Obama promises changes after latest NSA snooping disclosure
Source: CNN
Washington (CNN) -- Under fire about disclosures of broad National Security Agency snooping on global leaders, President Barack Obama is offering a two-pronged response: You do it, too, and we'll make some changes.
Thousands of documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden have portrayed the vast reach of U.S. surveillance activities, keeping tabs not only on U.S. call data but also global Internet and e-mail traffic.
Germany to send intelligence officers to U.S.
But Snowden's NSA documents, published recently in the Guardian, Der Spiegel and other publications, also describe spying on foreign leaders and that has now complicated U.S. diplomacy, the Obama administration acknowledges....
Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/25/politics/nsa-snooping-other-countries-spying/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Thucydides
(212 posts)
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...really really really means it this time.
Thucydides
(212 posts)first. Well I have seen the polls, need I say more, rinse and repeat! Maybe, could be, then maybe not, someday, I think, I dunno......
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)they'll spring for the premium whitewash.
Thucydides
(212 posts)
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)any bill which provided retroactive immunity for telecoms.
In 2007, Obama was going to filibuster any bill that gave retroactive immunity to the telecoms that helped the Bush administration illegally spy on US citizens.
Obama's wiretapping flip-flop? Yes
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jul/14/obamas-wiretapping-flip-flop-yes/
In October 2007, Obama spokesman Bill Burton issued this unequivocal statement to the liberal blog TPM Election Central: "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."
...
But Obama knows how to drive a hard bargain, making he (and Rahm) the top recipients in the Senate and House of 2008 campaign contributions from AT&T employees and PAC.
Obama: $270,191
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000076&party=D&chamber=S&type=P&cycle=2008
Rahm: $50,650
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000076&chamber=H&party=D&cycle=2008&state=&sort=A
...
Obama supported an amendment that would have stripped telecom immunity from the measure. But after that amendment failed, Obama declined to filibuster the bill. In fact, he voted for it. It passed the Senate, 69-28, on July 9. The House passed the same bill last month, and Bush said he would sign it soon. (McCain missed the vote because he was campaigning in Ohio, but he has consistently supported the immunity plan.)
In a message to supporters, Obama defended his position, citing a phrase Democrats fought to include that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is the "exclusive" means of wiretapping for intelligence. The bill "is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year... (because it) makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court."
...
And here we are with another promise.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...after signing treaty after treaty -- only to end up concentrated on a "reservation?"
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)when they were rounded up into internment camps.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)... because the telecom immunity act is where he stopped fooling me. I never had any illusions
that he is anything but what he is.
At the time of the telecom immunity act there were 50 lawsuits pending about the illegal wiretaps,
and the discovery process would have revealed the breadth and depth of the wiretapping. Obama
had to know this--he's a lawyer. Telecom immunity made the lawsuits moot and the discovery
process was halted. It represented a huge coverup of a huge crime against the American people.
Obama had to know this--he's a lawyer.
It's not like he needed the money. You say he got $320 k out of it. He had a war chest of $700
million!
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...when you have no expectations.
I pretty much knew this president (like many others before him) would become a rubber stamp for the MIC; although I did hold out some hope at first -- that he might have the cojones to stand up to spook central (NSA & the like).
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)... back in 2004, imagining that his premature capitulation had some kind of strategic advantage. And then when Clinton was palling around with Poppy Bush that winter I even imagined that they were negotiating the surrender of W to stand charges for war crimes and election fraud.
Alas, it was not so.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)count the original Gore concession. He waited until the next morning at which point there were not enough outstanding provisional ballots for him to win. The Republicans stole Ohio by suppressing the vote in many ways including putting far too few voting machines in inner cities and college precincts. I am amazed that many in Ohio waited over 4 hours in the cold November rain to vote -- and understand why many just could not stay in those lines. This is sickening and undemocratic, but unfortunately you can't count votes not cast. (In addition, where there is time for a recount if needed - there is no time to investigate fraud, charge it and have a trial. Even if there were and they found fraud, it would STILL not translate to a Kerry win. In fact, as was learned in 2000, if the election became moot, it would have gone to the legislature -- which was Republican controlled.) Kerry was cheated.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)... and instead he rolled over in nothing flat long before every vote was counted.
We're still waiting for Bush to concede the 2000 election. The NORC ballot study showed that in fact Gore had more legal votes.
In 2004 there was time to have an investigation and to refuse to seat the Ohio Electors. Instead there was a purely symbolic challenge and nothing but a few pretty speeches.
Kerry cheated himself. Kerry cheated us. Kerry cheated the African American voters he promised he would protect.
Kerry cheated democracy.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)The fact is that there WAS a recount in Ohio, that the Greens insisted on, it did not do much of anything to change the margin of victory. The fact was that on the day after the election, there was an estimate of the number of provisional ballots still not counted. However, the margin of victory was far too big for Kerry to win even if an unprecedented percent of those votes were considered valid and they all went for Kerry.
Not to mention, as Kerry said in his concession speech - those votes would be counted - and they were. As anticipated, they were not enough. However, had they been enough to pull Kerry over the top, he would have unconceeded - just as Gore did - in what would likely have been the most exuberant speech any of us would ever had heard.
What you may not know is who was in charge of the lawyers in Ohio in 2008 - to see that the vote was clean. Cameron Kerry - John Kerry's brother.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Conceding made the count, and the subsequent recount, moot.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)The point was mathematically, it was impossible for him to have enough votes. Every single election before him in the modern times had a concession that night or early in the morning. He was the SLOWEST to concede and did so because the numbers were not there -- and were not going to be.
Had the recount given him more votes, he would take back the concession - as Gore did - however it would have been because he won Ohio.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Kerry promised that he would see that all the African Americans' votes were counted. That meant oversight of the process.
When you claim that his concession was justified because the election was already lost, you're just conceding my point that his concession was premature, and betrayed the African American voters, and all of us who'd worked for him, and democracy itself.
Elizabeth Edwards claimed that she heard her husband arguing with "unidentified parties" on the phone that they could not concede until the votes [in Ohio] were counted. "We promised," he said. "We told these people that if they stood in line and fought for their right to vote, we would fight to have them counted. We promised."
That's in "Saving Graces", p. 16
http://books.google.com/books?id=lHn3zV8jT60C&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=%22I+listened+to+John+in+the+other+room,+arguing+into+a+speakerphone+that+we+could+not+concede+until+the+votes+were+counted.+%27We+promised,%27+he+said.+%27We&source=bl&ots=nj2x4xadAF&sig=gEMu4bm1NXrFy6-UPMlRJBB9Ww4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=InlxUvnyHYWqyQHIi4DIDA&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Several people with Kerry that evening denied the story -- including the only person with him the entire time - Teresa Heinz Kerry.
Both Edwards were not too reliable in anything they said of 2004 -- and there were reasons why not one person in the Kerry circle went to EDwards in 2008 after Kerry said he would not run.
Though Edwards spoke of this to the netroots -- he NEVER spoke of this ever in the MSM. It was the Kerrys who spoke of the voter suppression -- including to a black Boston audience on MLK day - something the right trashed him for - ignoring that black voting rights was very much a MLK issue.
villager
(26,001 posts)...and showed the usual utilitarian approach to wilderness, etc., that "both" parties pursue on behalf of their industrial sponsors...
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)I mean we just had the most high profile leak probably in the history of the USA and no one told him some embarrassing stuff might be coming out. He didn't know. Because no one told him.....
Scairp
(2,749 posts)Whether it's CIA or NSA, they never think they should disclose everything to the president, no matter who the occupant of the White House happens to be at any given time. They are arrogant, believe they are above the law because, in their backward ass thinking, they are protecting the country and anything that can be done to accomplish this is completely justified. My impression is that in no way has Obama, and despite those who believe whole heartedly otherwise, Bush as well, known everything they do and have done. I'm not sure he or any president could find out no matter how hard he tried. They will not give it up, I can promise you that. Kudos to Edward Snowden. I'm actually starting to warm to this guy. It seems what he did was a public service to the entire world.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)Could you also please sell me a bridge in New York?
Our intelligence gathering agencies are supposed to, well, gather intelligence. I'm not terribly concerned about foreign politicians being spied on, as I know for sure that they're spying on ours, too. It's mostly a game of who can do it the best and not get caught.
That said - domestic spying is another issue entirely. Without warrants, without the consent of the American people, without proper legal fronting, this administration, and the last administration, have spied upon the American people to such an extent that it is absolutely disgusting.
Frankly, I don't want the NSA knowing what I talk about on the phone, or in my emails. Not because I have something to hide, nor because I'm nervous about a bunch of nitwits reading my emails to my dad about how much I hate my job... no, it's because I am an American citizen. I have a right to privacy - as does every American citizen. At some point in time, our government ceased to either respect or recognize this right.
Until they do, I'm inclined to find these "promises" rather vomit inducing bull shit, honestly.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Otherwise, you're just making stuff up.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)No where did I say that anyone was tapping Obama's phone. What I did say was that the mission of intelligence agencies is to gather intelligence - and it should be painfully obvious to anyone that modern Nations in Europe have their own intelligence capabilities, which requires them to, you know, gather intelligence about various foreign Countries. Maybe you didn't actually read my post?
If you did, then I don't know what to tell you, other than to read a history book, or just go to google and type in "german intelligence gathering", or perhaps "German intelligence gathering in the US", you might learn something.
My anger is based upon the domestic spying - our intelligence agencies spying on American citizens without proper legal procedure. No organization, individual, or military power will ever stop foreign Countries from gathering intelligence reports about their rivals, allies, and enemies.
Please inform me of what exactly I made up? It's more than a little insulting to be accused of making things up when I only pointed out what everyone should know.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Now you say you were not claiming equivalence.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)Seriously? You're going to go ahead and say that other Countries, European Countries with advanced intelligence capabilities... do not spy on the world's wealthiest, most militarily powerful Nation? Of course they do. Perhaps not as much as we do - perhaps they didn't get caught in the act, but they certainly spy.
There is some equivalence here. What happened in this case is that Snowden leaked enough information to reveal some of the not so friendly shit we're doing to our allies. I don't think for a minute though, that we aren't being spied on. I just suspect that the Europeans are more clever about it.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...other nations use a fishing pole, while we use a dragnet.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)
Pterodactyl
(1,687 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)like he said he was going to do with us?
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)and turn them into universities?
bowens43
(16,064 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)that the "progressives" make promises to the 99% they don't keep, and the neocons make promises to the 1% they do keep.