Obama Is Giving Up Some Executive Power, and He’ll Still Get No Credit

[Recursion]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/12/obama-is-giving-up-some-executive-power-and-he-ll-still-get-no-credit.html

I've beat my head against the brick wall of trying to get DU to pay attention to the speech Obama made in May about reining in surveillance and ending the AUMF. Maybe this will help...

The idea for having an adversarial presence at Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court hearings is potentially even a bigger deal. A special court system set up in the United States of America in which the judge hears only the government’s side of the story, FISC has always been a case where a bright line was crossed. It’s. There’s just no way that’s acceptable, and correcting it would end a blatantly (to me) unconstitutional practice.

As I was listening to these remarks, I kept thinking to myself about this paradox. No, they were not “bold and sweeping” proposals. At the same time, it sure seemed to me like this was the first time in my adult life I’d ever heard a sitting president propose checks on his administration that he didn’t have to offer. And Obama didn’t have to offer these. He was facing some political pressure, but polls have been pretty consistent in showing that a solid majority of the American public comes down on the side of what we might call controlled surveillance.

There was no mortal threat to his presidency here. Yet even so, he took a couple steps away from the imperial presidency. I think that’s the first time since the presidency became imperial—after World War II, more or less—such a thing has happened. And Obama was, as he claimed Friday, headed down this course before the Snowden leaks. Those began on June 5. But on May 23, he gave a speech at the National Defense University in which he foreshadowed the moves he just announced. Combine all this with John Kerry’s recent announcement that we have a plan for ending drone strikes in Pakistan, and you might have thought liberals would be cheering. I suppose some liberals are. I am. But not civil libertarians. With them, it’s all or nothing. If you’re not signed on to the whole program, you might as well be Joe McCarthy. Environmentalists and tax reformers and campaigners for the poor and those fighting for greater consumer protections and even civil rights advocates understand that the political process is about compromise and getting what you can, and they acknowledge that there are such things in this world as competing compelling interests. But you are well advised not to try to mention such things to a civil libertarian.

The reason for their intransigence is that we (liberals) are trained to think of these liberties as being absolute and utterly nonnegotiable. But our history and our civic life shows that they are negotiated all the time. For all the “when one person loses his civil liberties, we all lose them” rhetoric, historically that’s simply not the case. As with anything, there are degrees. The distinguished civil liberties lawyer Burt Neuborne wrote a fantastic piece about all this in The American Prospect in 2005, observing: “When I was national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union during the Reagan years and the board had sent me out to argue my umpteenth crèche case, I wrote a memo saying that I didn’t take the job to stamp out the Virgin Mary.”

[Ian David]

1. +1000

[hlthe2b]

2. It is difficult when he has been perceived to have (right or wrongly) adopted

Bush* era policies--or at least not reigned them in during his first term. Given his campaign promises and the fact that he is both a DEMOCRAT and a constitutional law professor, the expectations for moderation on any incursion on civil rights was very very very high.

I'd say the blowback was both predictable and expected. Had he made these changes prior to the revelations of Snowden and others (regardless of how one feels about him or his revelations), he'd likely have gotten considerably more credit.

Now, he may get some degree of begrudging credit and considerably more from his most ardent supporters, but in doing so in a climate ripe with governmental mistrust, that's about the best he can expect.

[Demo_Chris]

3. This is like a crack addict wanting cudos for quiting cigarettes

President Obama is overseeing the largest and most frightening expansion of executive branch power in US history. He is claiming not only the right to spy on everyone, everywhere, but the right to KILL any American he wants, anytime or anywhere, at his whim, with no judicial process or congressional review, and in secret.

[uponit7771]

5. More right wing bullshit (expansion of executive branch) and we're suppsoed to believe NONE of it

...was in place BEFORE he got to office?!

[Demo_Chris]

17. "B-But Mom, all the kids are doing it!"

This is like claiming that Obama is innocent in his drone war because he didn't design them. Whether he created these programs or simply seized existing programs and ran with them, the results are the same and the responsibility lies with him. And yes, it is unquestionably true to say that he has expanded these programs and the powers he claims in ways that no President in history has ever publicly stated.

We are talking here about a US President who claims the power to SPY on and KILL any American he wants, with no judicial process, no congressional review, no oversight, just his discretion. Whoever he wants, wherever he wants, for any reasons he deems fit, all in secret. He has also claimed the power to murder the citizens of other countries, with or without the governments of those countries permission. Even Bush never claimed power like this. No President ever has. That's the kind of power reserved to Kings and tyrants.

But it's totally cool with some because he has a D by his name.

[ProSense]

25. What the hell are you talking about?

"We are talking here about a US President who claims the power to SPY on and KILL any American he wants, with no judicial process, no congressional review, no oversight, just his discretion. Whoever he wants, wherever he wants, for any reasons he deems fit, all in secret. He has also claimed the power to murder the citizens of other countries, with or without the governments of those countries permission. Even Bush never claimed power like this. No President ever has. That's the kind of power reserved to Kings and tyrants."

Where the hell does the President claim "the power to SPY on and KILL any American he wants, with no judicial process"?

I mean, that's some serious fact-free fear mongering. Didn't we go through this with "Stand With Rand"?

Even Greenwald tried to walk back Rand's claim:

(2) Whether domestic assassinations are imminent is irrelevant to the debate

The primary means of mocking Paul's concerns was to deride the notion that Obama is about to unleash drone attacks and death squads on US soil aimed at Americans. But nobody, including Paul, suggested that was the case. To focus on that attack is an absurd strawman, a deliberate distraction from the real issues, a total irrelevancy...First, the reason this question matters so much - can the President target US citizens for assassination without due process on US soil? - is because it demonstrates just how radical the Obama administration's theories of executive power are. Once you embrace the premises of everything they do in this area - we are a Nation at War; the entire globe is the battlefield; the president is vested with the unchecked power to use force against anyone he accuses of involvement with Terrorism - then there is no cogent, coherent way to say that the president lacks the power to assassinate even US citizens on US soil. That conclusion is the necessary, logical outcome of the premises that have been embraced. That's why it is so vital to ask that.

<...>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022485711
His defense, of course was utter bullshit.

The President is advocating a drone strike program in America. All we have to compare it with is the drone strike program overseas.

http://twitter.com/SenRandPaul/status/309465276863365120

[Demo_Chris]

29. Nice straw men there, but I don't care what Rand Paul has to say about anything...

Nor do I care about pundits and talking heads. I do, however, care about a government limited in power by the Constitution and the rule of law. This, sadly, is a position not shared by this administration and many of the posters here.

[ProSense]

39. No, you made fact-free and hyperbolic claim, and dismissing Rand Paul doesn't change that. n/t

[Cha]

83. that's the poster's MO.

[uponit7771]

56. or Obama's workable because he's tryign to walk the programs back some. Again, I'm not going

...to make perfect the enemy of good or adequate.

I'll leave that up to the people who hated Carter and Clinton

regards

[Demo_Chris]

65. But he is not walking them back, he is expanding them...

While claiming additional powers no previous President has claimed -- such as the power to secretly kill Americans.

If he were ACTUALLY trying to walk them back he would:

1. Not resign Patriot or any of these other security bills.

2. Immediately declassify ALL of these programs and go public with the details. What they do, exactly, who they target and how, what technology they currently have that will no longer be used. All of it.

3. Stop prosecuting whistleblowers.

4. Investigate and prosecute the government officials who have misused the information (there are always some)

5. End drone strikes against nations we are not legally at war with

[uponit7771]

125. Link and quote on "expansion" regards

[dionysus]

126. immediately declassify and explain in detail how our entire intelligence gather apparatus works...

[ProSense]

6. This is such

"President Obama is overseeing the largest and most frightening expansion of executive branch power in US history."

...nonsense. The President is rolling back a lot of Bush's expansions, and people see this as worse than Bush's illegal actions from secrecy, illegal war, torture, illegal spying and a host of other executive abuses.

It's really an attempt at redefining the adminstration to fit an agenda.

[Egnever]

55. It's really an attempt at redefining the adminstration to fit an agenda

Exactly!

[OnyxCollie]

60. "Bush's illegal actions from secrecy, illegal war, torture, illegal spying

and a host of other executive abuses."

Wow. That sounds serious.

I must've missed the prosecutions. Who went to prison for all those crimes?

[bvar22]

73. Hoisted by her Own Petard!

Well Done !

[bvar22]

76. An Educational excerpt from Wiki so that everybody can enjoy the visual.

A petard was a small bomb used to blow up gates and walls when breaching fortifications,

Petard comes from the Middle French peter, to break wind, from pet expulsion of intestinal gas,

Petardiers were used during sieges of castles or fortified cities. The petard, a rather primitive and exceedingly dangerous explosive device, consisted of a brass or iron bell-shaped device filled with gunpowder fixed to a wooden base called a madrier. This was attached to a wall or gate using hooks and rings, the fuse lit and, if successful, the resulting explosive force, concentrated at the target point, would blow a hole in the obstruction, allowing assault troops to enter.

<snip>

If a petard detonated prematurely, the petardier would be lifted by the explosion. In addition, the usual human response is to get away from trouble by the most direct means possible, but a straight line is rarely the safest route of departure while under fire, and this is particularly true after setting a petard. The backblast went straight back from the fortification: if the petardier also moved straight back he would be [font size=3]"hoist by his own petard"[/font].

[ProSense]

112. "Wow. That sounds serious. "

"I must've missed the prosecutions. Who went to prison for all those crimes?"

You're right, no "prosecutions" means those weren't "crimes."

Am I misunderstanding your point?

[OnyxCollie]

124. According to Eric Holder, those things are "policy differences."

Do you have evidence that the Bush administration did those things? If so, perhaps you should forward them to the Atty. General.

Otherwise, it sounds like a lot of hair-on-fire hyperbole from an irrational hater.

[Skidmore]

67. Indeed.

And this Dem will not contribute to electing the Libertarian Repulican nutjobs out there.

When people demand incessantly that executive orders be used and then sneer and denigrate when delivered, there is an agends afoot and it stinks to high heaven.

[zeemike]

71. Yes and he increased the chocolate rations too.

But he is still doing torture, war, spying, and secrecy, just not as much and with a kinder and gentler hand...at least that is what we are told, but it is a secret so they can't tell us.

[Igel]

111. It's an inane post.

It's a new constraint on part of the judiciary established under Carter.

Somebody will have to appoint the "public advocate" or whatever the duty is called. Perhaps Roberts. Perhaps the Executive. That should be entertaining.

That person will know the law. As do the judges. He will have precisely the information that the US government has. No more.

How effective is the person going to be? Your answer rests crucially on your assumption as to what the judges do. Do they just make sure all the boxes are checked? Or do they, since it's entirely at their discretion, evaluate how appropriate the request is?

This, keep in mind, is to be viewed in the light of what was said a decade back. No application is rejected because that would waste time--instead, you know what is needed to get an application approved and you make sure that you've met all the criteria needed in the past. Questionable applications aren't filed.

Of course, Obama's big "roll back" is words and nothing more. He doesn't have the authority to implement this. Just as it's a constraint on the judiciary, the initiative he's being credit for would have to lie with the legislative.

Now, it's been months. Did he think, at the time, given the deadlock in Congress and public opinion, that this proposal would be implemented? That depends on your level of cynicism. Because if you suspect he believed the proposal would just die, then he made a nice-sounding proposal that he knew would go nowhere.

What's truly sad is that this is the level of nitpicking argumentation that we have to descend to. The extent to which a probably meaningless proposal for the legislative branch to do something to constraint the judiciary is all that exceptional and nearly unprecendented in having the executive restrict its own powers.

[woo me with science]

16. [phone]

What an absurd OP.

[ProSense]

18. "What an absurd OP."

What a dismissive response base on nothing but your opinion.

[woo me with science]

38. The absurd ProPaganda, incessant denial of the record

we have all witnessed with our own eyes. The propaganda across the internet exemplifies the lying corruption we drown in every single day from this sick, purchased government. Every nation that turns authoritarian manages to find those willing to shill and distract and lie for the unconscionable, but the vast majority have a conscience and cannot be bought.

Every piece of brazen, slimy propaganda just amplifies for those with conscience how far the corruption and descent into authoritarianism have progressed.

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
2 + 2 = 5


Chilling Legal Memo From Obama DOJ Justifies Assassination of US Citizens
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101654954

Obama seeks longer PATRIOT Act extension than Republicans (December 2013)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x380450

When it comes to civil liberties, apparently Democrats are just as bad as Republicans.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022101960

NSA's Massive New Spy Center to Track Your Emails, Internet Activity, and Phone Calls
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101620852

Obama Quietly Signs Abusive Spy Bill He Once Vowed to Eliminate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022104861

Obama repeals Magna Carta, asserting powers our forefathers denied to Kings
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101655620

Obama's Memo on Killing Americans Twists 'Imminent Threat' Like Bush
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101654919

Obama no better than Bush when it comes to security vs. civil liberties.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022355307

Obama Admin Seeks Permission TO LIE In Response To FOI Requests - Even To The COURTS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2185303

NDAA on trial: Obama Administration fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101748688

Obama administration complicit with private prison industry: President Obama's IncarcerNation
http://www.nationofchange.org/president-obama-s-incarcernation-1335274655

Obama, Democrats Push to Make Bush Spying Laws Permanent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022084702

NDAA, signed by Obama, is a direct attack against legitimate protest and dissent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022064803

NSA Whistleblower: All Americans under constant surveillance, all info. stored, no matter the post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002193487; http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021935289

Bipartisan Congress Disgracefully Approves the FISA Warrantless Spying Bill for Five More Years
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022087323

While Public & Media Focused on 2nd Amendment, 5th Amendment Quietly Dismantled
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022390581

How the Obama administration justifies extrajudicial killing of Americans,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022318187

Judge Says Under Law Executive Branch Can Commit Acts That Sure Do Seem Unconstitutional
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022122464

Obama Justice Dept. says wiretap lawsuit should not proceed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014337039

NDAA Lawsuit- Hedges v. Obama, The Last Thin Line of Defense
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022357078

Federal authorities step up efforts to license surveillance drones for law enforcement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022383596

Big Banks and FBI worked together vs Occupy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022095056]

FBI Investigated 'Occupy' As Possible 'Domestic Terrorism' Threat, Internal Documents Show
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022061578

FBI Documents Reveal Secret Nationwide Occupy Monitoring (Updated the OP)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022057064

Public Buses Across Country Quietly Adding Microphones to Record Passenger Conversations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021965291

Street artist behind satirical NYPD 'Drone' posters arrested
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021920967

The Obama DOJ urged the Supreme Court's endorsement of strip searches.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002521527

Obama Administration Fights to Allow Warrantless GPS Tracking
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1074474

Anonymous to FBI: hey, dudes, maybe you could take a break from...investigating activists....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022145621

Half a billion dollars for drones to spy on Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021876414

From Bradley Manning to Aaron Swartz -- The Government's Inhumane Persecution of Brave Truth Tellers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022276941

The sight of Army helicopters and the sound of gunfire...on Houston's south side
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022276742

Kiriakou and Stuxnet: the danger of the still-escalating Obama whistleblower war
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022275570

Can the DEA Hide a Surveillance Camera on Your Property?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022237059

Social Media and the Stasi
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021888029

Homeland Security Wants to More Than Double Its Predator Drone Fleet Inside the US, Despite Safety/Privacy Invasions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014312823

CIA Behind Bizarre Censorship Incident At Alleged 9/11 Plotters’ Gitmo Trial
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022280285

“I Am Wearing My Conviction As A Badge Of Honor.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022275128

Meet the Contractors Turning America's Police Into a Paramilitary Force
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12525281

How Secrecy Corrodes Democracy
http://election.democraticunderground.com/101655009

Obama Quietly Issues Ruling Saying It's Legal For The FBI To Break The Law
http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7545687

US Pulls Plug on Iran Cable News (Press TV)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014394770

DHS Watchdog OKs 'Suspicionless' Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022339091

"Obama: New "Oversight" But No Change To Spying Power" (Press Conference Today)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023435474

Making You "Comfortable" with Spying Is Obama's Big NSA Fix.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023439347

Obama's "Spy on Everyone" policy was already public? My *ass*, it was.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022968996

Obama LIES on Leno: 'There Is No Spying On Americans'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023420130

A Guide to What We Now Know About the NSA's Dragnet Searches of Your Communications
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023437106

[Logical]

41. LOL, love it! Real links to real stories! Thanks! n-t

[ProSense]

42. You posted a wall of "blue links," but

ignored the question: Is this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023451453

..."propaganda"?

[woo me with science]

62. What an illustrative reply.

It's a shamelessly telling comment on your own modus operandi here that you dismiss "a wall of blue links" so blithely and scornfully.

I suppose it's natural that you automatically assume that the blue links of others must be just like your own: habitually dishonest, leading to articles that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, or to shameless distraction, or even to articles saying the opposite of what the post implies. How easy to dismiss "blue links" when your own experience in dispensing them tells you that they are trash.

However, this "wall of blue links" actually goes somewhere relevant. It documents the horrendous record of this administration on Constitutional rights, down to claiming the power to murder Americans without due process and to spy on and record the activities of every American, every day of our lives.

And your attempted "gotcha" here"? Time for this post again. And again, and again, and again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3359463

We have been choking on empty words and promises for more than FIVE years now as the noose of authoritarianism has, in REALITY rather than rhetoric, been tightened around our necks.

What garbage we are fed. Excuse me while I move on now and take a well-deserved shower.

[ProSense]

66. You posted more personal attacks and didn't answer the question. n/t

[woo me with science]

75. Pointing out the modus operandi of authoritarian propaganda is not a personal attack.

You are not special, ProSense. Governments that turn authoritarian find people by the hundreds who do not hesitate to sell their morality and human decency in order to shill for policies that exploit, imprison, impoverish, or murder human beings by the millions for the profit and power of a few.

Some may eventually find their conscience and regret their complicity. In general, though, I suspect that this line of work attracts those who rarely struggle with such internal voices in the first place.

[ProSense]

88. "You are not special, ProSense. "

"Pointing out the modus operandi of authoritarian propaganda is not a personal attack.

You are not special, ProSense. Governments that turn authoritarian find people by the hundreds who do not hesitate to sell their morality and human decency in order to shill for policies that exploit, imprison, impoverish, or murder human beings by the millions for the profit and power of a few."

The special interests do that often. The Koch brothers are known for that. They find people to constantly demagogue issues and other people's opinions, invoking the word "proproganda" constantly. They call people "shills" and "trolls" with ease.

I know:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023442971#post7

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=303665&sub=trans

A lot of people support that behavior, but it's a recognized tactic that says a lot more about the person leveling the charges: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12592697#post1

[OnyxCollie]

90. Nyahh nyyahh!

I know you are. But what am I?

Look everybody! ProSense's six-year old sister is at the controls!

That's gotta be a violation of child labor laws.

[ProSense]

94. "Nyahh nyyahh!" You are calling somone a "six-year old"?

"That's gotta be a violation of child labor laws."

Is that your idea of a personal attack?

[bvar22]

114. Its the Children's Version of the "To Quoque Logical Fallacy".

Its always worth a laugh when an adult is backed so far into a corner
that they think nobody will be smart enough to See Through their "clever" deception .

There was a time, not so long ago,
when no one would post such an embarrassing and transparent response,
but the bar has been lowered significantly.

[mindwalker_i]

89. "You posted a wall of 'blue links' but ignored the question"

What question are you referring to that you want answered?

And seriously, you talking about a wall of "blue links" is about the most ironic comment on the internet.

[ProSense]

96. No,

"And seriously, you talking about a wall of 'blue links' is about the most ironic comment on the internet. "

...I talking about hypocrisy. Clearly only certain people are allowed to post a wall of "blue links."

When other people post links it's "propaganda."

I'm learning.

[zeemike]

74. +1000

With enough links to choke a apologist's horse.

[ProSense]

20. Question:

Is this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023451453

..."propaganda"?

[bvar22]

21. Despite the blustering denials from the usual crowd,

the statement:
[font size=3]"President Obama is overseeing the largest and most frightening expansion of executive branch power in US history"[/font]

...Is ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

Those who have paid attention to the following will KNOW that the above claim is beyond debate:

*The Reissuing of the Patriot Act

*The NDAA

*The Expanding Drone WAR and "secret" Executive Assassinations without due process OR oversight

*FISA revelations


Obama will not be President forever,
and he will be leaving these new powers of the Unitary Permanent War Time President to the next Republican President.

Do you remember how close Sarah Palin came to being a heartbeat away from The presidency?



You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[Demo_Chris]

24. Well said. nt

[ProSense]

27. Despite the big type, no he isn't.

The " largest and most frightening expansion of executive branch power in US history" was when Bush sanctioned torture, lied to launch an illegal war, fired the U.S. attorneys, bypassed the FISA court to illegally eavesdrop on Americans, and Congress briefly legalized Bush's illegal activities.

This is exactly what people get wrong when they conflate Bush's illegal spying with the current programs. The FISA amendments did not make Bush's illegal activities legal. It gave immunity to the telecoms.

Bush bypassed the FISA court completely, and actually eavesdropped on Americans. That was illegal and still is.

That was what Obama criticized when he said:

In 2007, then-Senator Obama criticized the Bush administration for monitoring Americans who had done nothing wrong:

“This administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.”

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/no-comment-necessary-obama-on-surveillance-in-2007/

There have been a number of media reports using the same Obama quote to basically claim that he once called out Bush, but then embraced the policy. They are intentionally conflating a quote about the push for the Protect America Act with his position on the 2008 FISA amendments, which he voted for. They are not the same thing. The PAA was a Republican effort to absolve Bush.

Obama voted against the Protect America Act (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00309), which in fact expired in early 2008.

Senator Mitch McConnell introduced the act on August 1, 2007, during the 110th United States Congress. On August 3, it was passed in the Senate with an amendment, 60–28 (record vote number 309). On August 4, it passed the House of Representatives 227-183 (roll number 836). On August 5, it was signed by President Bush, becoming Public Law No. 110-055. On February 17, 2008, it expired due to sunset provision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007#Legislative_history

Here's Bush's statement at the time: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080214-4.html

President Obama, despite the "blustering denials from the usual crowd," have reversed many of Bush's policies, and is in the process of reining in the rest, opening dialog with Congress to strenghten checks and balances, oversight.

[bvar22]

30. The NDAA alone surpasses any and all of the token gestures you listed.

[ProSense]

37. Nonsense.

Sanctioning torture and illegal spying are "token gestures"?

[bvar22]

69. We now "legally" outsource all our torture needs (renditions),

and the Obama Administration was able to make what was once "Illegal Spying" under Bush...NOW Perfectly "legal",
and at the same time, managed to excuse all the "illegal" spying of the Bush Adm.

The Obama Administration hasn't stepped back from these new Unitary Powers of the Presidency that were such an abridgement under Bush-the-Lesser.
It has codified them,
co-signed them,
reinforced them,
enhanced them,
expanded them,
and given them the Official Democratic Party Endorsement.
They are NOW "perfectly legal",
or at least that is what the note from his lawyer says.

So, YES, they ARE "token",
or if you prefer, "Window Dressing",
or if you prefer, Empty Gestures
with no real change behind the BS.

Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns

The men are the latest example of how the Obama administration has embraced rendition — the practice of holding and interrogating terrorism suspects in other countries without due process — despite widespread condemnation of the tactic in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-01/world/36323571_1_obama-administration-interrogation-drone-strikes

Somalia's Prisons: the War on Terror's Latest Front, Daily Beast, June 2012

The U.S. acknowledged it has a military presence in Somalia just last month. The warden at an overcrowded Somali prison says the Americans have sent him sixteen prisoners since 2009. A Pentagon spokesman says only that the U.S. has handed prisoners "back over to where they came from."

http://www.propublica.org/article/the-best-reporting-on-detention-and-rendition-under-obama

So, yeah, President Obama can stand at the podium and claim that the US does not torture,
but as long as we are sending our Terrorism Suspects to countries that DO torture for their "interrogations",
well, the claim that we "do not torture" is pretty empty,
isn't it.



You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS[/font]

[woo me with science]

79. "Making it legal." The travesty of corporate/authoritarian "morality."

That is how we get the brazen spectacle of propaganda's turning on a dime, from this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2461323

to this utterly shameless OP.

[ProSense]

84. What?

"We now "legally" outsource all our torture needs (renditions),"

Pure nonsense. When on earth is arresting suspects and charging them in the U.S. "renditioning"? You are also citing the reason why the U.S. cannot hand over detainees to other government. People scream about closing Guantanamo and then cite articles that push bogus claims.

Facts:

ENDING TORTURE = Three Torches

• Ordered an end to the use of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, withdrew
  flawed legal analysis used to justify torture and applied the Army Field Manual on interrogations
  government wide.
  
• Abolished the CIA secret prisons.
  
• Says that “waterboarding is torture” and “contrary to America’s traditions… contrary to our ideals.”
  
• No reports of extraordinary rendition to torture or other cruelty under his administration.
  
• Failed to hold those responsible for past torture and other cruelty accountable; has blocked
  alleged victims of torture from having their day in court.

http://www.aclulibertywatch.org/ALWCandidateReportCard.pdf

[bvar22]

117. In your frenzied meltdown, you didn't read the links I provided...

...from The Washington Post and Public Citizen with corroboration from multiple independent sources.
I will repeat them in the hope that maybe the blindness has subsided.


Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns
Washington Post, 2013

The men are the latest example of how the Obama administration has embraced rendition — the practice of holding and interrogating terrorism suspects in other countries without due process — despite widespread condemnation of the tactic in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-01/world/36323571_1_obama-administration-interrogation-drone-strikes

Somalia's Prisons: the War on Terror's Latest Front, Daily Beast, June 2012

The U.S. acknowledged it has a military presence in Somalia just last month. The warden at an overcrowded Somali prison says the Americans have sent him sixteen prisoners since 2009. A Pentagon spokesman says only that the U.S. has handed prisoners "back over to where they came from."

http://www.propublica.org/article/the-best-reporting-on-detention-and-rendition-under-obama

Here is another one:

Somalia’s Prisons: The War on Terror’s Latest Front

So now it’s official: United States soldiers have been hunting down al Qaeda affiliates in Somalia. When the White House confirmed earlier this month what has long been an open secret, most of the ensuing chatter focused on the need for greater transparency about the expanding war on terror.

Less discussed was what happens to all those alleged terrorists when they’re captured alive.

Pentagon spokesman James Gregory wouldn’t confirm the number of prisoners the U.S. has sent to Bosaso, only that it has handed over prisoners, “back over to where they came from.” He said the U.S. is “returning them to their government, and their government takes them.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/27/somalia-s-prisons-the-war-on-terror-s-latest-front.html

So, depending on what the definition of the word "is" is,
in the most twisted sense, the US does NOT torture anymore.
What we DO is hand them over to [font size=3]KNOWN TORTURERS[/font] for their "interrogations" WITH US personnel in attendance.

Now if YOU want to slither under THAT bar to claim that there are no more "Renditions, and the US No Longer Tortures,
[font size=3]Please Proceed.[/font]



You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,[/font]
not by their speeches, promises, or excuses.

[ProSense]

123. No, I'm not having a "frenzied meltdown"

I said: Pure nonsense. When on earth is arresting suspects and charging them in the U.S. "renditioning"? You are also citing the reason why the U.S. cannot hand over detainees to other government. People scream about closing Guantanamo and then cite articles that push bogus claims.

Claiming that I didn't read the information is simply an attempt to create a circular argument. The point above is clear.

Maybe you should re-read my previous comment: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023451089#post84

[ucrdem]

54. Beautifully put, ProSense.

The " largest and most frightening expansion of executive branch power in US history" was when Bush sanctioned torture, lied to launch an illegal war, fired the U.S. attorneys, bypassed the FISA court to illegally eavesdrop on Americans, and Congress briefly legalized Bush's illegal activities.

This is exactly what people get wrong when they conflate Bush's illegal spying with the current programs. The FISA amendments did not make Bush's illegal activities legal. It gave immunity to the telecoms.

Bush bypassed the FISA court completely, and actually eavesdropped on Americans. That was illegal and still is.

I've been trying to explain that for going three months. So have you, so have a lot of people, patiently and repeatedly. Several great posts just today in fact. The people who still don't get it don't want to get it.

[woo me with science]

68. The record speaks for itself,

and the brazen, incessant drumbeat of propaganda denying reality only drives home how deeply sick and authoritarian things really have become around us.

The creepiness of the messaging is as distirbing as the spying itself and, I think, is waking people to how sick and dangerous our situation has truly become.

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
2 + 2 = 5
Chained CPI is Superlative.
Drone murders are Legal, Ethical, and Wise.
Health Care is Affordable.
Edward Snowden is the Traitor.
G.H.W. Bush made the world a Kinder and Gentler Place.
Spying on the Public is in the Public Interest.
There is no spying on Americans.
Spying on Americans is Comfortable.

[bvar22]

81. Please allow me to insert this here:

The goal of the propaganda assaults across the internet is not to convince anyone of anything.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801

It is to thoroughly hijack, pollute and therefore eliminate public spaces where real discussion and organization can occur. Occupy is disbanded with clubs and pepper spray. Dissent and organization online are disrupted with surveillance and propaganda.

It is no accident that propaganda brigades post new threads on discussion boards far out of proportion to their presence in the community, and that they nearly *always* demand the last word in any interchange.

The goal is to disrupt the important public space for liberal thought, discussion, and organization that these boards offer, and to keep the participants busy instead batting off the corporate lies and talking points.

woo me with science Sun Jul 28, 2013

.

"The goal is to disrupt the important public space for liberal thought, discussion, and organization that these boards offer, and to keep the participants busy instead batting off the corporate lies and talking points."


Thank You for that OP.
I found it especially enlightening.
I wish I could REC it again.

[forestpath]

115. +1000

[leftstreet]

48. +1

[uponit7771]

4. I've said it before, no matter what Obama does purist left and FUDr will find something pick

...at and the way you can tell i'ts one or the other is the constant use of GOP memes to establish their points.

This was a known known about Obama

[Cha]

86. Nance Greggs just posted the ultimate ODS handbook that covers

that quite expertly..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101670779

[SummerSnow]

7. If Obama found the cure to cancer he wouldn't get credit

[ProSense]

8. Absolutely,

"If Obama found the cure to cancer he wouldn't get credit"

...everything positive is diminished as irrelevant, even historic changes to decades-old policies that have gripped the country.

ACLU Comment on DOJ Plans to Reduce Non-Violent Drug Sentences
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023451128

To be clear, this is a great acknowledgment by the ACLU, but look at the reaction to other posts about Holder's proposal.

[uponit7771]

9. +1, bashers would say he's putting people out of work

[Tarheel_Dem]

116. Sad, but true.

[Downtown Hound]

10. Obama has been in office six years

During which time he has renewed the Patriot Act every time its come up and is only NOW talking about reigning the NSA in after going after whistleblowers with the fanaticism of Ahab.

Sorry, it's going to take a hell of a lot more than this article to impress me.

[Recursion]

11. The speech was from May. The speech was from May.

The speech was from May.

For that matter, I've got a private theory that a lot of these leaks have been a shot across the bow from the CIA because of what he said then.

[ProSense]

15. The reports, both

those mocking and serious in tone, rejecting the President's claim are either out of ignorance or willful ignorance.

[Downtown Hound]

22. That was um, 3 months ago.

Gee, I take it all back.

[JimDandy]

35. Signed Patriot Act in May. Signed Patriot Act in May

Signed Patriot Act in May 3 days after this hollow speech.

Maybe there was someone in the CIA that pushed buttons before he could implement anything. He should have had the wherewithall to get ahead of the push, admit we were being spied on himself, and then SHUT DOWN the shit.

[bvar22]

72. The Bubble of Denial:

[font size=3]It isn't just for Republicans anymore.[/font]

[ProSense]

12. Obama has been in office four and a half years. n/t

[Downtown Hound]

23. Gee, that makes all the difference.

The first two of those he had a Democratic supermajority in Congress, yet somehow couldn't get rid of the Patriot Act. Poor guy.

[ProSense]

44. A year and a half does. n/t

[Downtown Hound]

46. Not really

when you consider how long he had to do something about all this. And as I said, you can't use Republican obstructionism as an excuse, not when he had a Democratic supermajority and still did nothing.

[ProSense]

47. Yes, facts matter. Four and a half years does not equal six years. n/t

[Downtown Hound]

49. But it's more than enough time to stand up for the constitution

and deliver on those promises of change. And that's a fact that really does matter.

[ProSense]

53. You mean like repealing DADT?

"But it's more than enough time to stand up for the constitution and deliver on those promises of change. And that's a fact that really does matter."

You claimed four and a half years was no different from six years because in your opinion Obama isn't standing up for the "Constitution"?

[Downtown Hound]

61. Actually I'm talking about the Patriot Act and NSA spying

You know, what this thread was originally about?

As for standing up for gay marriage, that was another one that Obama was late to the party on. It took him a few years to get with the program there too. Glad he finally did, but just once I'd like to see him actually take the lead on these issues, not get dragged along until he begrudgingly gives in.

[ProSense]

100. You are talking about it,

but it's simply your opinion that he wasn't standing up for the Constitution.

President Obama pushed back against NSA and Republicans on cybersecurity, citing privacy concerns
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023441222

"As for standing up for gay marriage, that was another one that Obama was late to the party on. It took him a few years to get with the program there too. Glad he finally did, but just once I'd like to see him actually take the lead on these issues, not get dragged along until he begrudgingly gives in. "

The dismissiveness is expected. I mean, that's the point in everything isn't it?

Thanks, Obama >> updated, Edith Windsor reacts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023101179

[Downtown Hound]

102. Obama has renewed the Patriot Act every time it's come up

Until he eliminates completely, everything else on the subject of spying is just spin and lies. If he was really concerned about protecting the rights and privacy of the American people, he'd gut that fascist law, burn the paper it was printed on, and mail the ashes to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. And I'm only slightly exaggerating, heh, heh. Actually, I'm not exaggerating at all, that's what I would do.

As for gay marriage, he didn't do anything on that until like, I don't remember exactly, something like 2011 when he actually, finally came out and said he supported it? Welcome to the party that the rest of us have been at since the 90's Obama.

And no, the idea is not to be dismissive. The idea is to demand and expect better from our leaders. In a perfect world and a true democracy, we wouldn't even be having this conversation because Obama would have done away with every fascist thing the Bush administration did during his first term in office. He would have closed Guantanamo, eliminated the Patriot Act, arrested and prosecuted the banksters (not whistleblowers, take a hint there ProSense), and brought ALL of our troops home. We shouldn't have had to lobby Obama for years on gay marriage. He should have supported it all along because it was the right thing to do.

[ProSense]

104. "Until he eliminates completely, everything else on the subject of spying is just spin and lies."

Well, thank for clarifying that your expectations are unrealistic. I mean, the President is not going to abolish the NSA.

[Downtown Hound]

106. I never said he should abolish the NSA

I said he should abolish the Patriot Act. And that is hardly an unrealistic goal. We survived as a country for more than 200 years without it. We'll survive just fine again.

[Mojorabbit]

36. Same here

and there are some DUers here that prolifically post who have lost all credibility so I take every one of their posts with a grain of salt because I know they have an agenda.

[leftstreet]

13. Only Snowden could hold Obama's feet to the fire!

LOL

[MFrohike]

14. Ok

No more ex partes for domestic spying is a good thing. Bravo. The next question is will it make a measurable difference? Is this merely a cosmetic change to make an indefensible procedure more palatable or is it actually substantive? Who will be the adversarial presence? What right to be heard will he/she have? What standards of evidence will be used? What standard of proof will be used?

There's a difference between giving up power and appearing to give up power. Only the results of this decision will give us any insight as to what has happened here. While it seems to be a hopeful sign, I really can't say without seeing what happens next.

[spanone]

19. k&r...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

26. Are you kidding? ODS is a disease for a reason. No matter what this

man does, The Black Tax is in full effect!!

[Scurrilous]

28. DU

Always a real headbeater.

[dkf]

31. That isn't voluntary. He is being compelled by the recent house vote.

If not for that vote he wouldn't be doing a thing. He had 5 years!!!

[spanone]

33. ^^^proof^^^

[dkf]

57. Track record

[spanone]

58. ^^^more proof^^^

[bravenak]

32. He'll get credit for not doing it bigger, better , faster, stronger.

Or whatever.
We're Americans, we deserve everything now! Right now. Yesterday even.
We are entitled to it. He should read our minds and be more proactive in his approach to doing what we want. And hurry up about it. We're americans. We need it now. It should have been done.

[wtmusic]

34. Blah, blah...and furthermore: blah blah, and blah.

All talk, no action.

[Logical]

40. I am sick of people acting like Snowden did not escalate the issue! n-t

[Recursion]

45. But that won't necessarily make things better

If the result is the intel agencies have circled their wagons, are things going to end up better than if Obama had continued pushing what he was in May?

[Logical]

50. I think more outrage exists now that I hope scales it back. n-t

[Recursion]

52. More outrage certainly exists

I don't know that that's conducive to better governance.

[blackspade]

43. Again, credit where credit is due.

But this part is just insulting:

But not civil libertarians. With them, it’s all or nothing. If you’re not signed on to the whole program, you might as well be Joe McCarthy. Environmentalists and tax reformers and campaigners for the poor and those fighting for greater consumer protections and even civil rights advocates understand that the political process is about compromise and getting what you can, and they acknowledge that there are such things in this world as competing compelling interests. But you are well advised not to try to mention such things to a civil libertarian.

And bullshit. Even civil libertarians are willing to compromise, but through a transparent process, not through secret courts, secret interpretations, and secret laws. Like any of the other issues cited, it is exactly the intractability this guy derides that leads to the compromises.

[JDPriestly]

51. Our ancestors fought and died for this prinicple:

"these liberties are absolute and utterly nonnegotiable."

The Bill of Rights is not negotiable. The Bill of Rights drew a clear line between what the government can and cannot do, which rights can be negotiated and which not.

We are entitled as a part of our birthright to the total protection of the Constitution.

That a bunch of partisan, mealy-mouthed judges managed to politic, bribe and sway their ways onto the Supreme Court does not make them right, does not really put them above the Constitution. John Roberts nominates every judge on the FISA Court and as I understand it, all but one of them are Republicans.

If the representative of the people is chosen by the ACLU or by the defense bar, then maybe this idea will work. But if the appointees to this post are chosen through any structure that allows the president or the Supreme Court or Congress or any other partisan body to appoint that person, then this is worse than what we have now.

I have seen courts in which the public defenders were kind of part of the hack courtroom team, pretty much always assigned to the same judge. The case outcomes were predictable. The defense lost most of the time. One public defender assigned to the courtroom of a judge who had previously been a prosecutor announced one day that she was going to quit and work for the Post Office. Walking miles in the Los Angeles heat and glaring sunshine every day was preferable to her than the predictably unfavorable verdicts her clients were assured in that courtroom.

And this system does not alleviate the many problems with the surveillance
-- the chilling of the speech of Americans
-- the potential and undetectable abuses due to secrecy
-- the horrifying fact that only a few people at the NSA and their private contractors are able to decide what really happens to our metadata and stored data and have the total knowledge about any one of us that they select, perhaps at whim.

So what if we trust the Obama administration? Most of us here on DU trust and like Obama as a person.

But what if someone we did not trust or like, someone like Cheney or Rove or Sarah Palin, or a mouthpiece like Reagan or a forgetful, confused but revered senior like McCain or a traitor like Oliver North managed to wiggle his or her way into the White House?

Who is General Alexander? Why should we trust him with a list of our calls that reveals how long we talk to our friends or family or acquaintances?

Why should the NSA have a phone bill that reflects how many collection calls (mostly bogus) some couple in New Jersey get per month?

Why should we have to answer for the crimes or sins of all the telemarketing companies that keep us busy answering non-calls all day long?

No. The NSA surveillance stinks.

And my biggest objection is that it potentially puts infinite knowledge about every aspect of our lives in the hands of a few at the NSA, whether we are journalists, lawyers, teachers, writers, scientists, gun enthusiasts, collectors of war paraphernalia, legislators, mayors, governors or most importantly and we know already wiretapped, journalists. And if the NSA and intelligence agencies aren't perusing all of the data all the time right now, they will soon have the technology to do precisely that. But by then it will be too late for us to do anything about it.

We are relinquishing an enormous portion of the freedom our ancestors fought for. I oppose the NSA surveillance system -- all of it.

If the NSA wants to spy on terrorists, let them get appropriate warrants.

The NSA can read the Constitution, and if they can't, they can hire honest lawyers who defend the Constitution and tell them what it says loud and clear instead of the evasive, Ivy League pipsqueaks they hire to do their bidding and rationalize their excesses at this time.

Stop the NSA surveillance. Let them spy on criminals and terrorists and leave the rest of us alone. And make the process for obtaining warrants transparent. Stop the snooping on American citizens. And I do not want my government obtaining my personal data or phone or electronic communications data from other countries either.

They don't seem to be able to locate all the millions stashed in tax havens by the extremely rich in spite of the surveillance system. Makes me wonder just what they are looking for. Those tax cheats helped along by criminal bankers have done more damage to our country than the "terrorists" have thus far.

[bowens43]

63. 'Obama says' doesn't cut it anymore. His speeches are just speeches. They mean nothing.

"The reason for their intransigence is that we (liberals) are trained to think of these liberties as being absolute and utterly nonnegotiable. But our history and our civic life shows that they are negotiated all the time."

basically the argument is 'Obama can attack your civil liberties because ii's been done before'

there is nothing to cheer about here, it should make you hang your head in disgust and anger.

[backscatter712]

64. Ohh, he made a paper concession. Excuse me for being unimpressed. n/t

[dkf]

70. I re-read the speech and it seems to me like he was speaking of winding down military actions...

But looking MORE towards surveillance. It sounds like he was speaking of expanding technological surveillance and protecting those methods, trying to reassure us by saying there would be more secret oversight.

I think he wants to EXPAND big brother and use that MORE to deal with the WOT. What is going on (scrutiny and possibly shutting down mass data collection) directly conflicts with where he wanted to go.

Now, thwarting homegrown plots presents particular challenges in part because of our proud commitment to civil liberties for all who call America home. That’s why in the years to come, we will have to keep working hard to strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms that make us who we are. That means reviewing the authorities of law enforcement so we can intercept new types of communication, but also build in privacy protections to prevent abuse.

That means that even after Boston, we do not deport someone or throw somebody in prison in the absence of evidence. That means putting careful constraints on the tools the government uses to protect sensitive information, such as the state secrets doctrine. And that means finally having a strong privacy and civil liberties board to review those issues where our counterterrorism efforts and our values may come into tension.

You know, the Justice Department’s investigation of national security leaks offers a recent example of the challenges involved in striking the right balance between our security and our open society. As commander in chief, I believe we must keep information secret that protects our operations and our people in the field. To do so, we must enforce consequences for those who break the law and breach their commitment to protect classified information. But a free press is also essential for our democracy. That’s who we are. And I’m troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable.

Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law. That’s why I have called on Congress to pass a media shield law to guard against government overreach. And I’ve raised these issues with the attorney general, who shares my concern. So he’s agreed to review existing Department of Justice guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters, and he’ll convene a group of media organizations to hear their concerns as part of that review. And I’ve directed the attorney general to report back to me by July 12th.

Now, all these issues remind us that the choices we make about war can impact, in sometimes unintended ways, the openness and freedom on which our way of life depends. And that is why I intend to engage Congress about the existing Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, to determine how we can continue to fight terrorism without keeping America on a perpetual wartime footing.

The AUMF is now nearly twelve years old. The Afghan War is coming to an end. Core al-Qaida is a shell of its former self. Groups like AQAP must be dealt with, but in the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al-Qaida will pose a credible threat to the United States. Unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight or continue to grant presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states.

So I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine and ultimately repeal the AUMF’s mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. It’s what our democracy demands.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-23/politics/39467399_1_war-and-peace-cold-war-civil-war/7

[Recursion]

77. He also talked about creating a privacy and civil liberties board

to oversee intelligence activities.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/remarks-president-national-defense-university

[dkf]

80. They've had a privacy board since 2004.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) is an independent agency within the executive branch established by Congress in 2004 to advise the President of the United States and other senior executive branch officials to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy and civil liberties are appropriately considered in the development and implementation of all laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to terrorism.[1]

President George W. Bush's first three nominations to the revamped PCLOB were received in the Senate on February 27, 2008. They were Daniel W. Sutherland, Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties at the Department of Homeland Security, to serve a six-year term as chair of the board; Ronald D. Rotunda, professor of law at George Mason University, to serve a four-year term as a member of the PCLOB; and Francis X. Taylor, a former member of the board, to a serve a two-year term. On September 8, 2008, President Bush made a fourth nomination, of James X. Dempsey, vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, to serve a five-year term. The nominations were referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. No further action was taken on those nominations by the 110th Congress.[5]

In December 2010, President Barack Obama nominated two persons to the Board: Dempsey, and Elisebeth Collins Cook, a former Assistant Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice and, at the time, a partner in a Chicago lawfirm.[7][8][9] Those nominations expired at the end of the 111th Congress.

In January 2011, President Obama re-nominated Dempsey and Cook.[10] In December 2011, the Obama administration announced an effort to revitalize the Board as a check against its proposed cybersecurity policies and measures.[11] The President made three additional nominations: David Medine, a former associate director of the Federal Trade Commission, as Chairman; Rachel L. Brand, Chief Counsel for Regulatory Litigation at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a former Assistant Attorney General at the United States Department of Justice, as a Member; and Patricia M. Wald, a former federal appeals-court judge, as a Member.[12]

On August 2, 2012, the Senate confirmed four of the Board members: Dempsey, Brand, Cook and Wald.[13] The Senate did not act upon the nomination of David Medine to be chair that time.

The White House renominated Medine in January 2013,[14] and the Senate confirmed him on May 7, 2013 in a 53-45, party-line vote.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_and_Civil_Liberties_Oversight_Board


The five-person independent agency that has been largely dormant since 2008 and held its first full-fledged meeting on Wednesday after the Senate confirmed David Medine as its chairman last month.. (Note date of article...6/21/2013).

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/21/us-usa-security-obama-idUSBRE95K0DM20130621

[dkf]

85. And are those meetings secret too? You know they are. More trust me BS.

He's lost the benefit of the doubt. No trust any more. SHOW ME is the new standard.

[Recursion]

87. Too bad

That's not going to happen and you know it.

[dkf]

93. Actually Snowden is showing us. You are right that the Govt won't.

[bvar22]

118. Checkmate.

Well Done, sir.

[burnodo]

119. it's checkmate after checkmate, but they just won't listen

I could characterize that with a familiar label but I'd get in trouble for doing so.

[bvar22]

121. Would you like to know WHY?

"The goal of the propaganda assaults across the internet is not to convince anyone of anything."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801


It is to thoroughly hijack, pollute and therefore eliminate public spaces where real discussion and organization can occur. Occupy is disbanded with clubs and pepper spray. Dissent and organization online are disrupted with surveillance and propaganda.

It is no accident that propaganda brigades post new threads on discussion boards far out of proportion to their presence in the community, and that they nearly *always* demand the last word in any interchange.

The goal is to disrupt the important public space for liberal thought, discussion, and organization that these boards offer, and to keep the participants busy instead batting off the corporate lies and talking points.

woo me with science Sun Jul 28, 2013

[dkf]

122. Well lookee here....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023453672

The choice of words from the official is significant, particularly "couldn't." What the military (or CIA) once couldn't do in initiating a threat, it now can. Because, in practice, the rules changed in the direction of facilitating drone strikes. That was clearly not the impression the president gave in May.

Among] the four changes to how the NSA conducts its surveillance that the president announced last week, none limited the ability of the agency to collect information outright. The two that might have that effect — reforms to Section 215 of the Patriot Act and external review of the processes — were presented without timelines. As the Times put it in a separate editorial, the proposals suggested that "all Mr. Obama is inclined to do is tweak these programs." Which was echoed in how Obama presented them: his proposals were a response to critique, not to an perceived ineffectiveness from their use to surveil terrorists.

In other words, those nebulous changes are meant to assuage concerns, not to actually change the processes with which people took issue — mirroring the proposals on drones. Once a situation arose in which the proposed drone policy required modification to expand their use, the administration appears to have done so. Offering skeptics plenty of justification for taking his new NSA proposals with quite a few grains of salt.

Changing of strategy using more drone strikes and I contend more use of worldwide mass surveillance.

[ProSense]

78. The President addressed surveillance and privacy.

Meanwhile, we strengthened our defenses -- hardening targets, tightening transportation security, giving law enforcement new tools to prevent terror. Most of these changes were sound. Some caused inconvenience. But some, like expanded surveillance, raised difficult questions about the balance that we strike between our interests in security and our values of privacy. And in some cases, I believe we compromised our basic values -- by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.

<...>

Thwarting homegrown plots presents particular challenges in part because of our proud commitment to civil liberties for all who call America home. That’s why, in the years to come, we will have to keep working hard to strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms that make us who we are. That means reviewing the authorities of law enforcement, so we can intercept new types of communication, but also build in privacy protections to prevent abuse.

That means that -- even after Boston -- we do not deport someone or throw somebody in prison in the absence of evidence. That means putting careful constraints on the tools the government uses to protect sensitive information, such as the state secrets doctrine. And that means finally having a strong Privacy and Civil Liberties Board to review those issues where our counterterrorism efforts and our values may come into tension.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/remarks-president-national-defense-university

It was a broad speech, but his concerns are in line with his current proposals.




http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/remarks-president-national-defense-university

[dkf]

82. He had a privacy board and has personally nominated people since 2010.

But they didn't do crap til June 2013 after Snowden.

[ProSense]

92. Not accurate

"He had a privacy board and has personally nominated people since 2010. But they didn't do crap til June 2013 after Snowden. "

Protecting Privacy and Civil Liberties on the Internet and Beyond
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/12/16/protecting-privacy-and-civil-liberties-internet-and-beyond

Statement of The Constitution Project
Submitted to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
October 31, 2012
http://www.constitutionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/103112_statementtopclob.pdf

[dkf]

95. Can you post the relevant section please? I don't want to have to guess what your point is.

[ProSense]

98. You don't need "a relevant section" to recognize that the claim

"but they didn't do crap til June 2013 after Snowden" is inaccurate.

They did something before Snowden, and after the nominations.

The Chairman of that board was confirmed in May

SJC Chairman Leahy Hails Confirmation Of Privacy Board Chairman
http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/sjc-chairman-leahy-hails-confirmation-of-privacy-board-chairman

[dkf]

101. Hey I posted that they had confirmed a chair!!! I don't need you to tell me.

Titles are all fine and good, but if you never MEET its all for show.

[ProSense]

105. What?

"Titles are all fine and good, but if you never MEET its all for show. "

Did you even read the information? They met.

[dkf]

107. ONCE. After Snowden. Sad sad sad.

[ProSense]

108. What are you talking about? The meeting was last year. n/t

[Benton D Struckcheon]

91. Well, I tried wading thru this thread and all I'm seeing is the usual hyperventilation, so,

Recursion, do you have that speech from May? I'd like to see it. Thanks.

[Recursion]

97. Here you go

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/remarks-president-national-defense-university

[Benton D Struckcheon]

103. Thanks! Just read it.

As you can see, I found the link right before you sent it, but thanks anyway. That was the one with the heckler. I never read the whole thing. Interesting speech. It seems he actually was dealing with all this stuff before Snowden came along. And I was seriously entertained to see him making the same points about drones I made just yesterday in another thread, one of those demagogic stupidities this place seems to sprout like weeds in a sidewalk crack these days.
Good stuff. Refreshing.

[dkf]

109. But doesn't it seem like he wanted to EXPAND surveillance in lieu of using military ops?

Is that not the trade off? Targeted responses BASED ON INTELLIGENCE gathered through MASS DATA?

To me this is evidence that Snowden reacted in response to an increased threat of big brother behavior coming from this speech.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

110. Huh? Where in that speech do you see that? n/t

[dkf]

113. I made the argument above, where you got the link.

Last edited Mon Aug 12, 2013, 09:10 PM - Edit history (1)

This speech was basically about how he wants to change the character of the WOT from military wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to dismantling Radical Islamic terrorists everywhere. The argument for mass collection is you need it ALL to sift through looking for the needle in the haystack.

He speaks of how we need to be able to monitor new technologies and acknowledges we need more oversight BECAUSE HE WANTS MORE DATA which has more potential for abuse and screams "unconstitutional" to me. They are looking for domestic as well as international threats and frankly they can't screen domestic data out so it's all or nothing.

Read the entire piece again and tell me why I am wrong. There is nothing in the piece about winding down the war on terror. He just wants to conduct it differently and I contend that difference is based on having EVERYTHING so it can all be analyzed.

We've seen the mission creep where Reuters reported data that is shared by the NSA is already being used to identify and locate drug perps. That may not be Obama's intended consequence but we already know its happening. And because its classified, the odds that any violations will be discovered are slim and in any case can't be spoken of in public.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

99. Never mind. See a few links to it here at the bottom. n/t

[LWolf]

120. Why?

Why beat your head against the brick wall over Obama's speeches, or what others think of him?

Why is it, for you, about Obama? About one person, about one personality?

Why not focus on issues instead of personalities?