Skip to main content

View Diary: Breaking! More data mining by Obama Administration (41 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  once upon a time (12+ / 0-)

    we all seemed to have a big problem with domestic spying. but that was back when bush was president. things have changed.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 11:46:30 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  What saddens me most... (7+ / 0-)

      is the way this flip/flop will be used against democrats and liberals who protest the next time a GOP administration runs roughshod over our constitutional rights.

      We'll be dismissed as partisan hacks. This goofy approach implicates us all.
      Hell, maybe that's the genius of what the pro-spying wing of the party is doing.


      •  in the '80s (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Blicero, jennybravo, dclawyer06, pgm 01

        some republicans were calling environmentalists "terrorists." this is fun.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 11:52:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think of all the many outrages... (3+ / 0-)

          and let-downs(in recent years) none frighten me more than this surveillance apparatus. In time, it's real powers will be used not to react to events but to determine and shape them.

          There was discussion in OPOLs diary of the use of MLK and the wiretapping Hoover did to intimidate and marginalize him. I wonder if Dr. King could rise to prominence in a society in which the powerful have tools as powerful as those now in the hands of the NSA?

          Greatest weapon in the history of mankind, I tell ya.
          Oh well, cheers!

          •  That's a little different, isn't it? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            It's one thing to target an individual citizen for their political activities and something a bit different when the search is conducted on everyone. It would be like only searching people at the airport who looked like they might be Libertarians. The TSA searches everyone who wants to fly. The government wants to search everyone who sends an email. What's the difference exactly? Why should the government assume that I mean to do harm to an aircraft? Isn't that a very intrusive dragnet? And if I have rights under the 2nd Amendment, why can't I take a gun onto a plane? Pretty obvious answer, right? But the government's argument might be that information is a gun in today's world. Hackers can send information that destroys a power plant or turns off all of the traffic lights in NYC. By searching everyone one, the government serves the rights of its citizens by protecting them. They might argue that information was a fundamentally different thing in the 18th Century, just as a musket is not an assault weapon. People in the 18th Century had an expectation of remaining in possession of their personal papers. It might be argued that, when you send an email through half a dozen servers to a friend overseas, you have no expectation of privacy.

            Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

            by Anne Elk on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 03:44:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Obviously (0+ / 0-)

        you aren't part of the "we" so I wouldn't really sweat it.


        by otto on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 12:59:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I don't even consider Obama when I think (4+ / 0-)

      about this issue. It's bigger than anyone. But we need to get a handle on it somehow - and Snowdon may have give us a tiny window to do it.

      Probably not, but maybe.

      •  I noticed Snowden didn't mention this admin... (5+ / 0-)

        at all in his sit-down with Greenwald.
        This isn't about a political party or a President.
        It's much, much bigger.

        Snowden and Greenwald apparently have more leaks to share. I hope they keep up the good work.

        •  I wish (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          doroma, dclawyer06, jan4insight

          Snowden and Greenwald would just release it all and stop playing games with it by trying to capture headlines for as long as possible.

          It feels like the Republicans IRS investigation and promises of even worse to come!!!  Greenwald was looking absolutely smirky when he told Lawrence O'Donnell he had LOTS more information to release.  If what is being done is so harmful and dangerous, let us all know right now.

          Be well, ~*-:¦:-jennybravo-:¦:-*~

          by jennybravo on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 12:28:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Snowden may not have (0+ / 0-)

          mentioned the Obama administration, but thousand of comments have have.

          Be well, ~*-:¦:-jennybravo-:¦:-*~

          by jennybravo on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 12:32:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But that's not him. (0+ / 0-)

            He's no dummy, his statements were concise and deliberate. If he'd thought President Obama was the central part of this surveillance state, he would've focused on him more.

            His silence on the matter hasn't done him any favors with loyalists. If he'd wanted to whip up cheap support from the right he would've mentioned Obama during the interview.

            He didn't.

    •  there are some significant differences (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      in that Bush's were facially directly contrary to a statute.

      But, generally, if I object to Bush or another Republican having any Presidential power, where's the contradiction?  

      I think Bush is inept and motivated by bad faith, and his brother or Romney'd be the same, and I don't feel that about Obama.  That's why I voted for him.  That he hasn't claimed the ability to directly go around the other two branches is part of why i'm comfortable with him having that technological power, and not the Republicans.  Not objecting to Bush for no reason, just a narrower one.

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 12:07:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yes (5+ / 0-)

        our guy is good, so he can do what he wants. their guy is bad, so he shouldn't.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 12:11:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  He is doing what is legal (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          and not claiming he has power to do any more than what is legally accepted. The law should changed.

          Be well, ~*-:¦:-jennybravo-:¦:-*~

          by jennybravo on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 12:19:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  i'm being somewhat tongue in cheek (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          If the objection is that the programs, as disclosed, are inherently already problematic because the data collection itself if injurious, it wouldn't be a defense.  But I don't share that view, and never did, except to the extent Congress had then expressly forbidden it.  If the objection is more that the programs, as disclosed, could lead to abuse in the future, then who is in charge absolutely matters.  Not for nothing, I wouldn't completely trust Clinton as much with this stuff, out factors relating to discipline and restraint.    The power of the Presidency is broader and deeper in totally unrelated ways to this, which is why judgment, and therefore, elections matter.  

          Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

          by Loge on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 12:21:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site