Leave it to Obama to pull something like this!

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Yes, a software application that catalogues and sorts PUBLICLY available information is significantly worse than illegal wiretapping, torture interrogation, and illegally detaining suspects without legal counsel or trial.

DAMN YOU OBAMA FOR ALLOWING THE CIA TO ALLOCATE A SMALL PART OF THEIR BUDGET TO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT FOR LEGAL INTELLIGENCE GATHERING!!

*Shakes fist*

savoirfaire said:

except the courts ruled that the wire tapes were legal and obama decided to continue using them!

But in the sprite of fun and games!

DAMN YOU OBAMA FOR MAKING A TIME MACHINE GOING BACK IN TIME AND MAKING BUSH DO ALL THAT STUFF SO HE COULD BLAME BUSH FOR IT!

Hang on,

I never heard that these wiretaps were found legal, so I looked it up and found this:

http://www.nytimes.com/20...3fisa.html

But nothing to the contrary. It clearly shows a judge ruled that the executive office overstepped its boundaries by wiretapping, so where was it found that they were legal? I genuinely want to know where the final ruling is on this.

Ok then. Extremely unethical. Incidentally no comment on the torture and illegal detaining.

And I still make my original point that this does not compare to any of that other stuff, and Obama, I doubt, had anything to do with it either. And the information is publicly available AND the investment in this software was made public

And I'm not a huge fan of the project in the first place, but what really floored me was your Obama comment. On this? You have got to be kidding.

savoirfaire said:

ruled legal

http://www.nytimes.com/20...6fisa.html


Obama uses them
http://online.wsj.com/art...58467.html

savoirfaire said:

I agree it is Extremely unethical fpor obama to hold these terrosit suspects and POWs in accordance with the Geneva Convention.

.

As was the Patriot Act.



huh? you can not believe that obama is not 100% supportive of this? He is the president and he has final say and approval of all intelligence operations.

That does not say the executive branch did not break the law. It says that telecoms must comply with GOVERNMENT orders for wiretapping, which as stressed in the previous link I posted, is a power that the executive branch must go through congress to obtain. This article specifically mentions that. So they were not ruled legal, as in, the executive office went beyond their powers to authorize them.

savoirfaire said:

read a bit between the lines. The court is NOT going to order someone to break the law or to help the government break the law. Sure it was a bit of a doge ogf the real question but the answer is the same. It is legal to do them under that order.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

This may come as a shock to you, but not all people side on strictly partisan lines. Now, maybe Obama has a say in this, seemingly trivial project honestly, maybe he didn't. I highly doubt he did only BECAUSE of how small a matter it would be in comparison to a lot of what he's dealing with. But I would not be surprised if he was supportive of it. But to say "Leave it to Obama", what a joke, after all the illegal, espionage bullshit that Bush went through, how dare you single out Obama for a surveillance activity. I repeat, what a joke. Not every government act needs to be attached to Obama.

And your lines are really getting crossed, when you say you agree with me, and then in the same line tell me that the patriot act and the illegal detainment of prisoners without legal counsel is validated by the geneva convention. If you agreed with me, you wouldn't try to justify said actions with the geneva convention, but if you didn't agree with me, you wouldn't bring up Obama.

And I do not, under any president, past, present or future, support illegal detention and torture of individuals, and that includes Obama. But to say that Obama is equally culpable to Bush and his cronies for the liberties that managed to sneak their way into the executive office during his tenure is disingenuous, and to put your blinders on and accuse Obama of doing far less severe things than the previous administration as something only Obama EXCLUSIVELY would do "i.e. Leave it to Obama" is not right. It's manipulative, strictly partisan, deceptive and dishonest.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

"But the ruling, handed down in August 2008 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review and made public Thursday, did not directly address whether President Bush was within his constitutional powers in ordering domestic wiretapping without warrants, without first getting Congressional approval, after the terrorist attacks of 2001. "

That ruling was made in the 2006 california court that, once again, said that Bush violated his constitutional powers:

" federal judge in California said Wednesday that the wiretapping law established by Congress was the “exclusive” means for the president to eavesdrop on Americans, and he rejected the government’s claim that the president’s constitutional authority as commander in chief trumped that law."

So, wiretapping legal, yes, unauthorized wiretapping by executive power, no.

savoirfaire said:

Yeah but were they unauthorized? Seems all the rulings are vague enough to get both bush and obama enough room to do them with immunity. Kind of like how clinton mostly got away with perjury (which I am not convinced he committed--same with Libby)

Somebody's lookin at U.

http://www.wired.com/dang...ring-firm/

*Shakes fist*

Somebody's lookin at U.

http://www.wired.com/dang...ring-firm/

thepope2the9s said:

Jeese Ventura warned people that something like THIS^ existed. It's the very reason why he doesn't own a laptop or cell phone.

TonyVanDam said:

I think we all need to remember what Benjamin Franklin said

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

If the Libs are so worried about the Patriot Act why has Obama kept it in place?

Because the idiots within our U.S. Congress voted to for the time extension of The Patriot Act. Mind you, this was done BEFORE Obama won the White House in 2008, meaning that it was still under the watch of President Bush.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Because the idiots within our U.S. Congress voted to for the time extension of The Patriot Act. Mind you, this was done BEFORE Obama won the White House in 2008, meaning that it was still under the watch of President Bush.

TonyVanDam said:

not going to FLY at all. Obama could shut that down. He chose not to. AND he choose to continue wire taps as well. He also has made it imposable for the US to do anything against Bush for invading Iraq. So many of the things people want to hold against Bush are now in the hands of President Obama.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

But wait a minute, only the U.S. Congress has the power to declare war on anyone/anyplace/anything, NOT the U.S. President. If it was their doing in giving President Bush the OK, it is still their responsible to taken away from President Obama, Patriot Act or no Patriot Act.
[Edited 10/21/09 14:25pm]

TonyVanDam said:

Under that thought process congress was responsible for the wars right?