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
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: Remember when Obama said the NSA wasn’t “actually abusing” its powers? He was wrong. [View all]Divernan
(15,480 posts)92. "Constructive knowledge" can be assigned to Obama.
In addition to actual knowledge, the law also recognizes the concept of constructive knowlege.
Constructive Knowlege
That which exists, not in fact, but as a result of the operation of law. That which takes on a character as a consequence of the way it is treated by a rule or policy of law, as opposed to its actual character.
For example, constructive knowledge is notice of a fact that a person is presumed by law to have, regardless of whether he or she actually does, since such knowledge is obtainable by the exercise of reasonable care.
For example, possession of the key to a safe-deposit box is constructive possession of the contents of the box since the key gives its holder power and control over the contents.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/constructive
Then the question becomes whether Obama took reasonable care to exercise oversight and control, as required of a president.
Which then raises the question of how much "plausible deniability" has Obama put in play re NSA, CIA, etc.
Plausible deniability is a term coined by the CIA during the Kennedy administration to describe the withholding of information from senior officials in order to protect them from repercussions in the event that illegal or unpopular activities by the CIA became public knowledge.
The term most often refers to the denial of blame in (formal or informal) chains of command, where senior figures assign responsibility to the lower ranks, and records of instructions given do not exist or are inaccessible, meaning independent confirmation of responsibility for the action is nearly impossible. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such acts. The lack of evidence to the contrary ostensibly makes the denial plausible, that is, credible. The term typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for one's (future) actions or knowledge.
In politics and espionage, deniability refers to the ability of a "powerful player" or intelligence agency to avoid "blowback" by secretly arranging for an action to be taken on their behalf by a third party ostensibly unconnected with the major player. In political campaigns, plausible deniability enables candidates to stay "clean" and denounce third-party advertisements that use unethical approaches or potentially libellous innuendo.
Plausible deniability is also a legal concept. It refers to lack of evidence proving an allegation. Standards of proof vary in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, the standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence" whereas in a criminal matter, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." If an opponent lacks incontrovertible proof (evidence) of their allegation, one can "plausibly deny" the allegation even though it may be true.
The term most often refers to the denial of blame in (formal or informal) chains of command, where senior figures assign responsibility to the lower ranks, and records of instructions given do not exist or are inaccessible, meaning independent confirmation of responsibility for the action is nearly impossible. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such acts. The lack of evidence to the contrary ostensibly makes the denial plausible, that is, credible. The term typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for one's (future) actions or knowledge.
In politics and espionage, deniability refers to the ability of a "powerful player" or intelligence agency to avoid "blowback" by secretly arranging for an action to be taken on their behalf by a third party ostensibly unconnected with the major player. In political campaigns, plausible deniability enables candidates to stay "clean" and denounce third-party advertisements that use unethical approaches or potentially libellous innuendo.
Plausible deniability is also a legal concept. It refers to lack of evidence proving an allegation. Standards of proof vary in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, the standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence" whereas in a criminal matter, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." If an opponent lacks incontrovertible proof (evidence) of their allegation, one can "plausibly deny" the allegation even though it may be true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
131 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
Remember when Obama said the NSA wasn’t “actually abusing” its powers? He was wrong. [View all]
Catherina
Aug 2013
OP
Butt hurt. Keep bringing it on, Catherina! The truth will defeat the ProCheney, ProAuthoritarians.
chimpymustgo
Aug 2013
#107
What I heard him say it that we have a system that can be abused but isnt being abused
rhett o rick
Aug 2013
#61
That sounds about right. They really do think we are all stupid. Although the frenzied reactions
sabrina 1
Aug 2013
#77
I think they are well aware that a lot of Americans, while maybe not stupid, really dont care.
rhett o rick
Aug 2013
#93
Zero mistakes are impossible. The rate is extremely low though, you must admit.
JaneyVee
Aug 2013
#98
Yeah, something like that. Exactly that. And only McCain & Graham could go to Egypt
Catherina
Aug 2013
#10
"I don't want to see the first Black President of the US go down on something this stupid."
ProSense
Aug 2013
#15
You're correct. When he totally absolved the past, saying "go forward, not back",
delrem
Aug 2013
#46
With the Internet, we may see the first President to DO something about it....
Spitfire of ATJ
Aug 2013
#29
There is a fine line between rhetoric and lying. He is certainly a master at rhetoric. nm
rhett o rick
Aug 2013
#63
Do you honestly believe the CIA hasn't had ongoing operations regardless of who's President?
Spitfire of ATJ
Aug 2013
#25
I'm glad I'm not the only one pointing out that the OP is using an NSA document. nt
msanthrope
Aug 2013
#83
Why is it when when some people are wrong, they're LYING, but when others are wrong
Dreamer Tatum
Aug 2013
#74
At this point its hard to take SnowGlen fans seriously because of the consummate amount of sophistry
uponit7771
Aug 2013
#90
Well, now that he knows of the abuse, I'm sure Obama will prosecute the abusers....won't he?
Tierra_y_Libertad
Aug 2013
#78
Holder is on it! Like the SEC on Wall Street, or banking regulators on Bof A
Safetykitten
Aug 2013
#79