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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Obama taps "cognitive infiltrator" Cass Sunstein for Committee to create "trust" in NSA [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)107. Gosh. The hits just keep coming.
Glenn Greenwald vs. Cass Sunstein -- Battle Royal, in their own words!
In this July 2008 interview with Amy Goodman, they discuss Telcom immunity, domestic spying and prosecuting Bush Jr.'s criminality:
How Should the Next President Deal with the Bush White House Crimes?
A debate between two progressive legal experts on the FISA bill and the idea of prosecuting of Bush and White House officials for criminal acts.
The whole article is worth reading. Thanks to "Fair Use" here are a few excerpts...
In this corner, Glenn Greenwald:
The idea that this wasn't a reversal is just insultingly false. Back in December, Senator Obama was asked, "What is your position on Senator Dodd's pledge to filibuster a bill that contains retroactive immunity?" And at first, Senator Obama issued an equivocal statement, and there were demands that he issue a clearer statement. His campaign spokesman said -- and I quote -- "Senator Obama will support a filibuster of any bill that contains retroactive immunity" -- "any bill that contains retroactive immunity." The bill before the Senate two weeks ago contained retroactive immunity, by everybody's account, and yet not only did Senator Obama not adhere to his pledge to support a filibuster of that bill, he voted for closure on the bill, which is the opposite of a filibuster. It's what enables a vote to occur. And then he voted for the underlying bill itself. So it's a complete betrayal of the very unequivocal commitment that he made not more than six months ago in response to people who wanted to know his position on this issue in order to decide whether or not to vote for him. That's number one.
Number two, the idea that this bill is an improvement on civil liberties is equally insulting in terms of how false it is. This is a bill demanded by George Bush and Dick Cheney and opposed by civil libertarians across the board. ACLU is suing. The EFF is vigorously opposed. Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd, the civil libertarians in the Senate, are vehemently opposed to it; they say it's an evisceration of the Fourth Amendment. The idea that George Bush and Dick Cheney would demand a bill that's an improvement on civil liberties and judicial oversight is just absurd. This bill vests vast new categories of illegal and/or unconstitutional and warrantless surveillance powers in the President to spy on Americans' communications without warrants. If you want to say that that's necessary for the terrorist threat, one should say that. But to say that it's an improvement on civil liberties is just propaganda.
In the other corner, Cass Sunstein:
Well, I speak just for myself and not for Senator Obama on this, but my view is that impeachment is a remedy of last resort, that the consequences of an impeachment process, a serious one now, would be to divide the country in a way that is probably not very helpful. It would result in the presidency of Vice President Cheney, which many people enthusiastic about impeachment probably aren't that excited about. I think it has an understandable motivation, but I don't think it's appropriate at this stage to attempt to impeach two presidents consecutively.
In terms of holding Bush administration officials accountable for illegality, any crime has to be taken quite seriously. We want to make sure there's a process for investigating and opening up past wrongdoing in a way that doesn't even have the appearance of partisan retribution. So I'm sure an Obama administration will be very careful both not to turn a blind eye to illegality in the past and to institute a process that has guarantees of independence, so that there isn't a sense of the kind of retribution we've seen at some points in the last decade or two that's not healthy.
SNIP...
Well, there has been a big debate among law professors and within the Supreme Court about the President's adherent authority to wiretap people. And while I agree with Senator Feingold that the President's position is wrong and the Supreme Court has recently, indirectly at least, given a very strong signal that the Supreme Court itself has rejected the Bush position, the idea that it's an impeachable offense to adopt an incorrect interpretation of the President's power, that, I think, is too far-reaching. There are people in the Clinton administration who share Bush's view with respect to foreign surveillance. There are past attorney generals who suggested that the Bush administration position is right. So, I do think the Bush administration is wrong -- let's be very clear on that -- but the notion that it's an impeachable offense seems to me to distort the notion of what an impeachable offense is. That's high crimes and misdemeanors. And an incorrect, even a badly incorrect, interpretation of the law is not impeachable.
So. Who demonstrates INTEGRITY in the above example?
In this July 2008 interview with Amy Goodman, they discuss Telcom immunity, domestic spying and prosecuting Bush Jr.'s criminality:
How Should the Next President Deal with the Bush White House Crimes?
A debate between two progressive legal experts on the FISA bill and the idea of prosecuting of Bush and White House officials for criminal acts.
The whole article is worth reading. Thanks to "Fair Use" here are a few excerpts...
In this corner, Glenn Greenwald:
The idea that this wasn't a reversal is just insultingly false. Back in December, Senator Obama was asked, "What is your position on Senator Dodd's pledge to filibuster a bill that contains retroactive immunity?" And at first, Senator Obama issued an equivocal statement, and there were demands that he issue a clearer statement. His campaign spokesman said -- and I quote -- "Senator Obama will support a filibuster of any bill that contains retroactive immunity" -- "any bill that contains retroactive immunity." The bill before the Senate two weeks ago contained retroactive immunity, by everybody's account, and yet not only did Senator Obama not adhere to his pledge to support a filibuster of that bill, he voted for closure on the bill, which is the opposite of a filibuster. It's what enables a vote to occur. And then he voted for the underlying bill itself. So it's a complete betrayal of the very unequivocal commitment that he made not more than six months ago in response to people who wanted to know his position on this issue in order to decide whether or not to vote for him. That's number one.
Number two, the idea that this bill is an improvement on civil liberties is equally insulting in terms of how false it is. This is a bill demanded by George Bush and Dick Cheney and opposed by civil libertarians across the board. ACLU is suing. The EFF is vigorously opposed. Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd, the civil libertarians in the Senate, are vehemently opposed to it; they say it's an evisceration of the Fourth Amendment. The idea that George Bush and Dick Cheney would demand a bill that's an improvement on civil liberties and judicial oversight is just absurd. This bill vests vast new categories of illegal and/or unconstitutional and warrantless surveillance powers in the President to spy on Americans' communications without warrants. If you want to say that that's necessary for the terrorist threat, one should say that. But to say that it's an improvement on civil liberties is just propaganda.
In the other corner, Cass Sunstein:
Well, I speak just for myself and not for Senator Obama on this, but my view is that impeachment is a remedy of last resort, that the consequences of an impeachment process, a serious one now, would be to divide the country in a way that is probably not very helpful. It would result in the presidency of Vice President Cheney, which many people enthusiastic about impeachment probably aren't that excited about. I think it has an understandable motivation, but I don't think it's appropriate at this stage to attempt to impeach two presidents consecutively.
In terms of holding Bush administration officials accountable for illegality, any crime has to be taken quite seriously. We want to make sure there's a process for investigating and opening up past wrongdoing in a way that doesn't even have the appearance of partisan retribution. So I'm sure an Obama administration will be very careful both not to turn a blind eye to illegality in the past and to institute a process that has guarantees of independence, so that there isn't a sense of the kind of retribution we've seen at some points in the last decade or two that's not healthy.
SNIP...
Well, there has been a big debate among law professors and within the Supreme Court about the President's adherent authority to wiretap people. And while I agree with Senator Feingold that the President's position is wrong and the Supreme Court has recently, indirectly at least, given a very strong signal that the Supreme Court itself has rejected the Bush position, the idea that it's an impeachable offense to adopt an incorrect interpretation of the President's power, that, I think, is too far-reaching. There are people in the Clinton administration who share Bush's view with respect to foreign surveillance. There are past attorney generals who suggested that the Bush administration position is right. So, I do think the Bush administration is wrong -- let's be very clear on that -- but the notion that it's an impeachable offense seems to me to distort the notion of what an impeachable offense is. That's high crimes and misdemeanors. And an incorrect, even a badly incorrect, interpretation of the law is not impeachable.
So. Who demonstrates INTEGRITY in the above example?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
215 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Obama taps "cognitive infiltrator" Cass Sunstein for Committee to create "trust" in NSA [View all]
nashville_brook
Aug 2013
OP
and who knew it would be so easy to dismantle the social network post-election!
nashville_brook
Aug 2013
#144
was Sunstein was tapped in order to implement his "infiltration" strategy?
nashville_brook
Aug 2013
#12
My Theory? The Koolaid Brigade© is feeling slighted and underappreciated right now.
Dragonfli
Aug 2013
#177
Sunstein defines CT as "reference to the machinations of powerful people"
nashville_brook
Aug 2013
#24
Yes, that is the irony of his proposals. And if someone in one of the threads notices something
sabrina 1
Aug 2013
#105
Yes, and now we have someone who is going to watch out for our privacy, actually
sabrina 1
Aug 2013
#116
I'm pretty sure Sunstein isn't a Republican. I just have a hard time believing that anyone
SlimJimmy
Aug 2013
#134
It's not a possibility. It's a reality that "Obama is just as good at his job as he seems,"...
truth2power
Aug 2013
#197
Couldn't get much more blatant, could it? "Hey, we hiring professional liars
DirkGently
Aug 2013
#27
That they'd hire PROfessionals to infiltrate forums makes a lot of SENSE. n/t
backscatter712
Aug 2013
#22
"That poster has been here since at least 2005 and has been very consistent in her positions."
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2013
#103
and the conceit that they can make people believe that POWER doesn't affect change
nashville_brook
Aug 2013
#30
Trust them? .....................................................LMFAO ....pathetic. n/t
L0oniX
Aug 2013
#33
well you know...journalists are terrorists, so if you knew what's good fer ya...
nashville_brook
Aug 2013
#35
Hey - That's not a reform committee, It's a propaganda panel like the Creel Committee !
limpyhobbler
Aug 2013
#36
"on-shoring" of previously exported programs: Naomi Klein on China's All-Seeing Eye
nashville_brook
Aug 2013
#41
it's really eye-opening...the problem with spying is as bad or worse when it's
nashville_brook
Aug 2013
#146
I think so too. I just don't know what to say about this latest development...nt
Mojorabbit
Aug 2013
#96
I eagerly await the palace guard's rhetorical gymnastics on this, should be amusing.
KG
Aug 2013
#60
The left wing Robert Bork is someone we can all trust to protect our privacy!
Dawson Leery
Aug 2013
#79
there's been outrage about domestic spying since Cointelpro become known
nashville_brook
Aug 2013
#85
He unwittingly trusts the wrong people, he's threatened by the wrong people, or...
polichick
Aug 2013
#115
Because from a slightly different point of view the're not "wrong" at all.
GliderGuider
Aug 2013
#199
I guess I am one they would target b/c I KNOW OUR GOVERNMENT IS TOTALLY BOUGHT AND
Dustlawyer
Aug 2013
#98
to add on to what you're saying...a particular Rep/Sen doesn't even have to be "bought"
nashville_brook
Aug 2013
#100
I agree. As to Alan Grayson, I love him. Everyone loves to bash us Plaintiff lawyers as ambulance
Dustlawyer
Aug 2013
#135
i don't think anyone is dashing his smarts -- it's on the subject of NSA that he's questionable
nashville_brook
Aug 2013
#145
or psyops, even. these are dark waters for someone so close to the president.
nashville_brook
Aug 2013
#141
Thank you for posting this. Am so looking forward to barrage of Linkosaurus-Blue links
idwiyo
Aug 2013
#151
Interesting that he never lifted a finger to market the benefits of Obamacare
BlueStreak
Aug 2013
#127
Sounds like a tacit admission that the NSA is inherently untrustworthy. n/t
winter is coming
Aug 2013
#128
add this link: CASS SUNSTEIN: Meet the new Obama elite, or "all the president's middlebrows"
nashville_brook
Aug 2013
#150
Obama's "close confident" is also the husband of Obama's Ambassador to the United Nations.
Zen Democrat
Aug 2013
#205
Kind of like how Priebus says Repuke policies are fine; they just need better messaging
bullwinkle428
Aug 2013
#168
The crowning insult to this affair is that Sunstein and the other apparatchiks
HardTimes99
Aug 2013
#175
I respect Clarke. He has always done his job honestly and to the best of his ability.
Egalitarian Thug
Aug 2013
#180