Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Snowden's Dad: If Edward Would Have Stayed In the USA: "He would have been buried under the capital" [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)67. What?
"2005 is irrelevant, ant the Tamm case is irrelevant because the programs themselves had not been made 'legal' by Congress. Obama had not yet voted to OK them.
Remember, they had to give retroactive amnesty to the companies that had cooperated with the government in the program. "
This is exactly what people get wrong when they conflate Bush's illegal spying with the current programs. The FISA amendments did not make Bush's illegal activities legal. It gave immunity to the telecoms.
Bush bypassed the FISA court completely, and actually eavesdropped on Americans. That was illegal and still is.
That was what Obama criticized when he said:
In 2007, then-Senator Obama criticized the Bush administration for monitoring Americans who had done nothing wrong:
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/no-comment-necessary-obama-on-surveillance-in-2007/
This administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/no-comment-necessary-obama-on-surveillance-in-2007/
There have been a number of media reports using the same Obama quote to basically claim that he once called out Bush, but then embraced the policy. They are intentionally conflating a quote about the push for the Protect America Act with his position on the 2008 FISA amendments, which he voted for. They are not the same thing. The PAA was a Republican effort to absolve Bush.
Obama voted against the Protect America Act (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00309), which in fact expired in early 2008.
Senator Mitch McConnell introduced the act on August 1, 2007, during the 110th United States Congress. On August 3, it was passed in the Senate with an amendment, 6028 (record vote number 309). On August 4, it passed the House of Representatives 227-183 (roll number 836). On August 5, it was signed by President Bush, becoming Public Law No. 110-055. On February 17, 2008, it expired due to sunset provision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007#Legislative_history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007#Legislative_history
Here's Bush's statement at the time: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080214-4.html
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
137 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Snowden's Dad: If Edward Would Have Stayed In the USA: "He would have been buried under the capital" [View all]
kpete
Aug 2013
OP
Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming!
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
Aug 2013
#60
He wouldn't have been protected because he didn't bother to become a whistleblower.
msanthrope
Aug 2013
#2
2005 is irrelevant, ant the Tamm case is irrelevant because the programs themselves had not
JDPriestly
Aug 2013
#61
And here is why I object to the surveillance programs no matter who runs them
JDPriestly
Aug 2013
#119
It does protect contractors. What it does not protect is release to the public--Snowden would have
msanthrope
Aug 2013
#13
Even if it is procured illegally by th egovernment? Even if it runs afoul of the 4th Amendment?
RC
Aug 2013
#103
Yes, he should have done what Drake and Binney did. Drake followed the rules to the last letter and
sabrina 1
Aug 2013
#37
Doesn't Greenwald also have a financial interest in the movie that filmmaker is crafting? nt
MADem
Aug 2013
#31
Well, he could have disclosed under the Intelligence Community Whistleblowers Protection Act of 1998
msanthrope
Aug 2013
#14
Some secrets should be secret. Reasonable people can disagree about what those secrets are, but
msanthrope
Aug 2013
#22
Of course, history clearly shows how our government feels about whistleblowers. n/t
1awake
Aug 2013
#32
Like Drake did? How did that work for him?? Drake 'disclosed under the ICWP Act of 1998
sabrina 1
Aug 2013
#41
How about Drake and Binney? They did everything according to the book and were destroyed
sabrina 1
Aug 2013
#43
And this is why we need to encourage aggressive use of the ignore function.
backscatter712
Aug 2013
#72
It's Communist in name only. Actually it has the second largest capitalist
totodeinhere
Aug 2013
#65
I did not deny that they have a Communist party. What I am saying is that they
totodeinhere
Aug 2013
#126
If Edward had performed on his job and had nit stolen files and revealed information
Thinkingabout
Aug 2013
#130