Obama Quietly Signs Abusive Spy Bill He Once Vowed to Eliminate

[JReed]

Obama Quietly Signs Abusive Spy Bill He Once Vowed to Eliminate
After Senate rejects oversight amendments, bill sails into law

- Lauren McCauley, staff writer

Under the cover of holiday weekend slumber, President Obama signed into law a five-year extension of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, successfully solidifying unchecked surveillance authority for the remainder of his presidency.

Known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the law extends powers of the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance of Americans’ international emails and phone calls without obtaining a court order for each intercept.

The spying bill would have expired at the end of 2012 without the president's approval, the Associated Press reports.

According to a statement (PDF) by the ACLU, "the law's effect—and indeed the law's main purpose—is to give the government nearly unfettered access to Americans' international communications."

...

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/12/31-1

[villager]

3. Let them listen to yours without a warrant, then. Me? Still fond of the 4th Amendment

Even if the apologists here have thrown it under the bus.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

5. +1

[Mojorabbit]

25. Same here. I cannot believe how easily some give up their rights. nt

[villager]

46. It's what those who are so easily taking rights from them, count on.

n/t

[LWolf]

55. Me, too. nt

[RichGirl]

80. I'm sure you are a very interesting person....

with a lot of juicy stuff to hide. But...it's funny that all the people I know personally who are obsessed with PRIVACY have the most boring lives. There's just nothing in their lives worth spying on. Listening to their phone conversations would put you to sleep!

Sadly...I have nothing to hide either. Seriously...they could listen in, install a camera in my home...whatever. They'll find out I don't put the cap on the tooth paste. I sometimes don't get out of my jammies...ALL DAY! My bank statement...tells you I shop at Kroger, Old Navy and Target....ooooohhhh!!!

[Savannahmann]

84. Love that Amendment myself.

It's a shame our party doesn't.

[rhett o rick]

6. I am not surprised. You are willing to give up freedom for security.

Ben Franklin wouldnt approve. Nor would the rest of our founders.

We have one foot in fascism and the other on a banana peel.

[rhett o rick]

10. Of course. Make them get a court order. Do you think we should wave the Constitution

because of terrorist threats? If so, the terrorists have won.

[darkangel218]

11. It could take days or weeks.

And you need to bring supporting evidence. There is no time in situations like this.

Maybe if we pull the troops home and stop fighting wars all over the world, the terror threats will diminish? But that's a big maybe.

[rhett o rick]

12. No it doesnt take days. There are quick methods. In any case blanket surveillance is not warranted.

I think the Constitution says that WE THE PEOPLE have a right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches.

Blanket searches are easily used to crush dissent.

I choose liberty.

[mike_c]

77. I'd rather be "unsafe...."

Seriously.

[darkangel218]

78. I know you would. nt

[Occulus]

86. So would I.

But then, I deserve freedom and don't want terrorists to win. You don't deserve freedom, and want to help them damage American society far more than any of their bombings and hijackings ever could.

They have already won, because of you and cowards like you.

[Oldenuff]

92. What <prize> are you willing to give up the next time the governement comes calling?

All they have to do is manufacture another threat and you'll be willing to give up your guns?Oh wait,everybody here seems to be in a fever to give up our guns...(see how I cleverly changed the topic from "I'm so scared,lets give up some of our rights,to lets give give up more rights. ie: guns)?

Short-sightedness is not just a Republican trait.

[indepat]

58. Elegantly and eloquently stated.

[rhett o rick]

61. Have a Happy Year and be back next year ready to fight harder. nm

[DirkGently]

59. That's about the size of it. (nt)

[progressoid]

13. How about reading your emails?

Monitoring your banking records? Bugging your home?

How much are you willing to give to be safe from the hordes of TERRORISTS?

[darkangel218]

18. Umm... my emails are pretty silly. Alot of kittehs pics :D

I probably still wouldn't care.

[progressoid]

21. Common response among the selfish.

Lets say someone sends you something that has certain words in it that get you flagged. Suddenly you're singled out for "special" treatment at the airport.

[darkangel218]

22. So youre calling me selfish?

You're attacking the wrong person. You have a problem with FISA petition to the White House.

[progressoid]

23. You're the one defending it.

I said selfish because often people don't see a problem with certain government actions unless it impacts them directly.

You said, "I have no problem with the goverment listening to my phone calls." What about the rest of us? Can you see how this can be a problem for other people outside of your bubble?

[darkangel218]

24. Well i personally dont have a problem, do you want me to lie?

I don't see anybody petitioning to have FISA stopped. And you're wrongly assuming that I don't realize the repercussions of having our constitutional rights stripped away. I do, but at the same time I'm aware of what we would risk without it.

[theaocp]

26. You said you're from Europe.

Whereabouts are you from?

[theaocp]

33. Don't think so? Think again.

You're all about giving up liberty for security, right? Some backgrounds in Europe are very acutely aware of similar ideologies from, say, the last century? Your background might speak volumes, unless you've nothing to hide. Maybe some taps on your phone would yield the information. What say you? Or is some information private?

[darkangel218]

35. I have np clue where youre going with that.

I do take safety over the posibility of my international calls being listened to. I have nothing to hide, so then why care? I rarely even talk overseas.

Later.

[theaocp]

37. Allow me dumb this down for you.

First they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

[JReed]

43. Ah the "nothing to hide" argument

The problem with the nothing-to-hide argument is the underlying assumption that privacy is about hiding bad things. The nothing-to-hide argument stems from a faulty premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. Surveillance, for example, can inhibit such lawful activities as free speech, free association, and other First Amendment rights essential for democracy.

The deeper problem with the nothing-to-hide argument is that it views privacy as a form of secrecy. In contrast, understanding privacy as a plurality of related issues demonstrates that the disclosure of bad things is just one among many difficulties caused by government security measures. Government information-gathering programs are problematic even if no information that people want to hide is uncovered.

If you can't even acknowledge where this is heading or see how it signifies a trend towards a totalitarian society then there is likely little anyone can say to encourage you to re-examine your assumptions.

[mac56]

85. this

[darkangel218]

28. "Can you see how this can be a problem for other people outside of your bubble?"

Then why don't you do something about it?

I'm not part of the government, my opinion doesn't count. What have you in particular done to change this law if you're so outraged by it?

Tic toc, tic toc..

[progressoid]

63. Actually your opinion DOES count.

Also, this:

Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:

-Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;
-Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter;
-Participating in lively, thought-provoking discussions;
-Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government; and
-Having fun!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus

[darkangel218]

64. Well lol it matters as much as an online forum opinion can matter

Which is not much at all in the big scheme of things.

[green for victory]

29. might not be a bubble

[IMG][/IMG]

[darkangel218]

31. Again, what have yall done to change it?

A whole lot of NOTHING

[rhett o rick]

40. We elected a Democratic president and expected him to undo Bush's transgression on our Constitution.

[darkangel218]

45. Good point.

[Dustlawyer]

56. Would you draw the line at your doorstep, or can they come on in anytime to check to see

if you are being held hostage by terrorists?

[darkangel218]

62. ....

Do you really want an answer for your sarcastic "question"?

[Brickbat]

17. You're adorable.

[darkangel218]

19. Why thank you :p

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

27. Uhhhhhhhhhh

you sure about that? Shouldn't they at least have to prove to the court they have reason to suspect you?

[darkangel218]

32. Do you really think theyre going to intercept random peoples emails.and.phone calls?

They do have their suspects, the law just makes the surveillance easier.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

41. that's the point though

if you were to somehow appear on the list wouldn't you want some protection under the law? Even though I'd agree a law abiding, tax paying citizen probably won't be a suspect, there is no guarentee that he/she won't ever be one. Therefore the requirement to get a warrant makes sense. To me anyhow..........

[darkangel218]

44. How many courts are going to deny the orders?

My understanding is that this law makes it easier as far as procedural time to gather data from suspects.

[SomethingFishy]

79. Wow.. you have no idea do you.

Every e-mail, every phone call, every post on the internet, every text you send. All of it is monitored. It's scanned 24/7 looking for "keywords" that might make you a terrorist. Not to mention your banking habits, grocery store purchases, travel habits, and everything you buy with a credit or debit card...

This has been going on since the early 80's.

The government is either finished or nearly finished with a new underground site in Utah where all the "intelligence" will be sifted through and monitored.

I understand that you desire safety but this slope is too slippery. They are going to do this whether we want them to or not. They are already doing it. But to make it public, legal and accepted? What's next? Random searches of your house?

The government will take whatever power it wants. But to offer it up to them? No way.

Some info on the new "data center":
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/

[Marr]

38. That's also how you persecute political disidents, whistleblowers, etc.

There's a reason this sort of thing used to be considered unethical and criminal. You may feel fine relinquishing your basic rights in exchange for a promise of safety, but other are not.

[darkangel218]

49. I know that and im not telling anyone to agree with me.

I was speaking for myself.

[Jackpine Radical]

51. We had to destroy the Bill of Rights

in order to save it.

Dissent is possible terrorism. How about preventative detention?

[Jackpine Radical]

53. The precedent has already been set in the courts.

That was the ultimate effect of the Sexually Violent Predator commitment laws.

If you can commit SVPs because of what they might do, why not "terrorists?"

[darkangel218]

54. Im not too familiar with those laws in detail

I know Bush got one passed were suspected terrorists can be detained indefinitely w/o being charged. Is that part of FISA too?

[Cal Carpenter]

60. I just want to thank you

for all your help keeping this vital thread alive so it doesn't drown in all the guns and fiscal cliff stuff, regardless of your intentions.


eta: Happy New Year!

[Starry Messenger]

65. The fuck?

[Festivito]

71. How about your lawyer's or broker's phone calls.

Or, those of the guys who decide how your retirement is invested.

Are you sure you want someone unfettered and unwatched being able to make money off your hard earned money, or, rather, by taking your hard earned money.

[darkangel218]

72. Do you invest money off shore? I dont.

And as I said before, I was speaking for myself.

[Festivito]

75. On shore, because that is where the OP problem is that you did not answer.

This is domestic spying. And it is unfettered by civilian watch. Of the government by the government for the government, should perish.

Speak for yourself as much as you wish. Many of us wish to speak up for each other.

[darkangel218]

76. OP asked me a question that i did not answer?

Care to link to that specific post?

[Festivito]

81. Better yet: How about government spying on your lawyer's or broker's phone calls?

If your personal portfolio is not enough to concern you, you probably do have friends and family that have a retirement where large blocks of wealth could be transfered that could in turn make money for the spying eyes.

[darkangel218]

89. I dont have "investment portofolios", so i wouldnt care about that. I didnt (re) passed this bill,

POTUS did. Why not question them, instead of piling up on me?

[Festivito]

93. "Piling up" my ONE question on someone with no investments, no retirement, no friends...

or family to care about with investments or retirements, no chance of anyone you care about being extorted if they listen in on lawyers, no political favored party to be cheated by such spies (despite being on DU).

You have nothing, want to have nothing, care about no one who does. Okay, you have no problem with them listening in. Given all that, I agree.

[darkangel218]

97. Oh so i have nothing because i dont have investments??

Your viewpoint is very RW. Most DUrs do not have investements.

Adios.

[Festivito]

99. Right, you have no financial transactions to go over phone lines.

No stake in money, politics or law to go over phone lines. None for yourself, none for family, none for friends.

Therefore you have no concern for having secret government persons listening secretly to phone calls that might secretly steal something, something that you do not have!

That makes sense!

When it comes to your view of my view, you seeing my view as RW, I see the opposite. Let me explain. The idea that MOST DUers do not have investments and from our discussion that would include stakes in such things as stock markets, retirements or even political parties -- to me would be a RW stereotypical view of LWers. But, there's hope for us. The idea that DUers have no investments is a factual argument.

We could run a poll on DU.

Hey, we could say. We have a disagreement. One DUer who says most DUers have no investments. That would include no retirement, no retirement accounts, no stocks, no bonds, ... etc., nothing that would be traded over phone lines. The other says that most DUers do!

Why, I think you would be the only DUer not to have investments in their life and times.

And, yes, off to God we go, indeed.

[piratefish08]

82. wow

[Oldenuff]

91. Fighting terrorism...or is it just a reason to strip us of our liberties?

Fear mongering is not limited to the Repukes.All politicians use it when they have an agenda to pass.Stir up fear and the majority the population will willingly hand over their freedoms.Why is that?Is it because they can't manage to think for themselves,so they believe everything they are told?

[sabrina 1]

94. Give away your own rights, do not try to give away anyone else's. People

fought and died to protect those rights. Once again we see people here willing to give up their rights based on the phony WOT. There's always a scare tactic, a boogie man, to get people to willingly give up their rights.

Goebbels would be envious of what is going on in this country today.

He certainly was right about how to get people to go along with the destruction of rights. But we thought we were superior to the German people, that they were stupid, or evil or something. And it turns out that even with that historical lesson, a frightening number of people who have a lot more access to knowledge than the German people did, are more than willing to believe that they are in dire danger from some entity they cannot even identify. With all the warnings we have received and all the lessons from history, this tactic still works. Muslims! Evil! Be Scared! We will protect you!

Amazing anyone in today's world is still willing to buy into these tactics.

So please speak for yourself. The good news is that millions of Americans are NOT willing to give up their rights based on manufactured fear. We have more to fear from other Americans as the numbers show, and from Government policies that allow tens of thousands of Americans die each for lack of HC, than from these shadowy, foreign, 'brown people'.

[grahamhgreen]

98. "inteligence" - really????? I mean REALLY?!?!?!?!?!??!

[Egalitarian Thug]

100. Absolutely terrifying, isn't it?

These people hold jobs, some have employees and others for whom they are responsible, and they go through their lives being this thick. Is it any wonder we are so completely fucked up?

[Skittles]

101. WTF

this HAS to be sarcasm

[TwilightGardener]

2. I feel like Obama doesn't want to take the chance of anything happening

if he ended this. He is very sensitive to the fact that Republicans want to portray him as weak on terror and defense, and I think he's boxed in on FISA because of that.

[rhett o rick]

7. You think he is continuing the Bush era spying because the Republicans have him "boxed in"?

He is institutionalizing these violations of our Constitution. I believe the American people want their Constitution back.

[TwilightGardener]

16. It's far less risky for him to allow FISA to continue (it's been the law for

a number of years now) than to allow it to end and then an incident happens. The American people by and large are either unaware of it or don't care about it (see the first response, above). I think that's the calculation he's making. Is it good? No. But I understand where he's coming from.

[Marr]

39. Risky, how? He can't run again.

The only sort of President who will ever let this thing expire is a lame duck president. And this one just chose to keep it. We have a massive Surveillance Industrial Complex now, and I suspect it's going to grow into something that's just as impossible to deconstruct as the military one-- if it hasn't already.

[TwilightGardener]

42. Risky in terms of legacy, certainly, if he goes out of his way to

ask Congress not to renew it or actively vetoes it and then something happens. There may also be a possibility that FISA has actually been useful on some occasion. Or, the intelligence people under him rely on it and don't want a tool taken away.

[green for victory]

4. He needs to do these things to be re-elected

or something else

[rhett o rick]

9. This is an egregious violation of our Constitution. I expect that from a Republican.

I dont from a Democrat. The terrorists and Bush have won.

[Sheepshank]

14. Obama is a lying, conniving, lying, sack of shit who doesn't give a rats ass about this nation.

I wish Romney would have won the election instead!!!


Oh Wait...

BTW, Original Poster. Is there a chance you are going to change your tune any time soon regarding a Democrats support for Obama?

[JReed]

36. Your post is incoherent

Certainly doesn't qualify as intelligent political discussion on a political discussion board. Strange.

First they came for....

[Sheepshank]

47. LOL, you were assuming your OP and recent response qualifies as intelligent discussion?

boy oh boy.....put on big boy tightie whities, and grow up. Your OP is disingenuous. Your continued responses to many of the posts on this thread are childish and petulant and your inappropriate use of multi syllabic words gives you away as unintelligent, with a bare attempt to out speak the seasoned persons on DU.

This a Dem Support board and your continued bashing of Obama, without evidence, your call for others to provide evidence where you failed to do so yourself, you mis-use and twisting of words does nothing to bolster your credibility. Suck it up and deal with the responses.

My original question still stands...when are you going to actually show some support for Obama on a Dem discussion board?

[JReed]

48. Bizarre

At this point I've responded to one other than yourself which you call "continued responses" and too funny calling someone childish while opening with sand box jargon.

There's just no substance to your comments so no intelligent discussion can ensue. All you're really interested in is a loyalty oath which speaks volumes.

Adios.

[darkangel218]

50. Its New Years Eve. alot of people are already tipsy

But nevertheless bizzare.

[Sheepshank]

66. Perhaps areview of you own posts will reveal you are exactly what you ar talking about

"there is non so blind who will not see the reflection of their own mug in the mirror in front of themselves." (revamped biblical quote, very apt here)

JReed, your dip, dodge and dive away from the question posed TWICE now, is pretty telling. Lets me repeat, when, oh when are you going to be supporting of your Democratic president on a Dem BB? Why is it important for you to press this anti Obama stance?

[Fumesucker]

68. Eh, I largely agree with JReed and yet I posted this after Obama's first debate

When about 90% of DU thought that Obama had blown the debate big time I was one of the few looking at the bright side.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1480985

[MNBrewer]

20. But it's OK. He's a Democrat and a Republican will never be in the Oval Office ever again

[whatchamacallit]

34. Like the bullshit fiscal cliff, the bullshit war on terror has dumbass americans

happily bending over a barrel. We deserve our dystopian future.


Happy New Year!

[davidn3600]

57. Obama signs this and everyone makes excuses for him

1) The Republicans have him cornered
2) He needs to sign this to not make waves
3) Accept and support this or the GOP will get the White House

Im sorry...but you are all wrong. No one is forcing the president to sign anything. He has free will. He took an oath to defend the constitution. That's his job!

There is no excuse for this. Obama is wrong here.

[Jefferson23]

67. What exactly does he have convictions about? n/t

[Comrade_McKenzie]

69. I don't make international phone calls... nt

[JReed]

70. It still matters

One last point is about empire and it's tendency to become fascist. In the BBC series "The Last Enemy" an England of the near future is described where surveillance has been carried to a suffocating level with the implementation of the (wait for it) Total Information Awareness system in England. Sound familiar? It should, as it was the pet project of Adm. John Poindexter in the first Bush term. This was the project in which Americans were asked to spy and inform on people that they thought were acting suspiciously. Plus it involved the creation of vast databases about the citizenry. Although it was largely defunded as a complete program there are still parts of it that survive. People seem to have gotten used to the fact that their emails and phone calls can be monitored at any time and their very locations can be determined if they are carrying a cell phone. In England right now there are more than 500,000 surveillance cameras in London and millions around the country.

[Sunlei]

73. "International communications" op please give a link to the actual bill, heres the list of signed

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/signed-legislation

[JReed]

90. This is a discussion board

And this has just happened.

First you can't know what anyone has done or will do- they might not wish to tell you.

Secondly, if you are having a discussion with a person who supports invasion of privacy that should be the last person you would speak to of your personal actions. So perhaps that is one reason why no one would ever inform you of what they may or may not do.

It's also fairly obvious by now that petitioning your congressperson or the president is probably the most ineffective action one could take regarding any matter of The State and certainly one of personal intrusion.

If you don't see how all of this is characteristic of a totalitarian society then you simply have your head buried in the sand.

Take care.

[woo me with science]

95. kick