« Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ | Main | Biden Back To His Old Tricks »

Where's the Outrage Now?

The warrantless wiretapping of terrorists' phone calls and Internet communications didn't affect law abiding Americans at all, unless they were communicating with terrorists overseas, but this new policy could give Barack Obama unprecedented power that would affect all Americans and in a dramatic fashion. The Washington Examiner addresses the president's possible vast new powers the rest of the media and ACLU won't:

Civilian libertarians were apoplectic over former President George W. Bush's "warrantless wiretap" program, which sought to monitor communications from terrorist networks overseas. So why are they not screaming bloody murder now that President Barack Obama appears slated to receive unprecedented power to monitor all Internet traffic without a warrant and to even shut the system down completely on the pretext of national security? The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 - introduced by Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-WV, and cosponsor Olympia Snowe, R-ME - bypasses all existing privacy laws and allows White House political operatives to tap into any online communication without a warrant, including banking, medical, and business records and personal e-mail conversations. This amounts to warrantless wiretaps on steroids, directed at U.S. citizens instead of foreign terrorists.

The bill gives the Secretary of Commerce and a new national cybersecurity czar power to shut down all Internet transmissions in the event of a yet-to-be defined "cyber emergency." This is a dangerous power, even for a president who in a 2008 campaign appearance at Dartmouth College harshly criticized Bush for anti-terrorist "wiretaps without warrants," and promised that if elected he would leave such policies behind.

Proving once again every Obama promise has an expiration date. Just imagine how this could affect your every day life.

And there's RINO Olympia Snowe once again.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/35252.

Comments (29)

Well Obama's gotta attack a... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Well Obama's gotta attack all those evil conservative websites somehow seeing as he's gotten no traction on the "Fairness Doctrine".

Glenn Greenwald's been scre... (Below threshold)
James H:

Glenn Greenwald's been screaming bloody murder on a regular basis ...

Ironic that the people usin... (Below threshold)
LiberalNitemare:

Ironic that the people using the word liberal to define themselves should be so complicit in this attack on liberty.

He's now requesting 'off th... (Below threshold)

He's now requesting 'off the budget' supplemental war spending, also, which of course he and his buddies attacked Bush for doing, claiming it was 'cooking the books'.

I figure it's breaking the first promise that's hard, the rest is pretty easy after that. I guess he figured he'd better just get it over with right away...

Incidentally I'm trying to track down what's going on with the story by the AP's Andrew Taylor on this spending. The early versions of the story that ended up in the papers today make several references to how Obama opposed this type of supplemental spending when Bush was doing it. The updated versions of the story online today have been scrubbed of that info - it remains in older versions still archived on newspaper sites, etc. The AP itself is only showing one story - the newer version.

Liberals only care about po... (Below threshold)
TOhio:

Liberals only care about power and they want control of everything, including the internet.

If you didn't think that Obama (and the people behind him) are sinister, think again.

Their goal is to silence and destroy all opposition. They will do it however they can. And they work at it daily.

Wake up people! Liberal leaders aren't really for democracy. Their true desire is complete control much like what you find in Cuba and China.

Kim, people are making nois... (Below threshold)
JC Hammer:

Kim, people are making noise about the wiretapping that Obama is continuing from the Bush Administration. Guess it depends on where a person gets their news from. Also, you wasn't complaining when President Bush started it, was you?

She wasn't complaining that... (Below threshold)

She wasn't complaining that someone was doing something they said they wouldn't do before they did it?

Gee, you're a smart one, aintcha?

Read it again, maybe more slowly and with a dictionary. The post is critical of the hypocrisy as well as the fact that he is not stopping with terrorists, but moving right on to pretty much everyone using the net. RIF.

And the Bush Admin. just st... (Below threshold)
JC Hammer:

And the Bush Admin. just stopped with the terrorist. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

The Patriot act is nothing ... (Below threshold)
914:

The Patriot act is nothing next to the Sharia act.

If the Republicans in Congr... (Below threshold)
James H:

If the Republicans in Congress want to do something marginally useful, they'll introduce legislation to curb a large amount of the executive power Obama is trying to claim. Not only should Republicans introduce this legislation, they should append it (or try to append it) to every bill that goes through the House and Senate, whether it's an omnibus spending bill or a resolution honoring chicken farmers.

Moreover, those Republicans should reach out to dissident Democrats to build support for this kind of legislation.

But I'm long passt expecting anything useful out of the Republicans.

Hammer, look up the "Echelo... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

Hammer, look up the "Echelon Program".

Who stated the current wiretapping program?

lol

Y'know, a similar question ... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Y'know, a similar question could be asked, "If you didn't bitch about it under Bush, why bitch now?"

Admittedely, Obama is an enemy to the Constitution, but Bush was no friend either.

"This is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering..." ~Thomas Jefferson

And the Bush Admin. just... (Below threshold)
cirby:

And the Bush Admin. just stopped with the terrorist. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

Since you're a Democrat, I have to ask: who owns the bridge, and when do you plan on confiscating it from its rightful owners?

"Also, you wasnt complai... (Below threshold)
914:

"Also, you wasnt complaining when President Bush started it, was you."

No we's wasnt and we sure aints gonna starts now.

"And the Bush Admin. jus... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"And the Bush Admin. just stopped with the terrorist. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you."

By all means, give us an instance where they didn't. We'll wait.

The Patriot act i... (Below threshold)
jmc:
The Patriot act is nothing next to the Sharia act.

Ahh, that's an excellent measure of freedom. Maybe we can force woman, to cover their heads, and if they complain we can say, " That's nothing next to the Sharia act (Which isn't an act but religious law), in those places they'd make you cover your whole body."


Of course if it were me (and I'm funny this way) I'd measure these things by against the ideals we hold as a nation, instead of the extreme repression of fanatical former regimes.

jc hammer - "Kim, peopl... (Below threshold)
marc:

jc hammer - "Kim, people are making noise about the wiretapping that Obama is continuing from the Bush Administration. Guess it depends on where a person gets their news from. Also, you wasn't complaining when President Bush started it, was you?"

It also depends you your demonstrated lack of reading ability.

Geesh, how in friggin' hell do you miss the fact this post and obama's NEW program has ZERO to do with the Terrorist Surveillance Program started by Bush?

jc hammer - "And the Bush Admin. just stopped with the terrorist. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you."

You apparently believe otherwise, so "sell us a bridge," cites legit cases where the program was used intentionally to tap communications not authorized.

By all means, giv... (Below threshold)
jmc:
By all means, give us an instance where they didn't. We'll wait.

Let's use logic to get there oyster.

Take a premise like this: a suspect is innocent until proven guilty.

Now, if you personaly, are suspected of terroism (in america) you are innocent until proven guilty. But say I spy on you without a warrent anyway (just to make sure you're not really shifty in your allegience) and I don't bring your case to trial, (meaning you were never proven guilty) then I would have spied on an innocent man, not a terrorist.

So, if Bush wiretapped people, and didn't bring any convictions he would have spyed on innocent americans. Can you name a conviction from the warrentless program?

Now, on occasion with even wiretaps obtained with warrents. You just don't get any evidence when listening in. It just stands to reason that not everyone you put under survellence, is guilty. but with warrents you have a safeguard in place. That safeguard is in place so that the process doesn't get abused and there is at the very least, probable cause before a person's civil rights are violated and their conversations are listend to.

Anyway, if logic is not your bag I'll just skip to the facts: here are instances of non- terrorist being listend to. Your wait is over.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/ABC_NSA_agents_admit_spying_on_1009.html

I hold myself under this in... (Below threshold)
Clay:

I hold myself under this indictment: I also supported Bush in the wiretapping of terrorists and other impositions of the Patriot Act. My logic, and I assume that of my fellow Republicans, was that it would only be used against the enemies of liberty. However, what I didn't understand was that these little compromises of liberty could, at some time and in other hands, be turned against me. It is no small point that these attacks on liberty were never used against us. However, it is an inestimable loss that could be. Any thinking parent can take this to a horrible conclusion as consideration is given to our children.

With the Patriot Act we accepted a compromise to our libety that was in all reality an assault against the Constitution. Should it be a wonder that Obama feels free to act on precedent?

And so it is that the unraveling of our liberty will be a little at a time by those who sit in the musical chairs of governement, each enabled and supported in turn. We will complain when the compromise is accomplished by the political objects of our disdain, when a no different feat is performed by the obejects of our affection.

Each and every one of us commenting on this post is guilty as hell. May God help us now.

jmc - "Can you name a c... (Below threshold)
marc:

jmc - "Can you name a conviction from the warrentless program?

This guys shyster seems to think it was part of the trial and conviction.

JC Hammer, just like other ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

JC Hammer, just like other uneducated trolls miss the point of the post. I am not shocked. As a matter of fact, I expect it. ww

just like other uneducat... (Below threshold)
Clay:

just like other uneducated trolls miss the point of the post.

Well gosh, Willie. What is the point of the post then? That we who are apoplectic about Obama's self-aggrandizing efforts shouldn't consider them in the context of Bush's own power grab? You don't see criticizing Obama's current attack on the Constitution while ignoring Bush's own assault, as the least bit hypocritical?

Because until we, as Americans, begin to love the Constitution more than the (R) or (D) after our elected official's names, we will assuredly continue to lose our liberty. If you hate what Obama is doing to our Constitution, you must equally despise what Bush did. Likewise, everybody here who is complaining about the Patriot Act must deplore Obama's actions.

The smallest assault on our liberty should shock us all, Republican and Democrat alike. A clear message must be sent to the politicians that no compromises to our liberty will be tolerated.

clay - "However, it is ... (Below threshold)
marc:

clay - "However, it is an inestimable loss that could be. Any thinking parent can take this to a horrible conclusion as consideration is given to our children."

Ohhh, you got me! I literally shaking in my boots over a... hypothetical.

(sarcasm tags not optional)

Ohhh, you got me! I lite... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Ohhh, you got me! I literally shaking in my boots over a... hypothetical.

No hypothetical. What Bush did is just as real as what Obama is doing. Dontcha think we ought to hold our elected officials to the exact same standard.

I'm more than just a little amazed, marc. You fought to protect the Constitution. You put your ass on the line for it. I can't imagine you not being the least bit pissed about the smallest compromise of it. If nothing else, at least think of the Patriot Act in the hands of Obama.

Clay is right. The... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Clay is right.

The Patriot Act and the warrantless wiretapping program should have been opposed on the grounds that they set a terrible precedent. No executive gives up power once granted.

I asked Republicans back in '02 and '03, "You may think this shit is fine now, but how will you feel when Hillary Freakin' Clinton has this power?" (Nobody foresaw in 2003 that in 2008, we would elect a black man with a Muslim name as president.)

Bruce, when the GOP does it... (Below threshold)
JC Hammer:

Bruce, when the GOP does it, some people think it's OK. When a Demo does it, those same people are against it. The Bush Admin. set the bar for executive power, and Obama is taking advantage of it.

Now the ditto heads are complaining. Why didn't they complain when Bush did it? Simple, it's a Demo President now in office. And the GOP leader, a queer draft dodger, with his anal cist, tells them to. So what else is new?

And who cares what type of name the President has, unless you are a ditto head. And if he is a Muslim, why was you complaining about his minister? Muslims have no ministers, they have Ayatollahs, right?

But don't let the truth stand in front of you ditto heads, just keep spreading the BS lies.

warrantless wiretapping <b... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

warrantless wiretapping
I know this is hard to grasp for some people.

First see if you can go and find a copy of USSID 18
Is what the SIGINT community operates under. Scenario you're an operator and your tracking a person of interest. This person is outside of the US and he starts to talk about an attack within the use going to happen in 24 hours. The other person on the phone says he bob from Cali. Now you got to dump the tape and get a three judge FISB panel to give you permission to review. This process is 72 hours and depending what group in SIGINT you belong to dump may mean stop recording and burn bag the tape. You can hope that some other agency got it.
What the PA did was allow one to pursue actionable intelligence and then get the panel to review it that way we would not be exposed for an Attack.
What BHO wants to do is just focus on American Citizens .

"Why was you complaining... (Below threshold)
914:

"Why was you complaining about his minister? muslims have no ministers, they have Ayatollas,right"

"Not God bless America, God damn America, US of KKK A"

This is why we were complaining about OBAMAS hate speech minister, the wrong reverend Wright. Throw in Bill the terrorist Ayers and the ease at which Obama associates with the hate America crowd and you have a recipe for Man made disasters.

Damn, 914, you got your spi... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Damn, 914, you got your spittle flecks all over my monitor. From the inside. Eeewww.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy