1) This line reminded me how fallible my memory is. I held a view of Obama as always toeing the line on government surveillance. Then senator Obama's 2008 vote in favor of the FISA Amendments Act and pro-surveillance actions as POTUS dominate my memory. I had completely forgotten his anti-surveillance rhetoric and actions from '04 - '07 [1][2].
2) How incredible would it be to candidly hear answers from Obama about what changed his mind?
3) I also wonder what it would be like to hear his candid thoughts now about handing over a surveillance state, that he directly entrenched as POTUS, to our current president.
Wishful thinking, I know, but it's something so few have any direct information about aside from conjecture.
[1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/obama-on-mass-gove... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/03/barack-obama...
It would be biased bullshit anyway. If they had any examples of real attacks being thwarted, they would have presented this evidence just to stop the criticisms. The surveillance is effective for political and economic reasons, and possibly for law enforcement's domestic use, which is borderline unconstitutional.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/devin-nunes-donald-tru...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-...
Obvious hyperbole. They monitored everyone that communicated with foreign nationals, which Trump's aides were doing. They used the word "incidental collection" in that article for a reason.
> Nunes suggested this unmasking might have been done for political reasons, saying the evidence he had seen had been widely disseminated across the intelligence community and had "little or no apparent intelligence value."
We're rightfully worried about what Trump could do with such power; we should also be investigating what Obama actually did with it.
And political allies too. That's how dragnet surveillance works. What's your point?
> We're rightfully worried about what Trump could do with such power; we should also be investigating what Obama actually did with it.
I agree, so stop wasting your time on conspiracy theories like this and look at Obama's actual questionable actions.
It's ok to spy on your political enemies as long as you spy on everyone else too? Will you feel so charitable when Trump does the same?
> look at Obama's actual questionable actions.
His known and proven questionable actions, you mean? Tip of the iceberg, certainly.
Watergate itself was nothing more than a conspiracy theory at one time.
But you're right, I'm not interested in conspiracy theories. That's why I said we should investigate.
The real issue is whether it's ok to spy on everyone. Spying on everyone means spying on your political enemies too, and your specific focus on the political enemies is ignoring the important debate. You're effectively arguing that spying on everyone isn't important, as long as you don't spy on your political enemies.
> But you're right, I'm not interested in conspiracy theories. That's why I said we should investigate.
And waste time and resources on a completely stupid premise. Spend your political capital more wisely.
Not many seem to care, frankly, that the government is spying on them. I have some hope that they might care about America turning into a dictatorship where elections are decided by abuse of power.
On the other hand, I also see many reasons to fear that they won't care, as long as "their side" wins.
1) free from bias, prejudice, or malice 2) indicating or suggesting sincere honesty and absence of deception
Sure, Obama was an authoritarian bastard. But why do we think that Trump won't be one? Has he, for example, stopped assassinating random foreigners based on often iffy metadata?
There is no way you or anyone else besides those within the agencies themselves would be able to qualify on what data and for what reasons the US assassinates anybody.
Ok so, how about concentrating on ending the fruitless killing of foreign civilians based on cellphone metadata? Would that be good?
Maybe that'd engender less ill will against the US government in those and other communities, creating a significant positive change?
Right after I invent cold fusion and stop sarcasm on the internet! (Besides which, I do not believe anyone can know why secretive agencies in governments assassinate people, if you had been reading...)
The State Highway Patrol, who had nothing to do with this, requested for its intel unit, information about everyone arrested so they could begin tracking them via social media.[1]
It does not seem far fetched to me that any president or really any person in a position of power would wield that power to target any group they view as dissidents. The FBI's surveillance and meddling with MLK is well-documented [2].
[1] http://www.athensnews.com/news/campus/emails-clarify-ou-and-...
FTA: Specifically, the day after the protest, the State Highway Patrol’s Athens Post commander, Lt. Virgil Conley, emailed OU Police Capt. Brian Kapple, asking him for details on the protesters.
“Can you advise how many were arrested last night? Also, I have a request from our intel unit if you were to provide their names and DOB, they can begin to track them through social media and open resources,” Conley wrote. “As we know, these folks tend to move around a little bit and are involved in other instances across the state, and that would assist other agencies in identifying those subjects and mitigate future issues.”
Although I haven't been reading it as much since the election - maybe the editors are pushing the anti-Trump angle hard like NYTimes has been shamelessly doing recently. It's writers are very 'internationalist' and focused on geopolitical diplomacy so a lot of them are falling under the 'I'm appalled at Trump and must bring it up at every moment to show that America is still okay'.
It's tough being a news junkie and not being a typical foaming at the mouth US mainstream liberal these days (which to the surprise of many in that category does not make one a right wing Trump supporter, nor American for that matter).
Relevant reading verifying they are part of a conspiracy against the US: Carroll Quigley.
Nothing wrong with pointing that concern out, to give the article some context about the potential domestic power of this agency.
But, worded more eloquently, I think that Trump's ego, insecurity, arrogance, and overall personality makes him more likely to abuse his power; especially for petty or vindictive reasons.
Not incredibly more likely. I don't think he's going to call the NSA director and ask him to spy on an ex-wife or something (probably...). I just think Obama respected the gravitas of his position more.
And everyone around him knows this and wouldn't hesitate to say "don't f*ing do it, the media will crucify you if you do and they hear about it"
Trump also doesn't have a good relationship with the intelligence agencies.
There's two sides to the coin. I think the fact that Trump does not have a good working relationship with these agencies is probably a good thing.
I don't disagree, though. I just think the media cried wolf too many times and they're not a real threat anymore.
It really comes to this: Deep down, is Trump a good guy or not? Who knows?
As an aside, from what I can tell he seems to not realize the power of his words as President, or the consequences of certain actions in the realm of politics.
After taking credit for good things happening he had nothing to do with, I nautrally wonder how much credit he will take if things don't pan out as he plans.
The buck stops with him, I don't think that has fully sunk in during this past 90 days or so of his adminstration.
Only time will tell.
Failing to understand such basic concepts would make me extremely concerned about giving the man access to anything.