It's not Obama's fault if people haven't paid attention

[struggle4progress]

I've never been particularly happy about having secret FISA courts, but they were originally intended to provide both legislative and judicial branch oversight of executive branch intelligence activities. Obama was only sixteen or seventeen in 1978, when the FISA courts were first established, so even if you're only just now noticing that they exist, it's not Obama's fault

And I wasn't particularly happy to learn about the Supreme Court decision in SMITH v MARYLAND, thirty some years ago: I thought and still think police should have to get a warrant to collect telephone records. But it's been the basis of a lot of law enforcement thinking since then. But the case was decided before Obama turned eighteen -- so the idea, that collecting telephone records isn't really intrusive, wasn't Obama's idea, and the fact that the US government can do it without blinking much isn't Obama's fault

SMITH v. MARYLAND: 442 U.S. 735 (1979)

... This case presents the question whether the installation and use of a pen register constitutes a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment ... Petitioner was indicted .. for robbery. By pretrial motion, he sought to suppress "all fruits derived from the pen register" on the ground that the police had failed to secure a warrant prior to its installation ... The trial court denied the suppression motion, holding that the warrantless installation of the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment ... The Court of Appeals affirmed the .. conviction, holding that "there is no constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers dialed into a telephone system and hence no search within the fourth amendment is implicated by the use of a pen register installed at the central offices of the telephone company" ... Consistently with Katz, this Court uniformly has held that the application of the Fourth Amendment depends on whether the person invoking its protection can claim a "justifiable," a "reasonable," or a "legitimate expectation of privacy" that has been invaded by government action ... Since the pen register was installed on telephone company property at the telephone company's central offices, petitioner obviously cannot claim that his "property"' was invaded or that police intruded into a "constitutionally protected area" ... Telephone users .. typically know that they must convey numerical information to the phone company; that the phone company has facilities for recording this information; and that the phone company does in fact record this information for a variety of legitimate business purposes ... This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties ... When he used his phone, petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business. In so doing, petitioner assumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the numbers he dialed ... We therefore conclude that petitioner in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed ...

I'd be happy to scrap the FISA courts, and I'd be happy to see SMITH v. MARYLAND overturned. But the Administration is operating within the law and actually got a warrant (such as it is) -- and that's more than Nixon or Bush used to do

[blm]

1. Exactly.

.

[The Magistrate]

2. True Enough, Sir

The scale does not really change the thing.

[Zorra]

3. New words we'd like to see in the dictionary:

Apologistificator:

noun
A person who is so completely enamored of a person or thing that they feel an irrepressible desire to protect that person or thing from harm or criticism under any and all circumstances.

See Apologistification.

[treestar]

7. You know not everyone is so easily fooled

by the idea that only the critic is always right - and many of these issues take the same pattern. We've seen the exaggerations before, from the same people, always trying to take down the same President - it's the pot calling the kettle black, too, since some posters are always on the side blaming the President or the government - they can hardly talk if his defenders tend to take his side.

And these scandals have been trumped up so often, they are now officially always suspicious. We aren't going to put our hair on fire for them automatically.

[Zorra]

12. Well, some of us see more and more of our rights repeatedly being restricted or taken away as

more and more people sink into poverty every day. Based on indisputable evidence, we see our legislators acting undemocratically on behalf of the wealthy private interests that line their pockets. The system is broken, and few if any working within the system are making any effort whatsoever to fix it.

We question the myriad of dubious policies and practices, and get no reasonable explanations for why these regressive policies and practices are enacted and continue to be enacted as we stand by, powerless, handcuffed to a flagpole by a corrupt system controlled by wealthy private interests, while the parade of kinder, gentler fascists marches by, spitting in our faces as they do so.

You want us to stop criticizing the President and the government?

Then get them to do something to at least try to fix the problems we face, rather than being part of the cause of the problems we face.

I voted for Obama, and always vote for Democrats, and honestly, I did not expect much, because it was apparent to me that Obama was going to primarily serve wealthy private interests as Prez, although I had fervently hoped that I was wrong, and that Obama and the huge majorities of Democrats in both Houses that we elected would do something to attempt to fix the system in the name of the people and democracy. But all they did was further the interests of the 1% instead, causing many to lose faith, and subsequently the House and Senate seats in 2010, the consequence of this being the loss of all hope for change.

And we watch as the apologisitificators tell us how we should STFU, should not question authority, how the President and government only shit rubies and flowers, how whistleblowers are evil and need to be silenced for exposing corporate and official corruption, how social justice movements are evil, and how we should just bend over and let the Military Industrial Complex eternally fuck us in the ass without any lube with their "terror" and their drones as they give more and more of our rights and resources away to the wealthy private interests that own the corporations they insist are actually persons.

We're not naive, we're not blind, and we're not stupid. We don't want to bring down the President. We simply want him to act in our interests, (imagine that!) and if he cannot, then look us all in the eyes and deign to offer us a reasonable, factual, sincere public explanation as to why he cannot act in our interests.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." ~ Abe Lincoln

Is Obama better than a republican? I believe so. Is he governing like a Democrat who is determined to preserve the democratic rights of the citizens of this country and restore and further the democratic integrity of our nation?

No. Hell no.

"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. "
-Franklin D. Roosevelt, "Message from the President of the United States Transmitting Recommendations Relative to the Strengthening and Enforcement of Anti-trust Laws"

[treestar]

20. That does not make every single trumped up

"scandal" from Glenn Greenwald not another trumped up bunch of exaggerations. Yet another one. So the next one will be just as suspicious.

[struggle4progress]

10. So here's what I'm seein: I took th'time t'write a thoughtful post,

and y'disagreed w'me, which could be fine and dandy, 'cept insteada takin th'time y'self t'write a thoughtful reply, y'just make some personal accusations. I guess mebbe y'consider that clever, but I gotta say I'm rilly kinda unimpressed

[LWolf]

14. Too bad

you didn't take the time to write a literate response.

I get that you don't think the buck stops with Obama.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

16. The buck might stop with Obama, but why do so many of you seem to ignore that it might stop earlier?

[LWolf]

17. Because it didn't stop.

The Obama administration was quite clear about not holding the Bush administration accountable for crimes. If the buck was going to stop with GWB, Pelosi should have allowed impeachment on the table while he was in office. Or the Obama administration should have pursued criminal charges after he wasn't.

Instead, the Obama administration continued the crime, instead of putting an end to it.

Obama himself allowed that buck to bypass GWB and land in his own lap.

[siligut]

18. This is a very flippant response

There are a few more in this thread who could use your feedback.

[LWolf]

13. +1

[cherokeeprogressive]

15. Yeah but isn't he just the handsomest President we've ever had?

Isn't he just? And Michelle? (Swoon!)

You're just jealous... maybe even a racist!

[TheKentuckian]

4. Acting within the dubious law cannot be conflated with compelled by the law as a deflection tactic

He chose his path and embraced it, so throwing up Bush and Nixon as even worse is pretty far beyond meaningless to me. I voted for nor supported either and both should have been removed from office and probably thrown under the jail.

Fucking Nixon and Bush are never a defense of shit actions but rather depth finders to measure how deep in the shit pile you are. Better than Bush territory is the capital of the land of defending the indefensible if that is all that can be mustered up.

Hell, "better than Bush" can be said about anybody, even goes for Nixon. Better than Bush is not a yardstick of any use for me for someone I support.

Fucking weak.

[struggle4progress]

9. If you don't like the effin FISA courts or the thinking that's behind Maryland v Smith,

I'm completely in agreement

But they've both been around for some decades, so the sudden outrage is silly -- and I have to suspect the outraged folk really haven't been paying enough attention

The idea, that collecting telephone company business records doesn't invade anyone's privacy, isn't a sudden innovation of the Obama Administration. Nor is the fact that the Administration can go to a secret court for some warrants. In this matter, we may actually have made slight progress, since the Administration is getting warrants for a form of record collection that Maryland v Smith suggests would not require warrants

[treestar]

5. There is also the issue of whether there are criminal prosecutions

If I remember correctly, this stuff cannot be used for that. In which case, no one can claim they are harmed by it.

It would be interesting to know, for older matters, if they were able to do anything about terrorism. A lot that the government knew about Al Qaeda was done via spying and surveillance. Though even so, they could not find out enough to stop the attack (though that may be Bush incompetence).

[1-Old-Man]

6. Obama wasn't in charge of anything when he was 18 or 19

But he is today. Get it? Today he is the President, today he is responsible for the actions of all of the Executive Agencies. Today he can make a difference.

[disidoro01]

8. Bush

was authorized to invade Iraq, to use military force against any people and nations accused by the US of being terrorists or harboring terrorists, etc. It wasn't ok then, it isn't ok now (and this overreach keeps expanding)...I keep banging that drum but many people don't care how the current adminstration behaves, he is their guy, one of them. Given this, I never realized how many Democrats are full of bloodlust nor so authoritarian.

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. no, but almost every liberal and progressive was outraged about the degree of the surveillance state

under Bush. They believed (perhaps naively) that Obama represented a fundamental policy change that would mean a reduction in the surveillance state when in fact the surveillance state signficantly expanded during the Obama years.

[Beacool]

19. I think that you described to a T what has angered progressives.