Kelly the Dog Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Because not only did the current administration suddenly decide to agree with the last administration's position on them, but they took it a step further and stated that they don't believe the federal laws in this regard apply to the federal government anyway. Why do you say "suddenly" decided to agree with the last administration's position, I remember Obama getting schit from the left for supporting the wiretapping and voting in favor of it before the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Why do you say "suddenly" decided to agree with the last administration's position, I remember Obama getting schit from the left for supporting the wiretapping and voting in favor of it before the election. I say "suddenly" because my recollection was otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I say "suddenly" because my recollection was otherwise. I'm pretty sure he voted for it and said that the wiretapping was an important tool. He said he was against "illegal" wiretapping and would work to stop it. He definitely got a lot of crap from liberals for voting for the legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I'm pretty sure he voted for it and said that the wiretapping was an important tool. He said he was against "illegal" wiretapping and would work to stop it. He definitely got a lot of crap from liberals for voting for the legislation. "Illegal" wiretapping - the warrantless wiretapping under Bush - is what we're discussing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 "Illegal" wiretapping - the warrantless wiretapping under Bush - is what we're discussing. Well if the DOJ decided they weren't illegal, then it's not a flip-flop. There seems to be the discrepancy between the case(s) that the DOJ is siding with the Bush Administration on, versus the "spying on everyday Americans" claims that the left has been all up in arms about (although they are all up in arms about these spy cases, too. Right now, he seems right in the middle. Defending the genuine warrantless tapping of security targets and against the anyone anywhere can be tapped scenarios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Elections have consequences. This is just one of the consequences of electing a President who was one of the most inexperienced, most liberal, and most radical Senators in US History. I'm sure there are a few nut job liberals here who've already reported you to Big Brother...oops, I mean White House. Yeah, McCain and others were great choices too!! I do love the I am on the right side of the aisle and I know everything mentality. Keep it coming, better yet... bang on doors and scream it at people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Oh and have a blessed day and weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Well if the DOJ decided they weren't illegal, then it's not a flip-flop. Change back the status quo again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Well if the DOJ decided they weren't illegal, then it's not a flip-flop. There seems to be the discrepancy between the case(s) that the DOJ is siding with the Bush Administration on, versus the "spying on everyday Americans" claims that the left has been all up in arms about (although they are all up in arms about these spy cases, too. Right now, he seems right in the middle. Defending the genuine warrantless tapping of security targets and against the anyone anywhere can be tapped scenarios. My recollection was that the outcry was about conflating the two, and please point me to the reference where Obama "voted for it" before the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 My recollection was that the outcry was about conflating the two, and please point me to the reference where Obama "voted for it" before the election. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/washington/10fisa.html Wiretapping orders approved by secret orders under the previous version of the surveillance law were set to begin expiring in August unless Congress acted. Heading into their political convention in Denver next month and on to the November Congressional elections, many Democrats were wary of handing the Republicans a potent political weapon. The issue put Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, in a particularly precarious spot. He had long opposed giving legal immunity to the phone companies that took part in the N.S.A.’s wiretapping program, even threatening a filibuster during his run for the nomination. But on Wednesday, he ended up voting for what he called “an improved but imperfect bill” after backing a failed attempt earlier in the day to strip the immunity provision from the bill through an amendment. He didn't like the total immunity of the phone companies, which I took to mean the spying on regular Americans anytime they wanted stuff, but voted in favor of the bill for the security issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/washington/10fisa.html He didn't like the total immunity of the phone companies, which I took to mean the spying on regular Americans anytime they wanted stuff, but voted in favor of the bill for the security issues. Now I understand what you were talking about, and you misunderstood. The telcos were acting at the request of the Administration to allow NSA to filter internet traffic & wiretap international calls. But the way the communications networks are designed is that international traffic can still go through servers & switches in the US. Thus, you have the outcry that the telcos were helping snoop on regular Americans anytime they wanted stuff. Isn't hysteria great for a cause? In the end, the telcos would have gotten their immunity, because they were acting at the direction of the executive branch, and if they were compelled to go to trial, they would have countersued on the basis that FISA is unconstitutional and invalidate that law. I don't think anyone would really want to take FISA in front of SCOTUS for Constitutional review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Now I understand what you were talking about, and you misunderstood. The telcos were acting at the request of the Administration to allow NSA to filter internet traffic & wiretap international calls. But the way the communications networks are designed is that international traffic can still go through servers & switches in the US. Thus, you have the outcry that the telcos were helping snoop on regular Americans anytime they wanted stuff. Isn't hysteria great for a cause? In the end, the telcos would have gotten their immunity, because they were acting at the direction of the executive branch, and if they were compelled to go to trial, they would have countersued on the basis that FISA is unconstitutional and invalidate that law. I don't think anyone would really want to take FISA in front of SCOTUS for Constitutional review. Still, it was the Bush wiretapping bill that he voted in favor of, " the biggest revamping of federal surveillance law in 30 years" and he got a lot of abuse from progressives for voting in favor, saying that it wasn't perfect but overall it was good. Now, it doesn't seem to me like such a "sudden" reversal for him and his administration to follow along with a lot of the Bush administration's wiretapping policy. And isn't the "warrantless wire-tapping" the stuff where they can wiretap anything with a week before they get the actual warrant, which was a major element of the bill I'm talking about that he voted in favor of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Still, it was the Bush wiretapping bill that he voted in favor of, " the biggest revamping of federal surveillance law in 30 years" and he got a lot of abuse from progressives for voting in favor, saying that it wasn't perfect but overall it was good. Now, it doesn't seem to me like such a "sudden" reversal for him and his administration to follow along with a lot of the Bush administration's wiretapping policy. And isn't the "warrantless wire-tapping" the stuff where they can wiretap anything with a week before they get the actual warrant, which was a major element of the bill I'm talking about that he voted in favor of? The issue wasn't for any wiretapping without a warrant, but specifically to the international communications for which there's no need for a warrant. It got into a gray area when the traffic passed through switches in the US, or when the destination address/call got to the US. He voted for the extension of the authorization, and IIRC in March(?) an appeals court ruled for the Bush admin on their actions on the use of this program. But, funny, I don't remember it on the front page of NYT, unlike when they broke the original story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 The issue wasn't for any wiretapping without a warrant, but specifically to the international communications for which there's no need for a warrant. It got into a gray area when the traffic passed through switches in the US, or when the destination address/call got to the US. He voted for the extension of the authorization, and IIRC in March(?) an appeals court ruled for the Bush admin on their actions on the use of this program. But, funny, I don't remember it on the front page of NYT, unlike when they broke the original story. But I'm talking more about the original point, that Obama voted in favor of a bill that promoted warrantless wire-tapping as Senator, which he got crap for, and now his administration seems to be going along with the same kind of warrantless wire-tapping, so it doesn't seem like much of a reversal to me, but rather consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 You know, I admit I was wrong about Sarah Palin. I called her stupid but I was wrong. She's a stupid fukking ****. She says that if we pass health care reform her parents and Down's Syndrome baby are going to have to stand in front of Obama's "Death Panel" who will decide if they get to live or die based on their productivity to society. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=113851103434 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 You know, I admit I was wrong about Sarah Palin. I called her stupid but I was wrong. She's a stupid fukking ****. She says that if we pass health care reform her parents and Down's Syndrome baby are going to have to stand in front of Obama's "Death Panel" who will decide if they get to live or die based on their productivity to society. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=113851103434 The Health Care debate (or any other debate for that matter) has officially jumped the shark when Sarah Palin is brought up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Looks like Kelly needs Obama's heath control plan to buy more medicine. He's getting unhinged in two threads today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Looks like Kelly needs Obama's heath control plan to buy more medicine. He's getting unhinged in two threads today. So by your definition and considering the fact you joined in September of 2001, you needed help by what late November at the latest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 You know, I admit I was wrong about Sarah Palin. I called her stupid but I was wrong. She's a stupid fukking ****. She says that if we pass health care reform her parents and Down's Syndrome baby are going to have to stand in front of Obama's "Death Panel" who will decide if they get to live or die based on their productivity to society. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=113851103434 This is a pretty uncalled for post if I've ever seen one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 This is a pretty uncalled for post if I've ever seen one. May I ask why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts