Bush didn't run a campaign promising to end this while Obama did. To vote for the man because he was going to end Guantanamo, was going to end spying on his own people, etc then actually SUPPORT him is nothing but partisan politics. I happen to be Conservative (duh) but I was 100% against Bush's fiscal policies, I did criticize us not getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan sooner. I did not support the man no matter what he had done yet here we have a few people who simply refuse to accept Obama has lied so very often and to simply compare him to Bush saying "Bush did it as well" ...really?

This thread is titled "Abuse of Power" and the items grow seemingly by the day, Guys, it wasn't this bad under Bush!

In some ways it has become worse under Obama (the scope of the NSA gathering, the evolution of technology expanding what is possible etc). In some ways it was worse under Bush, as several of the most intrusive elements of the Patriot Act were struck down later in court.

Bush does not get any mitigation for no longer being in office - what was done under his tenure and what he left in place is not diminished by his current state. And yes, Obama has a problem in that he promised not to do stuff like this and to roll it back.

Then again, I'm not much of a supporter of Obama or the Democrats. Some Democrat and Republican politicians have been banging on about this for years, others are just now joining the bandwagon, bit overall - as on so many other issues - there is little between the two establishment parties in the US and it really is a struggle to see which is worse. Basically, the one most recently in power tends to have most recently messed things up (where power includes not just holding the Oval Office, but either house of Congress).

It is the evil of two lessers, really. I don't agree that it is simply a problem of 'government' in principle, so much as a long term acceptance and complicity generally of a two-party state where both are apt to leap to security measures based on fear and sold through 'patriotism'.

And no, that is not me defending anyone.

danivon

It is the evil of two lessers, really. I don't agree that it is simply a problem of 'government' in principle, so much as a long term acceptance and complicity generally of a two-party state where both are apt to leap to security measures based on fear and sold through 'patriotism'.

Its also not a situation where the US is the only country doing this either ....

The Internet and the evolution of modern communications and computer technology offer a myriad of problems for security and intelligence forces.

fate

To vote for the man because he was going to end Guantanamo

Its too precious to count the failure to close Guantanomo as a lie, when its largely Congressional opposition to treating the Guantanomo prisoners the same way the Blind Sheik was treated .... that kept the site open.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/30/wh ... ver-close/

rickyp wrote:fate

To vote for the man because he was going to end Guantanamo

Its too precious to count the failure to close Guantanomo as a lie, when its largely Congressional opposition to treating the Guantanomo prisoners the same way the Blind Sheik was treated .... that kept the site open.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/30/wh ... ver-close/

Um, I didn't say what you attributed to me.

However, I think Gitmo should stay open and be packed with foreign terrorists until Islamists stop attacking America and her interests.

....or we can close Gitmo after these terrorists conveniently disappear?

Now, I'm not saying the government hacked CBS reporter, Sharyl Attkisson's PC. I'll let the DOJ defend itself:

To our knowledge, the Justice Department has never compromised Ms. Attkisson’s computers, or otherwise sought any information from or concerning any telephone, computer, or other media device she may own or use.

I'm tired of the half-truths and vague comments of this Administration.

Keep it Simple, Stupid: tell the truth.

CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson revealed in May that her computer had been compromised. When asked about the situation, CBS News responded with a statement that it was conducting an investigation.

That investigation has reached the following conclusions, according to CBS News spokeswoman Sonya McNair:

“A cyber security firm hired by CBS News has determined through forensic analysis that Sharyl Attkisson’s computer was accessed by an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions late in 2012. Evidence suggests this party performed all access remotely using Attkisson’s accounts. While no malicious code was found, forensic analysis revealed an intruder had executed commands that appeared to involve search and exfiltration of data.

This party also used sophisticated methods to remove all possible indications of unauthorized activity, and alter system times to cause further confusion.

CBS News is taking steps to identify the responsible party and their method of access.”

The Attkisson-computer story surfaced when Attkisson appeared on a Philadelphia radio program amid the news about the Justice Department’s snooping on reporters. WPHT 1210 host Chris Stigall asked Attkisson whether she’d been the victim of any such tactics. She responded, “Well, um, I’m not ready to fully speak publicly about some things that have affected me because I’m trying to be methodical and careful about what I say, but there has been an issue in my house and there’s been an issue with my computers that’s gone on for quite a long time that we’re looking into.”

Courts allow NSA to use data 'inadvertently' collected on US citizens...

Revealed: the top secret rules that allow NSA to use US data without a warrant (Glenn Greenwald at the Guardian again)

[on Gitmo, I'm not sure that you can be actually sure all of them are terrorists. They are all 'suspected terrorists', which is a different kettle of fish)

danivon wrote:[on Gitmo, I'm not sure that you can be actually sure all of them are terrorists. They are all 'suspected terrorists', which is a different kettle of fish)

They may be "suspected" terrorists, but they are surely enemy combatants.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:[on Gitmo, I'm not sure that you can be actually sure all of them are terrorists. They are all 'suspected terrorists', which is a different kettle of fish)

They may be "suspected" terrorists, but they are surely enemy combatants.

Are you 100% certain this is true in all cases? Some were picked up fighting. Others were handed over by third parties. And under Geneva, enemy combatants have rights until it is proven they do not.

A lot of them would be released, if some other country wantd them. The rest should be tried and dealt with based on the outcome of a fair judicial process. Keeping them as hostages against the day an enemy calls peace is a Medieval practice.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:[on Gitmo, I'm not sure that you can be actually sure all of them are terrorists. They are all 'suspected terrorists', which is a different kettle of fish)

They may be "suspected" terrorists, but they are surely enemy combatants.

Are you 100% certain this is true in all cases? Some were picked up fighting. Others were handed over by third parties. And under Geneva, enemy combatants have rights until it is proven they do not.

A lot of them would be released, if some other country wantd them. The rest should be tried and dealt with based on the outcome of a fair judicial process. Keeping them as hostages against the day an enemy calls peace is a Medieval practice.

They are not hostages. They are combatants.

How do I know? Because I trust the Administration completely. I have blind faith in their goodness and I know they would never, never, never do anything "medieval."

I was responding to your suggestion that they be kept there until Islamists stop attacking America. As in the surveillance issue, I think snark about the current administration is misplaced - it is merely following the dubious practices of its predecessor.

danivon wrote:I was responding to your suggestion that they be kept there until Islamists stop attacking America. As in the surveillance issue, I think snark about the current administration is misplaced - it is merely following the dubious practices of its predecessor.

Because he's not as powerful as the ex-President?

Do you realize how feeble it makes the Great One seem?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Because he's not as powerful as the ex-President?

The last President had a supine Congress. This one does not.

Do you realize how feeble it makes the Great One seem?

I never would use that phrase for him. That you do, with such sneering undertones, says more about you than it does about him.

I think what we know is that it's not just the President who runs the USA. Nowadays it looks more like the NSA does. With a bit of help from GCHQ.

danivon wrote: never would use that phrase for him. That you do, with such sneering undertones, says more about you than it does about him.

I think what we know is that it's not just the President who runs the USA. Nowadays it looks more like the NSA does. With a bit of help from GCHQ.

Actually, this is completely consistent with the White House. If the President is not a victim (of the rogue IRS, NSA, Attorney General, or whomever is violating the Constitution on a given day), he is held hostage by the policies of GWB.

If that doesn't say something about him, then I don't know what does. He is a bystander, a victim, and helpless.

Oh, and he also is, reportedly, the leader of the free world.