again,
Bush did it so we can too!?
and I recall Bush looking into overseas calls, not entirely domestic calls (though I could be wrong on what I "recall" doesn't matter since it wasn't right then, isn't right now) and this is yet another blown promise by Obama, he lies through his teeth and his supporters fail to call him out on those lies

"No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary."

danivon wrote:The Verizon thing is very invasive, but it is lawful under the Patriot Act, and under Bush a similar order was in place at times between 2001 and 2006.

Is it, or do they have to know that one person in the conversation is a suspected terrorist?

If it is as you say, then the problem ought to be corrected. That's too intrusive.

Then again, I'm not a fan of the DNA bank either.

When do you stop counting scandals and accuse the President of being at the very least out of touch, out of control or utterly inept? Just curious how long it's going to take.

I am ok with the Supreme court ruling allowing the collection of DNA material for the identification of the suspect. To me it is the same as fingerprinting.

The mass tracking of meta-data is problematic, whether Bush or the current administration is doing it.

bbauska wrote:I am ok with the Supreme court ruling allowing the collection of DNA material for the identification of the suspect. To me it is the same as fingerprinting.

The only reason I'm queasy on this is that, so far, there are no laws limiting what the government can do with that info--as far as I know.

The DNA samples really are not (or should not?) be a part of this "abuse of power" thread?
I don't think there all that many who have a big problem with this, certainly not as a presidential abuse at any rate. My only problem with this is where we draw the line on such information gathering, if a person is simply accused of a crime, he gets photographed, fingerprinted and dna swabbed, if he's innocent, his data remains in the database and that feels kind of creepy to me, seems real easy to gather more data than should be allowed doesn't it? And where do we draw the line? Dental records? Blood sample? shoe size? maybe eventually some sort of brain scan? It just "feels" wrong for an innocent person to be forced into a database he should not be part of.

Fate

She's raising money for propaganda purposes.

1. Communicating to people how to access the options available to them under law is "propaganda"? really?

Fate

2. Her intention is to overcome Congress which has declined to fund the Obamacare directive. This is anti-democratic. Whether one agrees with it or not, there is a legal way to fund government programs and to promote them. This is an effort to skirt the democratic process

Sure. (Glad you admit that this is nothing more than an end around to deliberate obstruction.
It would be terrifically honest if republicans up in arms about this would honestly say, " what were really pissed about is that she found a way to fund a program when we were hoping that we'd managed to sabotage the implementation of the ACA..."

Is it okay for a private citizen to do what she did?

And if she starts every phone call with, "Now I'm calling you as a private citizen ...."

The basic laws regarding political financing allow corruption. There's too much lee way and too much grey area and too much influence by both the money and the political actors. Sibelius's behaviour is no more scurrilous than any member of congress raising campaign funds.
The whole system stinks.
Thats why this isn't a scandal.

rickyp wrote:Fate

She's raising money for propaganda purposes.

1. Communicating to people how to access the options available to them under law is "propaganda"? really?

Do you believe that's all that a non-government advocacy group is going to do?

No cheerleading?

Really?

Fate

2. Her intention is to overcome Congress which has declined to fund the Obamacare directive. This is anti-democratic. Whether one agrees with it or not, there is a legal way to fund government programs and to promote them. This is an effort to skirt the democratic process

Sure. (Glad you admit that this is nothing more than an end around to deliberate obstruction.

I would not term it "obstruction." No one voted for a Republican majority so they could rubber stamp whatever the President sent their way.

Congress is under no mandate to fund whatever the President wishes. In this case, it's a very arguable use of government money that is proposed.

And, again, Obamacare is UNPOPULAR.

You can't say that what Republicans are doing is wrong. It's actually very "democratic." They were voted into office and are representing their constituents who don't want Obamacare.

What's the problem?

It would be terrifically honest if republicans up in arms about this would honestly say, " what were really pissed about is that she found a way to fund a program when we were hoping that we'd managed to sabotage the implementation of the ACA..."

Except that what she is doing is demonstrably unethical. What's so hard for you to grasp?

Geojanes gets it. Why can't you?

Is it okay for a private citizen to do what she did?

And if she starts every phone call with, "Now I'm calling you as a private citizen ...."

That's not what happened. Why throw out a hypothetical that is untrue? As soon as she says her name, she is no longer calling companies under the thumb of HHS as "a private citizen." Why do you keep blathering when you know NOTHING?

The basic laws regarding political financing allow corruption. There's too much lee way and too much grey area and too much influence by both the money and the political actors. Sibelius's behaviour is no more scurrilous than any member of congress raising campaign funds.

Repetition doesn't bolster your argument. She's not a politician. She is a cabinet secretary. She is not running for office.

The whole system stinks.
Thats why this isn't a scandal.

You know why this is a scandal?

Sebelius explicitly denies discussing her actions with anyone in the White House.

Sound familiar? Anything sketchy never gets talked about in the White House.

Please Ricky, You tell us yet again how a normal citizen can do this no problem, yet I gave you a real life example that is exactly the same as this. If your boss did what I had suggested, what would you say about that situation???

Here is the Supreme Court Case. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12 ... 7_d18e.pdf

I think that Justice Scalia's analysis has it right-- the government should not be allowed to search arrestees (search their DNA by taking a swab of their cheek) without probable cause. There are a lot of arrests that do not lead to charges even being brought.

DNA, how about fingerprints and photo's as well?
Let's say I am wrongly accused of some crime, Maybe it doesn't even go to trial, it's a simple "oops" wrong guy. Do my fingerprints get deleted from the database? Why am I in there now? and if that is acceptable, what's to stop a corrupt police department from doing similarly to an entire community in order to bolster that database? We could claim if we have nothing to hide, we should not worry but that's still a violation of our rights, even fingerprints being on file is wrong isn't it?

freeman3 wrote:Here is the Supreme Court Case. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12 ... 7_d18e.pdf

I think that Justice Scalia's analysis has it right-- the government should not be allowed to search arrestees (search their DNA by taking a swab of their cheek) without probable cause. There are a lot of arrests that do not lead to charges even being brought.

And, fwiw, I agree with both of you.

Doctor Fate wrote:
...

She's not a politician. She is a cabinet secretary. She is not running for office.

This is really the defining point. Remember when Rumsfeld was becoming Sec of Defense? It took him forever to take his seat because he had a very complex financial situation that he needed to divest himself of so that he didn't have any conflicts as Sec of Defense. For better or worse, congressmen don't have the same rules and they can even do insider trading legally (there was an uproar about this several months ago, but congress didn't change the law.) While I'm oversimplifying: congressmen are citizens overseeing the government, but cabinet members are part of the government and they really need to make their decisions without any appearance of conflict.

What she did was not a personal conflict, but I think it was a political conflict and while it may pass the letter of the law, it wasn't right. Ricky's right, the system does stink, but just because the system stinks it doesn't mean that the stinker shouldn't be called out for bad behavior.

geojanes wrote:What she did was not a personal conflict, but I think it was a political conflict and while it may pass the letter of the law, it wasn't right. Ricky's right, the system does stink, but just because the system stinks it doesn't mean that the stinker shouldn't be called out for bad behavior.

Well said.

And, when you're part of the self-proclaimed most transparent, most ethical Administration in history, that sort of compounds it (to me).

GMTom wrote:DNA, how about fingerprints and photo's as well?
Let's say I am wrongly accused of some crime, Maybe it doesn't even go to trial, it's a simple "oops" wrong guy. Do my fingerprints get deleted from the database? Why am I in there now? and if that is acceptable, what's to stop a corrupt police department from doing similarly to an entire community in order to bolster that database? We could claim if we have nothing to hide, we should not worry but that's still a violation of our rights, even fingerprints being on file is wrong isn't it?

That's a great question about fingerprints. I don't really know.

I think the problem with DNA is it is far more information than a fingerprint. Yes, it is identifying in a similar way, but no one can look at your fingerprint and determine your likelihood for certain diseases, baldness, and who knows what else. My concern is that this opens up a huge (and the depth of this is unknown right now) amount of information with no bounds (yet) on how the government may/may not use it.

I find that frightening--no matter who is in charge.