Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cal04

(41,505 posts)
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 11:21 PM Jun 2013

Al Gore calls Obama administration’s collection of phone records ‘obscenely outrageous’

Former Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore on Wednesday night leveled some rare and harsh criticism at the Obama administration, attacking its reported collection of phone records for millions of Americans.

The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald reported Wednesday evening that the National Security Agency has used a secret court order issued in April to collect the records of all phone calls made on the Verizon network.
Gore took to Twitter to call the monitoring “obscenely outrageous.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/05/al-gore-calls-obama-administrations-collection-of-phone-records-obscenely-outrageous/?wprss=rss_politics



https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=algore&tw_i=342455655057211393&tw_p=tweetembed
Al Gore @algore
In digital era, privacy must be a priority. Is it just me, or is secret blanket surveillance obscenely outrageous?

146 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Al Gore calls Obama administration’s collection of phone records ‘obscenely outrageous’ (Original Post) cal04 Jun 2013 OP
Greenwald works for the Guardian now? And I like Gore, but babylonsister Jun 2013 #1
What? You need someone to explain to you how this blanket surveillance is bad? rhett o rick Jun 2013 #4
I haven't seen a link to 'blanket surveillance' yet, just babylonsister Jun 2013 #7
This Might Help: WillyT Jun 2013 #16
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2013 #38
Here you go pam4water Jun 2013 #94
Make room for Gore under the bus! NOVA_Dem Jun 2013 #29
He has an impeccable track record of doing this all of the time. He RKP5637 Jun 2013 #57
Is there still room for all the Democrats and Liberals who are under that bus anymore? sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #86
They have a bigger bus on order - it has not been delivered yet. n/t xocet Jun 2013 #104
Buses AND drones! nt woo me with science Jun 2013 #138
Can't fit him. He put one weight and I push Assange and Manning as far to that back of under pam4water Jun 2013 #95
Yet another WTF! Transparent government? Right, transparent for RKP5637 Jun 2013 #52
"many Americans remain docile lemmings and guppies, bred to follow whatever and to be cheerleaders" rhett o rick Jun 2013 #70
And when one tries to point this out one is often met with RKP5637 Jun 2013 #73
K&R Obscene, outrageous, and SOP for the Obama administration. forestpath Jun 2013 #2
Al Gore's a right wing hack, amiright? n/t cherokeeprogressive Jun 2013 #3
Just another 'bagger hater. Probably a Paul supporter as well Dragonfli Jun 2013 #10
He clearly doesn't know a good chess move when he sees one. East Coast Pirate Jun 2013 #48
80/20! LuvNewcastle Jun 2013 #99
LOL yup. cherokeeprogressive Jun 2013 #100
Beauty! choie Jun 2013 #115
Privacy needs to make a comeback.... and soon... midnight Jun 2013 #5
Sadly not with this administration, IMO ... the track record does not RKP5637 Jun 2013 #58
Let the reason come through loud and clear-ASAP... midnight Jun 2013 #97
One would think/hope so. I really find it hard to believe any think RKP5637 Jun 2013 #114
When Pres Obama took the presidency, he was handed the power to rhett o rick Jun 2013 #6
Would he 'set things right' by executive order or what actually madokie Jun 2013 #9
Pesky facts, madokie! babylonsister Jun 2013 #11
I know madokie Jun 2013 #14
Well, he could not use the powers that are supposedly given to him. BlueCheese Jun 2013 #20
So since the previous guy did it, he HAS to do it too? progressoid Jun 2013 #24
He could order a stand-down on this kind of massive surveillance. JDPriestly Jun 2013 #28
If Obama stopped doing it, it would still be legal George Gently Jun 2013 #41
You object to Republican Presidents violating more laws than Democratic Presidents MNBrewer Jun 2013 #56
Isn't the point that they are not violating any laws? George Gently Jun 2013 #72
No MNBrewer Jun 2013 #117
Yes. But he could do that until Congress decided otherwise. JDPriestly Jun 2013 #83
"Until Congress decides otherwise?" Congress has already not decided otherwise. George Gently Jun 2013 #84
Obama is wrong, very wrong, on this issue. JDPriestly Jun 2013 #92
Freedom of speech marions ghost Jun 2013 #98
For me, it is even more about chilling freedom of association. JDPriestly Jun 2013 #102
They may not be "listening in on actual calls" daily but marions ghost Jun 2013 #103
This order has been renewed quarterly for the last seven years. George Gently Jun 2013 #111
Did you realize this? marions ghost Jun 2013 #125
UK: Email and web use 'to be monitored' under new laws George Gently Jun 2013 #141
We do not have enough legal protections for this kind of "monitoring" marions ghost Jun 2013 #143
Remember when Obama spoke of 'transparency in government' and claimed Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #127
Legally, our right to freely communicate with our friends without JDPriestly Jun 2013 #130
it sounds like, as a general rule, you prefer blue to red frylock Jun 2013 #108
Yes, but dont make the decision any more complicated by bringing in those rhett o rick Jun 2013 #120
Indeed. George Gently Jun 2013 #123
Well, then... awoke_in_2003 Jun 2013 #116
Would you agree to remove his power to conduct wars because he's a Democrat? George Gently Jun 2013 #121
No, party has zero to do with it... awoke_in_2003 Jun 2013 #124
Really? George Gently Jun 2013 #140
So your logic is that a dictator is ok if he calls himself/herself a Democrat. It's all in the name? rhett o rick Jun 2013 #119
How is enforcing a duly, enacted law being a dictator? George Gently Jun 2013 #122
Most things he can't do by himself but that hasn't stopped him from doing them. cui bono Jun 2013 #31
He's powerless to control his own administration? East Coast Pirate Jun 2013 #49
Considering that he can't seem to get anyone approved for anything madokie Jun 2013 #50
What's your drift? East Coast Pirate Jun 2013 #51
One of the things Obama said ... and it goes like this RKP5637 Jun 2013 #59
That is why I still support him madokie Jun 2013 #74
Yep!!! n/t RKP5637 Jun 2013 #75
Tool Sharpener Needed pmorlan1 Jun 2013 #105
This was not a legislated act the president was obligated to uphold Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2013 #76
I am glad you asked. In 2008 he could have championed legislation that rhett o rick Jun 2013 #118
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2013 #39
Once the executive gains another power... awoke_in_2003 Jun 2013 #112
I no longer defend Obama Ter Jun 2013 #8
I would setlle just for some rational explanation of Obama's choices BlueStreak Jun 2013 #30
it's starting to look less like a *right wing machine* backwoodsbob Jun 2013 #35
If one takes away all of the labels of D, R and I it's all RKP5637 Jun 2013 #63
Obama is the ultimate pragmatist BlueStreak Jun 2013 #77
Excellent assessment IMO! n/t RKP5637 Jun 2013 #78
The powers that be will not give us a true liberal choice. CrispyQ Jun 2013 #80
Regarding Mr. Fish BlueStreak Jun 2013 #82
The "rational explanation" is the corruption of our government, both parties,by corporate money. nt woo me with science Jun 2013 #132
Somewhere Bush is laughing his ass off MotherPetrie Jun 2013 #12
Yep, exactly ... and probably not only Bush, but a lot of RKP5637 Jun 2013 #65
Somewhere Iliyah Jun 2013 #13
K & R !!! WillyT Jun 2013 #15
Legal, court order, done. gulliver Jun 2013 #17
Couldn't Obama order the NSA not to pull this kind of crap? BlueCheese Jun 2013 #19
Yes, Obama could order the NSA not to do this. RILib Jun 2013 #64
John Yoo is that you? ForgoTheConsequence Jun 2013 #26
It's not a helpful interpretation. It's accepted tradition. Hissyspit Jun 2013 #43
Yep. Despicable practice, but legal. Bush & Co. didn't bother with the FISA court. KeepItReal Jun 2013 #62
LOL pmorlan1 Jun 2013 #106
Are they serious? BlueCheese Jun 2013 #18
They will be inundated with data. CrispyQ Jun 2013 #81
Thank you, Al Gore. woo me with science Jun 2013 #21
Apparently not. When I first saw this I just started laughing at the image of the heads Egalitarian Thug Jun 2013 #37
This just seems weird Mz Pip Jun 2013 #22
There is no end of time and resources for the military and our many spy agencies. progressoid Jun 2013 #25
Oh there's probably one out there. dkf Jun 2013 #27
computers RILib Jun 2013 #45
Every telecom in the country has the same orders hugo_from_TN Jun 2013 #107
I bet he voted for Nader in 2000... toddaa Jun 2013 #23
LOL pmorlan1 Jun 2013 #32
Can You Hear Me Now pmorlan1 Jun 2013 #33
Guess Greenwald's about to be investigated too. n/t B2G Jun 2013 #79
Where's Al Gore Politicalboi Jun 2013 #34
K&R DeSwiss Jun 2013 #36
That picture sure tells a lot ... so many brainwashed to take RKP5637 Jun 2013 #67
Al Gore is still telling inconvenient truths. BlueCheese Jun 2013 #40
How dare he criticize the Icon n2doc Jun 2013 #42
Of all the bad things Obama has done RILib Jun 2013 #44
? Hissyspit Jun 2013 #46
If our guy does it it's okay. nt Demo_Chris Jun 2013 #47
As Gomer said.. Puzzledtraveller Jun 2013 #53
Al Gore, like many at DU, needs to chill and see what rationale and details emerge. randome Jun 2013 #54
Yep! We do not have enough information to know why RKP5637 Jun 2013 #69
Verizon is the one that was leaked. BlueCheese Jun 2013 #87
Feinstein says it is renewed every 3 months and has been going on for 7 years. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #88
Right marions ghost Jun 2013 #101
All the affected language. 'Chill'? Really? My lord it is painful to see. Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #128
He wouldn't of signed the NDAA, and Warrant less taps started.. orpupilofnature57 Jun 2013 #55
Al Gore never really loved him! QC Jun 2013 #60
The defenders of this will say "I didn't like him anyway" Puzzledtraveller Jun 2013 #61
Thank you Al Gore Harmony Blue Jun 2013 #66
I hardly think a Tweet is much of a 'voice of reason'. randome Jun 2013 #68
Isn't Gore a known operative for Rove? MannyGoldstein Jun 2013 #71
No Al, it's not just you... truebrit71 Jun 2013 #85
One wonder how many American lives have been saved through this illicit snooping in relation to indepat Jun 2013 #89
Typical WaPo spin of late ... brett_jv Jun 2013 #90
Everybody knows it. blkmusclmachine Jun 2013 #91
He gave hour long speeches about the Bush Administration... Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2013 #93
Does this qualify Gore as a "professional leftist" or "firebagger"? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #96
This is interesting in light of Al Gore being an ardent defender of the "clipper" encryption chip... cascadiance Jun 2013 #109
Al Gore 2016. nt limpyhobbler Jun 2013 #110
Hubby just said to me tavernier Jun 2013 #113
I support Al Gores statement newmember Jun 2013 #126
I trust Al Gore... maybe he can be dragged back into public service? nt Celldweller Jun 2013 #129
I hope he does run. Even if he doesn't win, it can impact the debate and the issues. limpyhobbler Jun 2013 #131
How's the view from under the bus, ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #133
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2013 #134
ouch. uppityperson Jun 2013 #135
he was elected in 2000 TeamPooka Jun 2013 #136
Yup. He was elected, Art_from_Ark Jun 2013 #139
whatever...........this douche never fought for his rightful win Demonaut Jun 2013 #137
bullfuckingshit. cali Jun 2013 #142
you're right, emotional reaction to his comment Demonaut Jun 2013 #145
This message was self-deleted by its author Demonaut Jun 2013 #144
I hear he had to walk that back today to just "grotesquely outrageous!" kenny blankenship Jun 2013 #146

babylonsister

(170,962 posts)
1. Greenwald works for the Guardian now? And I like Gore, but
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 11:27 PM
Jun 2013

a tweet doesn't work for me. Tell me why you feel the way you do. Explain your opinion, because we all have them. Thanks, Al!

Response to babylonsister (Reply #7)

NOVA_Dem

(620 posts)
29. Make room for Gore under the bus!
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 01:43 AM
Jun 2013

I want to see how this is excused by the apologists.

Obama's MO is to say one thing on the campaign trail and then do the opposite when the rubber meets the road:

Healthcare-said individual mandate was stupid
Telecom Immunity-Said he would filibuster FISA update that included Telecom immunity
Ending War in Iraq-Tried to negotiate troops staying in Iraq (but FAILED)
etc.

RKP5637

(67,030 posts)
57. He has an impeccable track record of doing this all of the time. He
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 07:44 AM
Jun 2013

tells whomever what they want to hear at that point in time. Then, switches for the next ... and tells them what they want to hear. ... but exactly as you say, the apologists will come up with all of the excuses and rationale that it's perfectly fine.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
86. Is there still room for all the Democrats and Liberals who are under that bus anymore?
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 11:34 AM
Jun 2013

Today I saw a list of Liberal journalists and bloggers including people like Amy Goodman, right here on DU, being tossed as a 'rat pack that doesn't deserve the time of day'.

pam4water

(2,916 posts)
95. Can't fit him. He put one weight and I push Assange and Manning as far to that back of under
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 03:57 PM
Jun 2013

the as they will go.

RKP5637

(67,030 posts)
52. Yet another WTF! Transparent government? Right, transparent for
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 07:37 AM
Jun 2013

surveillance by TPTB, but a transparent gov. to "we the people?" Somehow, that got forgotten, and we the people got fucked over again. All the time I grow more and more wary of WTF is going on ... but the die hearts will exclaim, "ain't this great." Exactly as you said ... "This is tyranny." ... but many Americans remain docile lemmings and guppies, bred to follow whatever ... and to be cheerleaders.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
70. "many Americans remain docile lemmings and guppies, bred to follow whatever and to be cheerleaders"
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 09:02 AM
Jun 2013

It is so much easier to just relax and drink the cool-aide.

Fascism is painless, it takes on many changes

RKP5637

(67,030 posts)
73. And when one tries to point this out one is often met with
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 09:23 AM
Jun 2013

looks of 'you are unAmerican' by the 'deer in the headlight' crowd, the DUH's and those who are perpetually clueless. And often I think that accounts for about half of Americans ... Many just do not look at the big picture.

RKP5637

(67,030 posts)
58. Sadly not with this administration, IMO ... the track record does not
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 07:55 AM
Jun 2013

show any return to citizen privacy, but rather a continuing degradation of privacy. If one takes all of the labels of D, R and I away, the track record is less and less privacy in the big picture, at least to me. I find it all quite spooky. Many citizens are being put through a net as enemies or potential enemies of the state. I do wonder WTF is going on ... by default, one is considered suspicious ... potentially guilty of something?

... maybe there is a reason for all of this ...

RKP5637

(67,030 posts)
114. One would think/hope so. I really find it hard to believe any think
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 06:46 PM
Jun 2013

all of this surveillance, cloak and dagger, is great. I'm sure some do, but I'm fed up with the line, well it's keeping us safer.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
6. When Pres Obama took the presidency, he was handed the power to
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 11:41 PM
Jun 2013

violate the Constitution. His predecessor went to a lot of trouble to set the precedence. Some of us were hoping, maybe naively, that a Democratic president would set things right. Were we stupid. Pres Obama took the extraordinary powers and ran with them.

American Revolution II is waiting for the spark.

madokie

(51,076 posts)
9. Would he 'set things right' by executive order or what actually
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 11:48 PM
Jun 2013

I fail to see how this is something he can do by himself

BlueCheese

(2,522 posts)
20. Well, he could not use the powers that are supposedly given to him.
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 12:48 AM
Jun 2013

I'd like to see what higher courts say about things like this, before declaring them legal even under current law.

progressoid

(49,825 posts)
24. So since the previous guy did it, he HAS to do it too?
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 01:15 AM
Jun 2013

He could just say, "this is bad policy and my administration won't do it".



JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
28. He could order a stand-down on this kind of massive surveillance.
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 01:37 AM
Jun 2013

East Germany was less intrusive.

This is utterly shameful.

The Obama administration is wrong on this, and Obama could stop it with a telephone call or a memo.

How could it be possible that all who use the Verizon network are suspected of illegal activity.

We need to change the laws on this. I hope this will be a campaign issue in 2014. I think a lot of Democratic legislators should answer for their votes on the issue -- or lack of votes and lack of action on the issue.

Congress could stop this. Obama could stop this. On this one either could put an end to a repressive, intrusive practice that should be illegal.

And, in addition, that much eavesdropping is a terrible waste of money. Does the administration really need to listen in on my calls to my elderly mother? I don't think so.

 

George Gently

(88 posts)
41. If Obama stopped doing it, it would still be legal
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 05:35 AM
Jun 2013

for the next Republican President to exercise the power.

As a general principle, I object to Republican Presidents having more power than Democratic Presidents.

MNBrewer

(8,462 posts)
56. You object to Republican Presidents violating more laws than Democratic Presidents
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 07:43 AM
Jun 2013

So solve the problem by having Democrats violate more laws?

OK

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
83. Yes. But he could do that until Congress decided otherwise.
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 11:15 AM
Jun 2013

There is no excuse for Obama's administration indiscriminately snooping on us. That is what the communists and the Fascists and the NAZIs did. Our government should not be doing that to us. This violates not only our Fourth Amendment right to privacy, our Fifth Amendment right to remain silent but our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, religion and assembly.

And in addition, it is a waste of money and that is a big problem in addition to the fact that it is oppressive.

Obama should publicize the details, how it is done and who is doing it and then end it and ask Congress to end it. I have a very hard time believing that terrorism is that huge a problem in the US.

Insane people killing people is a much bigger problem.

 

George Gently

(88 posts)
84. "Until Congress decides otherwise?" Congress has already not decided otherwise.
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 11:30 AM
Jun 2013

And all of this pearl-clutching and lip-biting as if this were some sort of breaking news is a bit silly:

"Obama Voters Protest His Switch on Telecom Immunity

July 2, 2008

Senator Barack Obama’s decision to support legislation granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants has led to an intense backlash among some of his most ardent supporters. . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02fisa.html?_r=0"

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
92. Obama is wrong, very wrong, on this issue.
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 03:25 PM
Jun 2013

The money and energy should be focused on potential terrorists, not on the mass of good citizens. What a waste. What an intrusion.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
102. For me, it is even more about chilling freedom of association.
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 04:45 PM
Jun 2013

We don't even think about that very much. They aren't listening in on the actual calls as I understand it but rather getting the registers of who everyone calls. It's freedom of association that is at risk here.

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
103. They may not be "listening in on actual calls" daily but
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 04:59 PM
Jun 2013

with this technology, don't they have the ability to listen in when they want to, ie. when they see patterns and whatnot, without any sort of outside authority?

I take your point about freedom of association.

Welcome to China. Did we ever think we'd see that degree of surveillance here?

 

George Gently

(88 posts)
111. This order has been renewed quarterly for the last seven years.
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 06:28 PM
Jun 2013

"As far as I know, this is the exact three-month renewal of what has been the case for the past seven years," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California.

"This renewal is carried out by the FISA court under the business records section of the Patriot Act. Therefore it is lawful. It has been briefed to Congress."

Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said the program was used in the last few years to stop a terrorist attack in the United States. He gave no details, but said the program operates under rigorous judicial and congressional oversight.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/06/politics/nsa-verizon-records/index.html

Not sure how our freedom to associate became chilled or at risk only within the past few days.

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
125. Did you realize this?
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 08:45 PM
Jun 2013

"The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time.

The highly classified program, code-named PRISM, has not been disclosed publicly before. Its establishment in 2007 and six years of exponential growth took place beneath the surface of a roiling debate over the boundaries of surveillance and privacy. Even late last year, when critics of the foreign intelligence statute argued for changes, the only members of Congress who know about PRISM were bound by oaths of office to hold their tongues."

 

George Gently

(88 posts)
141. UK: Email and web use 'to be monitored' under new laws
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 04:42 AM
Jun 2013

"The government will be able to monitor the calls, emails, texts and website visits of everyone in the UK under new legislation set to be announced soon.

Internet firms will be required to give intelligence agency GCHQ access to communications on demand, in real time.

The Home Office says the move is key to tackling crime and terrorism, but civil liberties groups have criticised it."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17576745

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
143. We do not have enough legal protections for this kind of "monitoring"
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 08:36 AM
Jun 2013

in the UK or here.

Here is a good essay from the Washington University School of Law in 2012. This one talks about the "chill" on discussion of political and social issues--ie. the way that societies censor themselves when there is too much surveillance.

I read this whole essay in a short time--it is so well written and clear. I urge everyone to click on the link to the PDF and read this now, and send it to others. It will give you an overview of the issues in a very readable format:

http://www.harvardlawreview.org/symposium/papers2012/richards.pdf

"The Dangers of Surveillance" by Neil Richards

Excerpt:

"Existing attempts to define the dangers of surveillance are often unconvincing, and they have generally failed to speak in terms that are likely to influence the law. In this essay, I try to explain the harms of government surveillance. Drawing on law, history, literature, and the work of scholars in the emerging interdisciplinary field of “surveillance studies,” I offer an account of what those harms are and why they matter. I will move beyond the vagueness of current theories of surveillance to articulate a more coherent understanding and a more workable approach.

At the level of theory, I will explain when surveillance is particularly dangerous, and when it is not. Surveillance is harmful because it can chill the exercise of our civil liberties, and because it gives the watcher power over the watched. In terms of civil liberties, consider surveillance of people when they are thinking, reading, and communicating with others in order to make up their minds about their political and social beliefs. Such intellectual surveillance is particularly dangerous because it can cause people not to experiment with new, controversial, or deviant ideas. To protect our intellectual freedom to think without state oversight or interference, we need what I have elsewhere called “intellectual privacy.”

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
127. Remember when Obama spoke of 'transparency in government' and claimed
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 09:34 PM
Jun 2013

he'd be the most transparent ever, at length, in detail and as if he meant it? I sure do. Biggest of the many broken and disregarded promises this man made.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
130. Legally, our right to freely communicate with our friends without
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 11:06 PM
Jun 2013

the government knowing that we are communicating is placed in question. Knowing that the government is snooping on who we all or when may cause some people to think twice before calling some of their friends or relatives regardless what they are calling about. That is "chilling" our right to associate, possibly our freedom of assembly as it could cause some people to think twice before planning via internet or telephone to hold a meeting. If you stop to think about the fact that your phone call records may be monitored and therefore choose not to call someone, your right to associate with others has been chilled. That won't happen to everyone every day, but it will happen.

Fortunately, I am retired and don't have to fear that what I write on the internet or who I call could jeopardize my job. But some may fear that. Especially some who work for the government. That is chilling speech. If someone cannot speak freely or communicate freely because they fear that the government is listening in, reading e-mails or looking over their phone records, that person's right to free speech has been chilled.

And the rights of the news reporters whose records were reviewed, regardless of their network or publication affiliation, to freedom of the press and free association and free speech were chilled by the fact that they were under government surveillance.

For shame on the Obama administration.

 

George Gently

(88 posts)
123. Indeed.
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 08:32 PM
Jun 2013

And I do not approve of these manufactured tea lady scandals.

The Chairman of the HOUSE Intelligence Committee says that this program has foiled a terrorist attack in the United States.

Imagine if Obama Had CHOSEN not to use the program and the attack occurred.

 

awoke_in_2003

(34,582 posts)
116. Well, then...
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 06:54 PM
Jun 2013

maybe our democratic president ought to start a massive war in some country based on nothing but lies. I mean hell, we can't have our guy be less powerful than Bush.

 

George Gently

(88 posts)
121. Would you agree to remove his power to conduct wars because he's a Democrat?
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 08:25 PM
Jun 2013

Obama campaigned on stepping up the war in Afghanistan.

Does he/did he have the authority to do it?

 

awoke_in_2003

(34,582 posts)
124. No, party has zero to do with it...
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 08:42 PM
Jun 2013

it is congresses power to declare war. Congress needs to take that power back. With the amount of cooperation that goes on in congress, this would guarantee we wouldn't be getting into another one for a while.

 

George Gently

(88 posts)
140. Really?
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 03:50 AM
Jun 2013

Do you suspect that there's a reason Congress hasn't declared a war since the UN was formed?

Or why the Iraq War, despite that Congressional resolution, is still referred to as Bush's illegal war and a war crime?

Yet Afghanistan is not "Bush's illegal war?"

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
31. Most things he can't do by himself but that hasn't stopped him from doing them.
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 01:59 AM
Jun 2013

Unfortunately they include things that are worse than GWB.

What's wrong with him saying "no" and asking for bills to be passed to re-limit his powers?

madokie

(51,076 posts)
50. Considering that he can't seem to get anyone approved for anything
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 07:08 AM
Jun 2013

I'm not surprised that he can't.
I can control what I read here on DU though if you get my drift

RKP5637

(67,030 posts)
59. One of the things Obama said ... and it goes like this
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 08:03 AM
Jun 2013

as well as I recall ... when he took office, he was amazed at all of the levers of power (meaning, I think, people don't realize how pulled a president is in many directions ... not having as much power as some think.)

The other was, ... he was amazed at how one has to get in front of everything to get the right perception out to the people (meaning, I think, he has to remember to get ahead of events and not after the fact.)

madokie

(51,076 posts)
74. That is why I still support him
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 09:27 AM
Jun 2013

I might not be the sharpest tool in the shed but I'm smart enough to know that a lot of the shit he piled on him by many here and else where is beyond his control. There is only so much one person can do even if they happen to be the POTUS. The fact is he is being President without many of his choices in our government and I think he is doing a pretty damn good job in spite of all this.
Its not Obama's fault that the pukes make the senate have to have a super majority for any and all business. He can't help that he has to play with the hand he is dealt. Well I guess its his fault for being a democrat who won with a huge majority of the votes and that he's Black. I like that he busted the old white mans club that had a lock on the presidency since day one. I'm hoping a woman is our next President so the rest of their old white asses heads will explode.
I'm an old mostly white man myself.

pmorlan1

(2,096 posts)
105. Tool Sharpener Needed
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 05:21 PM
Jun 2013

I'm sure there are a lot of people here who would gladly provide you with a tool sharpener. You can sharpen that tool by reading the many links provided that will lead you to increased knowledge. Knowledge is power.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
76. This was not a legislated act the president was obligated to uphold
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 09:58 AM
Jun 2013

This was the executive branch action. This appears to go well beyond even the Patriot Act both in scope and the fact it does not have the imprimatur of congress.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
118. I am glad you asked. In 2008 he could have championed legislation that
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 07:42 PM
Jun 2013

would have modified the Patriot Act. And he could have refused to sign extensions without at least some modifications. But once we gave the president the power of the Patriot Act it's impossible to get back into the bottle.

He still has options. I dont buy the "Pres Obama is totally powerless to do anything" argument.

Response to rhett o rick (Reply #6)

 

Ter

(4,281 posts)
8. I no longer defend Obama
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 11:47 PM
Jun 2013

I proudly voted for him in 2008, and got talked into it in 2012 by DU, even though he has been terrible on liberty and drones. In 2016, I promise you this, I won't vote for anyone who supports the Patriot Act, drones, or the NDAA.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
30. I would setlle just for some rational explanation of Obama's choices
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 01:52 AM
Jun 2013

Certainly he's done some good things, but I see no way to reconcile some of his actions in the areas of individual privacy, the drone programs, trashing the IRS and many other things. With each passing day, it looks a lot less like 3-dimensional chess and more like selling out to the right-wing machine that controls everything anyway.

 

backwoodsbob

(6,001 posts)
35. it's starting to look less like a *right wing machine*
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 02:24 AM
Jun 2013

and more like we're screwed either way lately.

I'm starting to think it's time for a general strike and a shutdown of everything until all this enrich the few at our expense shit stops and the STEALING of our liberties stops or it comes to a head and people revolt

RKP5637

(67,030 posts)
63. If one takes away all of the labels of D, R and I it's all
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 08:19 AM
Jun 2013

about $$$$$. If any in the masses think TPTB of any of these parties are just like them, they need to reevaluate their logic and input. They are not. It is, today, all about as you said, "enrich the few at our expense." All of this shit is still continuing, often I see little difference between D, R and I when it comes to $$$$$.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
77. Obama is the ultimate pragmatist
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 10:08 AM
Jun 2013

I've never seen anybody choose his battles more selectively. His ethic seems to be, "If I can't win on this, I'll be content to hide on the sidelines and maybe do something really small at the margins with the hope that somewhere down the road there will be a better chance to make real change." But then even when he does engage in a fight, such as on the gun legislation, he doesn't really fight for it. He isn't ever willing to play any hardball. How many bills has he vetoed?

This guy just does not like confrontation. That's the charitable assessment. The only other possible explanation is that he was a wolf in sheep's clothing all along.

We're stuck with 3 more years of that. Looking ahead, do we see any candidates on the horizon who would be a bit tougher -- a bit more like LBJ or FDR? The ones I have heard discussed so far would be no better than Obama, IMHO.

CrispyQ

(36,225 posts)
80. The powers that be will not give us a true liberal choice.
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 10:40 AM
Jun 2013

Oh, sure, a few liberals will be allowed to run, but dem leadership will see that the big contributions go to the 2-3 corporate candidates. Their pals in the media will make certain to minimize or ridicule any liberal voices. It's all a charade to maintain the status quo, while making the proles feel like they have a voice in government.

This guy just does not like confrontation. That's the charitable assessment. The only other possible explanation is that he was a wolf in sheep's clothing all along.


Makes you wonder, doesn't it?



 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
82. Regarding Mr. Fish
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 11:03 AM
Jun 2013

It is an interesting question Mr. Fish presents. His art is always challenging.

But for me, it really isn't a question of whether the President is well-liked or not. The more basic questions are a) what are his real values, and b) does he have any values he will actually fight for?

You see, being a well-liked President does give him what W frequently and awkwardly referred to as "political capital". People want strong leaders, even if they don't like them. And if a person is a strong leader that is well-likes, that President can do a lot more than might be implied by a clinical reading of the Constitution. Reagan is the prime example of this.

Maybe Obama's problem is that he studied the Constitution too much. For whatever reason, he appears completely unwilling to use any of that "political capital". God only knows what he is waiting for.

------

And this is exactly why we have this false choice between the ultra-authoritarian whom nobody likes and the ultra-authoritarian who is well-liked. It is not because the public is stupid. It is because the people are not permitted any opportunity to discuss the real issues.

RKP5637

(67,030 posts)
65. Yep, exactly ... and probably not only Bush, but a lot of
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 08:27 AM
Jun 2013

the former TPTB. If, we are under some threat that millions and millions of Americans are under surveillance, I would think some vague explanation might be needed. On the flip side, maybe there is some extremely major threat going on.

Iliyah

(25,111 posts)
13. Somewhere
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 12:12 AM
Jun 2013

as Bush is LOL, people are suffering. Nice try, but the Democratic folks are is trying to clean up W's laugh.

gulliver

(13,142 posts)
17. Legal, court order, done.
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 12:36 AM
Jun 2013

I don't like it, but it's the law. If we don't like it, change the law. I read Gore's comment that way. I don't see him saying "Obama administration" in this tweet. I hate when "reporters" add helpful interpretations like this, especially "reporters" who reference Glenn Greenwald as if he were a reporter.

Oh, and isn't the outgoing NSA guy a Bush guy?

BlueCheese

(2,522 posts)
19. Couldn't Obama order the NSA not to pull this kind of crap?
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 12:47 AM
Jun 2013

Just because one can stretch the law to request an order and find a judge willing to sign off on it doesn't mean that the government is obligated to do so.

He could renounce such power, and lobby to have them repealed, rather than exploiting them, in secret, no less.

 

RILib

(862 posts)
64. Yes, Obama could order the NSA not to do this.
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 08:20 AM
Jun 2013

Why he does not is left as an exercise to the reader. Hint: he approves of their doing it.

ForgoTheConsequence

(4,846 posts)
26. John Yoo is that you?
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 01:26 AM
Jun 2013

We do have a law that covers that already, its called the 4th Amendment. Unfortunately this administration as well as the previous and the courts don't give a shit about protecting it.

Hissyspit

(45,788 posts)
43. It's not a helpful interpretation. It's accepted tradition.
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 06:14 AM
Jun 2013

Any activity within the government during an administration is referred to as activity of that administration by name. This is the Obama administration's FBI.

And how exactly is Glenn Greenwald not a reporter?

He was given a tip. It was published by a well-regarded daily newspaper in their World News section. He reported it for a news organization for which he writes a column. Many important news stories have appeared in the work of columnists.

KeepItReal

(7,769 posts)
62. Yep. Despicable practice, but legal. Bush & Co. didn't bother with the FISA court.
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 08:15 AM
Jun 2013

Obama's retention of Bush acolytes continues to bite him in the you-know-what.

BlueCheese

(2,522 posts)
18. Are they serious?
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 12:46 AM
Jun 2013

Did they really just take the phone records of everyone who uses Verizon? That must be close to 100 million people or so. Why on earth would they need to do that?

CrispyQ

(36,225 posts)
81. They will be inundated with data.
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 11:01 AM
Jun 2013

At some point, there is so much data, that they will have difficulty finding anything of value, unless they know exactly what they are looking for. In that case, they could have just gotten a warrant. IMO, TPTB are putting policies in place now, so that when the proles start to revolt, they can clamp down. We don't have a real economy anymore; we go from one bubble to the next & it's the 99% that always gets hit the worst when the bubble pops. We're approaching 400ppm & even though TPTB pay for studies that question climate change, they are smart enough themselves to know it's coming. I think we are in for some incredible social unrest on a global scale. I may not see it in my lifetime, but it's coming. Things are too out of balance.

 

Egalitarian Thug

(12,448 posts)
37. Apparently not. When I first saw this I just started laughing at the image of the heads
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 02:32 AM
Jun 2013

exploding. Then I flashed on Lewis Black's trademark expression of

Mz Pip

(27,403 posts)
22. This just seems weird
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 12:57 AM
Jun 2013

Why Verizon? Why not AT&T?

What's the point of all this? It just seems like you'd just end up with piles and piles of mostly irrelevant data to sort through. Seems like a huge waste of time and resources.

 

RILib

(862 posts)
45. computers
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 06:29 AM
Jun 2013

can sort mighty quick. I'm sure they're sorting on political activity as well. Hell, there are probably feds in there looking up their spouse's activity.

hugo_from_TN

(1,069 posts)
107. Every telecom in the country has the same orders
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 05:32 PM
Jun 2013

It's just that no one has leaked those orders (yet).

pmorlan1

(2,096 posts)
33. Can You Hear Me Now
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 02:19 AM
Jun 2013

No Al, it's not just you. The secret blanket surveillance IS obscenely outrageous and so is due process free assassinations and a lot of other things.

Hat tip to Greenwald for this HUGE SCOOP.

RKP5637

(67,030 posts)
67. That picture sure tells a lot ... so many brainwashed to take
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 08:44 AM
Jun 2013

up arms to line the profiteers pockets with $$$$$ and those then dead or returning from war mutilated and in many cases returnees abandoned by those that sent them by fanning the flames of patriotism.

BlueCheese

(2,522 posts)
40. Al Gore is still telling inconvenient truths.
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 04:38 AM
Jun 2013

And people are still working really hard not to believe them.

 

RILib

(862 posts)
44. Of all the bad things Obama has done
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 06:25 AM
Jun 2013

this is right up there with the worse.

I'm reminded of the lunatics who during the campaign were going on about his being a secret Muslim plant. Now I'm thinking he's a secret right wing nut plant, despite how most of us have been trying to make excuses for him.

Once you destroy the individual Constitutional freedoms of a people, you have nothing left of a country.

This is impeachment territory.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
54. Al Gore, like many at DU, needs to chill and see what rationale and details emerge.
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 07:42 AM
Jun 2013

First, the records include only phone numbers. No one is recording conversations, much to the dismay of many who want to compare this to 'East Germany' and 'tyranny'.

Second, Verizon already has this information and do you think they don't already make use of it in some way?

Third, the record requests expire next month.

Fourth, why only Verizon? There must have been a reason they didn't get records from all the other carriers.

I'm curious about the rationale behind this but I don't see the need to run around with our heads on fire.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

RKP5637

(67,030 posts)
69. Yep! We do not have enough information to know why
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 08:52 AM
Jun 2013

this was done, so we have visceral reactions including myself. Maybe there was/is some type of major threat. i'm curious why only Verizon. ... maybe they already have data from the other carriers.

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
88. Feinstein says it is renewed every 3 months and has been going on for 7 years.
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 12:42 PM
Jun 2013

How much do you want to bet that every telecom and every U.S. citizen is affected.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
128. All the affected language. 'Chill'? Really? My lord it is painful to see.
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 09:47 PM
Jun 2013

When people feel the need to characterize any discussion as 'heads on fire' and that sort of stupid phraseology you know they are selling something they don't know how to sell. 'You got to chill, your head's on fire, what does Gore know about government, listen to meeeeeeeeee'.

 

orpupilofnature57

(15,472 posts)
55. He wouldn't of signed the NDAA, and Warrant less taps started..
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 07:43 AM
Jun 2013

Last edited Thu Jun 6, 2013, 08:48 AM - Edit history (1)

with Shrub, and that was the apparatus that brought us here today .

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
68. I hardly think a Tweet is much of a 'voice of reason'.
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 08:48 AM
Jun 2013

And he wasn't much of a voice of reason for Elian Gonzalez.

Maybe this is a big deal, maybe it's not. But I wouldn't build a conclusion based on a Tweet by Al Gore.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

indepat

(20,899 posts)
89. One wonder how many American lives have been saved through this illicit snooping in relation to
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 01:08 PM
Jun 2013

the number of American lives needlessly lost by reason of the Congress failing to pass effective gun control measures. The dichotomy is sicken-ly ludicrous imo.

brett_jv

(1,245 posts)
90. Typical WaPo spin of late ...
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 02:09 PM
Jun 2013

Gore didn't single out the Obama Administration in his tweet, but the WaPo takes the liberty of putting those words into his proverbial mouth.

I guarantee this crap has been going on since long before Obama was elected, and I guarantee Gore is well aware of this fact.

The Bush Admin just didn't get 'caught', I'm sure in no small part because he purged the Executive Branch and replaced the whole thing with yes-men, and he didn't install opposition-party members into important positions like BO has done repeatedly.

However, I will say ... this reminds me of why I desperately wanted Gore to run for President back in 2008, so I could vote for him. Although I will also say ... I rather doubt he'd have 'shut down' this kind of activity either if he was President.

 

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)
93. He gave hour long speeches about the Bush Administration...
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 03:44 PM
Jun 2013

But since the media fell in love with Palin they consider a Tweet to be the same thing.

 

cascadiance

(19,537 posts)
109. This is interesting in light of Al Gore being an ardent defender of the "clipper" encryption chip...
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 05:53 PM
Jun 2013

... that was earlier made with a "backdoor" for the government to break the encryption and be able to spy on data going through encrypted communications through this chip. I recall a quote from him way back when (when the telecomm bill and telecommunications decency act was passed) that said something to the effect that "if you knew what I know of things going on" as a rationale to allow for government to spy on us then.

I wonder in context of his comments today, what he feels has changed, or if he feels that what is going on is far more intrusive and worse than what they were trying to do then.

Wish I could find the earlier quote I remember seeing at the time way back then. It seemed like only a few senators including Feingold, McCain, and Pat Leahy were standing up against the problematic parts of the telecomm act and this legislation then.

tavernier

(12,322 posts)
113. Hubby just said to me
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 06:43 PM
Jun 2013

Honey, call the government , ask 'em if I've got any messages.

I laughed but it made me think: if they are going to be on my phone, at least they could make themselves useful and take messages, lol

Response to cal04 (Original post)

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
142. bullfuckingshit.
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 04:46 AM
Jun 2013

he fought damned hard for over a month. what the fuck was he supposed to do beyond what he did. do tell and give specifics.

Response to Demonaut (Reply #137)

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Al Gore calls Obama admin...