Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Obama Sides With Bush In Spy Case

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the disappointment-for-civil-liberties dept.

Government 906

palegray.net is one of many who writes "President Obama has publicly sided with the Bush administration on the question of whether the President should be allowed to establish warrantless wiretapping programs designed to monitor US citizens. The President has asked a federal judge to stay a ruling that would allow key evidence into the domestic spying case against the government. 'Thursday's filing by the Obama administration marked the first time it officially lodged a court document in the lawsuit asking the courts to rule on the constitutionality of the Bush administration's warrantless-eavesdropping program.'" jamie points out that Obama's views and opinions were made clear through his Senate vote and numerous public statements, but many others see this as a disappointing start to an administration promising transparency and openness.

cancel ×

906 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fucking nigger (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26579575)

see subject.

So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (5, Insightful)

Kludge (13653) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579585)

So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.

Asshole.

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (3, Insightful)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579653)

The tragic optimist in me wants to say that Obama doesn't want to open that particular can of worms until he and his staff have had a chance to really examine what's involved.

That's an admittedly optimistic view, though. I'm still worried how it will actually pan out.
=Smidge=

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (4, Insightful)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579703)

The cracks are showing.

It will come as a shock to some that, even though Obama has taken office, a lot of the nation is overcast today. We still have to pay to go to the doctor. Dog poo does not yet smell like peppermint. And I've yet to get a raise or better offer this week.

I like the guy and, although some of his plans make me nervous (I'm a pretty staunch fiscal conservative), I'm optimistic that he'll do a good job. But it is kind of satisfying to see him reveal that he's not quite the guy that so many people see up on that pedestal.

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (5, Insightful)

hobbit (5915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579855)

a lot of the nation is overcast today. We still have to pay to go to the doctor. Dog poo does not yet smell like peppermint.

As someone who lives in a country with a National Health Service, it tickles me to see it sandwiched between two "impossible ideals".

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (3, Insightful)

bencoder (1197139) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579951)

oh you pay for it. and if you don't go to the doctor much, you probably pay more for it than you would if it was private.

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (4, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#26580003)

And yet, just like most Americans, he has access to shit TV, unhealthy snacks, cheap drugs and legal pornography. What's the downside again?

So? (4, Interesting)

FatSean (18753) | more than 5 years ago | (#26580117)

I don't go to church, but I pay so others can go even though I think it is a hateful waste of time.

I am a product of my society, and have no problem giving back some of my wealth to help my less fortunate fellow citizens.

I do not agree with most 'welfare' programs that hand out money, but health care is worth the cost.

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (1)

TeXMaster (593524) | more than 5 years ago | (#26580139)

oh you pay for it. and if you don't go to the doctor much, you probably pay more for it than you would if it was private.

Considering how much giving birth to a baby or even something as simple as buying flu medicine costs without health insurance in the USA, I doubt that.

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (5, Funny)

Necreia (954727) | more than 5 years ago | (#26580085)

Clearly you've not had a Dog who has eaten all the Candy Canes on a Christmas Tree.

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (0, Flamebait)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579931)

Kind of like a bearded Nazarene guy standing up to his knees in water, asking rather nervously if anyone on shore is a swimming instructor?

I lost hope with his appointments (2, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26580073)

worse, I lost any respect for Republicans for not stopping Geitner at the committee level.

This whole Administration is starting too look like Clinton The New Generation... new face at the top but the base looks rotten.

After Congress gets done stimulating themselves when will someone look at us and see what we want?

Obama was supposed to represent change yet the only change he represents is there is now a "D" next to the office affiliation. Now that he is in all the abuses of power he decried during the campaign are too valuable to be given up even though some should for what is best for America.

I was hoping we were not going to be stuck with another rubber stamping President, because in the end that was Bush's biggest fault. I don't want a President who wants to be friends with Congress. I want a President who is friends with us first. He is supposed to be the voice of the nation, not his party and certainly not special interest. He interests should be us.

There is always a chance he will grow a pair and go a new direction but it doesn't look good that he has passed the first few ramps on the interstate of government. His Gitmo decision sounded real good till you read the fine print, they have a year to change their minds. His appointment scream "continue the course" and this decision is more of the same. His recent declaration that Congress was on the right path with the stimulus package really pissed me off. Right course for who?

I guess the lesson learned under Bush will need four more years to be learned, that for every grandiose name they use just think of the exact opposite and that will be reality.

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (5, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579677)

Realistically, though, this isn't a change in what we know (or should have known, for those who didn't know this). All Obama has accomplished is shown any supporters who were still blind enough to believe him (after his Senate vote, no less) that he really doesn't support our rights like he claimed he did. His only possible excuse for his actions, that it might sabotage his campaign, has been removed, but his actions have not changed. Surprise, surprise.

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (5, Insightful)

happyslayer (750738) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579875)

By temperament and voter registration, I'm a Republican; however, I voted for (and hope for) an Obama win because the path the government has taken over the last 7-8 years has saddened and disgusted me. I'm glad he won.

But, I am not a "believer." Now that the opposing party is in charge (just like the GOP was for all those years) it's going to be hard for them to put away all those neat new toys that Bush & Co. left behind. This is because it's hard for the party on top to admit that a power or capability is too dangerous to use (dangerous as in potentially or outright abusive of Constitutional rights.)

If there were ever a prime time to hold your government's feet to the fire over policy, now is the time to do it. Otherwise, it will be fait accompli, and we'll start hearing things from this administration (and its supporters) like, "But we're not Bush; we're better than him!"

Just my inflation-adjusted 2 cents...

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (4, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579739)

The US has devolved into a place where safety trumps constitutional authorization, judicial honesty, liberty, and honor.

The government might as well change the national motto to "Safety at Any Cost."

You are wrong (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26579835)

Warrantless wiretaps are good now. You see, they weren't good before. But they are good now.

Anyone who can't see that is a racist reactionary.

Re:You are wrong (1)

happyslayer (750738) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579915)

lol...I posted my comment above, and then this one shows up! Glad to see great minds (or something like that) think alike!

Re:You are wrong (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26579965)

Glad to see fucktards think alike!

Fixed that for you.

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26579937)

Oh come on, it took an entire 3 days for him to officially step on that promise, I think he's doing better than bush already!

Read the filing itself (5, Informative)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 5 years ago | (#26580015)

The summary and the article it links to make it seem like much more of a big deal than it actually is:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/alharamainobama.pdf [wired.com]

It's a procedural motion for a stay pending appeal. It's not a policy endorsement, it's them looking to have the judge's ruling put on hold until appeals are over.

That's not to say that Obama won't wind up agreeing with Bush on this, just that this particular filing doesn't actually indicate that.

Re:So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety. (1)

evilkasper (1292798) | more than 5 years ago | (#26580039)

They just want us to be open and transparent as well..... Seriously though is anyone surprised by this?

Hail Obama, Savior of America. (5, Funny)

jcnnghm (538570) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579601)

Finally, change we can believe in!

Re:Hail Obama, Savior of America. (5, Insightful)

Slammer64 (1031980) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579689)

Finally, change we can believe in!

Just because he promised "change" doesn't mean it'll be a "good" change!

Re:Hail Obama, Savior of America. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26579727)

Fuck you unbeliever!

Re:Hail Obama, Savior of America. (2, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579779)

one friend didn't vote because, as he sees it...

"It doesn't matter who shits in the chair, we're all going to get covered anyway".

Guess he was right on that one.

The more things change.... (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 5 years ago | (#26580009)

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Love me, I'm a Liberal. (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 5 years ago | (#26580083)

I go to pro-choice rallies
Recycle my cans and jars
I'll honk if you love the Dead
Hope those funny grunge bands become stars
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far

So love me, love me, love me
I'm a liberal

Yeh, I read the New Republic
Rolling Stone and Mother Jones too
If I vote it's a Democrat
With a sensible economy view
But when it comes to terrorist Arabs
There's no one more red, white and blue

So love me, love me, love me
I'm a liberal

From Jello Biafra's remake of the Phil Ochs song.

Seriously though, you just have to look at Obama's record to see that he was basically cut from the same cloth as Clinton and FDR. Both presidents who continued/expanded the role of government for security and social purposes. If you liked them you'll probably like Obama. As a libertarian-leaning person, I think he'll be a refreshing change from the last 8 years, and marginally better than McCain, but doesn't represent any significant change in the political spectrum of the last 50 years. Just another period in the spiral of expansionism.

And the thing is he has never really represented himself as anything different. You have this very charismatic leader, that agrees with you on some issues and suddenly people start fooling themselves into believing he is everything they want him regardless of what he says. I can't count how many times I've heard, "well he has to say that to get elected" over the last 6 months. Those people are now going to be shocked that he is doing the exact thing he promised, in addition to the normal broken campaign promises.

Fooled again? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26579609)

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Re:Fooled again? (3, Funny)

hobbit (5915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579903)

Le Roi est mort. Vive le Roi!

Same as the old boss... *literally*. (5, Interesting)

Rei (128717) | more than 5 years ago | (#26580109)

Didn't it occur to anyone here that Obama's attorney general pick hasn't even been confirmed yet? Obama is only nominally in charge of the DOJ at this point. So who do you think it is filing these papers? Well, the names are right in the PDF [wired.com] , starting with Michael F. Hertz. Yes, Michael F. Hertz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General under Alberto Gonzales.

so? (1)

thesappho (1293114) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579627)

different names,
different faces,
now different color,

same taste...

enjoy freedom,
enjoy while you can

Re:so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26579735)

Burma Shave.

Re:so? (3, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579743)

enjoy freedom,
enjoy while you can

Freedom? What freedom? [kuro5hin.org]

Corruption (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26579629)

Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Whatcha gonna do about it?

Oxen (3, Insightful)

overshoot (39700) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579633)

many others see this as a disappointing start to an administration promising transparency and openness.

Well now, that depends on who is being held open now, doesn't it?

But Remember! (1, Redundant)

madcat2c (1292296) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579637)

Change! Change! Change!

Re:But Remember! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26579685)

and Hope!

Obama... (2, Funny)

db10 (740174) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579663)

..Oh bummer =(

Yes it is. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579665)

and it has no side to it to be defended.

US Citizens? (1)

dedazo (737510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579669)

Or just people in the US?

Is there a distinction at all?

Ummm (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26579679)

OWNED

What... (0)

cwAllenPoole (1228672) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579683)

I did not trust this new Administration during his campaign. And when he was elected, I felt that the promise was for more government ineptitude, but at least he would discontinue the idiocy of the 43 president.... I cannot believe this... Less than a week in office and he shows his SUPPORT for this wanton imorality.

Re:What... (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579831)

Feel betrayed? Good.

Why are True Believers always so surprised when the object of their adulation turns out to have feet of clay?

Re:What... (1)

cwAllenPoole (1228672) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579911)

No, I voted for the Republican nominee. I had simply thought that the liberals would at least remove one ill before creating a number of others (a small consolation to a slightly-more-socialist-that-his-opponent being elected, but so it goes). Now I see that their intent is to pile bad upon bad.

Re:What... (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579975)

Actually, I should apologize - I read your comment too hastily and misinterpreted it. God knows there are other posting that deserve it.

Sorry.

Re:What... (1)

cwAllenPoole (1228672) | more than 5 years ago | (#26580075)

Whatever. It's all good. (I am VERY much a small government person -- I feel that a bureaucratically appointed committee will INEVITABLY contain the people who are MOST INCOMPETENT at the task of spending MY MONEY).

Re:What... (1)

cwAllenPoole (1228672) | more than 5 years ago | (#26580005)

I will note, that as I disliked both nominees this past election, I have done my best to avoid the usage of their proper names. Thus, use of PotUS, chief executive, or current administration.

Re:What... (2, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579971)

> I did not trust this new Administration during his campaign

I'd argue, that trusting ANY politician or group thereof is a rather silly thing to do (that's being polite btw. Really it's just plain stupid).

Give it time (4, Insightful)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579691)

Obama might not always be right.

Bush might not have always been wrong.

There just might be a valid reason for this (then again there might not be).

They guy has been in office less than a week. Progress has already been made.

Re:Give it time (4, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579765)

There just might be a valid reason for this (then again there might not be).

I can't imagine any valid reason for spying on our citizens without a warrant, personally. Or interfering with justice for those who had been violated. Maybe it exists, but I find that hard to believe.

They guy has been in office less than a week. Progress has already been made.

As of right now, progress is nil. He did some good things so far, but this is a really bad thing. Net gain: none.

Re:Give it time (1)

hobbit (5915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579879)

This really bad thing was already the case. Some other really bad things are no longer the case. Net gain: positive.

Re:Give it time (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#26580019)

No, because propagating a really bad thing (when it's in your power to stop it) carries the same weight as starting a really bad thing. At the risk of someone crying Godwin, if someone had taken over for Hitler and continued his genocide against the Jews, they wouldn't have had a pass because "that was already in place". When it's in your power to stop a bad thing, you are responsible to stop it, or you become culpable.

Re:Give it time (3, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579897)

Net gain: none.

I've been seeing this "scoreboard" meme regarding Obama on a couple of FP stories now.

Discussing politics as a zero-sum game is stupid. It's that kind of mentality that entrenches the two-party system and helps keep one of the biggest and richest nations on earth from actually getting any shit done.

Re:Give it time (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26579953)

I can't imagine any valid reason for spying on our citizens without a warrant, personally.

Wow, I guess that settles it then. I'm sure you've done all the research and arm-chair pontificating necessary to come to your conclusion. I'll just defer my opinions to you in the future.

Re:Give it time (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579991)

I can't imagine any valid reason for spying on our citizens without a warrant,

Even if there was a good reason, they still couldn't do it without a constitutional amendment.

Re:Give it time (1)

johnsonav (1098915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26580077)

Even if there was a good reason, they still couldn't do it without a constitutional amendment.

Or you need five justices to tell us that the Constitution already says it's okay. It's really much easier that way.

Re:Give it time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26580065)

I can't imagine any valid reason for spying on our citizens without a warrant, personally.

The problem that crops up is if someone overseas who we're spying on (without a warrant, but it's legal because it's overseas and not a US citizen) calls someone in the US who is a citizen. It might take several days to figure this out, because cell phones are portable.

Indeed. (3, Insightful)

FatSean (18753) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579771)

Let us think back to Bush's speeches and promises, and how he failed on nearly every one.

But, the people who screamed 'traitor' at the anti-war activist and supported Bush to the bitter end have suddenly found the ability to criticize our president during wartime.

The HURRRRRRRRRRRRrrrtastic tags tell the story of astro-turfing conservatives.

At least this economy has the low-income trailer-park republicans finally signing up to fight their war.

Every one... (2, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579929)

Let us think back to Bush's speeches and promises, and how he failed on nearly every one.

What about the part where he promised to help stabilize Iraq?

What about where he promised we'd see no new terrorist attacks on American soil?

There's a lot of things to dislike Bush over, like spending for one. But Bush has delivered on some huge promises, as much as many here are not willing to admit that or dislike some means uses to accomplish this end.

It only stands to reason that Obama would like to continue successes on both agendas.

Re:Every one... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26580123)

Stabilize Iraq? Didn't he have to do that since he destabilized it to begin with? Giving someone credit for putting duct tape on something they broke seems a little stupid.

Re:Give it time (4, Funny)

kalirion (728907) | more than 5 years ago | (#26580063)

Bush might not have always been wrong.

You take that back. YOU TAKE THAT BACK RIGHT NOW1!!!1!

sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26579711)

It's unfortunate to see this occur with the new administration however, it shouldn't be nearly as shocking to people that it occured. Congress has for the most part been under the control of the democratic party [including obama] whilst going along with authoritarian policies...

Keep your eyes out for Obama bumper stickers!! (0, Troll)

gd23ka (324741) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579731)

They're going to get RARE!! (unless they're all of the sudden then mandated by "Executive Order").

He hasn't lost two wars yet...why be ashamed? (0, Troll)

FatSean (18753) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579861)

It's not like murdering civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq is going to be something Obama's policies can even touch.

It'll take a big BIG mistake to get people to remove those bumper stickers. Kinda like how the W stickers started dissapearing in 2005 :)

Maybe you should spend less time crying about government intrusion, and more time getting in shape? Dropping the weight and being more active will make you feel more positive and less of a failure.

Obama subscribes to the Google Motto (5, Funny)

idontgno (624372) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579749)

"Don't be evil*"

*for small values of "evil"

Re:Obama subscribes to the Google Motto (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579957)

Heh, not bad. That definitively makes Bush the MS analog: "Do what we tell you to do or we'll start throwing chairs at you! Oh screw it. Here comes the chairs anyway!"

Re:Obama subscribes to the Google Motto (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 5 years ago | (#26580141)

I think Obama is more like a car that you put tubes in. And uhh... It also happens to be not fuel efficient. Maybe its a red truck..... Where was I? Right, making car analogies is harder than it looks.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26579753)

Bullshit!

Bush Plus? (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579761)

The other day, someone on the radio commented that the Obama administration is shaping up to be "bush on steroids". I fervently hope that's wrong.

Re:Bush Plus? (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579905)

Yes, everyone is saying the Bush administration was the worst in history. In 8 yrs people's opinions may change drastically.

And so, the feeling of betrayal sets in (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579777)

My hope is that the True Believers get so pissed at Obama that they want to lynch him - that means he is probably taking middle of the road policies and compromising on things. You know - governing.

On another board someone noted that the President Elect walked into his first intelligence briefing smiling fr the cameras and he came out looking like he'd been hit between the eyes with a hammer. Hopefully that was a solid reminder that "governing" is different than "campaigning".

Bad summary of bad article (5, Informative)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579795)

That's a very misleading way to state it. What happened, was, the Obama people asked for a stay of the Judge's motion pending appeal.

It's not an endorsement, as you might think from the summary and linked article, of the policy. It's a procedural move.

I'm not saying that Obama doesn't or won't back Bush's view. Just that this particular filing doesn't support that conclusion in a meaningful way.

bet (0, Troll)

xenolion (1371363) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579807)

LMAO with this article I just won $100..I made that bet during the election and it paid off, tell the people one thing and do another.

USA becomes UK in... (2, Insightful)

RagingFuryBlack (956453) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579813)

5...4...3..2..1.. The only change we'll be seeing is the removal of our right to be able to defend ourselves. Say goodbye to your firearms, hello to more government intrusion into your life. Only now, there's no way to control government. At least he's going to live up to his promises. Change we can believe in!

LOL (0, Troll)

strikeleader (937501) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579817)

Looks like he may have the balls to think for himself and not just be a goose-stepping, koolaide drinking Dem. Pelosi must be having a fit...LOL

Re:LOL (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579933)

"Pelosi must be having a fit...LOL"

After today's NY Senatorial pick, she'll have an aneurysm - the lady has an "A" rating from the NRA.

Oh no (0, Flamebait)

Fragasaurus (1432365) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579857)

Obama is listening to my calls where I tell my friends to come watch a movie or tell my mom to stop calling. How can you do this to me Barack??

Unless you actually plan on doing something horrific and are dumb enough to talk about it over a phone this shouldn't be a problem. The worst thing I can think about it is, how much money are they spending spying on everyone?

Re:Oh no (1)

happyslayer (750738) | more than 5 years ago | (#26580093)

Unless you actually plan on doing something horrific and are dumb enough to talk about it over a phone this shouldn't be a problem.

So, can you tell me exactly how someone gets on the No-Fly lists? Can you tell me these records will never be used in a civil or criminal case?

What about a joke you made about the pretty new secretary at work 2 years ago--and she ends up kidnapped, killed, and/or raped? If "they" start combing through your past phone conversations, do you think the prosecution would ignore the possibility that you were sexually obsessed with her?

"If you haven't done anything wrong..." is not a good argument. It's about all the ways it can go wrong.

Re:Oh no (1)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 5 years ago | (#26580095)

If you have nothing to hide, you don't need privacy? Really?

So, suppose the government decides that a particular relgion, or activist group, or whatever, has goals that are "un-American"; or harbors or aids terrorists; etc. Is it ok that they intercept communications and use what they find to identify and persecute members and/or supporters of that organization?

It's not a question of whether you're doing something "wrong"; it's a question of whether you're doing anything that someone in power might choose to dislike.

The problem with being president... (2, Insightful)

lpangelrob (714473) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579865)

Everything you do pisses everyone off, equally! [nationalreview.com]

Really, I'm just withholding comment until some form of long-term context is established.

Re:The problem with being president... (2, Interesting)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#26580091)

Really, I'm just withholding comment until some form of long-term context is established.

Pray tell then, what the hell are you doing on Slashdot? ;) And me out of friends slots....

Both parties are corrupt and power hungry. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26579867)

Proving my position once again.

Vote for real change.

Not Democrap or Republicant.

Sigh (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579871)

Meet the new boss,

Air guitar riff

Same as the old boss...

Vote for Liars (Democrat/Republicans) (3, Insightful)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579883)

Get what you voted...

I wonder what they think of the missiles that hit Pakistan today? I am sure they were approved by the President. You know, the "O" not the "W".

I vote against Social Conservatism. (1)

FatSean (18753) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579983)

Everything else, who gives a shit.

Re:Vote for Liars (Democrat/Republicans) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26580127)

The missiles killed three children.

So much for his disapproval during campaign for the military raiding villages and killing children.

Obama doesn't even have a DOJ yet... (5, Insightful)

Lendrick (314723) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579887)

The fact that he asked for a stay doesn't indicate much of anything, particularly since a lot of the people at the DOJ right now are Bush appointees (you know the type) who really need to be fired ASAP. By all means, we should be making as much noise about this as possible, but it doesn't automatically mean that Obama is pro-wiretapping.

predictable? (1)

miserere nobis (1332335) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579921)

jamie points out that Obama's views and opinions were made clear through his Senate vote and numerous public statements

in which he said that he was going to help filibuster the Senate bill that he then voted for. Whoops.

Uh.. Hello! (5, Insightful)

phrackwulf (589741) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579923)

This is so obviously FUD. The administration ordered a stay on all pending regulation and issues from the Bush Administration and this case happens to be one of them. So, what does someone looking to nail Obama do.. "oh well, they aren't immediately disavowing this terrible, terrible injustice, therefore, well they must be complicit!" Shake, stir, and toss to the usual gang of idiots on Slashdot and voila.. A major out of context brouhahah is born! Get a grip, morons.

Not particularly unexpected. (1)

Cathoderoytube (1088737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579927)

It's like the saying goes. There're two types of criminals; the ones holding office, and the ones that haven't been elected yet.

SO much for Change (1)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579943)

All Your Base are belong to us.

Nothing changes in Washington... Next time I'm voting Communist..

Not only that... (1)

a whoabot (706122) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579985)

President Obama 'orders Pakistan drone attacks' [timesonline.co.uk]

"Missiles fired from suspected US drones killed at least 15 people inside Pakistan today, the first such strikes since Barack Obama became president and a clear sign that the controversial military policy begun by George W Bush has not changed."

"...locals also said that three children lost their lives."

Attacking sovereign nations and killing children...that's the change Americans voted in, as in, not change at all.

Suck on karma, Bush supporters (1)

Bemopolis (698691) | more than 5 years ago | (#26580017)

For those who defended Bush seizing these powers and attacked those of us who opposed such as "supporting the terrorists", enjoy those selfsame powers in the hands of him who many of you seemed to fear most.

On the plus side, at least now you may take actions in your self-interest that mesh with those in the principled opposition.

I knew it! (4, Interesting)

thule (9041) | more than 5 years ago | (#26580025)

It was politics all along.

A court just recently affirmed the legality of it. Obama continues in the tradition.

The reality is that this stuff has done on for decades. The tradition is that any intelligence collected could not be used to build a case against a US citizen. It is not admissible in court. You cannot be prosecuted based on the intelligence.

Call Detail Records and metadata are owned by the telco's and are therefore proprietary and not private. They can do whatever they want with them.

The *only* thing that has changed is that the wall between the FBI and the NSA built during the Clinton administration was torn down. NSA/CIA can now give leads to the FBI that can be taken to a FISA court. The court can provide a retroactive warrant. Only after FISA court approval can the FBI and the Justice Department use the lead to build a case.

Oh noes!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26580033)

They elected a politician for president!!!

How could this have happened?
wtb a much needed change from the "change we need"

confused on wording? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26580047)

I RTFA, and the wording is confusing me slightly.

All it seems like he did is say that "The Government's position remains that this case should be stayed"

Also:
"Thursday's filing by the Obama administration marked the first time it officially lodged a court document in the lawsuit asking the courts to rule on the constitutionality of the Bush administration's warrantless-eavesdropping program."

To me, the above sounds like he wants to MAKE SURE the courts rule on whether or not it was legal for Bush to do the warrantless wiretapping

Who would give up that much power? (2, Insightful)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26580079)

Morality aside, who would give up that much power if they were offered it?

It took Nixon and Watergate for Congress to strip the president and administration of their power the last time such powers were reduced, and 9/11 for Congress to give back that power.

Nothing short of a Congressional revolt similar to what took place during Watergate will force *any* president to give up those powers.

Obama will in all probability be a much better president than Bush, but that doesn't mean that he's going to give up those presidential powers just to win brownie points from the ACLU.

Re:Who would give up that much power? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#26580145)

Morality aside, who would give up that much power if they were offered it?

Me. But then again I don't have the desire for that much power in the first place. This is one of many reasons I'm not a politician.

My fellow Americans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26580089)

Yet another example that while we may be led to believe otherwise.. a wolf will always be a wolf despite the fact that it may sometimes be dressed in sheep's clothing.

Calm Down. (3, Insightful)

Bruce Perens (3872) | more than 5 years ago | (#26580131)

Folks,

This sucks. However let's keep in mind that the order to close the detention/torture center at Gitmo has gone out, and to close the CIA detention centers, and the order to err on the side of disclosure in FOIA cases.

Let's keep in mind that it's a request for stay, not the last word. But it looks like Obama isn't on our side regarding this issue, and we might have to work for a long time to win it. Consider what we are winning so far, and keep on working. We were never going to get a candidate elected who agreed with us on everything.

Bruce

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?