Quote:
Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane
....
President Obama said in May that government efforts to protect computer systems from attack would not involve “monitoring private-sector networks or Internet traffic,” and Department of Homeland Security officials say the new program will scrutinize only data going to or from government systems.
In a sense, this is no different than George Bush’s Terrorist Surveillance Program at the NSA — only Bush’s TSP required some reasonable cause for surveillance. TSP intended to prevent terrorist attacks by surveilling communication traffic from or to people outside the US, prompted by discoveries of suspected terrorist communication points. The NSA in this program checks communications entirely within the US, as well as coming from outside, in order to find potential attacks on our infrastructure. AT&T will route any communications to any government website through NSA for surveillance during the Einstein 3 test phase, for instance, regardless of probable cause, and the rest of the carriers would follow suit once Einstein 3 passes its initial tests.
This represents a major shift from the campaign, and even from last May, for Obama, who appears to like the power against which he railed for more than two years as a candidate. Of course, he exercises it with charm and finesse, which exempts him from charges of "fascism."
|
Given that much of Bush's TSP was illegal, by bypassing FISA, and was done w/o any notification to Congress and in complete secrecy.....IMO, there is no comparison.
As you failed to note, the current administration is also committed to provisions to balance personal privacy with the need to safeguard govt computer networks.....adn you are reading about it in advance (transparency?).
BTW, the Obama administration also recently announced plans to kill a Bush program that would use U.S. spy satellites for domestic (state/local) law enforcement.
More of the same? - a bit of a stretchhhhhhhhh
---------- Post added at 08:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:55 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane
After listening to the Democrats screech for the last two years about the rule of law, this Jake Tapper report should be surprising …. but it’s not. Apparently, Barack Obama finds treaty ratification a little too complicated, and so he figures he can just commit the US to nuclear disarmament and bypass Congressional oversight:
And as much as the Democrats howled over the supposed devotion of George Bush to a “unitary executive,” Obama seems to have no trouble bypassing the check on executive power for treaty negotiation written explicitly into the Constitution, in Article II, Section 2:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
Words. Just words. |
Given that Bush had no interest in extending START, but instead, replacing it with a far weaker, SORT......IMO, it is unreasonable to expect a full and complete renegotiation of START in eight-nine months,given the range of complex issues left by Bush, particularly missile defense in eastern Europe, relations with Georgia, etc.. along with discussions of the issues of cuts in delivery systems: long-range missiles, submarines and bombers, etc.
At least now, both sides are committed to some extension snd a continued draw down of nuclear weapons and inspection/verification.
As to extending START on a interim basis so as not to disrupt current inspections, etc, perhaps the president should go to Congress for that authorization.
On the other hand, he is not implementing a new treaty (which wold require ratification), but simply continuing the current status quo past the deadline date....and a president has the power to sign executive agreements between the US and other nations, which is done far more often than treaties.
IMO, another stretchhhhhhhhhh, dude.
---------- Post added at 08:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 PM ----------
I'm also still waiting on your response to the other significant policy changes that I identified earlier:
- ending the Bush policies of enhanced interrogation
- closing and ending the use of black prisons
- limiting rendition (banning rendition to countries that torture their own citizens)
- new DoJ guidelines being prepared to oveturn the Bush policy whereby detainees tried by military commissions in the U.S. would now be able to claim at least some constitutional rights, particularly protection against the use of statements taken through coercive interrogations.
More of the same?
Please explain how that is the case.
BTW, I dont agree with all of Obama's national security policies. I knew he was committed to titling a bit towards national security over personal privacy (I might tilt a tad the other way)....but the balance between the two is far closer than anytime during the last eight years.