As Jim Geraghty famously observed, all promises that Barack Obama makes have an expiration date. In this case, it turned out to be January 20, 2009:
Justice Department documents released today by the ACLU reveal that federal law enforcement agencies are increasingly monitoring Americans’ electronic communications, and doing so without warrants, sufficient oversight, or meaningful accountability.
The documents, handed over by the government only after months of litigation, are the attorney general’s 2010 and 2011 reports on the use of “pen register” and “trap and trace” surveillance powers. The reports show a dramatic increase in the use of these surveillance tools, which are used to gather information about telephone, email, and other Internet communications. The revelations underscore the importance of regulating and overseeing the government’s surveillance power. (Our original Freedom of Information Act request and our legal complaint are online.)
And here's a handy chart from the ACLU:
 |
| He knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sakes! |
8 comments:
To mirror the question often asked in these parts: does anyone seriously expect a Romney administration to be better on these accounts?
I'm not trying to make a partisan point, here--I think I've made it pretty clear I am not happy with Obama on this front. Rather, that the imperial nature of the presidency is something that transcends the Red/Blue divide (in a bad way).
Now if you want to argue that it is worse to say you will do something to reign the surveillance state, and then do the opposite, than it is to say nothing and carry on with it, I suppose you'd have a point. (A very depressing one.)
If you see no daylight between candidates and parties on an issue (and I do not, here) then it probably or makes sense to devote your decision-making energies elsewhere.
Or just vote Libertarian. ;)
Rather, that the imperial nature of the presidency is something that transcends the Red/Blue divide (in a bad way).
Yes. And that's the point I'm making. One of the things I found particularly tiresome was listening to the Democrats prattle on in 2008 about these issues when their standard-bearer was (and still is) a Chicago pol.
Generally I'm not a fan of rubbing people's noses in their hypocrisy, because time and circumstance make hypocrites of us all at some point, but the sheer moral vanity on display in the last cycle was especially sickening, especially when it turned into a Nobel Peace Price for President Drone Strike. So in this case I think it's justified to throw it back into Obama's face and, by extension, the face of certain of Obama's supporters.
Put another way, either:
• Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining; or
• Don't try to b.s. a b.s. artist.
Hey - I opposed the Bush administration's wire-tapping of cell phone calls coming into and going out of the U.S. And I had lots of noisy company from the media and other concerned citizens.
Sure is awful quiet right now, though for some reason. Maybe with this administration in place everyone's too afraid to speak up?
Mark,
I'll say it for about the 7th time here: The last President to surrender a power without being forced to was George Washington. You admit that youself, then somehow attribute Obama acting in the same manner as the last 46 Presidents to his being from Chicago. Your hatred for the city you lived in for several years seems to defy logic. What's that all about?
BTW, I know how worked up you get about voter fraud. I am a little surprised that you haven't commented on this story yet:
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/26/fla_voter_fraud_charge_has_ties_to_romney/
We get breathless dispatches when one person committs voter fraud. Is it OK when done on a larger scale?
Just wondering;)
Regards,
Dick
Correction: the last 45 Presidents.
Dick
I'll say it for about the 7th time here: The last President to surrender a power without being forced to was George Washington. You admit that youself, then somehow attribute Obama acting in the same manner as the last 46 Presidents to his being from Chicago. Your hatred for the city you lived in for several years seems to defy logic. What's that all about?
Two things I'd say to that. First, thank you for reinforcing my point -- presidents do what presidents do. What I found especially irritating about the last election is how I heard so many people on the left telling me that George W. Bush was somehow uniquely evil for using the powers that all presidents use, but that we'd have a new era of freedom and respect for civil liberties under a new administration. Now, from the same people who told me these things, I hear crickets. As I said, the purpose is to rub their noses in it.
As for the second part -- I don't attribute Obama's behavior to his status as a Chicago pol. What I'm saying is that the last person who would respect such niceties is a Chicago pol, because they are invariably ruthless. And to clarify, since you seem to be confused, I don't hate Chicago. Far from it. I enjoyed living in the Chicago area quite a lot. But I really despise the political scene there, because it's (to my mind) indistinguishable from the political scene in, say, Asuncion.
As for the second thing, I'll have to read the article. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
I've now read the Salon article. No, it's not all right. Fraud is fraud.
Post a Comment