Jump to content

Where is the righteous indignation?

Recommended Posts

From ABC News:


"The Justice Department has indicated that the Obama administration is in support of renewing a pair of controversial sections of the USA Patriot Act that expire later this year. The provisions that will expire in December include Section 206, that allows "roving" wiretaps so FBI agents can tap multiple phones or computers (with court authorization) that a specific person (target) may use."


Obama and the democrats were very critical of Bush about the Patriot Act (they are correct, it should have never been passed). I have mentioned on this forum before that Obama was not keeping his campaign promise and was told that I should not worry, he will let it expire. So now I am awaiting all the liberals to condemn Obama for not getting rid of the Patriot Act.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

(using my best imitation of Ronald Reagan) "There you go again, John-in-KC"


It's FLAVOR AID not Kool Aid. Sheesh, I wish people could get this right.

Anyway, (everyone needs to sit down here) I agree with Vol_scouter. The Patriot Act should never have been passed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, I've been very frustrated at how slow da Obama administration and this congress have been at rollin' back some of the abuses of the Bush administration. Elements of the Patriot Act bein' a prime example. But there's good reason to be slow and thoughtful about this stuff, eh? Not bein' slow and thoughtful was what caused much of da foolishness.


This particular element of da Patriot Act doesn't bother me as much, eh? It calls for warrants for wiretaps at least, and reflects modern communications trends. I think da act does need specific protections for others usin' that equipment so the courts don't have to sort that out. If yeh authorize a roving wiretap on the coffee shop wifi that a drug dealer uses, the use of other people's data who also happen to be in da coffee shop is expressly off-limits with mandatory-delete rules, and criminal penalties to da law enforcement folks who violate that. I don't think any of us want the government to be able to store and access our data because we happened to grab a cup o'joe in da same place as some "person of interest."


I reckon the willingness to listen to law enforcement and work on the issue shows Obama is at heart a moderate in many things. He wants da system to work and be fair - law enforcement to get what it needs, while makin' sure protections are in place. I can live with that without bein' indignant.




Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm. I wonder how some feel about this action by the White House:


EXCLUSIVE: W.H. collects Web users' data without notice




"The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama's promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet.


Mr. Obama signed a memo in January stating that his efforts to maintain an open government would be "unprecedented" and "ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration."


The National Legal and Policy Center, a government ethics watchdog, said archiving the sites would have a "chilling effect" on Web site users who might wish to leave comments critical of the administration.


...Obama is at heart a moderate...

Thanks for the laugh. I needed it this morning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO, anyone who uses public WiFi unencrypted deserves what they get.


But could it be, just maybe, that after BHO got the classified briefings that we are not privy to, that he decided that certain actions under the Patriot Act were vital to the national security, and it was prudent to continue? While I disagree with most of his Socialist agenda, I do hope he is smart enough to listen to his advisors and act on the facts. Trust me, folks...there's a lot going on that the public doesn't know about...and may never know about.


(I can't believe I'm defending the guy...I gotta go to the Dr and use my excellent private health insurance.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I reckon the willingness to listen to law enforcement and work on the issue shows Obama is at heart a moderate in many things."


You owe me a new keyboard, I was drinking coffee when I read that. I think your definition of "moderate" and mine are pretty far apart, Beavah.

Link to post
Share on other sites



I have no problem with the administration archiving comments and content on the sites the administration has opened up on the social networking sites, just as I have no problem with Scouter.com archiving the comment made on this site.


It seems the biggest complaint is that people don't know their comments will be archived, not that the comments are being archived - let's see what the administration does - it's simple code to put in a notice that comments to this site will be archived.


Otherwise, why people don't automatically assume that any communication they make with the White House, no matter how that communication is made, isn't archived somewhere, is just beyond me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, excuse my probable ignorance, but isn't the White House *required* to archive any communication it receives? And wasn't that the whole kerfuffle behind the deleted emails a while back? I'm with Gern, if you communicate with the White House, you are silly to expect it not to be archived.


That is, of course, assuming they are only talking about official White House sites, and not sites/pages of random users (which is what the posted snippet actually says, unless something more is buried in the story).


vol_scouter, if you want to see righteous indignation about President Obama, all you have to do is look at a few sites dedicated to LGBT issues. His failure to repeal DOMA and DADT has not gone unnoticed or uncommented upon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but I don't think the White House has a YouTube site, so I take the story to mean they are trolling public pages and collecting and archiving comments posted, as well as who posted them (and no telling what else).


No problem with that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I again missing something here? Are not the sites mentioned all open to public scrutiny already anyway? If you post anything on a web site, especially these kind, it can be viewed and spread by somebody if they truly wish to.


"Hello; Mr. Common-Sense,please come out of hiding!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

From a Washington Post article on the initial issue:




"Civil liberties groups immediately criticized both moves, which would extend Bush-era terrorism policies that have long been unpopular with Democrats. "




"The ACLU blasted the Obama administration Tuesday for a court filing that argued that the roughly 600 prisoners at Bagram air base in Afghanistan should not have access to courts in the United States. A landmark Supreme Court decision gave detainees at the naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, such access to the courts. "



Sounds like criticism to me.







Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...