government regulate the money through cheap metals, not precious metals.
After all, Great Britain, for a long time, used wooden sticks, well before their Empire started to fall apart. When they shifted back to gold, their economy, back then, started to tank.
Even Rome had similar things. When they used cheap metals for coins, the economy flourished and people were happy. Once they shifted to gold, well, that was the start of the decline, as fewer people had money, thus the Empire took in less revenues from taxes.
Why do you think they went to salt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not that gold or silver-backed currencies were ever anything but fiat currencies anyways. Gold isn't actually all that valuable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:Fiat Currency
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:Fiat Currency
Gold is an entirely useful metal, just not as a currency. It is highly resistant to corrosion, and it is a strong conductor. It resists acids far better than other metals. Its anti-corrosive/anti-acid capabilities make it highly valued in dentistry. And it is fairly soft, which makes it useful for applications where other metals are just too hard or brittle. It is also highly useful in shielding, as it reflects infrared radiation, which is why gold shielding is used on satellites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:Fiat Currency
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:Fiat Currency
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Salt was used as currency because it was rare and precious, just like gold, except that people absolutely need salt.
What you're arguing for is fiat currency -- exactly the system we have now. We pretty much have two alternatives for money: imaginary money, like we have now, or money that has value because of what it is inherently worth, not what people declare it to be worth (gold, silver, jewels, etc.)
There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. Choose your poison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you want a classical gold standard, you get chronic deflation punctuated by depressions, as the U.S. did between 1873 and 1934.
If you want a regime of managed currencies tethered to gold, you get regulations and controls, as the U.S. got from 1934 through 1971.
If you let the currency float, you get chronic inflation punctuated by bubbles, the American lot since 1971.
System 1 is incompatible with democracy, because voters won’t accept the pain inherent in a gold standard.
System 2 is incompatible with the free market economics I favor.
That leaves me with System 3 as the worst option except for all the others.
- David Frum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good News Everybody!
Doesn't that give the Republicans the go ahead to support it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama and the security agencies no longer have any creditability to even discuss, much less address the issues they have continually lied and mislead the public over.
It is time to wipe the slate clean because you can't get straight info and it be honestly the truth. As such it needs removed because those representing the security side can't be believed. Without honest data there is no discussion. Obama tends to use his bully pulpit to again misstate the facts in an attempt to make it look better. I wonder if he has taken a look lately at what the public now thinks of his job performance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irony Alert: Obama Opposes Amash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, why are all the talking points ignoring what we knew before the Snowden leaks were published? We talk of metadata as if they don't have access to more. Here it is almost suggested we didn't know anything before Snowden. Maybe we didn't know the name PRISM but we did know they had capabilities surpassing metadata.
Why has everyone forgotten we learned about the ability to access actual content of phone conversations two weeks prior to Snowden? http://bit.ly/109wy7i [Guardian] http://bit.ly/11gawY1 [TechDirt]
CLEMENTE: "We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation."
Or is it just ignored as alleged because it wasn't an "offical" leak? Whatever that means. I just get sick of all the talk of only Snowden and metadata, when prior reports indicated full content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is a big difference. The fact that they can collect beyond metadata isn't new. The fact that they can collect metadata isn't new. What's new is the SCALE of it, and the confirmation of how they were interpreting the specific clauses in the law.
Why has everyone forgotten we learned about the ability to access actual content of phone conversations two weeks prior to Snowden? http://bit.ly/109wy7i [Guardian] http://bit.ly/11gawY1 [TechDirt]
Because I still think that was bullshit. Event today there is no evidence that they have every call recorded. It's possible, but if that was the case, an FBI agent wouldn't let that info slip like that.
Or is it just ignored as alleged because it wasn't an "offical" leak? Whatever that means. I just get sick of all the talk of only Snowden and metadata, when prior reports indicated full content.
It's not that it wasn't "official." It wasn't credible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually, there is a fair bit of evidence that they have almost all calls recorded, from various unconnected people saying so, to equipment installations, to implications that have accidentally come out in some court cases.
But this is a different program from the two that we've been talking about so far. Also, unlike the two in the news, there has been no official confirmation that there is such a program.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Bell Canada has been doing so for 40 years that I know of. The only thing to dispute is length of time they retained it.
40 years ago a top Bell executives office looked like something out of James Bond. Buttons and dials, in a desk drawer, opening hidden panels to access the wet-bar, lowering movie screens, etc...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Open Debate
Oh, look at all the "open debate" Obama is willing to have!!
He met with a shadow board of yes-men AFTER we were all pissed at him. He SAID THINGS (wooooah!), other pawns in the administration have GIVEN SPEECHES, and even been forced to disclose ONE WHOLE FILING to the SECRECT court! Obama's problem seems to be he doesn't realize that "debate" isn't just telling us things, it means we actually get to say things back and he's supposed to listen.
It really is a scumbag move. "This bill was written without knowing all the details, but the details are classified so shut up and let me keep doing what i want, then listen to the blatantly bullshit propaganda from me and my minions because I call that 'open debate.'"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just me?
"Obama opposes Amash Amendment because it's simple and will do what it's supposed to instead of complex and easy to weasel out of"
... sounds more like a reason for than against to me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sucks when Congress doesn't listen to you huh Mr. President? Welcome to the world anyone but big media/business lives in.
Oh and technically, since it takes (some level of) bipartisanship to pass a bill/amendment, you really can't complain. Sell you can, but you look foolish for an ex-constitutional law professor...
All and all, sorry you didn't get your way (not really), but if Congress (who can't even agree on a budget) can agree you're wrong, that means your really wrong...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
remember whom votes against it
remember whom votes against it
remember whom votes against it
remember whom votes against it
remember whom votes against it
remember whom votes against it
remember whom votes against it
remember whom votes against it
remember whom votes against it
remember whom votes against it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: remember whom votes against it
Remember who vetoes against it.
Remember who vetoes against it.
Remember who vetoes against it.
Remember who vetoes against it.
Remember who vetoes against it.
Remember who vetoes against it.
Remember who vetoes against it.
Remember who vetoes against it.
Remember who vetoes against it.
Remember who vetoes against it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boy, am I sorry
He's either been bought out by corporate interests or someone who has something on him-or else he was playing one hell of a con on us, because he got elected twice in the popular vote.
He's got to be the most secretive, agenda-driven President I've seen in quite some time; his agenda consists of lying and then smiling when people ask him if he's kidding.
Nixon would be so proud of him-taken a page right out of Watergate and wrote it good this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Boy, am I sorry
Either that or he's just a massive hypocrite, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Boy, am I sorry
Nixon had charisma. He got elected on it and played dirty and even had his live broadcast speeches time delay edited to hide his gaffes.
Fastforward to Obama....and guess what...charisma...time delay edited speeches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Boy, am I sorry
As part of nation dumb enough to elect the used car salesman Tony Blair 3 times... yeah it's not like we don't have the same problems if not the same scale...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Boy, am I sorry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Boy, am I sorry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Boy, am I sorry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They aren't people, they are corrupt disconnected mounds of greedy flesh. Doesn't matter the color of the wrapping, doesn't matter if they have a 'D' or 'R' next to their name. They are all immoral selfish pricks in positions of power that are assumed to be held by people that have the greater good in mind or the whole system falls apart.
If anything it's good Obama was voted in so we could see that there's no politician we can trust. If anything the people should rally together and vote in people who aren't lawyers, CEOs or someone else who never had to spend a day wondering "How will I provide for my family?" or something along those lines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]