Obama continues warrantless wiretaps
 

Remember when a few people were pissed that Obama voted to support the new version of FISA that provided retroactive immunity to telecoms involved in spying on their customers? Turns out we were right.


It's nice that we have a president that doesn't dig holes in the white house lawn anymore, but I refuse to replace one corrupt leader for another. I'm not upset, I'm fucking livid.

Thoughts?

I am no fan of the guy but actually was hoping he would root out Bush style corruption. However, I haven't see many results. In most cases it seems he's doing nothing to stop it and in other it seems he's actively taking steps continuing it.

Glad you brought this up.

It's nice that Olberman covered this considering how much dirt he reported on about Bush. I was hoping he would have things like this about Obama as well. Sometimes I get the feeling he wishes he could say more, but is hamstrung by corporate media. Same goes for Dobbs at times.

He needs to end warrantless wiretapping. It's wrong for Bush to do it, it's wrong for Obama to do it IMO. I'm disappointed in him on this issue.

Here's hoping that he'll reverse his position on this.

We wanted "change" but none of us demanded Obama tell us what or how he was going to change things. And what things he wasn't going to change.

If you are livid do something about it instead of just saying "I'm livid."

I was hoping also, but, all one had to do was look at his friends and how he would throw them under buses and do all he could to distance himself from them. Character DOES matter.

Well.... he ain't gonna because he knows that it's just not terrorists that are his regimes #1 threat anymore.... it's the people, the masses that are going to eventually get fed up and revolt.

Which brings me to quote Pete Townshend..... this song represents what is going on and our VERY NEAR future...............

And if any of you are familiar with the KINKS Preservation Pts 1&2..... you'd know Obama had to have been listening to that and planning the be Flash.

I didn't want "change", change is a completely meaningless buzzword, I wanted capable leadership. I didn't just want Bush gone (or rotting in federal, pound you in the ass prison), I wanted someone actually capable of fulfilling the job of president without breaking some of the most serious and important laws governing our country.

For a fucking constitutional law teacher, Obama seems to be missing something pretty basic. By the time I'd graduated from middle school I understood the necessity for warrants, probable cause, etc.
Like what? Voting obviously doesn't work. When I support people that could actually improve things, they're lucky to get 2% of the vote while getting marginalized by both sides. Protesting definitely doesn't work when it's for anything bigger than a neighborhood issue. Writing my senator doesn't work. "Thank you for your concern." My congresswoman actually listens, but she's ignored even more than I am. Boycotting international corporations is like attacking the death star with a grain of rice. My government isn't just broke, it's in the deepest debt in the history of our species by leaps and bounds, and my state isn't far behind. I'm screaming to increase taxes and cut spending, but it's not "politically convenient" to do either. They have to get reelected to do even less shit, after all!

There's literally nothing, short of breaking a lot of laws, I can do.

What is it that you're doing?

not surprised, in fact predicted, that he would not relinquish powers that were grabbed by previous administrations, no matter how facially unconstitutional.

Tea parties. Sure as some say they may not mean anything but, I'm sure when those Addams boys planned theirs no one took them very seriously.

If you wake enough people up, and there are many waking up now that the new boss truly is becoming the same if not worse than the old boss. If people go to these tea parties start writing letters to the editor, start joining their local political parties and demand that they be heard and for true changes that hold government accountable, the press will listen, the parties will have no other choice than to listen because if the Dems lose the House in 2 years Obama won't get anything done, and that is becoming more and more of a strong possibility.

We organize sit-ins and demonstrations. We become radicals like they were in the 60's.

We still have voices, we can still demand changes.

And if those things don't work, well not to sound pessimistic but this country will be doomed. The only thing we'll truly be able to do at the end of the day then is pick up arms and take Washington by force. Our military will not fire on their own, hopefully. If people storm Washington... whether peacefully or in arms.... government will have no choice but to listen.

If we complain, stay asleep, etc and do nothing then we are as guilty as those fucks in Washington because we know what they are doing is wrong and not representative of the people and we allowed it.

Better to stand and fight for your beliefs and hope someone may hear you and fight beside you for what is right, than to die a complacent coward or an accomplice to scared of losing what little is left him and pass on even worse to your kids and grandkids.

"We must all hang together, or, assuredly, we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

No one relinquishes power once the door has been opened and no one did anything to truly stop it. Look at the Income tax, welfare, the telephone tax, "sin taxes" on alcohol, tobacco and so on.

Once we give government power, they take more and more.

Healthcare.... make it unaffordable and the people will want government to help them and give government power over that part of their lives.

Gun control.... give government power to make laws on guns then usurp rights of ownership slowly and over time.

Abortion...... give government the power to control who can or can't, give government control

Gay Marriage.... allow government to dictate what marriage is and who can become married to whom.... give government control

The above 4 are issues that either side you are on you are asking for government to take control. The above 4 have been issues as long as I can remember, nothing in there truly changes except government's control whether usurped overnight or in time.... BUT those issues provide the greatest smokescreens so that people don't truly see how they are being stolen from, how they are losing more and more rights and ownership of the country, how they are in essence being led to the gallows. It also helps when the ultra rich control both parties and almost all the media (Clear Channel, Disney, Microsoft, GE, Westinghouse, and so on). Local papers, radio stations television news.... it's all controlled by the same people who control the political parties..... in doing so they can control what media gets out and keep the masses in a haze.

But people are waking, the internet has helped... they don't control the internet yet..... but once they do, then there will never be an organized nationwide resistance.

But what do I know....

---------- Post added at 02:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:37 AM ----------

What did he know, he flew a kite in an electrical storm.

just one old man in a bunch of old men who wrote something two centuries ago when they had no clue how life would be today.

Senile, old, slave owning white anglo protestant, men who were wrong. Why, Obama even told us that..... he said that paper was imperfect.

Who would have known, 200 years of it's life and survival, that it was so imperfect and flawed and only Obama can fix it.

I find it funny the issues like the OP were the Dems cry for power grabbing and how unConstitutional those power grabs were..... yet they remain silent and seemingly approve of Obama doing exactly what Bush did.... grab all the power he possibly can and never once blink or apologize for taking rights away.

It would be nice to get the opinion of people who agreed with Bush on this subject now that Obama is doing it. Likewise from the people who were against wiretapping when Bush was doing it and now support and/or voted for Obama.

You mean that Obama did something considered "Stateist" or Tyrannical. Come on.

I think it was wrong with Bush did it and I think it is wrong now.

I decried it when Bush did it and my opinion hasn't changed with Obama, but I didn't expect Obama to stop doing it either.

It's not just a continuation; it's a bit worse:
(emphasis in original)

In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ's New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush's | Electronic Frontier Foundation

I don't know what to make of this other than it being a bridge from the last administration. I think a lot of this is merely tied to the joke that is the GWOT. I hope to see some indications that the Obama admin. is moving away from that in its entirety. The wiretapping issue I hope will die with that. There are already far too many people victimized by travesties of justice (and peace). The last thing we need right now is four more years of it.

I wonder how the other elements of "Homeland Security" will play out in this administration.

To play devil's advocate for a minute, this seems like an issue that sounds great and noble on the campaign trail, but suddenly changes when you step into the White House and are privy to all of the classified information. What if the Pentagon came to Obama and showed that these wiretaps stopped dozens of potential terrorist acts on US Soil? Would that change YOUR mind?

I finally got word from someone that attended one of those. They're conservative circle-jerks. They're Palin rallies without Palin. Even if you could rally enough conservatives, the crap that is said there would only further alienate liberals and whether conservatives like it nor not they absolutely need the liberals if you want to enact change. Right now liberals outnumber conservatives.
February 15, 2003, international protests involving what ended up being millions of people around the world, as many as a million in NYC alone, against the Iraq war received little MSM coverage and didn't change a thing. It was by far the largest protest in history and it was entirely useless.
I've been in more of those than I can count. They've only worked for local issues.
You're not fighting for anything if you're not fighting smart. What are you doing that stands even the faintest chance?

If that were the case, I would be open with the people and tell them. My belief is that while it may have worked at first, the terrorists and organized boogeymen have now found new ways to communicate (which happens) so the wiretaps and surveillance they are using now are there for other purposes. To possibly take out the people who speak out.... eventually.

Did you have this mindset when the program was introduced and run by Bushco?

To be fair, a lot of people did. It makes sense to you and me that warrantless wiretapping is a fundamental attack on privacy, and that privacy is a necessary right for liberty, but there are those that value safety so highly they'll even take the illusion. We can certainly fault their logic, but you can't hold someone's fear against them in the climate we've been in for the past 60 years. Cold war, terrorism; a boogeyman around every corner.

See the people I know going are much like myself , more fiscally conservative and socially liberal who understand micromanaging people's lives is not what government should do, and that spending has to be justified and programs streamlined and made more effective, throwing money at them but not changing the bureaucracy is not the answer.

If you did it just for MSM coverage and done solely for 1 day, it was for the wrong reason and it failed. If you protest to have government hear you and you continue the protest to make people aware of what is going on then, people will hear.

There's no reason they can't work in higher government, just needs better organization.

What's fighting smart? To me it's standing up for my beliefs and finding ways to change what I believe to be wrong. I just know if I believe all that I do will have no affect, then I won't do anything. It's all a question of being true to myself.

Most of the people at the rally were former Bush supporters and people that voted for McCain. If you supported either of these men for their economic policy, you're not a fiscal conservative. You're not even a fiscal liberal. But that's not the point.

Tea parties will be impotent as long as they're ideology rallies. You need a singular goal, something to be shared with your brothers and sisters on the left, like ending wiretapping. We liberals simply aren't going to get on board with neoliberalism because we've seen that it's all talk when neoliberals get into office. Lower taxes on the rich and spend tons on the military is just as much micromanaging as any social program a liberal might put in place.
We did it to demonstrate a united voice against the war, but the fact is that media outlets underestimated the numbers of protesters by leaps and bounds. I was in San Francisco, and there had to be something like 350,000 protesters on the street. Most media outlets said there were 50,000. There were over a million people on the streets in NYC, and the newspapers and media said something like 250,000. If people knew just how big the protests were, the odds of them taking the movement seriously might have had a bigger affect. All in all there were likely 10s of millions of people around the planet and several million in the US protesting that day, trying desperately to change the course we were on.

It did nothing.
There's no reason? What about free speech zones?
Fighting smart means no more bullshit protests that don't stand a chance of success. Fighting smart means employing methods that have succeeded in the past and stand a reasonable chance of succeeding now.

what about them? they are not constitutional. ignore them. if you have 4,000 people at a protest OUTSIDE the BS free speech zone, what the hell are the local police going to do? arrest everybody?

McCain and Bush's economic policies were failed trickle down overtures that in short term worked for Reagan but long term cannot work and would only continue the path to destruction. Obama's on the same path.

I'll have conservative friends there that are anti-abortion, pro capital punishment and so on... doesn't mean I support those views. Right now government is corrupt, taxes are out of control as is spending... Obama sees a problem he throws money at it and changes nothing... but he expected the car companies to change policy but he won't change policies and make them less accessible to middle America.

Then the millions that were out need to speak out, not just shake their head after that one day and say, "aw well".

What about them? If enough people feel the way you do about a certain issue and you organize, get word out and demonstrate government will have no choice but to listen.

What do you suggest?

Personally, I think after the tea parties people should form convoys to Washington, picking up people in other cities along the way. San Fran to St.Louis to DC and so on. I'd use vacation days, sick days to join the convoy and to help organize this areas.

To those fearful they wouldn't have jobs to return to because the work they'd miss, look at it this way, if we don't do it now while we have the chance, then the job you have may not be there much longer anyway and the luxuries and lifestyle you have now may not exist in a year or 2 and then it maybe too late to do anything.

Speaking from experience, they grab the loudest, beat him or her, and then arrest him or her. A few hours later, the video shows up on youtube and finds it's way to reddit, where it's seen by maybe 40,000 people. Complaints are called in, but by the time all is said and done, the loudest protester has been in jail for several days and is somehow facing assaulting an officer charges. Meinwhile, the police continue to antagonize the protesters, who are on the verge of losing their shit because a brave and innocent person was just beaten and arrested in front of them, and then someone in the protest does something stupid and the whole protest is marginalized as violent and is forgotten. And that's if we're lucky. If we're unlucky, tons of cops will show up suddenly out of nowhere in riot gear and will start to fire gas cannisters into the crowd and things will get really ugly.

I think this is unfortunate, and sad. But I saw this coming.

And I don't think there would be evidence of this kind of stuff actually stopping anything.

But one of the key features of national security states and this BS GWOT is that it is nearly politically impossible to revert them. First because no one wants to be responsible if they reduce the national security apparatus and something happens.

Secondly, because too many private interests end up supporting this crap. A lot of new GWOT measures are actually used more frequently to protect copyrights, harass immigrants, etc.

I don't think it's a good idea to get into an economic debate in a thread about warrantless wiretaps. All I was saying is that we need a unifying issue, and that isn't present at these tea parties. They are conservative.

Let me put it this way, knowing where I stand on a lot of issues, do you think I'd be comfortable with the message at a tea party?
I don't want this to turn into an "Obama is wrong on this therefore he's wrong on everything" thread. I don't exactly agree with the bail-outs, but that convo might be served better elsewhere.
That protest was our trump card, our final attack on the death star. It was the culmination of some of the most incredible grass-roots movements of our time. And none of us stopped fighting after February 15th, we kept going, but most of us had jobs and school which meant that spending all day downtown simply wasn't viable. We went back to our local protests and grassroots media, but the lack of success with the protest was a huge defeat.
At this point, I can't really think of anything that fits between "active, but useless" and "illegal". You said above:
I'd love to, but I'm out of ideas. I refuse to break the law, but I don't want to waste my time on a strategy that stands no chance of success.

They faced that in the 60's and it added fuel to the fire, the protests didn't stop, they became stronger in the face of adversity.

I somehow believe that cops and the military all have families suffering because of the failed economic and government policies and they are less likely to do much. They may even join.

Podcast, have direct video to website coverage of your demonstrations... that way the people can see what is truly happening. Demand to be heard.

We're at a cross roads, it's either stand up and do or cower and die. We may never again have a chance to stand up in a year or 2.

Now, I would love to see the reaction of the crowd to an anti-GWOT speech at one of these tea parties. Considering that the major people pushing for them are people like Michele Malkin, Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck, all enthusiastic supporters of the GWOT.

that's the problem---this idiotic "war on terror" which is self-evidently still floating about (afghanistan anyone?) as the obama administration tries to work it's way through the clusterfuck left behind by the bush people---and this idiocy has been institutionalized in the "department of heimat security"...

the bizarre thing is not that this wiretap policy has continued (i which oppose--but i opposed and still oppose everything about this "war on terror" nonsense)...the interesting thing is that obama has started making moves to take the united states off the endless cold war model---you know, the military keynesianism that the right has used since reagan as it's preferred mode of massive state intervention in the economy--but because the right supported this, somehow it wasn't "statism" or anything else (pick your conservative meme)--it was "national security"---one result of this is that the extent of the patronage system that's been tied to the bloated unnecessary procurement policies that are of a piece with the imaginary eternal cold war are starting to make their way to washington for a huge fight over money and--here's the obvious kicker--jobs.

i do not think these two things are unrelated: starting the process of dismantling the national security state--which has been around since the late 1940s---is happening in the name of a different type of warfare, which is now taken as paradigmatic--which is the "war on terror"...assymetrical conflict, unconventional war---not the stuff of empires.

so i wonder about this relationship.

but again: i oppose the wiretaps and the war in afghanistan and the nonsense of the "war on terror" that gave rise to it.

Will,

You are a passionate, intelligent young man who I am proud to call friend.

Don't lose the passion. Tiring is what they want. They want people to believe what they do to speak out is going unheard and not changing anything.... they want people to become tired and thus shut up and sit down. But the longer you stand, the louder your voice grows, the more organized you become, the more people will follow, the more people come and follow and find their own voices.... the harder it becomes for government to say "shut up and sit down." The harder it becomes for government to do anything but listen.

Find that inner strength Will, use that passion and intelligence and find that voice in you that can't be worn down.

I'm not tired at all, I've got the energy of a Kenyan soccer player, it's just about finding a constructive avenue for this drive and frustration. I'd like someone several measures smarter than I am to sit me down and tell me what I can do that stands a chance of changing things. For the time being, I'm okay with posting articles to reddit, putting videos on youtube, and continuing to write my representatives, but these things aren't even drops in the bucket. I want the hose.

I have several very liberal friends. In polling them today, they have all said what the (apparent) liberals on here are saying, "Yeah, this is sort of wrong and I'm pretty disappointed in this and, uh, I certainly hope he changes his mind on this eventually. But hey, he might know something we don't know..." These very same liberals (my friends) told me 6 months ago that they couldn't wait for Obama to win so Bush could be PROSECUTED for his illegal wiretaps. He should have been impeached for it, blah, blah, blah. I see an awful amount of wiggling in this thread too. Apparently, principles are tied to "R" and "D". Sorry, but I'm calling you guys out on this. Look back and truly recall the things you said regarding Bush doing it. THAT is exactly how you should feel about it now. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it.

Other than one person who said they might know something we don't, where do you see any sort of wiggling?

I mean, the people "blowing the whistle" on this are Olbermann, the daily kos, and other lefties...

and since that happens everytime, what should you do to change it?

do NOT let that officer, or officers, make an example out of one of your own. That is how you get marginalized, by not showing any teeth. The first time that a police officer puts his hands on a protester, he should get mobbed and beaten, and then the others that jump in should get mobbed and beaten.

government bodies are not going to listen to you as long as you behave like little guinea pigs holding a damned sign. Once you threaten their base of power with your own, they will listen. Look at what happened after the BART shooting.

what you seem to miss, cimmaron, even in what you relay of your own friend's positions is that first the wiretapping business did not happen in isolation but as part and parcel of the central "policy" of the bush administration--the loopy "war on terror". your friends appear to have opposed the entirety of that fictional "war" (the effects of which were in many ways all too real)...obama has self-evidently changed the situation--he has broken up the logic, such as it was, of the bushwar--starting to actively wind down the iraq debacle, moving to close guantanomo, explicitly rejecting the bushjustifications for torture, rejecting the compulsion to secrecy that the bush people derived from their "war"...on and on. i happen to think that much of what the bush administration did can and should be understood as criminal--but the likelihood of any action is, sadly, slim to none. such is the nature of criminal action if you're el jeffe for a time.

it is a real problem for me and almost everyone i know that obama has chosen to retain other aspects of the bushwar---to act as if there is sense in continuing the conflict in afghanistan for example, to act as if there is sense in maintaining the wiretapping business.

what you demand of those of us who are not on the right is a simple-minded black/white stand. personally, i don't consider the right to be relevant at this point, so see no need to take seriously any attempt coming from the conservative to impose anything on debate. so you can in this case see things as you like, but there's no particular reason for anyone who is not already in the same political camp to agree with the terms you'd like to set for it.

at the same time, this breaking up of the bushwar logic at the level of policy as maybe put folk in a it of an awkward position--by separating the more outrageous and/or absurd aspects of the "war on terror" from others, the administration has broken up the old frame. i don't think you'll find *anyone* who identifies themselves as even a little on the left who supports what the obama administration has decided to do on wiretaps. just do a basic search and you'll get ample evidence of it.

the point i tried to make above was that it seems to me that retaining this element of the "war on terror" nonsense should be thought about in the context of the administration's initial moves to attempt to dismantle to old, outmoded national security state--and so as a tactical thing connected to what appears to be its alternate plan for military strategy--and by extension procurement--which has to do with less conventional war--which is at the same time a wholesale rejection of the rumsfeld doctrine.

but i still oppose it.

Do you know how many tirades I watched of Olbermann screaming at the camera for Mr. Bush to be impeached for this program? In the attached vid, Olbermann could be reporting that Obama picked out a name for his dog - he has that much emotion/indignation. That's about the level of indignation I'm getting from my liberal friends and the amount I'm detecting in posts here.

I certainly can't look back and know the way each one of the posters here reacted to the Bush administration's actions, but I would be dollars to doughnuts that it was a bit more vitriolic than what we are witnessing here.

I feel that it was wrong when the Bush administration did it and I stand by that now with the Obama administration. If he doesn't change this stance in the immediate future I will be calling for his prosecution as well. This is completely unacceptable.

As for the protesting, I believe the government should bend to the will of the people, not the other way around. Look at France, their government is terrified of its citizens. That's how it should be.

I'm a surprisingly tough lad considering what a hippie I am, but I do not have the necessary ability or resources to stand up to a major metropolitan police force without risking massive escalation and collateral damage. Even if I came to a protest with a few hundred of my closest friends armed to the teeth, all I'd do is provide another "victory" in the "war on terror" when we were all eventually arrested or dead. I'm not interested in lending credibility to the garbage used an as excuse for warrantless wiretaps. I want them to stop.

The only thing I can think of that might stand a chance is corporate espionage, stealing the list of people being monitored and releasing it to the public so that the lawsuits against the telecoms can finally go through. The problem, though, is that no one in a position to release that list is interested in doing so either out of self-interest or fear.

So, the conservative voice is irrelevant because there is a Democrat in office? Nice. No point continuing this. Have a nice day.

FYI, I'm a raging liberal and I was just considering the consequences of an armed rebellion over this. I don't know how much more worked up you think we can get. Let's not be disingenuous.

cimmaron: not exactly. i don't think the right is relevant at this point because it is the wreckage they left behind from being in power that constitutes the mess that the obama administration is working it's way through. that's why. republican/democrat--not something i particularly care about.

but see it as you like. you only read some of my post in any event.

will, you've heard this before, but the only thing it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

sometimes, dk, you sound like such an anarchist that it warms my heart.

Yeah, but "evil" also prevails when good men do something, but that something is ineffective (protesting) or stupid (join hands day).

Read roachboy's first post.

To demand/expect the same level of "vitriol" to two somewhat distinct approaches is to miss the boat entirely.

The reaction to Bush was worse because the policies were worse.

What you are saying is effectively meaningless. You seem to recognize that the left and most liberals here are against the wiretapping program, and yet somehow in your mind they are hypocrites for not opposing it with as much gusto as they did to Bush.

Isn't their opposition enough? And maybe that vitriol was aimed not only at wiretaps, but at torture, secret memos, extraordinary rendition, gitmo, "enemy combatant" and so on?

I disagree with the wiretaps, and think they are a disgrace. But Im not shortsighted enough to equate Obama keeping SOME of the elements of the GWOT to Bush implementing them in a much broader manner.

If Obama backtracks and brings back what he has said he will dismantle, then Ill bet he will face the same level of vitriol.

Perhaps I'll get angry at some point but so far I just feel sad that Obama is missing what many of us thought was a great opportunity to return/bring trust in our government.

hmmmm, not sure how to take that rb.

These weren't your words? : personally, i don't consider the right to be relevant at this point, so see no need to take seriously any attempt coming from the conservative to impose anything on debate. so you can in this case see things as you like, but there's no particular reason for anyone who is not already in the same political camp to agree with the terms you'd like to set for it.

If that doesn't say, "Don't talk to us because you don't think like us", I don't know what does. So much for that old Liberal adage, "I disagree with everything you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it." How enlightened you are.

P.S. registered Independent, member of the Libertarian Party. Didn't vote for Bush, didn't vote for Obama, didn't vote for McCain.

Done.

The total amount of people you see, are probably not what you'd think. Look at a full stadium of people, that's a shit load of people.

Rose Bowl 91,136
Candlestick Park 69,843
Dodger Stadium 56,000
Houston Astrodome 54,816

Rarely on New Years Eve does NYC get filled up with 1 Million people on the street in one area.


how would you be armed if we repeal the 2nd amendment?

cimmaron---that's not what the sentences say. what they object to is the implication in your post that if "liberals" (whatever) do not act as you think they should, then conclusions 1, 2, 3 all follow--and that this is a way of seeing this question that's relevant for everyone, and not simply for you. you set your position up pretty clearly: if folk objected to the bush policy, which you reduce to this single point, and that policy, still without context and so more or less meaningless, persists, there "should be" the same kind of indignation. you want to use this to "demonstrate" some "hypocrisy" on the part of "liberals"...

but you presuppose that your framework would be read by other folk and recognized as binding on them. otherwise, you're just making an observation. but you didn't frame it as an observation--you framed it as moving from "your liberal friends" to "all liberals" as if it constituted an argument.

that's why i wrote what i did.

i also wrote a bunch of other stuff that you ignored.

That's true, but it was reported by international outlets as being substantially higher than domestic media, which traditionally low balls. Deutsche Welle is incredibly reliable when it comes to things like this.
Bombs. Molotov cocktails. The usual.

Edit: to clarify, it was just a hypothetical. I would never kill anyone because there aren't any reasons important enough to kill for.

then why should the police ever bother to pause and think before they stomp and kick you to the curb?

For one they're not reading this thread.

If I ever were to kill, it would likely be an instinctual reaction, something I just do as a reflex. Some of them might end up dead and then I'd end up dead. It would solve nothing.

I kinda feel like we're getting off topic, though.

you wanted the government to take notice, did you not?

politicians in this day and age will ignore you until there are two reasons not to. One, is to resort to overwhelming violence. Two, is to have overwhelming numbers. enough so that they get the idea that those that elected them will visit consequences upon them if they don't do their job. unfortunately, with the issues we are facing today, unless you have millions upon millions, they will continue to ignore us, so long as we are peaceful.

You assume massive violence will help things, but the Murrah Building bombing gave Clinton an excuse to tighten security. Trust me, it's counterproductive.

apples and oranges. one guy delivering a bomb truck is not going to get them to notice you the way you want. hundred and thousands rioting, like after the BART shooting, will do it.

There are elections in 2010 & 2012, violence is not necessary. People simply need to go to the ballot box and vote their opinions.

We have voted our opinions and trusted these people and every chance they get they screw the people that vote for them and empower themselves. There are no true choices because the people who get the money and are pushed by the press win. The honest guys that go out door to door and work their asses off for votes get ignored by the press and don't have the money to advertise.

And the people we do vote in, retire to work for the lobbyists, think tanks and people that happily make sure we the people stay obedient, docile and lethargic.

So if this country survives to 2010, we'll elect more the same because they have made it impossible for someone not in their good graces to win. Thus the people see no choices, lose hope and vote almost how the press tells them to.

Violence should be a last option, passive resistance, organized marches on DC, state capitols, county seats, city halls should be done. But that also takes money and people willing to take risks... neither of which are prevalent. The people who would march are economically scared to because of lost work and are scared of the very government officials they put into office. Homeless marching may make a difference but they are just trying to survive and the rich or the people profiting in the status quo, will do all they can to make sure no one organizes or is taken seriously, via the press, via using any means necessary.

People should not be afraid of those governing, those governing should be afraid of the people. Somewhere down the line this country lost sight of that.

It has been said and I am of the belief our government and the political parties controlling it took lessons from the Mafia in how to keep people quiet, scared and obedient.

As I read through this thread, I believe I'm sensing some buyers remorse.

Buyer's remorse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comrades, Dear Leader is just getting started.

there are absolutely no rights you'd feel strongly enough to fight for until the death? Interesting how little actual conviction you really have.

wait---this is about state surveillance that runs beyond any meaningful legal limit, but which is not itself illegal because the authorization for it comes out of the patriot act (god how i hate that name...)

i read through the thread so i understand empirically how we got to a debate about revolutionary action/insurrection---but logically, th the more i think about the connection the less sense it makes.

no-one seriously thinks that the only form of political action is revolutionary. if the question is how one might go about organizing protests, or pressure groups, or a campaign to bring pressure on congress to repeal the patriot act, or not renew it, and so undercut the legal basis for the wiretapping, the answer's not that complicated. it's easy enough to start a webcampaign that would result in, say, tons of emails or phone calls. it's not that difficult to organize a demo---the logisitics of a large-scale "legit" demo are pretty arduous (permits and all that) but not insurmountable, and it's not like no-one's ever done this work before so you're not exactly inventing the wheel. the point is that this is an issue that one may not like, but which functions entirely within the logic of the dominant order. to address it, what's required is sustained pressure.

running around with a gun pretending you're some kind of minuteman looking to overthrow the state is not only tactically absurd in this case, but it's strategically meaningless.

will's been making versions of this argument all along...

to skip over the legion intermediate forms and cut straight to fantasizing about armed revolt seems a circle jerk.
to go from this circle jerk to a second-order one, which is somehow about one's abstract "committment" to the possibility of an armed insurrection that makes no sense in this context to begin with...

what exactly is the point?

political authorization doesn't mean it's legal or constitutional.

I don't think anyone here declared the only form to be 'revolutionary'. It's going to be a natural logical progression to it though.

I thought that freedom of speech, protesting, redress of grievances were rights protected by the constitution, why would you NEED a permit?

nobody approached that tactic

I never understood the problem with the "wiretap" program, and still don't. I do look at the issue in two different ways and answers to the questions below could help me understand the problem if there is one.

Who was victimized and how were they damaged?

Why is "government" obtaining telephone records a bigger deal than, lets say the "government" obtaining and having access to virtually all of our financial records?
Since the tax deadline is around the corner and since I am doing my taxes I personally find this intrusion into personal privacy a much bigger concern than some CIA agent listening to what I am ordering on my pizza - but actually, I don't order pizza from known terrorists located in other countries. So, I guess my pizza ordering habits are still between me and my local pizza joint.:rolleyes:

i'm not going to defend the permitting thing---that they should not be necessary is one of the few areas in which we are entirely in agreement, dk...and even for the same basic reasons.

but the reality is that if you want to organize a demo of any size, the permitting process is a way to deal with police and other city regulations, almost all of which are geared around managing questions of circulation within the city of often very dense, overlapping types of movement.

but in principle, it is a problem---and there is little doubt that political protest should override these other management functions because, at bottom, these functions are part of the normal course of things that presupposes political consent--so it follows that political action, which effects or reflects (one way or another, to one extent or another) should supercede the regulations that presuppose consent.

------------

on the "logical" progression of protest to civil war/insurrection: have you been reading engels? this is his basic line.
EXCEPT that you leave out the central motor of this progression, which is that the movement that the state confronts is understood as posing a basic challenge to the legitimacy, if not the material existence, of the state itself.
protesting the wiretapping business--that is protesting the continuation of a conservative policy, undertaken by a conservative administration--is not a threat to the legitimacy of the state.

unless a hamfisted response from the police etc. makes it into one.

there's alot to be said about the changes in police approaches to public protest since the vietnam period, but that's another matter, maybe for another thread.

the point is that absent a significant threat to the state itself, there is no logical or normal progression from demo to anything else.

I don't think you understand what "conviction" means. I'd die for rights, but killing for them or anything else violates my strongest conviction. The worth of human life cannot be allowed to be superseded by petty ideologies, and as long as they are there will be war and suffering.

---------- Post added at 09:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 AM ----------

Yeah, until they started looting and lost all credibility. Same thing happened in LA 15 years ago. It started as a social issues riot and devolved into barbarism and theft.

It sounds more like you'd be a martyr for rights, not actually sieze what are your rights.

I'm almost certain we've gone over privacy before. If you don't value your privacy that's fine. No one will force you to be private. The problem is that not only do a lot of people value their privacy as a fundamental right, but that same fundamental right is in the Bill of Rights and numerous court rulings since. It's why we have warrants. You need probable cause in order to breach someone's privacy.

What the large telecoms and Bushco (and now Obama) did was bypass existing FISA laws to unlawfully spy on people. They could not supply probable cause, presumptively because there was none. Again, whether or not you value privacy, I know that you value adherence to the law, not just as a conservative but as aceventura, as a conviction.

I could explain to you why privacy is important to me, but that's not likely to convince you because you have a different set of values. If you disagree strongly enough with my values, feel free to do anything and everything you can to legally change existing privacy laws, but I should warn you that you'll be fighting an uphill battle.

---------- Post added at 09:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 AM ----------

I'd not be dying to further a cause, just to defend it, so martyr is the wrong term. My personal convictions tell me that people have been placing a low value on human life since the dawn of civilization, and I refuse to follow the trend. It is a conviction to value human life, even over other important rights.

I'll simplify. I'd not kill someone for free speech. Does that mean I don't value free speech? Only to an absolutist (and absolutists are absolutely always wrong without exception :expressionless:). I do value free speech, a great deal in fact, but not to the point where I'd violate my strongest conviction and kill someone over it. As soon as I cross that line, I violate my own code of convictions and I'm no better than anyone that's gone to war.

to add to what will said above in response to ace...

beyond the privacy question as it pertains to individuals, there's also the long inglorious history of american paranoia with respect to political opposition, particularly from the left. now the extent to which this history is even present for you as an object of thinking has alot to do with where you happen to be politically yourself---so for a conservative fellow who himself is maybe horrified by the idea of a serious political threat coming from the left, maybe this is a non-issue--but if you identify via that category of "left" then it is present for you. and it is self-evident that when the bush people instituted this warantless wiretapping, the rationale was the "war on terror" and "terror" was NOT a particularly tightly defined term.

as the controversy about the various mechanisms that were either in place to planned mounted, the bush people issued various qualifications to what they claimed was their operative definition of "terrorist" or "suspicious"---but given the black box environment within which this warantless business was happening, there was and could be no meaningful oversight, no transparency---and given the administration's track record with this whole telling the truth question, there's no reason to think that this program was not, in fact, being used to monitor opposition to the iraq debacle within the united states, in that glorious tradition of cointelpro which we all know and love so much as one of the grander moments in the history of free speech in amurica.

so it's a particularly nasty little bit of business, this wiretapping stuff, which harkens back to more explicitly repressive versions of this glorious land of ours.

thing is that i have no reason to assume that the obama administration is operating on the same paranoid logic as the bushpeople did

so the question so *why* this program would be continued is strange to me--which is why i was putting up questions about possible relations between it and the changes that the obama administration is starting to attempt in military strategic orientation, which would result in---FINALLY--a dismantling of the national security state if they were taken far enough. within that, there's another question about trade-offs and intentions---because it's a whole lot clearer what's being moved away from than it is what's being moved into.

you can't blame a boy for wondering about this.

if i have you right on this, you'd not kill for your rights, but you'd die for your rights. You'd do this because you place a higher value on human life, but if you'd not defend your rights, are you not placing a lesser value on your own life?

Olbermann seems to be alleging it's because Obama is worried that he won't be able to count on the intelligent community if he doesn't acquiesce to their "needs" (wants), he is allowing them to continue to run around without any boundaries. This does make sense, considering how Obama has been treating the right (attempting concessions that the right didn't even ask for by putting tax breaks in the bailout etc.). I almost hate to say it, but if Olbermann is right he's acting too much like the proverbial codependent mother, and reinforcing the "republican = father" and "democrat = mother" stereotypes. I was hoping Obama would be a strong liberal, but maybe liberals don't know what to do with strong leaders. We need to resurrect Andrew Jackson's crazy ass.

---------- Post added at 09:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 AM ----------

No, it's about responsibility. I take responsibility for my own life. If I fuck up, it's all on me. If I succeed, it's all on me. If I choose to fight and die for something I hold important, that's totally my call, but killing someone else is removing another person's right to choose what to do with his or her life and I refuse to take that kind of responsibility for that other person regardless of their decisions. If they want to die, that's their right, but I won't be the one that kills them.

If everyone adopted this philosophy, war would be something you read about in old books.

Just to clear my own name: My "devil's advocate" post was not made as a personal defense of Obama, but as a method of opening up the debate. I resent the implication that my post was somehow representative of "typical liberal hypocrisy" on the issue.

I do value privacy. I value the type of privacy that matters to me. I don't expect my phone calls to be private. Don't expect my mail to be private, email, smoke signals or any form of communication that involves another party. However, I do find the intrusion by the government into my financial life to be more of a concern. For example if I have a nanny for my child why does the government need to be involved in what I pay him or her? Why do they need to even know I employ one? Why I am I responsible for his or her taxes? I really find it ironic how one form of a privacy invasion is o.k. and another is not. That is one my points.

I know they broke the original FISA law, but then they changed it. Breaking the law is not the point of my confusion. Nor is my confusion based on valuing privacy. My confusion is based on what harm resulted from the violation of the law. First, I am not sure anyone's privacy was actually violated who was not worthy of investigation. Secondly I am not sure any innocent party was actually harmed. So, I think when we have a privacy rights issue for the government to deal with and if at first the government handles it incorrectly, then needed adjustments are made, we are left with the legitimate issue of redress. However, I think redressing the issue should involve real victims and real damages. I don't see the legal basis for 'the government screwed up, therefore I am entitled to something' when I was not a victim, when I was not harmed. For example - Being "spied" on is one thing, being wrongly harmed as a result of being "spied" on is another and would be the basis of redress in my opinion.

Right, and that's fine, but a lot of people (myself included) feel it's an important part of being in a free society to have the ability to communicate without a nanny state monitoring everything. It's as if we're being punished for being untrustworthy even though we never did anything wrong. I never emailed or said over the phone anything illegal, therefore I shouldn't be monitored unless the monitoring body has probable cause to investigate me. Frankly, I see my concerns over private communication as being very, very similar to your concerns about financial privacy. Why does the government need to know you have a nanny? Why does the government need to know that I need to call and tell my friend that I can't hang out because I had something come up at work?
They broke the FISA. Regardless of whether or not it's changed after the fact, a law has been broken. You don't break a law until it's not a law anymore, that's just how it works. The fact that it provided retroactive immunity is pretty fucking disgusting and is a bastardization of the process of creating and obeying laws.

As roachboy said, because there's been such little transparency on this issue, combined with the fact that the previous administration demonstrated again and again and again that it wasn't trustworthy at least requires some form of investigation to see what they did. If they were responsible (and hell freezes over), that's great. If not, some people need to be prosecuted.

I'll put this in different terms. Let's say you have a very, very rich uncle that you never met, but that left you a hefty sum in his will. Before his will can be executed, someone robs the accounts of the money that was going to be given to you. You never find out about it. Have you been robbed? Of course. Similarly, anyone innocent that was monitored without probable cause was robbed of his or her privacy without even knowing it. Their lack of awareness doesn't negate the crime. I'm saying that being spied upon is the harm. I know you're not comfortable with that conclusion, but it's on the Bill of Rights and in tons of court decisions. We have a constitutional right to privacy. Just like I'll defend the Second Amendment even though I disagree with it, you should recognize that a right named in the Constitution is just as legitimate regardless of whether or not you value it.

so only YOUR privacy concerns are important and those of others are not if they are not in line with yours?


you're missing the point entirely. The government should NEVER be given free authority or power to go on fishing expeditions. The reason for warrants from the courts was to prevent that kind of thing. The 'no harm, no foul' thing leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.

Yea, that's it. It amazing how you can take what I wrote and boil it all down to the simple concept of me being selfish.

Didn't I say that I did not understand? So, you are all too correct. I am missing the point.

I agree 100%. However, the "wiretap" thing would be way down at the bottom of my list of concerns. Higher on the list would be things like registering for selective service, gun registration laws, red light traffic cameras, filing income taxes, etc. In my view it seems the "wiretap" thing is focused on people who communicate with know terrorists located in other countries. I see that as a good reason to monitor the activity of US citizens involved in such behavior.

How about the 'break the law to save lives' thing. I would gladly break an "administrative" type law to save your life. In your view would it be like 'nor harm, no foul', life saved and slap my ass with a lawsuit or put me in jail? I would be happy with the 'no harm, no foul', life saved, give a brother a break!:thumbsup: But I am sure that I am still missing the point.

it's not difficult to realize when your first two sentences are thus:
I do value privacy. I value the type of privacy that matters to me.

"involved in such behaviors". Maybe i'm wrong, but it seems to me that you've got no issue at all with the government recording any and all phone calls so that their little decoder/key word listening program can identify a recorded call to monitor, all without a warrant. Given your next statement below:


and the fact that you've said you don't care if the gov monitors YOUR phone calls if it's to save lives from 'man caused disasters', whats to stop them from using the wiretaps to track drug crimes, money laundering, human trafficking, tax evasion?

Do the ends justify the means?

I guess if context has little value your assessment is fair. If you do take that point out of the complete context of my post, I admit that my view of the world starts from my own "view of the world", hence I am selfish in that regard. But realizing the weakness in having a one perspective view of the world, I interact with people who see things different than I do. I ask questions, I state when I don't get an opposing view, and I share how I come to my conclusions. Hell, I even admit when I don't have an open mind on an issue. I don't think that is "selfish". Take from it what you will, but I bet very few are different in that regard than I.

First we are not talking about the government recording any and all phone calls. As I understand the "wiretaps" is that they involved a narrow group of people involved in communicating with known terrorists. It would be impossible for "government" to record, listen to, and do something with all phone calls. I see this point as of no importance, without proof of some abuse.


Sometimes the ends do justify the means. I want people in charge who share my values (yes, another selfish comment, but I bet it true for you too, even if you won't admit it) to make judgment calls. If they make poor calls or abuse the trust of the people, I do believe they should be held to account. But, I also will give them the benefit of the doubt when they act in good faith.

I don't care. I didn't care that Bush did it, I don't care if Obama continues it.

As long as it's only used as intelligence gathering against people who may carry out violent acts, I have no problem with it.

Now, they should try and get a warrant, but if they need to do it right then and don't have a warrant, I will let them. If anything it is streamlining and making government more efficient and cheaper.

ASU2003: The whole point is that they wiretapped Americans who were not under any particular suspicion, without a warrant. Because they could. Because there was no oversight. Going down that road leads to a police state. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

Wow... that line between right and left just got blurry. Kool.

Right and left are only two artificial choices, along a whole spectrum of political thought. Both the Republic and Democratic parties in this country are very much authoritarian in their mindset, which allows apparent contradictions like this one, where a 'lefty' like O'Bama is supporting the travesty of wiretapping American citizens.

http://uploader.ws/upload/200904/space_1.jpg
<===================

ROFL, thats an awesome avatar MM.

One thing I don't understand is how Obama gets away with what he does when it is in direct contradiction to how he said he would govern. I am not surprised by his inability or unwillingness to govern as he said he would, just the fact that people seem to ignore it. I knew early on that Obama's rhetoric was empty. If I had voted for him and bought into the "change" and "hope" stuff I would be embarrassed.

I don't know anyone who isn't embarrassed by some of Obama's stances on national security issues (except for gloating "conservatives").

If I had voted for any ticket with Palin on it, I would hide my face in shame.

I'm very disappointed in Obama's continuation of the failed Bush policies, as well as some new failures regarding job creation that he's adding to the mix. Frankly, I didn't vote for him and he's really kind of pissing me off. I did have hope that we'd see something new and different. Fail.

The activity on this forum has slowed since Obama has been in office. The reason seems to be that those who attacked Bush did it relentlessly, while "gloating" conservatives have not used every available opportunity to respond the way those who attacked Bush did. If the above press release came out when Bush was in office the response on this board would have been very different - it is my observation, and I don't understand other than drawing a conclusion that could be wrong and offend some?

---------- Post added at 05:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:54 PM ----------

Palin actually had a record as an executive in office. She had a track record of success in many endeavors. She had a track record of going against her own party and winning. What was Obama's track record? What were his accomplishments? When did he ever take on his party?

Palin also has a record of being a quitter when it got too hard. Plus, her views are so ridiculously simplistic she makes Bush look like Stephen frickin' Hawking.

I don't know any Democrats who are happy about (or turning a blind eye to) Obama's reversed stance on this issue.

Talking points. Obama did not finish his term as a Senator, he actually spent more time running for President than serving the people who elected him. What has Obama finished? What did he ever accomplish? Has he ever delivered any measurable results? At anything?

I proudly supported Palin, with no apology. She may or may not run for national office again and depending on who she is running against, I could support her again without hesitation. Would you say the same regarding Obama, why or why not?

---------- Post added at 06:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:34 PM ----------

Why the silence? What are they doing about it?

I didn't support him the first time around. I haven't heard of any real contenders for 2012 yet (other than Palin, which, no). If he starts the pullout, if he actually accomplishes something with hiseconomic stimulus, then I'll support him.