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

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
19. I've acknkowledged and corrected that error.
Tue Mar 11, 2014, 06:46 PM
Mar 2014
GOP and Feinstein join to fulfill Obama's demand for renewed warrantless eavesdropping

The California Democrat's disgusting rhetoric recalls the worst of Dick Cheney while advancing Obama's agenda

To this day, many people identify mid-2008 as the time they realized what type of politician Barack Obama actually is. Six months before, when seeking the Democratic nomination, then-Sen. Obama unambiguously vowed that he would filibuster "any bill" that retroactively immunized the telecom industry for having participated in the illegal Bush NSA warrantless eavesdropping program.

But in July 2008, once he had secured the nomination, a bill came before the Senate that did exactly that - the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 - and Obama not only failed to filibuster as promised, but far worse, he voted against the filibuster brought by other Senators, and then voted in favor of enacting the bill itself. That blatant, unblinking violation of his own clear promise - actively supporting a bill he had sworn months earlier he would block from a vote - caused a serious rift even in the middle of an election year between Obama and his own supporters.

Critically, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 did much more than shield lawbreaking telecoms from all forms of legal accountability. Jointly written by Dick Cheney and then-Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Jay Rockefeller, it also legalized vast new, sweeping and almost certainly unconstitutional forms of warrantless government eavesdropping.

In doing so, the new 2008 law gutted the 30-year-old FISA statute that had been enacted to prevent the decades of severe spying abuses discovered by the mid-1970s Church Committee: by simply barring the government from eavesdropping on the communications of Americans without first obtaining a warrant from a court. Worst of all, the 2008 law legalized most of what Democrats had spent years pretending was such a scandal: the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program secretly implemented by George Bush after the 9/11 attack. In other words, the warrantless eavesdropping "scandal" that led to a Pulitzer Prize for the New York Times reporters who revealed it ended not with investigations or prosecutions for those who illegally spied on Americans, but with the Congressional GOP joining with key Democrats (including Obama) to legalize most of what Bush and Cheney had done. Ever since, the Obama DOJ has invoked secrecy and standing doctrines to prevent any courts from ruling on whether the warrantless eavesdropping powers granted by the 2008 law violate the Constitution.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/28/fisa-feinstein-obama-democrats-eavesdropping



Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

By Timothy B. Lee
August 19, 2013 at 2:24 pm

If the police arrest you, do they need a warrant to rifle through your cellphone? Courts have been split on the question. Last week the Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to resolve the issue and rule that the Fourth Amendment allows warrantless cellphone searches.

In 2007, the police arrested a Massachusetts man who appeared to be selling crack cocaine from his car. The cops seized his cellphone and noticed that it was receiving calls from "My House." They opened the phone to determine the number for "My House." That led them to the man's home, where the police found drugs, cash and guns.

The defendant was convicted, but on appeal he argued that accessing the information on his cellphone without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Earlier this year, the First Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the man's argument, ruling that the police should have gotten a warrant before accessing any information on the man's phone.

The Obama Administration disagrees. In a petition filed earlier this month asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, the government argues that the First Circuit's ruling conflicts with the rulings of several other appeals courts, as well as with earlier Supreme Court cases. Those earlier cases have given the police broad discretion to search possessions on the person of an arrested suspect, including notebooks, calendars and pagers. The government contends that a cellphone is no different than any other object a suspect might be carrying.

But as the storage capacity of cellphones rises, that position could become harder to defend. Our smart phones increasingly contain everything about our digital lives: our e-mails, text messages, photographs, browser histories and more. It would be troubling if the police had the power to get all that information with no warrant merely by arresting a suspect.

On the other hand, the Massachusetts case involves a primitive flip-phone, which could make this a bad test case. The specific phone involved in this 2007 incident likely didn't have the wealth of information we store on more modern cellphones. It's arguably more analogous to the address books and pagers the courts have already said the police can search. So, as Orin Kerr points out, if the Supreme Court ruled on the case, it would be making a decision based on "facts that are atypical now and are getting more outdated every passing month."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/19/obama-administration-asks-supreme-court-to-allow-warrantless-cellphone-searches/
Thanks...Agree wholeheartedly Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #1
Absolutely frazzled Mar 2014 #2
Damn Straight we can, blm. thank you. Cha Mar 2014 #3
I agree, 100%. But the fools who criticize Obama think Obama created the NSA's PRISM machine... Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #4
But the smart people who criticize Obama know that he expanded BushCo's illegal spying cui bono Mar 2014 #10
And furthermore, they elected him with the expectation that he would put an end to Demeter Mar 2014 #36
You think power is accrued that easily in DC, Demeter? blm Mar 2014 #46
So Spit It Out... Do We, Or Do We Not... Live In A Democratic Republic ??? WillyT Mar 2014 #74
You believe he's been apprised of everything CIA/NSA has been doing, even by private firms selected blm Mar 2014 #79
If that is so... grasswire Mar 2014 #104
Doesn't everybody have that obligation? Why didn't Carter? Clinton? Gore? blm Mar 2014 #105
What have you done? nt Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #56
His timing seems suspect Proud Liberal Dem Mar 2014 #5
Good post. However.... rlegro Mar 2014 #34
Have to pull your coat brush Mar 2014 #60
We have similar views. Skidmore Mar 2014 #6
+1000. winter is coming Mar 2014 #7
I agree that it's not about Snowden. I respectfully disagree .... Scuba Mar 2014 #8
These ProSense Mar 2014 #13
It looks to me like these agencies look upon Obama as a modest irritant. Eleanors38 Mar 2014 #76
Certainly this would lead you to that conclusion .... Scuba Mar 2014 #77
Pretty much the way I see it. blm Mar 2014 #82
The alternative? He doesn't know. Hardly reassuring... Eleanors38 Mar 2014 #92
This OP is just a round about way of defending Obama cui bono Mar 2014 #9
Completely ProSense Mar 2014 #11
I admit I didn't read your whole post. After seeing all your LOLs and totally rude cui bono Mar 2014 #12
You are using breitbart.com as a source? Skidmore Mar 2014 #14
Oops! You are right, I shouldn't do that! It was an accident. cui bono Mar 2014 #16
Breitbart? ProSense Mar 2014 #17
I've acknkowledged and corrected that error. cui bono Mar 2014 #19
I posted the provisions of the amendment and you post spin about it. ProSense Mar 2014 #20
I told you, after seeing mostly LOLs and rude posts trying to ridicule people with no substance cui bono Mar 2014 #22
Thanks for knocking down the bullshit spin, ProSense.. I don't read those posts Cha Mar 2014 #28
*sputter* Number23 Mar 2014 #51
.. Cha Mar 2014 #54
Obama voted to give retroactive immunity to telecoms OnyxCollie Mar 2014 #21
This unfortunate "accident" Bobbie Jo Mar 2014 #68
Prove that statement with links to quotes of mine. n/t cui bono Mar 2014 #96
LOL - I think Obama's is one of the weakest presidencies in modern history. I think you must blm Mar 2014 #38
What's made it so weak in your opinion? Repub obstructionism or the goals set by the admin? Number23 Mar 2014 #52
Both - I think getting along with opposition party should have been shelved as a goal blm Mar 2014 #70
Obama went back to getting warrants treestar Mar 2014 #58
He pushed to make the illegal activity of BushCo legal. cui bono Mar 2014 #98
This message was self-deleted by its author Th1onein Mar 2014 #62
This argument is getting shopworn.. sendero Mar 2014 #95
I think you replied to the wrong post. I agree with what you said. n/t cui bono Mar 2014 #97
My apologies.. sendero Mar 2014 #103
OMG!!! A voice of reason!!! I can't take it. kelliekat44 Mar 2014 #15
+ a million Number23 Mar 2014 #26
The President consistently defended NSA overreach . . . markpkessinger Mar 2014 #18
Not correct. He spoke about it 10 days before Snowden's leaks. stevenleser Mar 2014 #24
Thanks steven for your detailed response to Cha Mar 2014 #32
That's not true. As I observed he was hearing the extent of SOME of it as we were. blm Mar 2014 #39
I don't think they see the big picture Ichingcarpenter Mar 2014 #65
And recently, NSA whistleblower Russ Tice. blm Mar 2014 #88
You make important points in your post that most of us who keep posting KoKo Mar 2014 #90
I agree. I wish there WAS a way for Dems to accrue the power base needed to confront this blm Mar 2014 #94
if his presidency is that weakened, then he has little to lose grasswire Mar 2014 #106
I agree - and do so from the comfort of my world OUTSIDE the actual arena. blm Mar 2014 #109
No, the point is to force you to stop pretending such and go after the ones with the power TheKentuckian Mar 2014 #107
Clinton accrued more power in his tenure than Obama has and STILL won't confront them. blm Mar 2014 #108
Excuses to continue the pretense. Push them to lawfully take the power or prove that it TheKentuckian Mar 2014 #111
I agree - Fvck the excuses - say those of us lefties who choose to stay out of the arena blm Mar 2014 #112
so tell us, what were his motives? frylock Mar 2014 #23
My Question is...what the hell can we do about it? fascisthunter Mar 2014 #25
we continue to pressure congress.. frylock Mar 2014 #27
and it's why dialogue on DU about this is so important fascisthunter Mar 2014 #29
word frylock Mar 2014 #30
Except, what has been happening on DU lately has not Skidmore Mar 2014 #31
It's Why I made the Statement fascisthunter Mar 2014 #33
It needs to start with acknowledging that not everyone shares Skidmore Mar 2014 #40
That's True fascisthunter Mar 2014 #42
Perfectly said. Number23 Mar 2014 #53
Who said we're cool with it? Strawmen builders? blm Mar 2014 #41
getting attention treestar Mar 2014 #59
Congratulations! delrem Mar 2014 #61
because the whines about lying, credibility, etc, are silly stupidicus Mar 2014 #35
Plenty of Snowden contradictions in your post. blm Mar 2014 #43
more silliness doesn't help your cause stupidicus Mar 2014 #47
LOL - whatever. You can fully trust Snowden's motives - I do not. blm Mar 2014 #48
thanks for conceding your silliness in the example cited stupidicus Mar 2014 #49
There are plenty of contradictions in all of Snowden's pronoucements.. he said Cha Mar 2014 #57
Keep in mind there would be no 'greater media scrutiny' to applaud without Snowden n/t whatchamacallit Mar 2014 #37
Which is exactly what I wrote in my post. Keep in mind everything else, too. There is ONE family blm Mar 2014 #44
Indeed. I keep waiting for Jebbie to quit being coy. Skidmore Mar 2014 #45
"the last few decades of BushInc" include 6 yrs of ObamaInc., 8 yrs of ClintonInc. delrem Mar 2014 #50
LOL - Apparently you never heard of Poppy Bush or his privatization of intel and blm Mar 2014 #69
So your message, complete with a "LOL" aimed at me, delrem Mar 2014 #71
I think you don't 'get' it at all. It would take you months to get through the full BCCI report blm Mar 2014 #72
You are saying NOTHING. Responding to NOTHING. Not even to defend your own OP. delrem Mar 2014 #73
I feel that if you can't wrap your brain around what was said, only focused research can help you blm Mar 2014 #78
Has NOTHING to back up your apologetics for Obama's impotence. delrem Mar 2014 #80
You are acting as apologist for the rampant lack of knowledge about the presidency and blm Mar 2014 #81
The BCCI report gives NO excuse for Obama, or any other president, to claim powerlessness delrem Mar 2014 #83
You're showing you're vastly under-informed. Get thee to National Security Archives, and.... blm Mar 2014 #85
You're showing that all you can do is throw shit at a wall, delrem Mar 2014 #86
I do - but when one is in an exchange with someone unrealistic about the presidency blm Mar 2014 #87
. delrem Mar 2014 #91
OK, that was a pleasant hiatus. delrem Mar 2014 #93
Bingo. nt ecstatic Mar 2014 #55
K & R for nuance. The NSA/CIA thing goes well beyond Obama BelgianMadCow Mar 2014 #63
People forget about NSA whistleblower Russ Tice. blm Mar 2014 #89
Sure, but which REALLY matters in the real world? Fearless Mar 2014 #64
The media's interest begins and ends with Snowden's usefulness as a Benghazi. ucrdem Mar 2014 #66
Excellent OP Bobbie Jo Mar 2014 #67
I could halfway buy that if the majority of the same people attacking Snowden Zorra Mar 2014 #75
k&r this from your post questionseverything Mar 2014 #101
great post fascisthunter Mar 2014 #102
I think the debate has been good for the country. leftyladyfrommo Mar 2014 #84
YUP ... you can be sure there are Bushies still JoePhilly Mar 2014 #99
I've been saying that from the beginning leftynyc Mar 2014 #100
You can do whatever you want PowerToThePeople Mar 2014 #110
K&R n/t bobthedrummer Mar 2014 #113
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»We can applaud media's gr...»Reply #19