If tomorrow Obama changed his mind and decided the surveillance program was all wrong

[Fumesucker]

Do you think any of those now arguing about government surveillance would change their positions, pro or con?

[rug]

1. Those that support it, yes.

Regardless that the facts themselves did not change.

[BlueCheese]

2. I thought it was wrong under Bush, think it's wrong under Obama...

... and also

-- if Obama changes his mind tomorrow.
-- even if it is "old news" that is nevertheless somehow a reckless and dangerous leak.
-- even if the leaker turns out not to be a paragon of human virtue.
-- if Dianne Feinstein thinks it's a swell idea.
-- if Republicans might use it for political advantage (though they seem to think this is all a great idea).
-- even if every person at the NSA is an incorruptible patriot, because who knows who they'll hire tomorrow?
-- if I've done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide.

It's wrong, period.

[uponit7771]

3. ...and I'll STILL make the point that Obama broke no law and was the best happy medium of a bad ....

...law that was already in place.

If it's proven that all of these "scandals", along with this one, were initiated by wingers just to "dirty" Obama and Obama was doing the best he could with the worst situations would those who say it's wrong still say it's wrong?

Regards

[Fumesucker]

6. You will continue to argue for universal surveillance if Obama decides it's not wise? n/t

[uponit7771]

9. I don't argue for "universal" (good try) surveillance NOW! I argue what Obama is doing is NOT what..

...Bush did because Obama didn't break any law and was the best happy medium amongst the a bad law that we had.

I do notice I didn't get my question answered

[Fumesucker]

13. Surveilling everyone certainly could be argued as being universal surveillance

Just because the law allows something does not mean it must be done.

The fact that a leak investigation is already under way means that your question is nonsensical.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

4. I wih people would ask Congressmen what they thought of the laws that they passed

[BlueCheese]

12. The law may be screwed up.

It probably is.

But even the law does not require that the NSA collect the phone records of every single American. It only (possibly) empowers it.

Yes, one fix is to get Congress to repeal that provision of the Patriot Act. Of course, Congress is hopelessly dysfunctional, but still.

Another is to get the executive branch to stop abusing the powers that Congress foolishly gave it. We can do both. Or try, anyway.

[BlueStreak]

22. Or to put it another way

The fact that the Patriot Act may define a secret judicial structure whereby a thoroughly corrupt administration can violate the 4th Amendment prohibition against ANY warrants "but upon probable cause", that doesn't mean that said corrupt administration is compelled to violate the Constitution jest because the opportunity presents itself to do so under the cloak of secrecy created by the Patriot Act.

[RobertEarl]

5. Sure

All those who think they are supporting Obama by supporting the security state, would turn quick.

And the teabaggers would be reduced to mumbling about something like.. well who cares what they say?

Me? I'd say Obama actually heard me.

[Marrah_G]

7. Of course

[boilerbabe]

8. you know they would and they would act like they were against it the whole time! nt

[woo me with science]

10. I know exactly what they would say.

"We have *always* been at war with assaults on the Constitution."

And the chocolate ration still will have been increased, too.

[Marr]

11. Of course. They'd flip around in an instant, just as the Bushies used to do. /nt

[whatchamacallit]

14. Their 'principles' conform to whatever the prez believes so

yeah they'd about-face instantly. Sickening huh?

[Recursion]

15. I'm not even sure what "the surveillance program" is, so I can't say

I thought FISA was a pretty bad law in a lot of ways, but it was better than the Wild West that was surveillance before that. If Obama chose to limit the agencies' surveillance to a more restricted set of activities than what FISA allows, I'd be glad of that (well, depending on what he limited them to doing).

If FISA is currently being violated, that makes me angry, but nobody's shown that it is. If they do, I'll be upset.

[Agnosticsherbet]

16. These programs are funded by congress and under congressional oversight.

They are secret. So if President Obama was against them, he would need to go to Congress where during super secret meetings he could raise his objections. Unless there is a whistle blower present, we won't know. What difference would his change of mind make? He was not alone in creating this problem, and he can not by himself solve it.

The problem, as I see it, is that information the average citizen thinks should be private is not. The court that is supposed to protect citizens seems to exist only to provide cover for the government.

Perhaps the super secret FISA Court does protect out interest. How do we know. Clearly, oversight by Congress has completely failed. If we can't trust the Judicial branch to protect the interest of American citizens, the legislative branch to provide oversight (one of t heir enumerated powers), or the executive branch to refrain from pursuing every bit of data whether it has bearing on real national security or not, why should any of those "arguing about government surveillance would change their positions, pro or con? "

President Obama did not do this alone, and can not change it alone. The entire government has failed.

[Fumesucker]

19. I'm saying if Obama just changed his opinion and said so publicly

What would be the reaction of those currently arguing on either side.

Do you think many people who are now against this sort of surveillance would suddenly become proponents of it?

[Agnosticsherbet]

20. what does changing his mind mean? It doesn't change the programs.

It doesn't alter policy.
Changing his mind puts lipstick on the pig, and without a substantive publicly viewed change in the policies and programs that allowed this to happen it means nothing.

If all he says is that, "I've changed my mind about these super secret programs. they are bad," It is like reporting that the President changed h is underwear. They are not going to show pictures of him in clean boxers instead of dirty briefs. We just have to take his word for it.

Maybe, if he initiated a public Executive order to halt all these programs and appointed a group of people outside the government that people can trust, it would make a difference.

But words mean exactly dick.

[BlueStreak]

24. Please show me where in the Patriot Act or any other legislation

The President is compelled to seek warrants that explicitly violate the 4th amendment prohibition against warrants that are not based on probable cause.

[Agnosticsherbet]

30. Why change the subject?

The question put would be if the President changed his mind, would it make a difference in how people viewed him. For most, I don't think it would. For me it would not because it requires actions to address the problem.

He could make the whole thing public and show that three was no program that violated the rights of citizens, that the courts were exemplary in protect the 4th amendment. But words mean nothing form him or his opposites in the Congress.

[BlueStreak]

33. You said the Congress mandated these programs and the President had no option.

I simply asked for you to identify where in the Patriot act the President is compelled to violate the 4th Amendment. What section of that law says the President must proceed to seek warrants that have no probable cause?

Isn't that what you said? If that isn't what you said, I apologize and hope you will set me straight on what you actually said or meant.

How is that changing the subject?

[Agnosticsherbet]

37. Who decides it's a vioaltion?

He has lawyers who can write justifications for everything. The FISC court appears to have signed off on everything, which makes it seem that the law was followed. If the law was followed, it wasn't UNCONSTITUTIONAL, was it?

the problem is that we don't know if he did anything UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Short of SCOTUS ruling on the constitutionality of the program we won't know. But the appearances' are there, and saying that he no longer agrees with the program means nothing.

The text of the 4th amendment says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Without bringing everything out in the open we don't know whether anything UNCONSTITUTIONAL occurred. We don't know if they were unreasonable. It looks very bad.

At no time did I say that the Patriot act compelled him to violate the 4th Amendment. I will go on record as saying that whether he did or not is opinion only until SCOTUS decides.

It's my opinion that the spirit and the letter of the Constitution was violated, but it's only my opinion. I think strong actions need to be taken to show why this was not a violation of the Constitutional Rights of Americans.

[BlueStreak]

41. "If the law was followed, it wasn't UNCONSTITUTIONAL, was it?"

"When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal"

Uhhhh, no.

And "Without bringing everything out in the open we don't know whether anything UNCONSTITUTIONAL occurred. We don't know if they were unreasonable."

Sorry, you are zero for two here. We already know everything that anybody needs to know in order to see that obviously the FISA warrant with regard to Verizon was unconstitutional. There was no probable cause because it was an order to collect ALL records -- on MILLIONS of Americans that had no involvement in anything terroristic or criminal.

[Fumesucker]

25. My question was about those of us down here in the cheap seats, what our reaction would be

What would be our reactions if Obama did a 180 on the issue, would the same people be making the same arguments or would both sides immediately change to the other argument?

Or would one side stay pretty much the same and the other side change a lot?

[Agnosticsherbet]

27. I don't think so. It would not change mine.

It is actions that matter, not words.

[Fumesucker]

29. You would consider Obama as being ill advised if he were to discontinue the surveillance?

We can put this in the realm of actions fairly easily.

[Agnosticsherbet]

31. Without proof that he discontinued them it would mean nothing.

They are secret. Without a whistle blower we wouldn't know shit. He can say anything he wants and classify the reality.

I don't at this point have a basis for trust.

[ProSense]

17. I would call for

"If tomorrow Obama changed his mind and decided the surveillance program was all wrong

Do you think any of those now arguing about government surveillance would change their positions, pro or con?"

...his impeachment. LOL! I mean, this is a huge straw man for two reasons: 1) People don't agree about what the program entails. 2) Why would anyone object to a change in policy that's perceived as an improvement?


Transcript of the President's comments on the NSA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022971130

What can we all agree on?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022969079

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

18. He came to the Tea Bagger Freaks Defense

so i still have my hopes up, and I would salute him for making a wise decision if he did!

[Poll_Blind]

21. Of course. The propeller stops spinning for an afternoon and cranks up in the other direction...

...by that evening.

PB

[LittleBlue]

23. The supporters would do a 180. nt

[ProSense]

26. The best things here are

the condescending insults being hurled by those who often accuse other people of hurling insults.

Good stuff.

[Fumesucker]

28. Would you continue to argue for the surveillance programs in question if Obama disowned them?

It's really that simple.

I know that I would be happy to agree with Obama if he were to say that these programs were ill advised and that he was ordering them discontinued.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Their principles blow with the "My party, right or wrong" wind.

As has been demonstrated here over and over again since Obama took office. Usually followed by the "not as bad" mantra.

[OilemFirchen]

34. If the USSC were to rule that these dragnet warrants are constitutional...

do you think any of those arguing about Fourth Amendment violations would change their positions?

[Fumesucker]

35. Do you think SCOTUS acted ethically and properly in Bush v Gore?

[OilemFirchen]

36. A curious dodge...

but no. Obviously.

However, they are the final arbiter, yes? So I abided by their decision, lived by the laws, paid my taxes and retained my citizenship.

My opinion was and is irrelevant.

ETA: You sidetracked me. Congratulations. Had the Court decided in Gore's favor would you have agreed with them? By not doing so was the rule of law upended?

[Fumesucker]

38. You never answered my original question either

And no, I wouldn't change my opinion if the SCOTUS said dragnet searches were OK, I would think they are full of shit.

It would remain my opinion, just as you have an opinion on Bush v Gore.

We do however have a contingent here on DU who will change their opinion instantly, not if the SCOTUS rules one way or the other but rather if Obama publicly changes his opinion.

[JoeyT]

39. Remember the run up to ACA?

For months everyone was posting stories and graphs and videos and charts about how much insurance companies suck in general and should be obliterated. Then a whole bunch of people suddenly and miraculously decided insurance companies aren't bad after all and started defending them. Stories about how awful insurance companies are started getting attacked and unrecced by that group.

It's not like we haven't seen it happen before.

[Le Taz Hot]

40. In a hot flash.

[LWolf]

42. Those who

have to spin whatever Obama does as "right" and "good" would certainly have to flip flop.

I, for one, would applaud Obama for changing his mind on this and many other policies/positions.

I'm not holding my breath.