patrick.net

Did Obama fire Clapper for lying to Congress and violating the 4th Amendment even more than what was previously revealed?

Rew says

We were only just begging to unwind some of the DHS, Patriot Act, overreach as it was. We haven't even remotely come down to a typical norm. When we ratchet up again, especially from here, America probably won't look very American to some.

People who actually follow these issues closely, think Obama was horrible on Civil Liberties. And they're not right-wingers. One of the last acts of Obama was to expand these powers allow information gleaned by warrantless spying to be shared among more agencies.

However—and this is especially troubling—“if analysts stumble across evidence that an American has committed any crime, they will send it to the Justice Department,” the Times wrote. So information that was collected without a warrant—or indeed any involvement by a court at all—for foreign intelligence purposes with little to no privacy protections, can be accessed raw and unfiltered by domestic law enforcement agencies to prosecute Americans with no involvement in threats to national security.

We had hoped for more. In November, we and other civil liberties and privacy groups sent a letter to President Obama asking him to improve transparency and accountability, especially around government surveillance, before he leaves office. This is not the transparency we were hoping for.

Sorry--

But Obama!!!

But Clinton!!!

But Clapper!!!

joeyjojojunior says

But Clapper!!!

Yes or No: Clapper lied to Congress on warrantless spying live on TV.

AND he literally led the collection and storage of every transmission by all Americans and stored it without any Warrant or Court Order.

Should he have been fired for that?

(No bullshit about "everybody knows it happened, no big deal", it's totally unconstitutional)

I don't care, my team is the good team! It doesn't matter that Obama expanded violations of the 4th Amendment, it doesn't matter Clapper lied and spied! Blue Team Good!

"I don't care, my team is the good team! It doesn't matter that Obama expanded violations of the 4th Amendment, it doesn't matter Clapper lied and spied! Blue Team Good!"

See, this is where you and I differ. I'm happy to criticize Dems when they deserve it. Obama was a disaster on the Patriot Act and civil rights in general. He wasn't great on trade either.

The next time you criticize Trump or his cabinet for anything will be the first.

"I did, Flynn shouldn't have resigned."

I rest my case.

I think this is just the beginning though--it's going to be a fun couple months. The only bad part is we'll be left with Pence as President and that's probably worse than Trump.

errc says

I must have missed something. What were we doing to this end?

Pretty balanced analysis of Obama on civil liberties in face of DHS/Patriot Act. He did do a lot to walk some things back, despite broad interpretations and increased drone use. Yes.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/obama-civil-liberties/512864/

More than McCain would have? More than Romney would have? Debatable, but I lean in the affirmative.
More than Trump will today? Obviously.

Obama was very good domestically, and very anti-Torture. He was very willing to operate in the grey with drones though. Indeed. There was a push toward the norms of what types of activities America will engage in, especially domestically, to further national interest and defend its citizens.

Contrast that with Trump today (at least by words, and a few actions). Not even a close comparison.

errc says

Trumps actions are good because they're just like Obama!

Bizzaro world indeed, but the comparison is garbage to begin with. False equivalency.

he pulled back on prosecution of marijuana laws,

-----------

Not sure if you're intentionally lying or not, but that's false.

Again--so Trump is worse than Obama on civil rights? That's why you voted for him?

joeyjojojunior says

Again--so Trump is worse than Obama on civil rights? That's why you voted for him?

Don't know yet. Not enough time. I do know that the use of Section 213 of the Patriot act nearly tripled between 2010-2013.

Only .5% That's ZERO POINT FIVE percent, of the use involved Terrorism. The rest was overwhelmingly narcotics based.

Looks like the Drug War is trampling Civil Liberties again, with the active collusion of the Status Quo Establishment and the Politicians in their camp.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/peekaboo-i-see-you-government-uses-authority-meant-terrorism-other-uses

Who led the Executive Branch 2010-2013?

T L Lipsovich says

So the executive is supposed to throw shit on the wall, regardless of Constitutionality?

No, but they have to do their job.

Likewise I don't see congress fighting to get to declare war and take a firm stand on anything. They are happy to let the President step up, declare emergency conflicts, so that they can then point fingers if it goes bad, or take credit if it goes well. Spineless.

T L Lipsovich says

This is more balanced.

3.5 more than Trump will measure or does the scale go negative?

You are talking about a President who actually cared to try and reform and walk things back, versus one who currently appears to fully embrace a surveillance state in some capacity.

errc says

Not sure if you're intentionally lying or not, but that's false.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-on-weed-legalization-2016-11

T L Lipsovich says

Section 213 of the Patriot act nearly tripled between 2010-2013.

If only Americans can remember that we have signed very bad things into law, when we are scared. Doubt we will be so rational.

Rew says

Likewise I don't see congress fighting to get to declare war and take a firm stand on anything. They are happy to let the President step up, declare emergency conflicts, so that they can then point fingers if it goes bad, or take credit if it goes well. Spineless.

YUP. Also on the list.

Rew says

3.5 more than Trump will measure or does the scale go negative?

The Electronic Frontier Foundation issued this before Trump even announced he was running.

Rew says

You are talking about a President who actually cared to try and reform and walk things back, versus one who currently appears to fully embrace a surveillance state in some capacity.

As executive, he doesn't need Congressional permission to insist the Patriot Act only be used for foreign intel/counter-intel and Terrorism. He can do that with a memo, much less an executive order.

Rew says

If only Americans can remember that we have signed very bad things into law, when we are scared. Doubt we will be so rational.

Congress did that - not because people were scared, but because Chaos brings opportunity to those who wrote the Patriot Act long before 9/11, and they knew Congress wanted to Signal their toughness. The Patriot Act had broad support in both parties.

"Don't know yet"

You don't know yet?? Are you an idiot? Let's see--Trump is on record for expanding civil forfeiture. He's for expanding torture.

joeyjojojunior says

You don't know yet?? Are you an idiot? Let's see--Trump is on record for expanding civil forfeiture. He's for expanding torture.

Obama's DOJ expanded Forfeiture faster than they did the use of Section 213 of the Patriot Act. Neoliberalism.

As for expanding torture, how many people did Obama's DOJ indict for that? How many MIC Consultants lost contracts?

Trump allowed himself to be 'convinced' very fast on not torturing, eh? It's called Pacing.

So do you agree then that Trump is much worse than Obama?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444813/trump-civil-forfeiture-position-violates-constitution-pleases-sheriffs-who-profit

joeyjojojunior says

So do you agree then that Trump is much worse than Obama?

I have years of Obama to look at. I don't have a month of Trump.

The point you are dodging is that on both Y'alls points about Civil Liberties (Patriot Act) and Forfeiture, the assertion of Rew and yourself are at complete odds with the facts. Rather, the use greatly expanded by ~300% - that is to say tripled! - under the Obama Admin.

You might call the notion that Obama rolled back a bit of the Patriot Act and Forfeiture "Alternative Facts".

"The point you are dodging is that on both Y'alls points about Civil Liberties (Patriot Act) and Forfeiture, the assertion of Rew and yourself are at complete odds with the facts."

Read my posts again. I'm the one that said Obama sucked on civil liberties.

The things is--Trump sucks MUCH, MUCH worse. The fact that you can't admit that is very telling.

joeyjojojunior says

he things is--Trump sucks MUCH, MUCH worse.

In three weeks you know this for a fact??

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2016/12/02/trumps-assault-civil-liberties-serious-extraordinarily-dangerous
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444813/trump-civil-forfeiture-position-violates-constitution-pleases-sheriffs-who-profit
http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/09/trump-does-not-know-what-civil-forfeitur
http://www.salon.com/2016/07/01/civil_liberties_be_damned_donald_trump_an_enemy_of_the_constitution/

joeyjojojunior says

Read my posts again. I'm the one that said Obama sucked on civil liberties.

I said y'alls points. You brought up Forfeiture, which I demonstrated increased 300% under Obama - that's a fact, not based on an assertion or hypothetical about what Trump might do or said he will do.

joeyjojojunior says

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2016/12/02/trumps-assault-civil-liberties-serious-extraordinarily-dangerous
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444813/trump-civil-forfeiture-position-violates-constitution-pleases-sheriffs-who-profit
http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/09/trump-does-not-know-what-civil-forfeitur
http://www.salon.com/2016/07/01/civil_liberties_be_damned_donald_trump_an_enemy_of_the_...

Immaterial. We don't have the numbers on Trump yet. We do know under Obama's DOJ forfeiture skyrocketed. Trump's ability to influence STATE law on forfeiture is limited.

"In three weeks you know this for a fact??"

All you have to do is listen to Trump and it's pretty apparent.

Lips--So, you're saying Trump is lying then?

joeyjojojunior says

Lips--So, you're saying Trump is lying then?

Maybe lying - more like pacing. Acknowledging a point, getting the support, and then saying "Well, our War Hero Expert strongly advised me not to torture, and I have to agree with his expertise."

"more like pacing"

How is announcing that he is 100% behind expanding civil asset forfeiture "pacing"? How is appointing the #1 backer of civil asset forfeiture to your cabinet "pacing"? Face it--Trump is probably the worst President on civil liberties ever.

And you voted for him. How does that feel?

But over the past year, the Obama administration has quietly unleashed a multi­agency crackdown on medical cannabis that goes far beyond anything undertaken by George W. Bush. The feds are busting growers who operate in full compliance with state laws, vowing to seize the property of anyone who dares to even rent to legal pot dispensaries, and threatening to imprison state employees responsible for regulating medical marijuana. With more than 100 raids on pot dispensaries during his first three years, Obama is now on pace to exceed Bush's record for medical-marijuana busts. "There's no question that Obama's the worst president on medical marijuana," says Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project. "He's gone from first to worst."

-----------

Rew, did you read the link you offered up as proof? It's dated November 30th 2016.

I'm going to judge Obama on eight years of actions, rather than vague and toothless commentary after the fact

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obamas-war-on-pot-20120216

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.greenrushdaily.com/2016/02/24/dispensary-raids-rise-obama-regime/amp/?client=safari

All this after he was elected by a populace that expected him to end Cannabis Prohibition

errc says

The feds are busting growers who operate in full compliance with state laws, vowing to seize the property of anyone who dares to even rent to legal pot dispensaries, and threatening to imprison state employees responsible for regulating medical marijuana

Pressure from for profit prisons, liquor industry and pharmaceuticals.

errc says

All this after he was elected by a populace that expected him to end Cannabis Prohibition

We also expected him to:

* Be tough on Neoliberal Banksters
* Change our foreign policy
* Eviscerate most or all of the Patriot Act
* Ring in post-racial America

And the most laughable:

* The most transparent administration in History

That prosecuted more whistleblowers and had more charges under the Espionage Act than any President since WW2, even during the Cold War, in a time the US was not engaged in any declared war for his entire 8 year administration

Exactly. Think about it for a second. Once a state legalizes, or decriminalizes cannabis, trafficking becomes less likely a potential offense, by definition!

Not long ago, the bulk of the dried flowers had to be trafficked in large amounts. Now that over half the states have legalized cannabis in one way or another, why would there be a need for trafficking? That charge is attached to large quantities, and there's no longer such a need for the smuggling of such large quantities.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/04/obama_s_medical_marijuana_prosecutions_probably_aren_t_legal.html?client=safari

Here is a better metric

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.greenrushdaily.com/2016/02/24/dispensary-raids-rise-obama-regime/amp/?client=safari

Between 1996 and 2013, the federal government conducted 528 dispensary raids on medical marijuana dispensaries.
During Obama’s first term as president, his administration oversaw 270 dispensary raids on medical marijuana dispensaries.
Between 2009 and 2013, President Obama’s administration spent $100 million more cracking down on medical marijuana dispensaries than George W. Bush’s did.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2016/02/06/obamas-war-against-medical-marijuana/amp/?client=safari

At the end of the day, U.S. and Russia can never be allies - different culture, history, and values. Additionally, hatred of the "west" has been a key part of russian government DNA for a while now. Without the west bogeyman, they would have no reason for existence, just like certain religions require presence of a "devil" to rally the masses and be around. In a western movie sense, the world simply isn't big enough for U.S. and Russia.

dublin hillz says

At the end of the day, U.S. and Russia can never be allies - different culture, history, and values.

I wouldn't say never. The idealogical divide is big, but now we both share a climate of fear brought on by economic problems and both have strong-men authoritarian leaders, not interested in upholding separations of powers, and happy to take advantage of the uninformed to maintain control. ;)

dublin hillz says

hatred of the "west" has been a key part of russian government DNA

We have hatred of the immigrant and muslim here (under the guise of 'crime' and 'terrorist').

dublin hillz says

Without the west bogeyman, they would have no reason for existence ...

I don't believe the people derive purpose from opposing the US, but find unity in it, and that is why the government can use it. The equivalent statement would for us would be, "without terrorism the US would find no reason to exist." Very much untrue.

A 9-12 attack will happen. Unavoidable. My question is always how much will we damage ourselves to prevent/safe-guard against such an attack, and how little will we focus on bigger security threats in the meantime? ("OMG! Rew! You are such a neocon warmonger!")

dublin hillz says

In a western movie sense, the world simply isn't big enough for U.S. and Russia.

The world very much is big enough. We just have an estranged relationship, and the current leader in Russia is happy to navigate the world by re-invoking paradigms of the cold war past because it is advantageous to him.
... ... ...
To all the above, I essentially agree with you, I'm just adding some snark and nuance, cause I'm a pain in the ass. Happy Wednesday.

dublin hillz says

At the end of the day, U.S. and Russia can never be allies

What do we have in common with Australia or Canada? Anyone can be allies when there is economic benefit to both sides.

FortWayne says

What do we have in common with Australia or Canada? Anyone can be allies when there is economic benefit to both sides.

Except for that whole same language, children of the crown, and fundamental cultural/religious/world-view DNA we stem from ... absolutely nothing. You are so right.

Don't they ride kangaroos in Australia?

Rew says

dublin hillz says

At the end of the day, U.S. and Russia can never be allies - different culture, history, and values.

I wouldn't say never. The idealogical divide is big, but now we both share a climate of fear brought on by economic problems and both have strong-men authoritarian leaders, not interested in upholding separations of powers, and happy to take advantage of the uninformed to maintain control.

FortWayne says

What do we have in common with Australia or Canada? Anyone can be allies when there is economic benefit to both sides.

dublin hillz says

Russia can never be allies

Why not, when they have been before? When they have a common enemy (Fundamentalist Islam) and a history of Cooperating in the past (WW2, and also - the Civil War, as well as Russia selling Alaska and quit claim the NW in favor of the USA)?

That's right, once upon a time, France and Britain considered intervening on behalf of the South to drop Cotton Prices during the Civil War. Then the Russian Navy showed up on the East Coast of the USA to pay a visit. Just to "Show the Flag".

The emergent threat, the country that has been #1 throughout most of history except for a narrow window of time between 1750-today, is China. It has strong demographics, grows by big percentages each year, has an increasingly modern military, and landed a rover on the moon.

And yet, you support successive governments that not only want open trade and MFN with China, but aggressively export the offshoring of high tech manufacturing to that Country, all of which is dual use.

It makes more sense to ally with the weaker demographic, who has a shitton of oil, and is the enemy of Wahabis.

Tim Aurora says

We have been in Afghanistan for 17 years with no end in sight. You have to deal with them with astuteness and not force

And yet when Sadaam was the president and when Assad was strong before we meddled -how many jihadis or ISIS calipahate wannabes were there??

Remember that Flynn had worked for Obama as DIA Chief and was fired for not towing the Admin line on the term "Radical Islamic Terrorism" and expressing such taboo thoughts as Islamism was a "Political Ideology" (which it is).
http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2017/02/michael_flynn_fired_once_by_a.html

Flynn was targeted by former Obama administration members, led by Ben Rhodes, as punishment for Flynn's remarks critical of Obama's "ISIS is the JV Team" (said just before a major expansion of ISIS over a huge swath of ISIS while the Obama Administration tried to convince the world Al-Nusra led coalition were composed of democratic freedom fighters.) As well as Obama's Iran Deal, which Ben Rhodes was a huge cheerleader for. Rumor was Flynn was going to reveal things about Iran that former Obama Admin Officials would not like out there.

There should be a Congressional investigation into Ben Rhodes.

We lost a huge hero, a smart guy, and a major leadership outlet to Neolib-cons within the Intelligence Community. The nation is actually being sabotaged by a bunch of Corporate Globalists who will do anything to stop a return to Hamiltonian Trade and the switch from Outfield to Infield Strategy, from Arab to Slav.

lostand confused says

And yet when Sadaam was the president and when Assad was strong before we meddled -how many jihadis or ISIS calipahate wannabes were there??

None. Just like Ghaddafyi begged Italy, France, and the US for help fighting Al Qaeda and ISIS, and instead got overthrown, just to turn over half of Libya to Radical Islamic Terror.

All testing the waters to see where he wants to / should be.
He's becoming a politician.
This is pretty obvious stuff...The real question is why you are asking...

joeyjojojunior says

"more like pacing"

How is announcing that he is 100% behind expanding civil asset forfeiture "pacing"? How is appointing the #1 backer of civil asset forfeiture to your cabinet "pacing"? Face it--Trump is probably the worst President on civil liberties ever.

You need to realize that until a politician acts to support a position, their position on the position should be regarded as 'posturing'...

MrEd says

joeyjojojunior says

"more like pacing"

How is announcing that he is 100% behind expanding civil asset forfeiture "pacing"?