On civil liberties, Obama is worse than Bush

[Marcus Bryant]

Granted, it's the LP. Personally, I believe that no matter who the politicians are that inhabit the White House and the Congress, the institutional inertia towards an expanding, intrusive federal state is too powerful to overcome. In many respects the presidency has become the office of a monarch, which is precisely what concerned Jefferson and Madison the most.

http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/lp-monday-message-on-civil-liberties-obama-is-worse-than-bush

[Marcus Bryant]

Democrats and Republicans are cooperating to grow the power of government and trample on our rights.

Hard to disagree. Those parties claim to represent the people, but are against the people.

[Blake]

White House Seeks to Clarify F.B.I. Powers vis-à-vis E-Mail
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: July 29, 2010

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has asked Congress to give clear authority to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to obtain records related to the context of e-mails and other Internet-based communications without first obtaining a warrant from a judge.

Some advocates of electronic privacy have raised alarms about the proposal, saying it could expand government eavesdropping on computer activity without court oversight. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Thursday that the proposal raised “serious privacy and civil liberties concerns.”

The administration portrays its proposal, first reported by The Washington Post, as a mere technical fix to clarify a confusingly written statute and says it would not grant the F.B.I. any new powers. It says that F.B.I. agents have been requesting such information for years and that most Internet service providers routinely provide it.

“The statute as written causes confusion and the potential for unnecessary litigation,” said Dean Boyd, a Justice Department spokesman. “This clarification will not allow the government to obtain or collect new categories of information, but it seeks to clarify what Congress intended when the statute was amended in 1993.”

Specifically, administration officials have asked Congress to include a provision in the 2011 intelligence authorization bill modifying the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which forbids companies that handle electronic communications — including Internet service providers and Web-based companies like Google — to reveal customer information without a court warrant.

The act makes exceptions for information relevant to national-security investigations, when speed can be essential. For example, it allows F.B.I. agents to issue a “national-security letter” requiring a company to turn over records listing the phone numbers someone has called, although a warrant is still required to eavesdrop on the content of calls.

more....

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/us/30fbi.html?src=mv

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/28/AR2010072806141.html

[FromWayDowntown]

I think this has been among the more disappointing aspects of the Obama presidency (whether you think all of his choices have been bad ones or most of his choices have been good). There was a belief, during the 2008 campaign, that an Obama presidency would see a rollback of post 9/11 legislation that enhanced the power of government vis-a-vis the people and that the primacy of the 4th and 5th Amendment's protective power would re-emerge. Not so much.

[Marcus Bryant]

The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation.

The administration wants to add just four words -- "electronic communication transactional records" -- to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user's browser history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the "content" of e-mail or other Internet communication.

But what officials portray as a technical clarification designed to remedy a legal ambiguity strikes industry lawyers and privacy advocates as an expansion of the power the government wields through so-called national security letters. These missives, which can be issued by an FBI field office on its own authority, require the recipient to provide the requested information and to keep the request secret. They are the mechanism the government would use to obtain the electronic records.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/28/AR2010072806141.html

[vy65]

We don't live in Madison or Jefferson's agrarian and undeveloped world. For all the dangers of big government, the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages.

[Marcus Bryant]

We don't live in Madison or Jefferson's agrarian and undeveloped world. For all the dangers of big government, the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages.

How does 'progress' require untrammeled executive power?

[vy65]

That's an over generalization. Loosening the warrant requirement does not equal untrammeled executive power. You can still challenge the constitutionality of the search in court so there's still a check.

[Marcus Bryant]

Great. And we've seen that the courts will stick it to the government. Also, how are these continual expansions of executive authority prerequisites for materialist progress?

[Winehole23]

In the case of email surveillance, how would one know one has been searched in the first place?

[vy65]

I wasn't aware that the 4th amendments requirement of probable cause was abolished. And progress is new technology like the Internet that gives people new avenues to commit crimes. Where there's innovation, government has to adapt to properly regulate it. Would you rather the government do nothing?

[vy65]

When one is hauled into court for a crime. Since when is there an expectation of privacy on the Internet?

[Marcus Bryant]

I wasn't aware that the 4th amendments requirement of probable cause was abolished. And progress is new technology like the Internet that gives people new avenues to commit crimes. Where there's innovation, government has to adapt to properly regulate it. Would you rather the government do nothing?

So how does that render the concerns of absolute power claimed by the executive in the 18th century any less today? Lest we forget when the 4th amendment was authored. Progress through technology does not render the concerns that led to the 4th amendment obsolete, as you have pointed out. I see nothing that requires technological progress to come at the expense of individual liberty.

[Winehole23]

Either the 4th amendment protects us against unreasonable searches, or it does not apply to email. Please pick a lane.

[vy65]

That's an abstraction. The point is that we shouldn't expect the same protections for individual rights that existed in the 18th century because we don't live in the 18th century anymore. It's not zero sum either; the law allows a warrantless search of email address information, something I'm not so sure one has an expectation of privacy in the first place. How does the law result in a totalitarian regime? Would you rather the government be unable to regulate the Internet in any way?

[Winehole23]

The point is that we shouldn't expect the same protections for individual rights that existed in the 18th century because we don't live in the 18th century anymore. Why have a written constitution at all then?

[vy65]

That's incorrect. The fourth amendment protects those areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. You tell me: is it reasonable to expect my gmail account is private?

[Winehole23]

It's not zero sum either; the law allows a warrantless search of email address information...I thought the FBI was asking for a change to the law to allow it. If the law already allows it, why are we having this conversation?

[vy65]

Why have a written constitution at all then?

For rhetorical flourish? I dunno. That's not what this thread is about, but there are arguments on both sides

[vy65]

I thought the FBI was asking for a change to the law to allow it. If the law already allows it, why are we having this conversation?

I dunno, haven't read the law. The article said there was ambiguity in the statute as written...

[Winehole23]

For rhetorical flourish? I dunno. Clearly you don't.

[Winehole23]

I dunno, haven't read the law. The article said there was ambiguity in the statute as written...You suggested there was no ambiguity at all.

[vy65]

Enlighten us

[Spurminator]

That's incorrect. The fourth amendment protects those areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. You tell me: is it reasonable to expect my gmail account is private?

Why would it be any less reasonable than expecting regular mail to be private?

[Wild Cobra]

I think this has been among the more disappointing aspects of the Obama presidency (whether you think all of his choices have been bad ones or most of his choices have been good). There was a belief, during the 2008 campaign, that an Obama presidency would see a rollback of post 9/11 legislation that enhanced the power of government vis-a-vis the people and that the primacy of the 4th and 5th Amendment's protective power would re-emerge. Not so much.

I have said a time or two on some past thread(s) that i didn't fear the proper use of things like the Patriot Act. Only how some individuals would abuse the intent. I don't mean the politicians so much as the workers who have access. They could be board at work, and start searching for their friends, enemies, neighbors, etc.

I see no reason for this extra stuff the democrats want. All it does in my view is allow for even more abuse from individuals with access.

How about that Dell technical support employee that downloaded the woman's nude pictures for example. When data can be accessed, abuse will arise.

[vy65]

You suggested there was no ambiguity at all.

When/where?

[Marcus Bryant]

That's an abstraction. The point is that we shouldn't expect the same protections for individual rights that existed in the 18th century because we don't live in the 18th century anymore. It's not zero sum either; the law allows a warrantless search of email address information, something I'm not so sure one has an expectation of privacy in the first place.


So lack of specificity bothers you. Since a document written in the 18th century did not anticipate changes in communications technology, according to you, that renders it null and void. Yet, apparently, it's not so abstract for you to reference it yourself as a check on executive power. OK.



How does the law result in a totalitarian regime? Would you rather the government be unable to regulate the Internet in any way?

I would rather that a new technology not be deemed somehow different when it comes to the exercise of government authority simply because it's new. Progress does not require a change in the understanding of the 4th amendment, which apparently is not abstract enough for you to feel comfortable with its protections.

[Winehole23]

You suggested: (a) that no reasonable expectation of privacy exists wrt to emails; and (b) that in any case warrantless searches are legal, which is funny since Congress had to immunize the telecoms back in 2008 to keep them out of legal jeopardy, and to prevent any legal discovery about the government's "legal" (according to you) program of warrantless surveillance.

[vy65]

The abstraction was your conclusion that regulating email = totalitarianism. I never claimed that the 4th amendment is null and void; I said that it has to be adapted to new technologies. I also agree that there may be some validity to your argument that we shouldn't get rid of constitutional principles because of a new invention. So sticking to that idea - why do I have a reasonable expectation of privacy to my email?

[Wild Cobra]

I wasn't aware that the 4th amendments requirement of probable cause was abolished. And progress is new technology like the Internet that gives people new avenues to commit crimes. Where there's innovation, government has to adapt to properly regulate it. Would you rather the government do nothing?
I would agree that electronic traffic is protected under the phrase "person, papers, and effects."
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
Now if they deem that searches are reasonable on a case by case basis, then I say they have the authority. I still fear that individuals who have access to the right equipment to do these searches will individually abuse it.

[vy65]

I never suggested anything. And there are 8 categories of searches where no warrant is required. What are you fussing about?

[vy65]

How would it be a person or effect? Your person is your body and your effects are like bags. It might be paper, but does the 4th protect intangible papers that can be accessed by others?

[Winehole23]

I was unaware -- but would be unsurprised to hear -- that 4th amendment does not attach to emails. Will you please direct us to the legislative or judicial product that establishes this as a fact?

[Wild Cobra]

When one is hauled into court for a crime. Since when is there an expectation of privacy on the Internet?
I would say there isn't, but that it takes illegal actions to violate the privacy people think they have. My exception to this is that generally, the provider of the service says they may share their acquired information with others. This is common in most "terms of conditions." Still, this means the provider has the right to share such information at their option. Not by government demand.

[Wild Cobra]

Why would it be any less reasonable than expecting regular mail to be private?
Does the US Postal service make all costumers agree to a "condition of terms" that says they can open and share your correspondence if they choose to?

Can you show me an online activity that doesn't have such a clause in the "terms" somewhere, that they can share with third parties?

[Wild Cobra]

The abstraction was your conclusion that regulating email = totalitarianism. I never claimed that the 4th amendment is null and void; I said that it has to be adapted to new technologies. I also agree that there may be some validity to your argument that we shouldn't get rid of constitutional principles because of a new invention. So sticking to that idea - why do I have a reasonable expectation of privacy to my email?
At first I thought you meant otherwise too. Almost screwed up my first posting today to disagree with you. However, I agree.

[Marcus Bryant]

The abstraction was your conclusion that regulating email = totalitarianism. I never claimed that the 4th amendment is null and void; I said that it has to be adapted to new technologies. I also agree that there may be some validity to your argument that we shouldn't get rid of constitutional principles because of a new invention. So sticking to that idea - why do I have a reasonable expectation of privacy to my email?

No, I never claimed the government did not have a right to investigate crimes which might include accessing electronic records with a warrant. What I asked is why the 4th amendment standard which has been applied to successive changes in communications technology over the past two centuries has to be done away with to facilitate 'progress.' All you have done is confirm that it does not have to be, after initially claiming that it did.

You have a reasonable expectation to privacy as you would in any other communication.

[vy65]

I'll take the pepsi challenge on this. Why do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy to email where 1. It can be accessed by others, i.e. Google or your ISP and 2. Is stored on servers outside the home in an analogous way to bank account records stored at a bank - to which there's no expectation of privacy?

[Wild Cobra]

I'll take the pepsi challenge on this. Why do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy to email where 1. It can be accessed by others, i.e. Google or your ISP and 2. Is stored on servers outside the home in an analogous way to bank account records stored at a bank - to which there's no expectation of privacy?
Anytime you sign a contract with a bank, it has certain third party clauses, even specifying law enforcement.

[ElNono]

Of course there's expectation of privacy in email accounts. How did Palin had a case against the guy that hacked into her email account otherwise?

And I believe it's beyond the 4th amendment on personal privacy. How about doctor-patient confidentiality or even lawyer-client? And for some of us that work with the kind of tech that makes the snooping possible, it's way more than email addresses that get snooped.

[Wild Cobra]

Of course there's expectation of privacy in email accounts. How did Palin had a case against the guy that hacked into her email account otherwise?

And I believe it's beyond the 4th amendment on personal privacy. How about doctor-patient confidentiality or even lawyer-client? And for some of us that work with the kind of tech that makes the snooping possible, it's way more than email addresses that get snooped.

Yes, I think most of us agree the 4th amendment applies there, except as stated in your terms that you agree to, to have that account.

[ElNono]

It's alarming that laws have been eroding the 4th amendment protection on this. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Communications_Privacy_Act) already made it so you only needed a subpoena instead of a warrant to access the data from an ISP. The Patriot Act pretty much vanished even that requirement.

There are still ways to protect your privacy if you want to when it comes to email. Using PGP is one of them. Obviously, this is until another law eventually forces you to hand over your encryption keys, like in the UK.

[Winehole23]

I'll take the pepsi challenge on this. That's about right.

[ElNono]

As far as the OP, since he voted for the telecom amnesty before he became president, I kind of got the feeling where he was standing on this. So I'm disappointed, but not necessarily surprised.

[Wild Cobra]

There are still ways to protect your privacy if you want to when it comes to email. Using PGP is one of them. Obviously, this is until another law eventually forces you to hand over your encryption keys, like in the UK.
I will contend that doing such makes you even more curious to a government doing bulk data mining.

[Wild Cobra]

As far as the OP, since he voted for the telecom amnesty before he became president, I kind of got the feeling where he was standing on this. So I'm disappointed, but not necessarily surprised.
I'm not surprised at all. It's not always different on the other side of the fence.

[ElNono]

I will contend that doing such makes you even more curious to a government doing bulk data mining.

Curious? Is that the word now for suspicious terrerist?

God forbid they don't know what I'm writing or what I think.

[Winehole23]

Zealously protecting one's privacy makes you a legitimate target of LE. What has this fucking country come to?

[Marcus Bryant]

Zealously protecting one's privacy makes you a legitimate target of LE. What has this fucking country come to?

The final perversion of liberty. Individual freedom is now deemed to come from adherence to collective state action. If you resist, then you are not exercising individual liberty, but rather are preventing it. Or, you're either with us or against us. That that putative libertarian is fellating this is not surprising.

[Winehole23]

No it's not, but it still bothers me.

[Marcus Bryant]

Salvation comes from accepting Uncle Sam as your savior and opening your heart to Him.

[Marcus Bryant]

How can you live free if you don't do as you're told?

[Spurminator]

Does the US Postal service make all costumers agree to a "condition of terms" that says they can open and share your correspondence if they choose to?

Can you show me an online activity that doesn't have such a clause in the "terms" somewhere, that they can share with third parties?

When I began using my current email account 12 years ago I do not recall agreeing to allow my email provider to share my emails with third parties.

[LnGrrrR]

I think this has been among the more disappointing aspects of the Obama presidency (whether you think all of his choices have been bad ones or most of his choices have been good). There was a belief, during the 2008 campaign, that an Obama presidency would see a rollback of post 9/11 legislation that enhanced the power of government vis-a-vis the people and that the primacy of the 4th and 5th Amendment's protective power would re-emerge. Not so much.

Exactly.

[LnGrrrR]

In the case of email surveillance, how would one know one has been searched in the first place?

Bingo. One wouldn't.

[LnGrrrR]

When one is hauled into court for a crime. Since when is there an expectation of privacy on the Internet?

Email, for one instance.

[Spurminator]

I'll take the pepsi challenge on this. Why do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy to email where 1. It can be accessed by others, i.e. Google or your ISP and 2. Is stored on servers outside the home in an analogous way to bank account records stored at a bank - to which there's no expectation of privacy?

Why do we have passwords?

[Oh, Gee!!]

That's incorrect. The fourth amendment protects those areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. You tell me: is it reasonable to expect my gmail account is private?

since it has a password that only you know, i'd say yes.

[LnGrrrR]

Does the US Postal service make all costumers agree to a "condition of terms" that says they can open and share your correspondence if they choose to?

Can you show me an online activity that doesn't have such a clause in the "terms" somewhere, that they can share with third parties?

Just because it has a clause doesn't mean it's Constitutional. Surely, you'll agree to that, right?

[Blake]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/28/AR2010072806141.html



....Administration officials noted that the act specifies in one clause that Internet and other companies have a duty to provide electronic communication transactional records to the FBI in response to a national security letter.

But the next clause specifies only four categories of basic subscriber data that the FBI may seek: name, address, length of service and toll billing records. There is no reference to electronic communication transactional records.

The officials said the transactional information at issue, which does not include Internet search queries, is the functional equivalent of telephone toll billing records, which the FBI can obtain without court authorization. Learning the e-mail addresses to which an Internet user sends messages, they said, is no different than obtaining a list of numbers called by a telephone user.


....Marc Zwillinger, an attorney for Internet companies, said some providers are not giving the FBI more than the four categories specified. He added that with the rise of social networking, the government's move could open a significant amount of Internet activity to government surveillance without judicial authorization. "A Facebook friend request -- is that like a phone call or an e-mail? Is that something they would sweep in under an NSL? They certainly aren't getting that now."

I fail to see how this is worse than Bush's warrantless surveillance program.

[LnGrrrR]

I'll take the pepsi challenge on this. Why do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy to email where 1. It can be accessed by others, i.e. Google or your ISP and 2. Is stored on servers outside the home in an analogous way to bank account records stored at a bank - to which there's no expectation of privacy?

Why do corporations spend thousands on securing their network then? I think you're underestimating the type of sensitive information that email can contain.

As well, email is, at its core, an electronic version of snail mail. If it's illegal to break into someone's mail, why is it ok to break into an electronic version of that? Is it acceptable since it's easier, or because the end user can't tell the info was read already?

[Wild Cobra]

Just because it has a clause doesn't mean it's Constitutional. Surely, you'll agree to that, right?
No.

If you agree to take a service based on their terms, they can do as their terms say.

[Wild Cobra]

I fail to see how this is worse than Bush's warrantless surveillance program.
No. This is clearly unconstitutional. Warrants are not required when there is probable cause.

[LnGrrrR]

How would it be a person or effect? Your person is your body and your effects are like bags. It might be paper, but does the 4th protect intangible papers that can be accessed by others?

It's not intangible... it exists in actual bits. Unless you happen to have a ghost computer?

[LnGrrrR]

No.

If you agree to take a service based on their terms, they can do as their terms say.

Bullshit.

If I write up a contract saying that someone will be my slave/indentured servant, and they sign it, is it Constitutional?

[Wild Cobra]

Bullshit.

If I write up a contract saying that someone will be my slave/indentured servant, and they sign it, is it Constitutional?
Stop taking extremes. Yes, there are reasonable limits.

[Blake]

No. This is clearly unconstitutional. Warrants are not required when there is probable cause.

The thread title clearly states "On civil liberties...." not "In terms of violating the Constitution....."

RIF

[ElNono]

I fail to see how this is worse than Bush's warrantless surveillance program.

It isn't.

[Blake]

It isn't.

I don't think so either, but I'm willing to continue to listen to reasons why it might be.

[ElNono]

No. This is clearly unconstitutional. Warrants are not required when there is probable cause.

Not in wiretapping law.
That's why there's a FISA court to oversee if there is probable cause.
Why did the secret NSA program evade the court's oversight?

[Wild Cobra]

Not in wiretapping law.
That's why there's a FISA court to oversee if there is probable cause.
Why did the secret NSA program evade the court's oversight?
Not when the communications companies granted them access. there is a difference between asking, and compelling.

[LnGrrrR]

Stop taking extremes. Yes, there are reasonable limits.

Using extremes is how law is determined. Anyone can write a law that handles everyday items.

So, you've admitted that there ARE some contracts that are unconstitutional. Your premise, then, that agreeing to a contract automatically makes something legal/constitutional is flawed.

[Wild Cobra]

Using extremes is how law is determined. Anyone can write a law that handles everyday items.

So, you've admitted that there ARE some contracts that are unconstitutional. Your premise, then, that agreeing to a contract automatically makes something legal/constitutional is flawed.
You know that's not my intent. Contracts cannot compel what is already illegal.

Should I start thinking of you as a troll too?

[ElNono]

Not when the communications companies granted them access. there is a difference between asking, and compelling.

Strawman. Access is irrelevant from procedure.
By law, American LE needs to go through FISA or a judge to wiretap citizens.

[ElNono]

Should I start thinking of you as a troll too?

Why is it that anybody that points out some of your logical fallacies is some form of troll?

Couldn't it possibly be that you were wrong to begin with? Is that even a possibility?

[TeyshaBlue]

Why is it that anybody that points out some of your logical fallacies is some form of troll?

Couldn't it possibly be that you were wrong to begin with? Is that even a possibility?

Virtually impossible.

[Blake]

Not when the communications companies granted them access. there is a difference between asking, and compelling.

AT&T got sued for wrongfully allowing them access.

[Blake]

Strawman. Access is irrelevant from procedure.
By law, American LE needs to go through FISA or a judge to wiretap citizens.

a 3-judge court if I'm not mistaken.

[Blake]

Virtually impossible.

Careful.... He'll start thinking of you as a troll too.

[Marcus Bryant]

It's an expansion of what can be requested under a NSL by the FBI without judicial review, something the Bush DOJ circumscribed to the four specific items mentioned in the law and which excluded the 'electronic transactions' which would include the email addresses one was corresponding with, as well as your browser history.

[LnGrrrR]

You know that's not my intent. Contracts cannot compel what is already illegal.


And reading emails without warrants WAS illegal, until the Telecom Immunity Act retroactively made it ok. Otherwise, why the need for a document immunizing the companies that turned this info over to the government?

However, many of argue that the process is still not Constitutionally okey-dokey. The main problem is that it's hard to prove standing; ie. to show that you were harmed. If the Gov spies on your email, how will you know it? And even if you find out, what's to prevent them from claiming "state secrets" and throwing your case out?

I don't see how you can profess to be a libertarian, but you're perfectly fine with the government snooping through email using deep packet inspection without warrants. On top of that, I don't see how you can't be concerned that nearly every NSL gets approved. Is the government just THAT GOOD at picking out criminals, that every person they target is worthy of surveillance?

And surely, they would never abuse their authority... http://epic.org/privacy/nsl/
http://www.talkleft.com/wireservice?articleId=14255196&channelId=1180&buyerId=talkleftcom&buid=3042

An audit by the inspector general last year found the FBI demanded personal records without official authorization or otherwise collected more data than allowed in dozens of cases between 2003 and 2005. Additionally, last year's audit found that the FBI had underreported to Congress how many national security letters were requested by more than 4,600.

[Marcus Bryant]

His libertarianism is genuine to no one.

[Blake]

It's an expansion of what can be requested under a NSL by the FBI without judicial review, something the Bush DOJ circumscribed to the four specific items mentioned in the law and which excluded the 'electronic transactions' which would include the email addresses one was corresponding with, as well as your browser history.


The officials said the transactional information at issue, which does not include Internet search queries, is the functional equivalent of telephone toll billing records, which the FBI can obtain without court authorization.

It appears to me to still be a 'clarification' as the adminstration has contended.

Even if it can be considered an expansion, it seems to be a rather slight one and pales in comparison to the Patriot Act.

[Marcus Bryant]

So continuity, not change.

[Blake]

So continuity, not change.

I'm good with 'Obama is not much/any better than Bush' regarding civil liberties.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm good with 'Obama is not much/any better than Bush' regarding civil liberties.
He is far worse for civil liberties than Bush.

[Marcus Bryant]

I'm good with 'Obama is not much/any better than Bush' regarding civil liberties.

Yeah, I think the LP went with that more to attract attention.

[ElNono]

He is far worse for civil liberties than Bush.

In what sense?

[LnGrrrR]

Yeah, I think the LP went with that more to attract attention.

I'd say he's worse because he talked about how important they were, then went out of his way to try to expand the same policies Bush enacted. At least Bush didn't try to act like unitary executive power was a bad thing.

[Wild Cobra]

In what sense?
He wants to national and control things that has no right to.

[ElNono]

He wants to national and control things that has no right to.

Like what?

[Wild Cobra]

Like what?
Start paying attention to current events.

I'm not going to bother making a list. If nothing comes to your mind of his actions and remarks, then you won't agree anyway. I'll just be wasting my time.

[ElNono]

Start paying attention to current events.

I'm not going to bother making a list. If nothing comes to your mind of his actions and remarks, then you won't agree anyway. I'll just be wasting my time.

So you can't list any. I figured as much.

[ElNono]

From Bush I can list a few:
- Attempting to abolish Habeas for Guam detainees
- Illegal NSA wiretap program
- Attempting to sidestep the established civilian and military justice system by setting up a parallel special military commissions system.

[ElNono]

It's actually a shame Obama continued with the same policies.

[Marcus Bryant]

I'd say he's worse because he talked about how important they were, then went out of his way to try to expand the same policies Bush enacted. At least Bush didn't try to act like unitary executive power was a bad thing.

They're all the same. They truly are. Whatever is easiest is what is made law. The people get caught up with the sideshow and lose track of what's most important. Kinda how it's easy to distract a dog with a treat.

[Marcus Bryant]

I though Bush41 was kind of a muddler, happy to be president as his birthright as befits a member of his class and certainly not a true believer Sun Belt Reagan conservative type (and definitely not comfortable with the social cons) and Clinton was more of a boomer striver who lost his lefty idealism along the way and was more than happy to sell out his base to ensure his own political fortunes. In their respective parties neither was truly respected by the pure ideologues, but were put up with because they had won. Either one now looks worthy of a place on Mt. Rushmore compared to the current president and his predecessor.

I do believe that Obama would be much better off with a GOP controlled Congress, or at least one not so dominated by his own party. Whenever that happens (see the Bush43 and 2000-06) then every half baked idea that party has had for the last half century is dusted off and trotted out for passage. Of course, even with such large Democratic legislative control, there are limits to what can be rolled back from the War on Terror.

The national security state that has grown out of 9/11 will never go away, and like other sizable expansions of federal power, this is not truly appreciated for the revolution it represents during contemporaneous time. In retrospect it will be galling, or will be, as always, swept under the flag.

[Blake]

He is far worse for civil liberties than Bush.

because you say so?

your internet cred is somewhere around...

http://snarkfood.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/wolf-blitzer.jpg