All things Bush is evil.. yeah yeah...whatever

Don't pay attention to my title, it was solely to grab ya attention. (No really it was, god's honest truth :) ).

SO I was thinking, as a thought popped into my head and lord knows this election many do, heh. That I still believe in the core decency of the presidency. I mean yeah some have let us down, but I'm not yet ready to give up on that bedrock of American pride, that we are decent deep down in our heart as people and that a President is no floozy position given to floozies-- After all , when all is said and done they are elected

Anyways, with all this talk about presidential power on FISA and Bush saying that in war time he needs to be given latitude, if he deems it worthy of a wiretap. And now we have Obama saying clearly,  " trust me folks" I will be diligent about it and watch for abuses.  Do you see the following scenario any different w/ Obama than say?

Scene 1 ACT 1: Bush is in the oval office and has meeting w/ his national security team and they come to him and say " look we have this guy we suspect (insert some proof) that could be dangerous to the country". And it happens to be weak proof as far courts go, yet good enough to cause `reasonable' concern and they need to explore it further. Upon which President Bush grants a wiretap (not like they asking him to put the guy in front of a firing squad) but later is proved "hey it was not what we thought".  Would bush be wrong in making that call initially?... i.e. and yet be called a violation of rights?
 

Scene 2, ACT 1: Now reverse it. Obama's security team is asking us Obama for permission to wiretap and they make a mistake ( mere mortals after all)and it falls into the same trap as bush's call ---  are you willing to ask that Obama give up that power? Would Obama really be wrong in taking the side of caution and allowing the wiretap?

I guess what I'm wondering is what is different in Bush asking for that authority and Obama saying trust me I will be careful w/ that authority? Just because he is a Democrat?... the way this country is divided on party affiliation, the other side does not trust our President , like we don't trust theirs.

Should we not at some point then ask ourselves --- Since Bush had 49%( typical split in republican voters vs. democratic voters) of this country willing to give him power / trust him on FISA( to override w/ NSA domestic spying).

Why then we are hollering and hooting at him (bush) w/ such power--- when we are asking (we ---the other 49% of the voter's choice - democrats) to allow Obama be the guardian of such power.

  Its not like each side trusts the other anymore in this country, right?  Why not end that cycle...

Update [2008-6-22 2:10:55 by aliveandkickin]: WHOA MANY ARE CONFUSED w/warant less wire taps ( specifically warrant less and FISA). Warrant less wire taps right now are under NSA Domestic spy Program by an executive order . Thats not FISA. We are trying to bring this dosmetic spy program into FISA!

NSA warrantless surveillance controversy The Act came into public prominence in December 2005 following publication by the New York Times of an article[7] that described a program of warrantless domestic wiretapping ordered by the Bush administration and carried out by the National Security Agency since 2002 (a subsequent Bloomberg article[8] suggested that this may have already begun by June 2000). Many critics have asserted that the Administration's warrantless spying program is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution against warrantless search and a criminal violation of FISA

Tags: thoughts (all tags)

Comments

37 Comments

Re: All things Bush is evil.. yeah yeah...whatever

I think you're wrong in your characterization of most people's views on this. Most people I've read on the progressive blogs don't want Obama to have that power at all. They are against warrantless wiretapping completely. So I'm not sure how relevant your question is.

by animated 2008-06-21 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: All things Bush is evil.. yeah yeah...whatever

well ---its is aimed at the ones who defend his right to " trust me I will watch for abuses".

Just my way of hopefully explaining to them in a <respectful manner> why we are so riled up about FISA.

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: All things Bush is evil.. yeah yeah...whatever

When I say I trust him, I mean I am trusting that he will work to restore the balance of power. Not to use the imbalance of that power wisely.

by vcalzone 2008-06-21 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: All things Bush is evil.. yeah yeah...whatever

How do you feel he is doing so far?

I am coming at this issue as someone who backed Chris Dodd on the basis of this one issue: restoring the Constitution. All the people powered politics of Obama and all the carefully planned programs of Clinton meant far less to me than this one issue. Dodd was the only Democratic candidate to come out forcefully on this issue (Ron Paul was by far the best of the Republicans on liberty issues).

So I am not personally disappointed or surprised by Obama's failure to take a bold stance on this issue. Once Dodd got 1% in Iowa with a platform of "Restoring the Constitution", I figured that the constituency for this kind of issue is just too small to be heard anymore.

by itsthemedia 2008-06-21 09:00PM | 0 recs
Re: All things Bush is evil.. yeah yeah...whatever

he is talking ( val) about feelings and emotions he has for obama. I am taking about the " trust me folks" I will safe guard the FISA rules" from one president asking to another.  

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: All things Bush is evil.. yeah yeah...whatever

The whole point of separation of powers is to have checks and balances in place so we don't have to trust any one particular person. "Just trust me" is an invitation to tyranny.

(In short, I agree with you.)

by itsthemedia 2008-06-21 09:43PM | 0 recs
Re: All things Bush is evil.. yeah yeah...whatever

Supposedly, Obama is purported to be a fairly knowledgeable interpreter of constitutional law. I have yet to see this knowledge applied. I'm hoping that will change.

by vcalzone 2008-06-21 09:54PM | 0 recs
Re: All things Bush is evil.. yeah yeah...whatever

OMG Vcalzone you're coming over the drak side of asking a hint of accountability . I can almost cry :) j/k

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 10:26PM | 0 recs
Re: All things Bush is evil.. yeah yeah...whatever

and you get a mojo from me too!

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 10:27PM | 0 recs
Re: All things Bush is evil.. yeah yeah...whatever

Well, hope implies a fair likelihood of failure, no? Nonetheless, I think Obama truly does have good intentions, so my real hope is that he follows his instincts.

by vcalzone 2008-06-22 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: All things Bush is evil.. yeah yeah...whatever

Alive, I think this is your third diary of the day bro.  I believe this blog has a two diary a day limit.  I think you bring up some good points but I just wanted to let you know the rules.

by Blazers Edge 2008-06-21 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: All things Bush is evil.. yeah yeah...whatever

Technically it after midnight on my time stamp on mydd. we are in the next day. LOL. But I catch ya drift. :)

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: All things Bush is evil.. yeah yeah...whatever

haha, good point bro.  

by Blazers Edge 2008-06-21 08:47PM | 0 recs
Re: All things Bush is evil.. yeah yeah...whatever

I'm not really sure what you're arguing here, but I'll take a stab at it.  The current FISA law makes it ridiculously easy to obtain a warrant for a wiretap.  In almost 20 years, the FISA court has rejected requests for a warrant only 9 times:

http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fi sa_stats.html

Basically, you have an on-call attorney contact the FISA judge, present evidence of cause (which can be pretty flimsy), and 5 minutes later you have your warrant.  FISA even permits the warrants to have retroactive effect, so that you can have wiretaps in place even before a warrant is obtained.  The system presents no impediment to terrorist surveillance whatsoever, which makes it all the more baffling that Bush refused to abide by this minor inconvenience and began operating without a warrant.

In an Obama Administration, I would expect them to follow the law and put up with this minor inconvenience, since I believe that he respects the law more than Bush and, again, the law provides no real impediment to surveillance efforts.

by rfahey22 2008-06-21 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: All things Bush is evil.. yeah yeah...whatever

wow I actually enjoyed reading that rfahey . I'll give ya a mojo.

So anyways bush's stance that they just approved pretty much was:

In war time , we do not need to go fill paper work and ask for retroactive ( I think they have 5 days tops per old FISA)permission on a wiretap, amongst  his stance that a president does not need check and balances in war time , over his call.

Bush said that the paper work is cumbersome ( which technically was agreed by democrats that it truly is).  

Now---Not withstanding all of that, the current FISA bill being compromised pretty much allows the president same powers w/ a small caveat. We will allow you more latitude MR. President in war times, but lets have an external body review it at a later time (NOTE: secret- closed door review that is off limits to the public).

So effectively giving President Obama same powers, only answerable for review at a later time.

The point we want in it is :

1. Don't give immunity to telcoms ( grave issue, you can't get away w/ tapping private citizens w/ hardly any proof worth standing up in even a civil court)
2. Don't give the president right to call for  wiretaps. Leave it to the courts ( w/ easier paper work) and not check and  done by balances some external ' closed door' review body at a later time.

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 09:01PM | 0 recs
Re: All things Bush is evil.. yeah yeah...whatever

I think that's about right - I'm not up on all of the proposed changes, but the current FISA law is so easy to meet that it couldn't really be made that much broader.  Unless someone at Homeland Security is smoking crack, if they want to tap your phones, they'll find a way to justify a warrant.  The only difference with the Bush approach is that he would eliminate the minor step of getting the FISA court's ok.  This fight is a lot more about principle than about actually changing our policies.  Arguably, we're all debating a change that has no real world significance (aside from the telecom immunity issue).

by rfahey22 2008-06-21 09:10PM | 0 recs
Re: All things Bush is evil.. yeah yeah...whatever

well yeah and then those who think no wire tapping w/o reasonable burden of proof is no go. Les remember reasonable burden is still a high standard in US court  ( hence why 9 were rejected), compared to the proof these guys bring to a President now .

" so and so in Pakistan who we caught said so and so in the US is a weapons guy for our organization and talks to us every week on Wednesday"

What do you then as a CIA guy yourself? go ask for wire taps for Wednesday?or play handicapped behind " reasonable proof"

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 09:19PM | 0 recs
Re: All things Bush is evil.. yeah yeah...whatever

The current standard is probable cause that the person being monitored is a "foreign power" or an agent of a "foreign power," not that a crime is about to be committed.  So, no evidence of wrongdoing is required and I have to think that establishing that there is probable cause to believe that someone is affiliated with a "foreign power" (such as a terrorist cell) is pretty easy.  According to the statistics of the website I cited, in 2007 the FISA court denied surveillance in .17% of all cases presented to the court.  Assuming that the government errs on the side of caution and requests taps on anyone remotely suspected of terrorist ties, I suspect that the evidence pertaining to those individuals was extremely weak.  Besides, since taps can be approved retroactively, the government can always perform the wiretaps and then obtain the evidence that would have justified the taps in the first place.        

by rfahey22 2008-06-21 09:35PM | 0 recs
Re: All things Bush is evil.. yeah yeah...whatever

I can't believe...

Do your really...

Don't you remember...

Here we go aga...

Damn, I'm having a hard time coming up with a civil answer to this diary.

Here's a simple point. Bush has proven himself to be untrustworthy time after time. He even misled the country into a war. Notice I didn't say, lied us into a war. Bush took us down the torture road. Bush suspended habeas corpus. Bush ... Are you seriously equating Obama with Bush?

Most people, progressives anyway, are against the telco immunity aspect of the bill. We aren't all against reasonable intelligence activities that are performed with some oversight. This bill is much better than the PA and the previously proposed FISA bills. Any reasonable, and reasonably knowledgeable, person knows this is probably the best we can get at this time. I trust Obama on this a lot more than I trust McCain. I have zero trust in Bush/Cheney.

Now to address another aspect of your diary. This is why anyone with sense is against a unitary executive office. It's also why the Republicans were foolish to take us here. I wrote something years ago about how they were going to really regret what they were doing once Democrats got to wield the reins of power. Well, to borrow a phrase, their pigeons are coming home to roost. I can't feel sorry for them, but I can feel sorry for the Anerican people.

by MS01 Indie 2008-06-21 08:50PM | 0 recs
Re: All things Bush is evil.. yeah yeah...whatever

Once again , calm down read the diary. slowly...

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: All things Bush is evil.. yeah yeah...whatever

Once again you post a comment without answering the points made in the one to which you are replying. The sign of a weak debater.

by MS01 Indie 2008-06-21 10:20PM | 0 recs
Re: All things Bush is evil.. yeah yeah...whatever

I don't give a hoot in heck whether Obama is more trustworthy than McCain or Bush. I wouldn't trust my own mother with that kind of power. And she's dead.

by itsthemedia 2008-06-21 09:50PM | 0 recs
Straw man

This is not about who occupies the oval office. In either of your scene/acts, FISA would allow up to 2 weeks to obtain warrants retroactively.

This is precisely what is ludicrous about the clamor for warrantless wiretapping. There never was a security issue with conforming to this law.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-21 08:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Straw man

The current wire tap falls under the NSA's domestic spying program not FISA ( unless all this time they are the same program and I lost out on that). FISA is an old program that bush did not like and he created the new one w/ an EO order. i.e NSA's domestic spying program

"  the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor, without warrants, phone calls, e-mails, Internet activity, and text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S."

"NSA warrantless surveillance controversy
The Act came into public prominence in December 2005 following publication by the New York Times of an article[7] that described a program of warrantless domestic wiretapping ordered by the Bush administration and carried out by the National Security Agency since 2002 (a subsequent Bloomberg article[8] suggested that this may have already begun by June 2000). Many critics have asserted that the Administration's warrantless spying program is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution against warrantless search and a criminal violation of FISA"

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 10:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Straw man

I was referring to the new FISA legislation passed in the House - the one that the GOP fought tooth-and-nail because it didn't include retroactive immunity for the telecoms.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-22 05:13AM | 0 recs
lol wut

The issue is not whether "Bush can order a wiretap".  The federal government has had wiretapping powers for decades.  The debate is about whether a warrant is needed and the procedures for acquiring it or justifying the wiretap after the fact.  I'm sure this has been explained to you, and I recall doing it myself a few days ago.

by JJE 2008-06-21 09:12PM | 0 recs
Re: lol wut

"The issue is not whether "Bush can order a wiretap"

No? really so when he circumvented the process, it was all a dream?

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 09:21PM | 0 recs
he circumvented the process

by not getting a warrant first.  Not by "ordering the wiretap".  A lowly AUSA can order a wiretap as long as s/he gets a warrant.

by JJE 2008-06-21 09:37PM | 0 recs
Re: he circumvented the process

JJE--  Bush, prior to him authorizing the NSA's domestic spying program ( carte blanche), could not order a wire tap.

I think and I'm not a constitutional professor ;) but we arguing that his domestic spying program was unconstitutional. hence he circumvented that hurdle.

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-21 09:50PM | 0 recs
Re: he circumvented the process

They circumvented the process for a reason. They didn't think even the compliant FISA court would authorize a tap on 300 million people at once. The "program" that gets hinted at but never described in Congressional hearings is most likely a massive data filtering operation. An AT&T technician has been interviewed (I forget where I read it, sorry) saying he was ordered to divert the entire data stream at his facility through the NSA's machines.

Big Brother is watching.

by itsthemedia 2008-06-21 09:56PM | 0 recs
Re: All things Bush is evil.. yeah yeah...whatever

Not everything about bush was evil or even bad for the country

1)  He had a black secretary of state actually 2 separate secretaries of state.  This as a GOP president is a virtue.  He was also very good to minorities in terms of top jobs and again for GOP that is very important.  Basically the president set by Clinton was followed by Bush and when the non progressive party is color blind regarding powerful posisions that is a very important milestone.

2)  He filled up the oil reserve.

3)  He advocated spending money on a return to mars and the moon.  The technical advances of the 1960s space race have enriched all of our lives.

Thats it I can only think of 3 nice things to say about Bush presidency.

He was dwarfed by Bush Sr, who was dwarfed by Bill Clinton but not every single policy of the Bush white house was stupid and arrogant just the overwhelming majority of them.

by dtaylor2 2008-06-22 01:45AM | 0 recs
Re: All things Bush is evil.. yeah yeah...whatever

You see the thoughtless, mindless decision to "go to Mars" - at the cost of funding Hubble and other existing programs - just so he could subscribe to "the vision thang" - as an achievement?

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-22 05:17AM | 0 recs
Where did Obama say 'trust me'?

If you are really that concerned about Obama's position on this matter. It would be helpful if you offered some direct evidence of his opinion.  you could do that with some quotes about the topic.  

This is what Obama said about FISA in Jan-08:

Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.

The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.

He specifically states that he thinks the FISA courts work.  What are you so concerned about?  

by Blue Neponset 2008-06-22 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Where did Obama say 'trust me'?

I'm begining to think what alive is really concerned about is a black man having all the power that has usually been reserved for white men. White men from the south appear to be running scared these day of just what will a black man do with all that power, and will he use it to exact revenge against the slave states.

by venician 2008-06-22 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Where did Obama say 'trust me'?

Venician---

Heh,you now have shown your true self finally--- a classic piss poor, degenerate , low class putz   -- to stoop to using " you are racists" yelp. what pathetic life you must lead.

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-22 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Where did Obama say 'trust me'?

"piss poor degenerate" , your use of hese VERY out dated insults, show me your age. That combined with your living in the south it's reasonable to assume that you grew up in an atmosphere not very friendly towards A.A.'s, all of this combined with your "concerns" about Obama, well, it seems to me your "concerns" are more about fear then anything else. And here I thought you boomers were a generation about changing the world not about turning into your parents. And by the way I never said you were racist, I said you were afraid.

by venician 2008-06-22 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Where did Obama say 'trust me'?

So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."

i.e. Trust me..

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-22 10:58AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads