General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo, it's okay if Obama spies on the American people
but terrible when Bush did it?
It's terrible no matter who does it. Didn't the people elect Obama to -move away- from Bush's bullshit?
All the apologists here are insane...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Recursion
(56,582 posts)1. It was illegal when Bush did it without a warrant; the 2008 FISA law establishes a warrant process. I don't like the law, but it's the law.
2. It was, in fact, the renewal of the warrant for this surveillance that started this whole flare-up.
3. Obama claims US citizens' data is not being captured. Snowden claims it is. One of them is lying. I don't know which one.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Everybody involved with PRISM, up to and including the Washington Post, deny that the NSA has direct access to data from Google, etc. Snowdon may not by lying, strictly speaking, but it would appear that the reporting may have made some unfounded extrapolations.
That's not to say that we should have a serious discussion about what kind of surveillance powers the federal government should have, when they can use them, and where the accountability lies.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)get him off the hook along with his law breaking Telecoms. The whistle blower in that case is another hero.
But let me ask you this, if what Bush did was illegal, which it was at the time, then why was nothing done about it??
As for the current 'law', or as we used to call it, 'Bush's get out of jail card', it weakened even further the original bill which was not great to begin with.
Not to mention how many Democrats including this president, who voted for that bill. Why did Democrats want to help cover up for Bush? And why would a Democratic President state that he has 'kept Bush policies'? Was he trying to draw attention to the fact that Bush shares the blame, or expecting praise for being 'bi-partisan'? He did get praise finally from Republicans like Ari Fleischer, which I would be worried about if I were in his position, considering that Ari Fleischer is a liar and became the symbol of Government spying on its people with the 'they better watch what they say' warning, which turned out to be true.
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)has anyone filed a challenge to the law?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)vote for a clear violation of the 4th Amendment is my question? I remember asking it back then when democrats were pretty united in their outrage over what had been revealed.
I expect Republicans to do what they do, they really do not like, as Bush was honest to say publicly, being restricted by the law of the land. But I had faith that Democrats would fight hard to prevent them from violating the rights of the people, and instead many democrats supported them.
I don't know if anyone has challenged the law, but with the current SC it would probably be a waste of time.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)democratic judge when that time comes
So you see, you gotta vote straight democratic to achieve a new court ruling.
(hopefully one with Barack Obama as Chief Justice).
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)cstanleytech
(28,470 posts)but they are still the courts and once they make a ruling at the SCOTUS level then its the law of the land unless of course congress passes a new law and or repeals the law or the states decide to change it via an amendment to the constitution.
merrily
(45,251 posts)A SCOTUS decision on the Constitution is final. However, Obama has his own independent duty to defend and protect the Constitution. The President is the only federal employee constitutionally required to take that oath.
Other federal employeess take an oath as well, though. So, each of them has an independent responsiblity to decide if their actions are constitutional, even though the SCOTUS can overrule their judgment.
Rules that the SCOTUS has set for federal courts make it very difficult for any private citizen to sue over a law on the grounds that it violates the constitution. Not only do you have to be harmed by the law, but the harm has to be different from the way that Americans generally are harmed. When millions upon millions are being surveilled, proving that the harm you suffered from being surveilled was more specific and unique than the harm to the general population is not easy. It may be possible, but it may not.
Deep13
(39,157 posts)Who has standing to sue? Well, Snowden, I guess. He is too busy running from official revenge.
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)So its kind of a circular reasoning puzzle where "usually wrongly" isn't possible. Unless a court reverses a prior ruling.
Anyone who has been materially harmed would have standing.
Deep13
(39,157 posts)SCOTUS lost its legitimacy in December of 2000.
Who has been materially harmed by this surveillance?
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)...but it really begs the question - if you don't think judicial review is the appropriate means to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by congress, then what? How do we ever determine the constitutionality of anything? Should we each determine the law ourselves, according to our reading of the document?
I don't know that anyone has been materially harmed by the surveillance. That's kind of the point. The NSA was established for a reason, however, and has perhaps prevented harm here and there.
Deep13
(39,157 posts)The power of judicial review was created in the case of Marbury vs. Madison when C.J. Marshall decided that Fed. courts have the right to determine the constitutionality of Fed. laws. So, you were worried about circular reasoning?
It's not so much that I am against judicial review for Constitutional compliance, but that in recent years it has become pretty obvious that SCOTUS is more of a mini-legislature than an impartial court, invalidating laws that conflict with its own agenda and calling them unconstitutional. One thing that is apparent is that SCOTUS and the legal profession generally misread the Constitution because they are reading 21st c. values and norms into a document written for the 18th c.
It is true that the whole standing issue comes from Art. III (cases in controversy--no hypothetical matters). This shows that the whole pass-what-we-want-and-let-the-court-figure-it-out is the wrong approach. Due to standing requirements, much questionable law will never be litigated. So it is not enough for the Congress or POTUS to assume something is legitimate until a court says otherwise. All three branches have an affirmative duty to confine themselves to their enumerated powers. Considering how broad those powers are, it really should not be a problem to live within the letter of the law.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)That said, the fact that you know that a FISA court will give you whatever warrants you request does not, in and of itself, excuse your own lack of restraint in requesting them. Obama took his own oath to defend and protect the Constitution, the only federal employee constitutionally required to take such an oath.
Deep13
(39,157 posts)with judges appointed for life and confirmed by the Senate?
If not, I question their legitimacy.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)This woman after having already been nominated for the FISA court by Bush right before the 2002 midterm elections on the weekend before these elections in the final court resolution on the Microsoft case overturned the ONLY court decision since the AT&T breakup of trying to use the Sherman anti-trust act to break up any kind of monopolistic company.
http://www.zdnet.com/news/ms-doj-states-file-antitrust-settlement/126210
Ashcroft and company when they took over defending the appeal of the earlier decision made from the Clinton era prosecutions, etc. did nothing to defend the government's case against Microsoft.
Kollar-Kotelly, seemed to already have money in the bags for her compliance in this decision from the PTB with the FISA court appointment which she subsequently became the head of. And she made this decision the weekend before the midterm elections. Just in time for Republicans to be able to go around the stump saying how the Bush administration has helped American business "stay solid", etc. with the Kollar-Kotelly decision fresh out in the news, but not long enough for those who opposed this decision to prepare and get printed out any sort of reasonable response in the press to help Democrats respond to such claims in a constructive way then. The whole decision and timing of it stank heavily. And that she was appointed to the FISA court smelled as well about how things would be done on the FISA court subsequently (or not done!)...
However, she's one of the few justices on the FISA court that the right wing goes after for questioning the earlier NSA warrants that went through the court. Given her earlier history, it makes you wonder what the other justices did to get on this court and how "compliant" they are to what the PTB want...
http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2007/08/president-kollar-kotelly-alias-activist-fisa-judge-at-it-again/
So even though the FISA court was manipulated as hell to help our "security state" gain more power, even that body was a barrier that had to be removed or disempowered. We do have a very large boiling pot of water that we all as frogs are very slowly being cooked in! We're almost "done" unless we get more whistleblowers, etc. that try to tip it over...
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)This dude's swinging at a pitch from Saturday's game!
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts) JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)The "apologists" may or may not be insane. Some, certainly, are certifiable. They may not realize it, but their own words make them stand out.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Here're links to my DU3 Journal and DU2 Journal, where you can judge me all you want.
I tried to check yours and got this:
Not that it means anything as to your state of mind; but to your politics, yes.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)because they may not agree with your point of you. Is this Freeperville because that's how it goes down on that site.
You don't get to judge anybody. I don't care how long you've been around.
You don't have that right!
Octafish
(55,745 posts)If you had a journal it would make it easier to tell your politics. Seeing how you don't have one, I have to judge based on these few exchanges.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)my "0" journal entries as if to infer that since I hadn't written anything--and YOU had--that I have no credibility.
Why don't we just let this go. We don't agree and that's fine. But personal attacks or petty self-righteousness is not necessary.
Number23
(24,544 posts)you ever had on this web site in one easy to locate Database of Shit. 
Because you know, that MEANS something when you add things to your Journal! Journals MEAN something!!21
Some of the crap I have been reading around here lately... yeah, "certifiable" comes up repeatedly but probably not the same folks the person who rummaged through your journal is thinking about.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)open my mouth to disagree.
It's getting worse here. I may need to take a break for a while. Talk about "certifiable".
Cha
(319,063 posts)about CT all these years.. or not. It doesn't matter, Liberal Stalwart. I look around and I respect and trust many posters and you're one of them.
I'd rather be an Obama "apologist" than a fucking ratfucker, glenn Liar Greenwald "apologist". Greenwald is so adept at personal insults.. surely he can take it directed at him? rofl
"Further, Greenwald said, "I find that the people behind these lawsuits are truly so odious and repugnant, that creates its own motivation for me."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211
markiv
(1,489 posts)“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”
― Noam Chomsky, The Common Good
what he means by this, is a well disguised dictatorship
domestic spying, anti worker trade deals and guest worker programs, endless wars etc, joe six pack has no say - at all
things like gay marriage and other social issues, lively debate allowed, because those in power dont care about it. doesnt mean it's not important, it just means that the power cabel does not care about it's outcome, so it 'allows' the little people to debate it
it also divides those who might unite and oppose the dictated agenda
Myrina
(12,296 posts)Thank you. 
So true.
PB
ocpagu
(1,954 posts)Thank you.
merrily
(45,251 posts)broad.
People who limit themselves in order to win some kind of popularity contest here can pretty much blame self censorship, not the board.
On the other hand, trying to shame someone into silence or into going along with the crowd is a very right wing trait, IMO. It doesn't matter if it is the right wing of the Democratic Party or not. It's classic RW.
LuvNewcastle
(17,821 posts)That's why you don't hear any substantive arguments about anything political, except for a couple of places on the internet like DU. The two major parties mostly agree on the really important stuff, such as the Patriot Act and all the authorizations for war they've passed through the years. We can talk all we want about gay marriage or abortion, but groups like Occupy must be stamped out.
b.durruti
(102 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)By the way, you're like three, four days late with this post. This was only posted about 300 times on Thursday/Friday.
Please try to keep up with prevailing traffic.
Today's line is "Authoritarians attacking Edward Whats'isname," or something to that effect. Start an OP now! It will be meta-delicious!
bobduca
(1,763 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)I get that I'm supposed to be the "Quisling" here, but please dear Gawd don't do the "My name is X and I'm here to say..." routine. Your Vanilla Ice was bad enough.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)Now If I were to call you the rap game OPERATIONMINDCRIME, then it would be on like donkey kong!!!111
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)I'm offended as somebody who appreciates good hip hop.
byeya
(2,842 posts)with secret judges, secret evidence, I'd like to see some evidence of probable cause to meet the language of the 4th Amendment.
cstanleytech
(28,470 posts)who am I to argue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was introduced on May 18, 1977, by Senator Ted Kennedy and was signed into law by President Carter in 1978. The bill was cosponsored by the nine Senators: Birch Bayh, James O. Eastland, Jake Garn, Walter Huddleston, Daniel Inouye, Charles Mathias, John L. McClellan, Gaylord Nelson, and Strom Thurmond.
The FISA resulted from extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervin and Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President Richard Nixon’s usage of federal resources to spy on political and activist groups, which violates the Fourth Amendment.[4] The act was created to provide Judicial and congressional oversight of the government's covert surveillance activities of foreign entities and individuals in the United States, while maintaining the secrecy needed to protect national security. It allowed surveillance, without court order, within the United States for up to one year unless the "surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party". If a United States person is involved, judicial authorization was required within 72 hours after surveillance begins.
Itchinjim
(3,183 posts)Just more of the same old pot stirring bull shit that stinks ups DU about every three months
randome
(34,845 posts)
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
treestar
(82,383 posts)and the things Bush did that Obama cut out.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)thanks to Congress covering for him with the amendment to the FISA Bill. If you mean that they weakened that bill, which was weak enough already, then I agree, they cut out even more protections and made legal what Bush did by making the bill retroactive.
What requirement eg, is in the bill that there needs to be probable cause to get a warrant? How can allowing blanket surveillance of millions of people even begin the process of establishing probable cause unless all US citizens are somehow automatically suspects and we are to accept that as probable cause? I've seen lots of defenses of what is going on but no specifics to back them up. We knew what was in that bill years ago and there was outrage THEN over it. What changed since then? Did they vote for another bill, was that bill amended again? Iow, why should we drop the objections now?
Or was Bush right after all? And that is why Congress protected him?
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)DoublePlusBad when Bush did it, but since Bush could not do anything that is good that Obama has done, it did not in fact happen.
cstanleytech
(28,470 posts)Bush was totally bypassing the FISA courts by running enough wire that he could have opened his own phone company?
Never mind as your answer doesnt matter because its clear some of you no matter what will seize any ax they can grab to grind on Obama even though he is abiding by the law by using the FISA courts.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)And unlike some folks, I never forgot the practice was ongoing, nor that it is irredeemably unConstitutional, just as much as it ever was, regardless of how much fucking window dressing and FISA approved lipstick you try to put on it.
cstanleytech
(28,470 posts)And I was active on a different forum myself saying much the same thing to but the difference between us though is I'm not nearly as ambidextrous at patting myself on the back over it.
As for FISA that started back in the 70s and it was setup to prevent the abuses under the Nixon administration and do you know who introduced it? Senator Ted Kennedy with President Carter signing it into law.
Skittles
(171,698 posts)
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)I have not made a single comment on this issue until now.
First the story hits and I think "What?" and try to figure it out. Then other information comes out that somewhat counters the original information.
In the end though the fact remains that there are mechanisms in place that enable access to the personal information of a great many of us.
I don't like it. Didn't like it when we first learned of it in the Bush years, still don't like it when we are reminded of it during the Obama years.
Ok. With that decided what might be a good thing to do would be to figure out how to best move forward in addressing the issue. I scan DU up and down and see an increasing amount of posts focused on dividing us. This is counter productive.
I've been an Obama supporter all along and will remain so on many issues. I will never agree with spying/wiretapping/whatever on the populace and will do what I can to stand against such practices but...
In the end, truth be known, I think it's been going on for a very long time and will continue forever. Deep down I don't think there will be much we can do about it. If the outcry against it gets loud enough it will simply get more covert.
Still, whatever happens, we need to work on uniting, not dividing.
Julie
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)Facts about this wholesale shredding of our Constitutional liberties only seem to come out when someone like Mark Klein, Ed Snowden, Thomas Drake or William Binney "break the law".
merrily
(45,251 posts)
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)
PB
otohara
(24,135 posts)the most? Democrats or Republican's?
Why Fact-Checkers Find More GOP Lies
PolitiFact rated Republican claims to be "false" or "pants on fire" three times more often than it rated Democratic claims that way this year, according to a new study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University. So: Does the GOP lie more? Is PolitiFact biased? Or do GOP liars — like fact-checking "dream" Michele Bachmann — get more attention?
The Pulitzer prize-winning PolitiFact is run by the Tampa Bay Times, and its reporters and editors sort politicians' claims into one of six categories: true, mostly true, half true, mostly false, false, and pants on fire — the last having an element of the "ridiculous." You can see how those ratings break down for both parties in the pie charts at right. A majority of Democratic claims were rated true; a majority of Republican claims were rated false. CMPA points out that PolitiFact found more Republican lies even in May — though there are three agency scandals facing the Obama administration: over the IRS targeting conservative groups, over the State Department's talking points about Benghazi, and over the Justice Department's investigation into leakers. This month, 60 percent of Republican claims have been rated as lies, while 29 percent of Democratic claims have been.
Why is that? It's possible the fact-checkers are intentionally or unintentionally letting some bias show through. Whether or not that's true, the state of each party right now most certainly plays a role. A lot of very conservative Republicans got elected in 2010, and the Tea Party got a lot of attention, and some Tea Party Republicans have had a tendency to say inflammatory things. Like, say, Michele Bachmann.
Rival fact-checker Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post noted on Tuesday that with Bachmann's retirement, he'll lose some of his best material: "As one of our colleagues put it, 'The entire fact checking industry may have to hold a national day of mourning.'" In 2013 Bachmann has earned four Pinocchios, the most false rating the Post offers. Over her career, PolitiFact rated 15 Bachmann claims to be "pants on fire" ratings, its harshest rating. PolitiFact called her retirement "shocking." http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/politifact-lies-republicans-vs-democrats/65688/
As if we needed a study to know what's so fucking obvious and has been for decades. Well it's obvious to most of us.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)After 9/11 Bush started conducting wiretaps and other surveillance without a warrant via FISA.
In 2008, senator Obama attacked Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program and campaigned to stop the practice.
Obama once in office returned to the policies before Bush in using FISA law to obtain warrants wherever surveillance is performed.
By the way, FISA was created by Ted Kennedy as a response to Nixon using warrantless wiretaps. So if comparing anyone, compare Bush to Nixon and not Obama.
mfcorey1
(11,134 posts)neighbor, credit card company, credit bureau, internet service, haters, and so many more are spying on you.
jimlup
(8,010 posts)I'd venture that the details are a little more complex.
Trying to run a modern justice system and keep the people safe from "terrorism" is non-trivial no matter who is in charge. Organizations work to their advantage as they are able.
Perhaps the good thing about this being exposed under Obama will be some movement towards a more transparent and accountable system.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Peregrine Took
(7,583 posts)John Bolton, Peter King, Donald Trump?
If you agree with them you know you are screwed up.
Also, see the same words coming up in their anti Snowden diatribes, i.e. "clown", h.s. drop out, narcissist....guess they all got the WH memo.
The really low blow is from the Stephanie Miller bot crowd....decrying him as a "community college" person. The height of rich girl(s) snobbery coming out.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Has Cheney weighed in yet? What a slap in the face for those of us who worked so hard to get rid of these criminals, to see them applauding our party for essentially vindicating them now.
LuvNewcastle
(17,821 posts)enough people hear it. There's a whole lot of community college people in this country; I'm sure they outnumber Ivy Leaguers by a huge margin.
MineralMan
(151,259 posts)Government does lots of things I don't like. Republicans do more than Democrats. So, I'll take your observations with the consideration they're worth. Since I don't know you or your actual beliefs, that will be with a few grains of sodium chloride.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to principles, you have no need to spin and excuse and pretend you are 'concerned' about preserving democracy rather than defending the team.
It's so much easier to be guided by the law rather than the latest memos issued by political parties. It served me well when arguing with Bush supporters. It's hard to say out loud that you don't care about the Constitution, even though your defense of violations of the law, says you don't that you care more about politics.
Obama contradicted Ben Franklin, one of the authors of the Constitution, in his speech when he stated that we cannot have '100% security without giving up some rights'! I found that to be pretty frightening considering the oath they take.
Ben Franklin makes a lot more sense on the issue of being too frightened to fight to preserve rights that were so hard fought for.
But that's just me, I'm not easily frightened by 'terror' propaganda, we all die sooner or later and it's better to die on your feet than live on your knees, as someone once said. Ask anyone who lived in a totalitarian state. Otoh, some people do quite well in totalitarian states. I prefer democracy.
Thanks for your always interesting comments. I seem to keep running across you in threads like this.
MineralMan
(151,259 posts)I took, and take, them seriously. So seriously that I've studied that document for years, reading every word, and keeping the entire document in mind at all times.
Lots of people who claim to support the Constitution have not done that, and often extract portions of it out of context to support their opinions. When confronted with the entire contents of the place where they extracted their "proof text," they stumble and bumble and reveal their lack of actual knowledge.
The Constitution sets up the organization of our government, describes its limitations, and establishes the hierarchy of the power structure of the three branches of government. The Amendments to it offer guarantees of rights for citizens and states, along with some other functional things.
Without considering the entire document, and the system of government it establishes, excerpts do not really work well. A careful reading of the 4th Amendment must take into account the system of checks and balances established in the main body of the document. Without that accounting, it makes little sense. With it, it's easy to understand. I don't see a lot of that type of consideration most of the time.
Many people who cry out, "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" only mean they don't like what's happening and found a fragment of the document they think supports their point of view. It's not that simple.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts).....you would like it all to go back to Bush's and Nixons way of doing things?
The misrepresentation of facts is not so much insane, as it is transparent.
PS insulting long standing members on DU is an ignoble start to your tenure here. Try reading a few facts.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)Hmmmm, No wonder there is no evidence of spying on American citizens.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Well, it has a catchier ring than any Bush could fumble out of his mouth. So, Obama's superior marketing of the spy program does rectify the program to a large extent. Now try saying that to a Beatles tune
chillfactor
(7,694 posts)since the Joseph McCarthy era......this nothing new...........
madokie
(51,076 posts)GET. THAT. The president is not spying on you. The president is not spying on you. The president is not spying on you. The president is not spying on you. The president is not spying on you. The president is not spying on you.
The president is not spying on you. The president is not spying on you. The president is not spying on you.
GOT. IT. YET?!
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Since when did the Wants of the many out wiegh the Rights of One
ProSense
(116,464 posts)but terrible when Bush did it?
It's terrible no matter who does it. Didn't the people elect Obama to -move away- from Bush's bullshit?
All the apologists here are insane...
..."apologists" who are "insane," but the people who don't know the facts and are resorting to name calling.
Bush came under attack because he bypassed the FISA court and went directly to intentionally spying on Americans. Bush broke the law (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022973979).
President Obama's actions are legal and he is not spying on Americans.
polynomial
(750 posts)In understanding the Constitution is out dated. Ladies and Gentleman of America, at that time the Constitution was drawn up, the electromagnetic spectrum was in the onset and developing in its infancy. Actually just about some decade before the Calculus in math was introduced by Newton which needed to work to mature in the science just developed.
The kicker, the mathematics today is roaring along a whole lot faster than decades ago. The real change in swift progress is the new opportunity the computer mathematics with geometric interpretation is changing the whole platform in how humans move through culture, progress and understanding. This new age has a totally different approach to society then just picture books in education.
Incredible things happen before during and after a war. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. A familiar phrase if you took a typing class using the new IBM electric typewriters in college many years ago. However the phrase still has the same great meaning or flavor as time passes?
Here, my point is many or all of the great advances are made through the College system under the covert cover in grants free tax money from the poor or middle class all or many because of the military branches seeking unique ways to improve their ways. Yes even the atom bomb, secret programs wide open in the social, quiet in some secret room in a large corporation.
Programs in new computer languages, structured under alias names to protect this asset of the one percent. Prism is likely one type of a future design, but built and shaped by talents of the special few. Hopefully, a few special people who will not become the hackers, identity thieves, or terrorist of the future on our dime.
david13
(3,554 posts)Spying would only be wrong if a republican were to do it.
dc
AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)
pnwmom
(110,259 posts)The Patriot Act allows the government to collect and analyze phone records, including numbers but not names. In order to collect further information, they have to go to a judge with probable cause and get a warrant -- as for any criminal case.
This isn't what Bush wanted. He wanted to continue wiretapping people without getting a warrant.
Deep13
(39,157 posts)
boilerbabe
(2,214 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Much so his administration bypassed the oversight. There isn't anymore believing in Santa Claus after 9 11, either we beef up our awareness or there will be more large attacks. We can't wait to see if the tooth fairy is going to protect us. Realize in the last few years there has been many bombings and many attempts. We must now be proactive and records of phone calls, emails and internet use has to be watched. You are free to cease activity so there will not be a record of your usage or know there is going to be a database of your usage and it simply does not matter who the president or any other office holder is the answer will be the same.
ForeignandDomestic
(190 posts)You mean when you protested against this when Bush did it, it was based on principles and not simply because he was a Republican?
I thought in this political game we were suppose to cheer for our team regardless policies be damned?