General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf you truly believe Obama is spying on Americans, why not call for his impeachment?
It's illegal: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022973979
If you don't think there is anything to debate, and you're absolutely certain the President is breaking the law, what is stopping you from demanding his impeachment?
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)If he broke the law, then he should be impeached.
What's the point of constantly fanning the anti-Obama flame if the goal isn't to burned down his Presidency.
Remember Bush, see the link.
No one hesistated to demand his impeachment because there was definitive proof he broke the law. He admitted to doing so.
If people are convinced that President Obama is doing the same thing, why the hesitation?
Isn't that hypocrisy?
The program can't be lawful and unlawful at the same time. If you believe he broke the law, having deliberately spied on Americans, then demand his impeachment. All I see are people accusing the President of doing something illegal, and then attacking people for saying that the program is legal and isn't targeting Americans.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)law is foolish.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)That is your defense? The right did not believe Bush broke the law and said the very same thing you are saying now, well if he broke the law then Pelosi should impeach him, show the proof or move on, and we see Pelosi chose to move on.... So this isn't helpful at all can you at least admit that the programs that are in place are too intrusive for govenment or will you allow President Sarah Palin the same unfettered access that the current admin has? You either defend the program or your campaign against it, you cannot have it both ways.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Deep13
(39,154 posts)...oh wait, it totally is. I guess any solution will involve working with politics.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Instead of ignoring the facts. The Repubs like to ignore facts. Leave that game to them.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)So glad to hear I voted for someone so sympathetic to my concerns. Thanks for making that clear!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Wow, same two options Bush gave us. So glad to hear I voted for someone so sympathetic to my concerns. Thanks for making that clear! "
...if you believe the President broke the law, clearly you've already determined he's not "sympathetic" to your concerns.
You seem to want to keep insisting he's spying on Americans even as he has already stated that the program doesn't target Americans.
I mean, do you really believe that if the President is lying about the program, the shit wouldn't hit the fan?
There are people who disagree about the scope and effectiveness of the program, but do not question that the actions were conducted lawfully.
I'm addressing those who are convinced that the President broke the law, and do not want to entertain the thought that they are wrong.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)You didn't need to clarify, it is already clear that you are simply saying that if I have a problem with this I have to back the most extreme sanction possible or just accept this.
What communication skills! I hate telemarketers but love opinion polls. Can't wait until the next call so I can share this!
By the way, you seem pretty tied in.... In the interest of having an open and transparent debate about the implications of these revelations when is the DOJ going to release their secret interpretations regarding Section 215 of the Patriot act?
"You didn't need to clarify, it is already clear that you are simply saying that if I have a problem with this I have to back the most extreme sanction possible or just accept this."
...that isn't remotely what I'm saying. So clearly, you need clarification.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)I want the president to understand that this is a problem.
But you're saying that if I think it's a problem, I must call it illegal ( but it isn't because our President SPECIFICALLY made sure it was legal in the name of post-election unity) and go all tea party on him.
Way to make a person feel good about rooting for team D.
I expect no less from you. Your standard response is "take it!"
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Pholus
(4,062 posts)Interesting.
And un-nuanced.
Yes, I believe the president has created a mechanism that allows people to spy on Americans. I want him to stop.
But your contention is that the only mechanism available is impeachment!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)title doesn't say: "But you're saying that if I think it's a problem, I must call it illegal"
And maybe you should read beyond the title to understand that.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)I might have referred to it. But you didn't.
So don't blame my reading when it's your inarticulate writing.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,306 posts)But they haven't; they have said it's a problem. Rather than linking to what they said about Bush, try linking to what they say about this case: http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/nsa-surveillance-order-explained-aclu
This affair really has shown you at your worst. When I see there's a thread started by you, I now expect to find misdirection, half-truths, red herrings, and flame bait from you.
think4yourself
(837 posts)It's going to happen. This thing has legs and it's about much more than Verizon meta-data. Once Joe Sixpack learns what is going on, there will be lots of talk of impeachment.
Fasten your seatbelt, the justisfied outrage hasn't even started.
Cha
(297,154 posts)think4yourself
(837 posts)On the wrong side of history and Constitutional Law.
Goodnight.
Cha
(297,154 posts)Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)"this week has just started".
And there will, no doubt, be new improved outrages to be - uh - outraged about in the next seven days.
"Once Joe Sixpack learns what is going on ..."
Joe Sixpack thinks 'metadata' is (a) a town in Mexico, (b) a popular spicy dish served in Indian restaurants, or (c) a hip-hop song lyric meaning something equivalent to "Big Daddy".
freshwest
(53,661 posts)wundermaus
(1,673 posts)There is no legal remedy to tyranny.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)the ACLU for example will be going to court to stop the practice, not to punish Obama. They are not hung up on Obama as a personality, they care about the issue.
"the ACLU for example will be going to court to stop the practice, not to punish Obama. They are not hung up on Obama as a personality, they care about the issue."
...are you saying the ACLU is being hypocritical? I mean, you're saying that if Obama broke the law, it's not important that he be held accountable because you're not "hung up on Obama as a personality"?
ACLU Ad: The President Lied to the American People and Broke the Law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022973979
ACLU: DOJ Tells Court It's Reconsidering Secrecy Surrounding Patriot Act's Spying Powers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022973455
napoleon_in_rags
(3,991 posts)I've been against this stuff for the last TEN YEARS that its been happening, or at least against it as a reasonable counter measure against a disorganized band of terrorists.*
Having it all come down on Obama isn't fair because it started under, but at the same time I'm not going to change my stance on it.
I think its necessary at this point for the Dems to get a libertarian / authoritarian rift just like the Repubs have between Rand Paul and Rove. Then this struggle becomes about the libertarian leaning sections of right and left against the authoritarian sections of right and left, without effecting the actual right left political dynamic in an unfair manner. It would take an outspoken Dem in congress to speak out for this, for legalization of pot, for the rest. If Dems don't have this leader they risk the disenfranchisement of much of their base.
*I'm still holding out to learn that its actually a "They Live" type situation, and the NSA and presidents have the secret sunglasses that lets them see the ET's amongst us, which they are battling justifying all these ridiculously extreme measures.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)There are a variety of human traits that are functional in every person. Each person has good and evil, so to speak, but those terms have gotten out of hand throughout history.
People relate differently, some people are going to help, some are going to destroy. They give free rein to what they believe in or think works best for them and or everyone.
I'm not into the libertarian vs. authoritarian analogy. The kind of libertarian that has power now doesn't care if others they don't care about are crushed by others, anymore than a typical repuke. They go on about the ultimate in civil libertarianism and flat out ignore the war of the day that is pepertrated on millions who don't have their advantages, whether they see themselves as advantaged or not.
Because sometimes we can't see it. Then they go after those they see as more conformist with name calling when those people have simply banded together for their survival. So that's not going to work for me.
napoleon_in_rags
(3,991 posts)Are they outraged with Bush or Rove for his support for the program? No, because they can turn to Rand, and see him opposing. Republicans have built a compelling dialectic, where any person tuning in will support one side (Rand) or the other (Rove), but either way, will find themselves investing their support in a Republican in they've seen. The EXACT same social phenomenon came into effect with Hillary and Obama in 2008, and it drove Obama's victory. Even Republicans became invested in the dialectic, by supporting Obama just to defeat the Clintons, and when election time came it propelled him to victory, because those Republicans grew to like him.
I came from the Libertarian scene many years ago the Dem scene. I understand the...drug... of it. Its this idea that if something bothers you, its YOUR responsibility to deal with it. No one else's. Its a cruel idea when its projected on to others (like disabled and poor) but its an empowering idea when its self directed. But the thing is, with that drug, that idea, it doesn't matter what your focus is. Want to help the needy? YOU do something about it. Want to work on global warming? YOU come up with some part of the solution. Its empowering in the sense you just assume you can get things done to change the world, you don't have to wait for the filibuster 2000 miles away to end.
(Its only in its self directed form that idea is worth a damn, BTW. The "I take personal responsibility exclusively by talking about how other people need to take personal responsibility" crowd of assholes is a drag on the Republicans, not an asset)
But all that aside, politically Obama has a huge quandary here. This thing, which he did not create, has been thrown up in his face. Yet there will be no support for his continuance of it from this base, because we can't handle the hypocrisy of standing up for what we spoke out against for years. So the only answer I can see that won't bring down all the good progressive stuff Obama stands for is for him to hop in bed with Rove on this issue, for our guy mister X to hop in bed with Rand, and for these two sides, libertarian vs whatever to have it out over this without effecting the right left dynamic. This battle will be fought on both sides during the primaries, and then the right/left battle in the general.
At least that's my thought on it. Its a crutch, but its what may need to be done.
As far as the issues, the They Live side of things, yeah it may be. No ET. But if its so, this has to be addressed in some way shape or form to the public - or the cognitive dissonance of the political status quo will drive us all to madness before that damages us (collectively) that much.
PEace!
Deep13
(39,154 posts)mercymechap
(579 posts)might as well join and help the nutty right wingers!
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)It is the best way for republicans to justify three more years of non-action on anything important.
Not that I don't think spying on Americans is a big deal, because I do, but Bush/Cheney were just as guilty of the practice as Obama and no one cared then.
With any luck, this might sponsor public debate over the proper roll of government.
A century ago, progressive reformers cleaned house in America. The spoils system was out and civil service was in. Officials were stripped of power, referendums and initiatives became part of the legislative process (at least in the west), trusts and monopolies were broken up, taxes were levied on the rich, and we moved forward as a nation, where all of us saw some benefit from the political and economic changes we had made, in the improvement of our living standards.
Its time to clean house again.
Too bad that the administration has made Democrats look so culpable.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)LOL
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)... if there's no back-up meta-database then in the future when there's a terrorist attack how will the FBI/CIA/etc track down who the bad guys have been talking to.
The tele-coms delete all of their info like after 30 to 60 days, something like that.
I know that after the Boston bombing everyone was wanting the government to trace all of the folks that those two brothers knew to see if more people were involved.
If there are 'no' records kept anywhere at all - and 'the terrorist' is not alive to be questioned, then any other folks involved will pretty much go undetected because they will basically be untraceable.
agentS
(1,325 posts)This is a systemic problem, affecting Congress, the Admin, the Judiciary, and the media.
Impeaching O & B would put Boner in charge. Boner and Co. are fans of the policy.
What we SHOULD do, is push candidates in the primary to pledge to end the AUMF, PATRIOT ACT, FISA, and this odious program. If we make it a campaign issue THEN it will be an issue and we may very well end this (for awhile).
In the meantime, here's a petition. http://act.freepress.net/sign/internet_obama_verizon/?source=share
Stop spying on millions of innocent people. The administration's surveillance of phone calls exceeds the governments authority and threatens the basic rights of all Americans. Stop this spying program and all others like it immediately.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Dear President Obama:
Stop spying on millions of innocent people. The administration's surveillance of phone calls exceeds the governments authority and threatens the basic rights of all Americans. Stop this spying program and all others like it immediately.
...clearly that petition means the President lied: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022965452
agentS
(1,325 posts)Either way, the NSA program needs to go and it's not going to disappear if we waste 6 months on impeachment (re; Clinton and Lewinsky), only to wind up with a guy whose party seems to support the program. It's not a winning plan.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Yesterday I read a post about how the Obama administration wants to assassinate Elizabeth Warren and Glenn Greenwald. Hilarious shit.
I wouldn't be surprised if/when DUers join the teabaggers call for impeachment. It's just pure comedy gold at this point.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Seriously?
JustAnotherGen
(31,810 posts)Right? How did I miss that/
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)He and others in government seem to have forgotten who gave them their jobs.
He has eroded trust in his base (republicans would hate him regardless) and carried on things we elected him to stop. Next time a dem candidate tells me he/she are going to do something I am guessing no one will believe it and instead of voting for a candidate we will be voting against another one.
And personally, I think I would impeach most of congress and the president all at once and start the hell over with people who won't sell us down the river to big business and the MIC.
Yeah, he is better than bush - but not on everything.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Why should he get in trouble, when the war mongering assholes before him didn't have a single thing happen to them over Iraq? I think you are being unfair.
delrem
(9,688 posts)...at the very beginning, saying, in the most insane rationale I've ever been privileged to witness, that he wants to look forward, not back. We're in the second term of that philosophy, both political parties including most of their bases are gung ho to continue escalating W's program, so who's there with the power to impeach?
I would've impeached the ass off W., but I wasn't in charge and now it's too late and we're reaping our just reward for our diligence.
And you, ProSense, are complacently happy, tho' a bit inconvenienced by a few squawkers at DU.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"And you, ProSense, are complacently happy, tho' a bit inconvenienced by a few squawkers at DU."
...I wasn't aware that so many people have intimate knowledge of my emotions, feelings and thoughts.
I like the "squawkers at DU" touch.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)to be recinded and all information collected destroyed?
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Lame, very fucking lame, but not at all surprising.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)bathtub.
I mean, if we're sure the government is listening to our every phone call and toilet flush, we better de-fund the entire government.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)for Bush to be impeached for spying on Americans. If it is indeed the case that Obama did the same thing, it is not unreasonable for folks here to put their money where their mouth is and do the same.
Impeach the president if he spied.
I think we should be debating this and having an intelligent discussion about it here. I don't see any of that going on.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)they can't come out and say what they really feel, because they'd get banned.
Posting privileges before principles.
Sid
sibelian
(7,804 posts)....Why not instead call for the end to the offending practices? Hm?
You're clever, ProSense, but you are more concerned with the appearances of things than their natures.
mick063
(2,424 posts)That would select folks from the robber baron pool for his cabinet.
That hired an attorney general who would invent the term "Too big to prosecute"
That in the face of the expansion of poverty, would compromise social security.
The illegal spying is just added confirmation.
Worst financial investment in my lifetime was the Obama campaign.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I may not like what the NSA is doing, but that does not mean it's illegal. There are no "high crimes and misdemeanors" committed by the President here (not that I can see, anyway).
-Laelth
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Because his acts are legal."
Yes, his acts are legal, and here is what the President said:
Obama: PRISM Doesnt Apply To U.S. Citizens
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022965452
Remember, his acts are legal. Now, if someone wants to challenge his actions as unconstitutional because they do not believe the President's characterization of the program, that's fine. Still, wouldn't the challenge be premised on targeting Americans?
Who is right?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid