Lol, this should only be a surprise to those that weren't paying attention in 2008. The FISA amendment was passed without a single no vote on the republican side in either the house or senate, all no votes came from dems (and even a lot of dems voted yes, including Obama). The renewal of the FISA amendment only saw 23 nay votes in the senate with three of those nays being republican. Only 7 republicans voted no in the house for its reauthorization (118 no votes).
Your outrage simply highlights your ignorance and your lack of foresight.
It's great that you want to hold Obama accountable but how about applying equal pressure to the idiots that voted for it and it's renewal?
-snip-
And despite this you blame Obama for allowing something that "your team" voted for and that he supports for not going against the law.
Heh. Do you suppose that there is a snowball's chance in Hell of altering current law while Repubs control the HOR & have 40 seats in the Senate?
As much as the Republicans are at fault, the Democrats including Obama are just as much to blame.
When did anybody vote for domestic wiretapping?
What bill/law?
Fern
The difference is that once they catch all the bad guys, Obama will turn the prisms off!
The patriot act that amended FISA and it's subsequent anendments doesn't ring a bell? While FISA is primarily used for foreign entities it does have provisions for surveillance on American citizen, all done in the name of the war on terror.
Yeah, I've looked at both of them (mostly FISA because it is thrown around so much in this discussion) and I don't see how either the PRISM or NUCLEON programs are authorized by these acts. Not even close.
If you think so, please link it etc.
(I also think some common sense is useful here. How the h3ll can something top secret be passed in legislation? Legislation is public, how the heck do you keep something top secret like that?
No, this was not done by legislation. This was done by Presidential order and one question is whose.)
Fern
So, uhh, now you're a legal scholar, speaking with some sort of authority?
It's all just speculation until the SCOTUS rules on the issue, given the complex nature of the wording of the AUMF, the Patriot Act, & FISA legislation.
Lower Courts have done their best to derail & delay the process, and the SCOTUS has avoided ruling through a variety of maneuvers. Bet you're glad that the Court is packed with authoritarian Conservatives, huh?
Congress has the power to create a showdown with the Executive branch should they choose to do so, simply by rescinding the AUMF, altering the provisions of various acts to eliminate any interpretation that allows widespread domestic surveillance, send the bills to the President. They had a golden opportunity back when the Patriot act was extended. Gee, why didn't they do it then?
Recinding the aumf? I approve. The effect?
http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/05/28/meet-the-post-aumf-executive-war-powers-same-as-the-old-ones/
Note my reference isn't a Republican mouthpiece.
You know what would really work? For Obama to stop this shit.
That link has nothing to do with domestic surveillance.
It has to do with repealing the AUMF and an administration who has become so power drunk that he comes out and declares he's right and has no plans to change. Repeal anything you like but the SCOTUS will have to declare his actions unconstitutional to get him to stop and I'm not sure his narcissistic self will listen then.
When called on deflection, you merely re-deflect to obfuscate the role of Congressional Repubs wrt a situation you claim to deplore. You go on to predict Presidential behavior as if it were fact rather than speculation on your part.
You address the content of post #85 not in the slightest. Congress has the power to craft legislation as I offered, even to override a presidential veto of such. Yet they didn't alter the Patriot & FISA acts in the slightest when presented with the opportunity because of Repub filibuster power in the Senate.
Which makes it all Obama's fault, right?
In matters of national security, the executive branch will always tend to expand their efforts, particularly when Congress offers extremely vague boundaries to such action. That hasn't changed since the founding of the Republic, nor likely will it ever. Just the way it is. There have even been times in the past when the executive branch willfully acted contrary to the law, as in the Iran-Contra affair.
When called on deflection, you merely re-deflect to obfuscate the role of Congressional Repubs wrt a situation you claim to deplore. You go on to predict Presidential behavior as if it were fact rather than speculation on your part.
You address the content of post #85 not in the slightest. Congress has the power to craft legislation as I offered, even to override a presidential veto of such. Yet they didn't alter the Patriot & FISA acts in the slightest when presented with the opportunity because of Repub filibuster power in the Senate.
Which makes it all Obama's fault, right?
In matters of national security, the executive branch will always tend to expand their efforts, particularly when Congress offers extremely vague boundaries to such action. That hasn't changed since the founding of the Republic, nor likely will it ever. Just the way it is. There have even been times in the past when the executive branch willfully acted contrary to the law, as in the Iran-Contra affair.
So I take it this is a lose lose for Obama?
Spy on american people and people get outraged for him spying on the american people?
or
Don't spy on the american people and another 9-11 happens, and now blame Obama for not doing enough to stop it from happening.
What to do, what to do?
So I take it this is a lose lose for Obama?
Spy on american people and people get outraged for him spying on the american people?
or
Don't spy on the american people and another 9-11 happens, and now blame Obama for not doing enough to stop it from happening.
What to do, what to do?
I guess it sucks to be him that being President is a hard, thankless job and the office doesn't confer magical powers to avoid blame and political opposition. But then maybe he shouldn't have run for the job if his true desire was just to be universally admired and not have to make difficult decisions. And if he's changed his mind, maybe he should step down and let someone else do it who is up to the job.
And actually there is an easy path to a win-win for him. Obama should man up, admit that he fucked up and takes responsibility, and that he's stopping this spying shit immediately. Doing this wouldn't weaken him, indeed it would make him far stronger. The "scandal" would immediately go away, the political damage would be minimal (certainly less than what's he's experiencing by continuing to resist), and he'd actually gain back some trust and respect from the American people.
So I take it this is a lose lose for Obama?
Spy on american people and people get outraged for him spying on the american people?
or
Don't spy on the american people and another 9-11 happens, and now blame Obama for not doing enough to stop it from happening.
What to do, what to do?
If he does that, conservatives will say, "see, even Obama himself admits that it was totalitarian and wrong, and he's only stopping it now to save his political ass after he got caught."
-snip-
What to do?
IMO, easy to answer. There are now several ex-NSA official who are running around various TV news shows explaining exactly what should have been done. They all quit because of their personal opposition to these huge dragnets of ALL data of ALL people.
They all endorse a much more focused spying program which they describe in some detail.
I also think this binary choice you posit is fallacious. Even without these huge spying programs I think another 9/11 attack involving commercial aircraft is highly unlikely. Air marshals, cockpit security doors etc all work to prevent it, not to mention that the 'surprise element' I think so critical to the success of 9/11 no longer exists.
And if you're referring to some other huge attack, like a dirty nuke in a boat exploding in NY harbor, I see no reason to assume that these spying programs guarantee it won't happen.
Serious terrorists have long known that digital communications are not secure and they plan accordingly.
Fern