Obama: Dead in the Water...is it true?

[LilRed]

GTC:


There's more to that NYT than jes da part you parsed...


Appears the NYT and liberal crowd, and the conservative, all, intensely dislike the authorizin law... Likely, because while it can be used very effectively in the war on terror, it can also be well used against any other sorts of crime that use communication systems... And, those pesky li'l dirty secrets we all have... (Wonder when they first knew about Petraeus' peccadillo?...

They take da Big O to task for not bein "transparent" about it... Seems like a righteous good effort on the part of the NYT and others, that are standin tall... At the same time, maybe usin only "known and suspected" terrorists as the criteria, may deny us a very effective tool... Remember, da Big O is a pragmatist... He does this stuff, not because he's a totalitarian racist of some sort, but, rather, because he is convinced it is a very effective tactic that saves many of our lives...

A tough issue to sort out.


ATB

[WBU ALUM]

And this is just one more thing in the lengthening list that we know about. There is bound to be more. It is looking more and more like this type of thing is pervasive across many departments and sub-departments in this administration. ATF, FBI, Justice, State, Treasury, IRS, NSA, EPA, Interior, HHS, DHS, Immigration ...

If this were the NCAA, they'd be put on probation for "lack of institutional control" and given the death penalty. If it was the private sector, the CEO would be fired.

[WBU ALUM]

When a Liberal Lame Duck looses the New York Times whose been in Obama's pocket from the get go, you know your goose is cooked.... make some room Jimmy, Barry's on his way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opini ... ef=opinion
From the New York Times;
"Within hours of the disclosure that the federal authorities routinely collect data on phone calls Americans make, regardless of whether they have any bearing on a counterterrorism investigation, the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers: Terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us to deal with them because we have internal mechanisms (that we are not going to tell you about) to make sure we do not violate your rights.

Those reassurances have never been persuasive — whether on secret warrants to scoop up a news agency’s phone records or secret orders to kill an American suspected of terrorism — especially coming from a president who once promised transparency and accountability. The administration has now lost all credibility. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it".

As the author of the Patriot Act has stated, this was never intended to happen. The phone surveillance was to be done only on SUSPECTED participants in terror and in calls from the US to foreign countries. A mass data grab was never the intention and goes against all rules of probable cause and common sense reason. This IS unreasonable search and seizure, without a doubt.

Author of Patriot Act: NSA Data Grab Violates It
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2 ... Data-Grabs

Rep. Sensenbrenner discusses the Patriot Act that he authored, saying it does not allow for random phone monitoring of Americans. Sensenbrenner said Obama's secret program, which collects phone records from millions of Americans, is beyond the scope of the law he wrote in 2001.

Being a "pragmatist" or making a "righteous effort" NEVER justifies violating an American's rights under the Constitution -- and add the fact that it was done surreptitiously. There are legal procedures. The law matters. The Bill of Rights matters.

[gudtymchuk]

There is a humorous side to all these Obama scandals. Seems to be like a big scavenger hunt trying to find all those liberal puppet talking heads, those gloating, lackey sycophants who stepped all over themselves to get in front of a podium when the "Weasel in Chief" was on top of the world. Sometimes 3 deep waiting for their chance to get in front of a microphone glorifying to the world what a magical leader the Liberals now had. He had so many loyal leaches just after the Obamacare vote, the re-election and the Supreme Court ruling. But where are they now? Where is Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, Chucky Schume, et al? Why are they not now standing shoulder to shoulder defending to the world their Puppet Master? Silence.... dead silence. They've gone underground hunkered down deep in their liberal ratholes. Their transformative leader has proven to be a sham and a farce and his promises of transparency and accountability a monumental lie. Maybe they will surface when the smoke clears praying their liberal deity will somehow resurrect and save them more political shame and disgrace.....

[WBU ALUM]

GTC:


There's more to that NYT than jes da part you parsed...


Appears the NYT and liberal crowd, and the conservative, all, intensely dislike the authorizin law... Likely, because while it can be used very effectively in the war on terror, it can also be well used against any other sorts of crime that use communication systems... And, those pesky li'l dirty secrets we all have... (Wonder when they first knew about Petraeus' peccadillo?...

They take da Big O to task for not bein "transparent" about it... Seems like a righteous good effort on the part of the NYT and others, that are standin tall... At the same time, maybe usin only "known and suspected" terrorists as the criteria, may deny us a very effective tool... Remember, da Big O is a pragmatist... He does this stuff, not because he's a totalitarian racist of some sort, but, rather, because he is convinced it is a very effective tactic that saves many of our lives...

A tough issue to sort out.


ATB

NYT Stealth Edits Editorial to Water Down Obama Condemnation
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism ... dits-Obama

Speaking of "parsing" ... They EDITED their EDITORIAL!

On Thursday, The New York Times ran one of its most controversial editorials in recent history. In it, the editors condemned the Obama administration in fiery terms for its blanket surveillance of American phone records. The original editorial contained this key line, which became our headline at Breitbart News: “The administration has now lost all credibility.”

At the time, we pointed out, “That doesn’t mean the Obama worship will stop.”

It took all of four hours to resume.

By late Thursday evening, the editorial had been changed so that the key sentence read, “The administration has now lost credibility on this issue.” There was no note of any correction.

[merchant seaman]

And just where is VP Biden during all this?

[WBU ALUM]

And just where is VP Biden during all this?

Getting ready to run for president in 2016. He's gotta lie low.

[TJ]

Regarding BO's foreign policy with Syria, the ultra left Washington Post just printed that "the United States, whose bystander president, having declared that Assad must go, that he has lost all legitimacy and that his fall is just a matter of time, is looking not just feckless but clueless." Of course BO, feckless, clueless or whatever, will always have the full advocacy of the WaPo and other leftist media.

[LilRed]

TJ:


If u have the url for the NYT article u mention above, please post it. I'd like to read the whole thing.



WBU:

Y'all be tryin to tar n feather da Big O, fer somethin Jr. n da Neocons, AND, Congress, started over 10 years ago...

Pls check out wat da Man hisse'f has to say about it. Sho makes sense to me, but, then, by all published reports, I am a bit slow...

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-embracing-b ... VM-;_ylv=3

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-govt-record ... 19557.html


U right about the IRS having a major role in Obamacare... Smells bad... I am lucky not to have to deal wid it.


ATB

[WBU ALUM]

TJ:


If u have the url for the NYT article u mention above, please post it. I'd like to read the whole thing.

They scrubbed it. What's there now is what is. There was also no comment or retraction.

WBU:

Y'all be tryin to tar n feather da Big O, fer somethin Jr. n da Neocons, AND, Congress, started over 10 years ago...

Pls check out wat da Man hisse'f has to say about it. Sho makes sense to me, but, then, by all published reports, I am a bit slow...

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-embracing-b ... VM-;_ylv=3

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-govt-record ... 19557.html


U right about the IRS having a major role in Obamacare... Smells bad... I am lucky not to have to deal wid it.


ATB

You better get up to snuff on things.

FIrst, what's a neocon? What makes someone a neocon? (Still waiting for your TEA Party characteristics, too) You throw these terms around, but unless I know what characteristics these people have -- in your view -- I have no idea about that which you're referring.

-----

Second, there are numerous articles about Democrats objecting to what is occurring with the NSA. Today, it's reported that they're also tracking credit cards.

*ORINGINAL SOURCES ARE LISTED IN THE LINKS*

Senate Dems. Condemn Obama's Verizon Phone Spying Program
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... ng-Program

Dem Rep: Obama Should 'Go Back and Read His Own Speeches' on Privacy
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... n-speeches

Reporter: Senate Democrats Find Obama Admin's Data Grabs Extremist
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2 ... -Extremist

'FALSE': Congress Denies Obama Claim 'Every Member' Briefed on Surveillance
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... ss-briefed

-----

Third, I've said it before, and I will say it again. I do NOT CARE WHO or WHAT party promotes unconstitutional efforts against American citizens. Obama claimed to be the anti-Bush. Obama was going to change the tone in Washington. Yeah, well, Obama is far from that. He changed the tone alright. It's worse. Additionally, a law that originates in one administration doesn't make it bad legislation. What makes it bad is when it is ABUSED and interpreted to undermine the Bill of Rights.

It amazes me that Ozombies (defenders of Obama at all costs and ignoring facts) will use something Bush did that they perceive as wrong and give Obama a pass for not only continuing it (because Bush did it), but advancing and enhancing the wrong-doing. Ozombies hate Bush. Why love the policies they hated on an enhanced level? Makes no sense. But that's why they're Ozombies.

*ORINGINAL SOURCES ARE LISTED IN THE LINKS*

Author of Patriot Act: NSA Data Grab Violates It
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2 ... Data-Grabs

-----

Fourth, Obama has taken what began with Bush and Congress in a time of "war" (that Obama denies) and ramped up internal spying with drones. He has ramped up drone attacks outside our borders. He has far and away expanded and violated the Patriot Act with phone record and credit card grabs.

*ORINGINAL SOURCES ARE LISTED IN THE LINKS*

NSA Whistle-blower: Obama Took Down General Petraeus With Surveillance Program
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2 ... ce-Program

Nat'l Intel Director May Have Lied to Congress About NSA Data Collection
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... ence-Final

Report: NSA Eavesdropped on People with Whom They Had Personal Grudges
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2 ... al-Grudges

Obama's 2010 Comments Targeted Conservative Groups
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... ive-Groups

NSA Prism program taps in to user data of Apple, Google and others
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju ... s-nsa-data

Sources: NSA Targeting Credit Card Use
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013 ... t-Card-Use

-----

Fifth, Obama tries very hard to DENY the war against terror and the threat that Muslim extremists pose to America, yet he uses that as the excuse to take all of these "WAR" programs FURTHER?

[FrazeeDK]

you don't think all the links from Breitbart are a little slanted? The one on Petraeus was an interview with a purpoted "whistleblower" by RT and they're not known for being "fair and balanced."

[jackspratt]

you don't think all the links from Breitbart are a little slanted? The one on Petraeus was an interview with a purpoted "whistleblower" by RT and they're not known for being "fair and balanced."

Interesting headline from Breitbart:

"NSA Whistleblower: Obama Took Down General Petraeus with Surveillance Program"

Firstly, in the video interview linked above, Obama's name is not mentioned at all - it's all about "they", whoever "they" are.

Secondly, the guy being interviewed talks about what he thinks, certainly not what he knows.

While I applaud Mr Binney for his efforts in making public the black inner workings of the intelligence community, given that he resigned from the NSA in 2001, it is not surprising that he doesn't know what is happening today (or in this case, last year).

For those who are interested in the full interview, and not just the soundbite from Breitbart, it is here:



ps the interviewer is hot.

[WBU ALUM]

you don't think all the links from Breitbart are a little slanted? The one on Petraeus was an interview with a purpoted "whistleblower" by RT and they're not known for being "fair and balanced."

Which is why I posted this before all of the links:

*ORINGINAL SOURCES ARE LISTED IN THE LINKS*

People said the same thing about Fast & Furious, survivors of Benghazi, the National Labor Relations Board, all the phony "green energy" companies that got grants and couldn't sustain jobs, the ignoring of immigration law, the stifling of states seeking to protect their borders from illegals, leaking classified information that puts our national security at risk and the lives of those serving in the military, the rules of engagement on the battlefield that has caused a spike in military casualties in Afghanistan, Eric Holder being completely dishonest about his involvement in the acquisition of warrants against the press, not to mention all of the heads of his departments and Obama himself not having any idea what was going on within those departments that THEY supervise.

You decide for yourself. If you want to throw those two references out regarding sources that you don't trust, throw them out. There's a lot more there, and most of these source articles are posted on Drudge and go directly to the sourced article. Investigate if you care. Read beyond the links and the headlines. Refute the information if it is incorrect. Up to you.

[parrot]

I'm glad I read what I read, and I usually get a good night's sleep after I do.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opini ... ll.html?hp

I've not been a fan of all the fallout from 9/11.....a multitude of programs designed to snoop and grope and restrict that continue to this day. But it seems to me, most Americans prefer that to another 9/11 sort of incident. If all this latest hoopla were the doing of the president (present or past) or the NSA, without the knowledge of the Congress, then I'd be more concerned. There's a ton of fingerprints on the current program, current president, past, members of congress from both sides, and judges as well. I'd prefer we not have to do these sort of things, but then, I'd prefer to take my duty free bottle of scotch on board the airplane with me......or use a stainless silverware set instead of plastic when I fly.
I'll sleep well enough tonight.

[WBU ALUM]

If all this latest hoopla were the doing of the president (present or past) or the NSA, without the knowledge of the Congress, then I'd be more concerned. There's a ton of fingerprints on the current program, current president, past, members of congress from both sides, and judges as well.

First, there's a difference between following a law and its procedures and going beyond the scope of the law. The author of the act says that what is happening today was never intended.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2 ... Data-Grabs

Second, Congress is saying they haven't been briefed -- as Obama claims.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... ss-briefed

And one more:
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/07/v ... sa-spying/

If this latest bit of surreptitious data mining makes it to the courts, it won't stand. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows this sort of indiscriminate data collection. Nothing.

And here's a Lib take on it.
Justice Department Fights Release of Secret Court Opinion Finding Unconstitutional Surveillance
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... rt-opinion

What are they trying to keep hidden?

[gudtymchuk]

What you have with Obama is an administration that has already displayed an arrogant abuse of power in three of his departments, Justice, State and IRS. The heads of these departments have been complacent, complaint or active participants in his many breaches of the public trust. Add to that the revelation that his NSA is data mining phone/internet/credit card information, it is not very much of a stretch to believe he will again cross that slippery slope and abuse his power for another chance to strike his political enemies. If not for leaks and whistle blowers we would all still be in the dark about the current batch of scandals which have now lead to the probability of many more examples of a government out of control. Trust but verify does not work in the secret world of espionage.

[Laan Yaa Mo]

To those of you who are critical of Bush, take a close look at Obama and try to realise that Obama is following many of the same policies. One area in which you can see a similar outlook is in the area of spying. Take a look at this article,

Fresh revelations about the scale of U.S. surveillance programs reveal Barack Obama’s broken promises


William Marsden, Postmedia News | 13/06/07 | Last Updated: 13/06/08 2:04 AM ET
More from Postmedia News

In 2008, a small legal foundation in San Francisco launched a civil action for AT&T customers against the U.S. National Security Agency, claiming it was illegally obtaining their phone records.

The aim was to test the legal boundaries of what staffers believed was a vast government surveillance program of Americans’ private communications.


I think we got balance right, Obama claims as furor intensifies over massive spy programs


President Barack Obama promised the American people “nobody is listening to your telephone calls” as he faced tough questions Friday over whether he had allowed U.S. surveillance to run out of control.

Speaking on the eve of a major U.S.-China summit in California, Obama was forced to answer accusations that his administration had expanded on Bush-era surveillance systems that he had once campaigned against.

Under intense fire from both the liberal Left and libertarian Right for trampling on constitutional freedoms, the president defended secret programs that collect data on hundreds of millions of US phone calls and harvest huge amounts of online information about foreigners. “In the abstract you can complain about Big Brother or how this is a potential program run amok, but when you actually look at the details I think we’ve struck the right balance,” Obama said, insisting that they were vital in the fight against terrorism.


.
Since then, federal and appeals courts have kicked the little-known case around, never killing it, just letting it flounder against a wall of claims the information was “classified” and “top secret.”

“The government has raised every legal privilege it could possibly muster to block a regular federal court from hearing the case,” said Mark Rumold, a staff lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which launched the case.

The EFF lawyers were trying to put an end to a nationwide domestic surveillance program they had no real proof even existed.

“I kind of hoped that we were wrong, that the government wasn’t doing what we alleged,” he said. “But we were right, unfortunately.”

In fact, the U.S. government is not only obtaining the phone records of hundreds of millions of Americans, it is also operating a covert program, called Prism, which obtains email and other electronic data records from Internet companies, such as Google, Facebook and Apple.

The revelations have cast doubts on President Barack Obama’s campaign promises to champion civil liberties and greater transparency.

His pledges to end the surveillance sins of the Bush administration now seem shattered. The phone spying — together with the secret combing of journalists’ phone records and the vigorous prosecution and jailing of whistleblowers — has led to claims Mr. Obama has eclipsed George W. Bush and Richard Nixon in spying on Americans and a police state is emerging as a spillover from the war on terrorism.

Beyond the immediate furor, the episode is another indication that when it comes to national security and thwarting terrorist attacks, Mr. Obama has reached some of the same conclusions as Mr. Bush.


“There isn’t as much difference as the president originally suggested there would be — that’s not right or wrong, it’s just a fact,” said Tom Kean, the former New Jersey governor who was co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission.

For instance, neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. Obama followed through on the commission’s recommendation to create a civil liberties panel at the White House that would weigh in on issues such as the secret order revealed this week that demanded phone company Verizon hand over its records.

When the EFF began its legal challenge it didn’t have much to go on except leaks about a post-9/11 program called Total Information Awareness and some cloudy admissions by officials in 2005 the government was using the Patriot Act to data-mine citizens’ phone records.

Over time, these alleged spying programs multiplied, identified by murky acronyms, as the government struggled to give legal cover to its information gathering.

What it called the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) eventually was institutionalized into the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

After 9/11, no president wanted to risk a terrorist attack on the U.S. on his watch. If that meant trampling on Americans’ constitutional rights against unwarranted search and seizure, so be it. Every American became a potential terrorist.

There was never, however, any confirmation of the full extent of the programs, or if they continued and under what name.

But this week Americans suddenly realized the fine details of their daily lives were under a microscope controlled by the White House and Congress.


The secret court order directed at Verizon came from an obscure, secret judicial body, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. This was created by Congress in 1978 after the Watergate scandal, involving then- president Richard Nixon’s covert domestic spying activities.

Its intention was to lay down the rules of the spy game and give it the stamp of legality.

Verizon’s records include the time and duration of phone calls, the origin and destination of the call, location identifiers and telephone calling card numbers.

Not included are the content of the calls or the names or addresses of the callers. Experts say, however, the identities could easily be discovered from the phone tracking information.


“Your cellphone tracks you everywhere you go,” Mr. Rumold said. “So you follow who I call. You follow where I go. You find out where I am at what time at night in what part of the city and whom I’m talking to.

“That provides a really intimate portrait about who I am, about what my political beliefs might be, about who my associates might be, what type of religion I practise. Any and all of those things are constitutionally protected rights.”


‘You are already a suspect’: Surveillance becoming ‘routine’ as it evolves into a social media pastime


Making sense of this stylistic shift in surveillance, from top-down secret observation by authorities to “lateral surveillance” of the people by the people, requires a refreshed perspective, according to David Lyon, professor of sociology and director of the Surveillance Studies Centre at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont.

In a plenary lecture for this week’s Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences in Victoria — known as the Learneds — he calls it the shift from “fear” to “fun,” from surveillance as a security tool to a social media pastime.

Continue reading …

Mr. Obama said Friday the whole thing had been “hyped.” But that was not what he said on the campaign trail.

Mr. Bush “puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law-enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom,” Mr. Obama said in an Aug. 1, 2007, speech in Washington.

“We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary. This administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. There are no shortcuts to protecting America.”

Mr. Obama was able to go unchallenged for so long on security matters because as a Democrat, he has faced less scrutiny for his counter-terrorism policies than his Republican predecessor, said Mr. Kean.

“It’s much easier for a Democratic president, because many of the civil libertarians are Democrats — although we have found some libertarians now on the Republican side who are willing to question these things.”

Colin Bennett, a privacy expert at the University of Victoria, said we make ourselves vulnerable because we give up so much information through digital media.

“The previous thinking about surveillance was you had to have done something wrong to be under surveillance. But now surveillance is pervasive, it’s routine, it’s normal and it’s something that a lot of people are becoming used to. And that’s the real danger here. To be under surveillance these days you don’t have to be a suspect.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/07 ... n-promise/

[WBU ALUM]

My, my, my. In his own words ... when he wanted to be president.

Criticizing Bush. Making promises that will later be ignored. Talks about not punishing people who simply protest ... Interesting comment.

Move along, folks. Nothing to see here. Same old, same old ...

[gudtymchuk]

Kind of ironic that the most accountable and transparent POTUS in history is now going to criminally investigate who leaked the latest abuse of power scandal but yet his Administration wont tell the pubic who made up the talking points after the Benghazi terrorist attack. He wont answer where he was on the night of the attack. Hillary wont answer who refused additional security for the Libya facilities. His administration wont answer who made the stand down order. His attorney general who openly lied to congress refuses to cooperate with that same congress and answer their questions. People in his administration are avowing their right to hide behind the fifth amendment in the IRS scandal.

His first call will probably be to his home town Chicago thugs with a hefty bounty for the head of those leaking perps.......
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/ ... 0K20130608

[jackspratt]

To those of you who are critical of Bush, take a close look at Obama and try to realise that Obama is following many of the same policies. One area in which you can see a similar outlook is in the area of spying. Take a look at this article,

Based on lies, and for reasons unknown, invaded a foreign sovereign state which offered no danger to the US - leading to the deaths of 100's of thousands:

Bush 1
Obama 0

Opened and maintained a gulag on the soil of a foreign country, ignoring the protests of that country:

Bush 1
Obama 0

While the surveillance programs of both Presidents are equally detestable, Obama has some way to go yet before he even approaches Bush's levels of egregiousness.

It also raises the interesting question of why Congress (which passed them) doesn't amend the laws which allow this surveillance to occur.