The President did say he thought some of his powers should be curtailed

[BainsBane]

I submit the solution is not calling for impeachment but to convince congress to more carefully limit the Patriot Act.

Someone can also bring a lawsuit against the NSA for violating their Fourth Amendment rights.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. Nobody complained about George bush on this?

funny isn't it?

[wandy]

6. I took a quick look around some right wing forums this morniing. They don't appear all that .....

concerned about it now. One op with no responses.
Nothing like the outrage we are seeing here over something that has been going on forever.
Something that has been 'acceptable' since Ford pardoned Nixon.
Something that has been 'legal' since the patriot act.
A big issue seems to be about some beauty contest where the 'muslins' won't allow a bathing suit contest.
Wa?
This could mean that the 'rank and file' haven't been told how to phrase this 'scandal' as yet.
I guess we'll just have to wait until Limbaugh or fox news puts words to the music.

[BainsBane]

8. Or they simply don't see it as a problem

because it doesn't affect the Second Amendment. It's the kind of thing they had no problem with under Bush.

[Silent3]

25. My right-wing fundy sister certainly seems to have latched onto this story...

...in her typical, completely hypocritical fashion. She's really stoking her "Impeach!" outrage now.

[wandy]

28. And well she should be! Why else would a conservative news source just leak something.........

that has been going on for a long, Long time.
I'm safe you know. I don't use Verizon. I use Centrylink for phone and data.
Heck I'm super safe I use a land line.

Laughed so hard I thought I'de die.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

7. Some of us did. Some of us didn't. What do YOU intend to do now?

[BlueCheese]

18. Lots of people complained about George Bush.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

19. but we didn't hear much about it in the media

[woo me with science]

23. Wow, so there is a moment to be seized, right?

Please explain to me the exact point of this lame-ass argument about its not having been a big issue under Bush.

What possible difference should it make whether people were sufficiently angry then? This country enslaved blacks for hundreds of years before Lincoln's term. Would you have whined that it was old news then, when people finally decided to do something about it?

Some things are wrong.

The way to tell honesty and integrity from craven moral bankruptcy is what a party chooses to do when a wrong is at long last recognized and a long overdue outcry begun, for the evil it is. Do you seize this moment of outrage to demand that it be FIXED, or do you cravenly circle the wagons?

Hmm.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

31. For us it has been a big issue - long before and during Bush and Cheney

It's as though the nation has been asleep.

[woo me with science]

33. So why are you posting as though outrage were unwarranted,

instead of desperately needed? What do YOU think should be done?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

43. I think that you are missing the point

it is warranted but my point is that it is nothing new and it has been conveniently hidden under Bush and cheney's reign and long before that. Unless the composition of congress changes it will remain the same or get worse.

[BlueStreak]

2. Has Obama been running roughshod over our liberties, just to demonstrate how bad the Patriot Act is?

[BainsBane]

3. No

He's been using all power available to him. And the Executive Branch always interprets powers in the broadest conceivable fashion, which is why they need to be carefully limited.

[TheKentuckian]

4. So what? If he really had any compass, he'd limit himself. Fucking "the devil made me do it"

bullshit rationalizations.

Something being in bounds of horribly dubious law is not the same as compelled to action.

He is doing as he pleases and any lame mewing to the contrary is brazen hypocrisy and highly intellectually dishonest.

"SOMEBODY STOP ME!" is an embarrassingly lame defense of this conduct.

[BainsBane]

5. The question is do you just want to be pissed off

Or do something to change it? My point is not to rationalize his behavior but to try to redirect the conversation away from hyperbole toward possible solutions.

[wandy]

9. A good start would be getting rid of the dam patriot act................

Obama may, or may not, have misused a poorly designed tool, but that is an effect, not a cause.
The patriot act is a bad device, conceived by Neocon fanatics during a period that may well be considered in the future as a misguided part of our history.

[BainsBane]

10. I would like to see that

I just don't know if it's feasible. That's why I suggested limiting it.

[dkf]

26. Looks like the problem is the 2008 FISA expansion.

Foreign intelligence is the exception that has swallowed the Fourth Amendment whole

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022967243

[BainsBane]

45. I heard today that some of this is authorized

by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of the 1970s. That was according to Pete Williams on MSNBC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act

But Wikipedia shows it was expanded in 2001 and 2007

[Tuesday Afternoon]

50. agreed. lame.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

11. I've noticed several Republican voters are highly upset by this implementation of the Patriot Act.

Which has me wondering if we could use this to our advantage to get it trimmed down quite a bit. I know previously we didn't have a chance at getting a bipartisan letter writing and call making campaign started to our congress critters. Now, we may possibly be able to get something like that going, though.

In a perfect world we'd get the Patriot Act repealed. In our imperfect world there's at least a slight chance we may be able to at least get some of the worst parts reduced.

[BainsBane]

12. It had occurred to me that this could be an opportunity

to do just that. I hope you're right.

[gollygee]

13. I agree

the good that will come out of this is that both Democrats and Republicans (not elected officials but overall voters) are opposed to the Patriot Act now, so hopefully it can be repealled or at least cut way back.

[BainsBane]

14. I just heard on Andrew Mitchell that

authorization for this dates from the Foreign Intelligence Act of the 1970s!

[LWolf]

15. He could start by

not pushing Congress to extend the Patriot Act, couldn't he?

Oh. It's too late to close that barn door, too. That horse took off 2 years ago.

[BainsBane]

16. The question is not what he will do

but what WE will do.

[LWolf]

17. What WILL you do?

I don't know about "we." I've done what I can. I'm only one person, though. A large mass needs to do something, or what I do is invisible.

Instead, the masses just keep wringing their hands and getting in line to be voters obedient to their masters.

[BainsBane]

20. Pressure congress to change the law

That's what we can do.

[LWolf]

24. Pressure? How?

Will you withhold $$ and votes from those who don't act to change the law? Regardless of Party?

I've let my Senators know that I support their "nay" votes when it comes to extending the law.

[BainsBane]

32. Phone calls, emails, letters

Protests. Law suits if possible.

[LWolf]

37. And when they ignore

your phone calls, emails, letters, and protests, and you can't find someone to represent you in a lawsuit, will you then withhold $$ and votes?

[BainsBane]

46. Firstly, I don't give money

Are you asking if I'll vote Republican, no. What does that help?

[LWolf]

47. No, that's not what I asked.

You demonstrate a typical limitation in thinking.

I didn't ask who you would vote for. I asked if you would withhold votes from those who can't be trusted to protect our Constitution and our Civil Liberties, based on their record.

There's a difference.

[BainsBane]

48. Well my congressman is Keith Ellison

so that's not going to happen, is it? It may be a concern at the Senatorial level.

[LWolf]

49. My Congressman is Greg Walden,

and while I work hard for his opponent every single time, he's not going to lose here. He'll have to retire.

My Senators, though, are Wyden and Merkley; two champions. They get all the support I can give them.

[boilerbabe]

21. is this one of those "make me (him) do it" things where he or his supporter cleverly puts the onus

of the responsibility on the public instead of taking responsibility himself?

[BainsBane]

22. It's one of these

how about doing something rather than just complaining. It's one of these calling Obama Hitler doesn't change anything, lets find solutions instead.

[madinmaryland]

27. What is the Roberts Court's view of the 4th Amendment is the real question.

Any lawsuit could be rendered moot if Roberts gang decides to continue to erode 4th amendment rights.

[BainsBane]

35. Unfortunately, I heard today that

previous legal challenges have been blocked by SCOTUS because they say Americans can't prove their calls are among those gathered, so SCOTUS denied them standing 5-4 in a similar case. It seems that if someone could establish standing, then they could sue.

[Raine1967]

29. Ironically, one of the authors of the Patriot act is calling to limit the patriot act:

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), who helped draft the PATRIOT Act, is exploring options to narrow a provision of the law that allows the National Security Agency (NSA) to obtain telephonic metadata on nearly all Americans. The comments are the first indication that Congress may act to restrict the government’s ongoing data collection since the Guardian published a secret court order compelling Verizon to turn over its records on a “on an ongoing daily basis” and the Wall Street Journal reported that AT&T and Sprint are also sending their records to the government.

“I have a big problem because the business records part of the Patriot Act, which is what was used to justify this, was designed for specific investigations,” Sensenbrenner told Fox News on Friday. “We’re seeing big government in action, just like George Orwell predicted but maybe a few years later,” he added.

From Think Progress: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/06/07/2119351/author-of-patriot-act-says-he-will-try-to-narrow-provisions-to-prevent-government-surveillance/

Y'all remember Jim Sensenbrenner, right? Here is his UTTER hypocrisy


Am I the only one who is seeing this? They were FINE when bush did this -- but now that a President who is not an R has this power they have a problem with it?


If I need to make it clear: I am not saying this is fine, good or acceptable. I am saying what I said years and years ago: If anyone thinks ANY president given powers isn't going to use them -- they are fooling themselves. This was why I was so disappointed when they gave the executive office this power.

For the GOP -- ALL OF THEM -- to feign outrage about this is utterly laughable. We knew then -- we know now. I never ever pretended that President Obama wouldn't use the powers given to the executive branch.

[BainsBane]

38. That is good news

So what if he's being a hypocrite. It's a good opportunity to take advantage of those powers. I agree with you completely. The executive will always use any and all power it can and define laws more broadly than congress intended.

The other thing is I heard on MSNBC today that the phone surveillance is authorized through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of the 1970s, so it's not just the Patriot Act that needs to be limited.

[hamster]

30. President Obama

needs us to have his back. The Republicans drove the car into the ditch and now they want the keys back. I have my President's back.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. Then he needs to get rid of Holder & put in an AG who doesn't incarcerate medical marijuana patients

[BainsBane]

40. Actually the Constitution needs us to have its back

The President is already in office and not running for reelection.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. If we want to stop pretending the 4th Amendment doesn't exist, we need to end the drug war.

The 4th Amendment was effectively nullified long before 9/11.

[BainsBane]

39. Okay

but I have to say guns are my first priority. I do agree with you than the drug war is a serious problem for the nation. At the very least drugs should be decriminalized and addiction treated as a public health rather than a criminal matter. But key to that is closing down the private prison industrial complex. They lobby for prison time for non-violent drug offenders because they profit from it.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. It's pretty hard to have a discussion about what has happened to the 4A, however, without

bringing up the Drug War.

It's the elephant in the room, where the 4th Amendment is concerned.

[BainsBane]

44. I guess I don't see the immediate connection you do

Since this whole surveillance is justified through terrorism. They do things in the name of stopping terrorist attacks they wouldn't never do against drug dealers. They seem more concerned about being able to lawfully convict someone in drug cases, whereas that's almost irrelevant to the federal government in terror cases.

[Warren DeMontague]

51. Yeah, that's a natural assumption. Interestingly enough, though, if you look at the PATRIOT Act

and specifically how these "special terror fighting powers" have actually been used;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/patriot-act-used-to-fight-more-drug-dealers-than-terrorists/2011/09/07/gIQAcmEBAK_blog.html

So how has the Patriot Act fared as a defense against terrorism? The act has been used in 1,618 drug cases and only 15 terrorism cases.

the reality is it's been sort of a blank check to go after the things they wanted to go after to begin with.

I agree with you- I think in an era when one or a small group of crazies can do a lot of damage, I want the gov't to be hypervigilant. But I think the hypervigilance and constitution-trampling were sold using "terrorism" and then used for the same old shit.

[BainsBane]

52. I didn't realize that

That's rather chilling. I'm increasingly thinking that the war on terror is an excuse to expand the power of the executive and surveillance agencies. When you think of how many people have died from terrorism in this country, about 3000, and compare that to gun deaths, they pale in comparison. We turn heaven and earth upside down to hunt out potential terrorist attacks, but can't do as much as keep a gun registry or mandate universal background checks.

[Warren DeMontague]

53. Odd, innit?

I mean, I agree about the excuse part, although I kind of think executive and surveillance agencies by their very nature attempt to expand their power. It's sort of what they do.

Kind of like when people expect corporations to do things other than try to make money and maximize shareholder profit... maybe they'll do other things so they can get there in a more roundabout way, or get better PR (with the intent of making more money, etc) but fundamentally that's what the entity is designed to do.

But you're absolutely right. If things were approached rationally, we'd be much more focused on stuff like assault weapons or high capacity magazine clips, etc. The fact that we can't move forward even the most basic legislation after something like Sandy Hook... It's almost like I can't even talk about it, it's too depressing.

[BainsBane]

54. The same with presidential power

Any president will use any and all power available to him. I think a lot of people were naive about Obama because they seem so betrayed by the news this week. I can't say as it came as a huge surprise to me. I don't think he's the same as George Bush or Adolph Hitler, as some here have claimed, but he is a president and is not going to refrain from using power he thinks he can get away with.

[hamster]

41. We just need

to have President Obama's back. President Obama's got em right where he wants em. He's setting them up. Remember, Chess not checkers. President Obama's got this as long as we've got his back.