HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » When Leaders Go Wrong.
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 03:29 PM

When Leaders Go Wrong.

It divides us. This holds true for small and large groups, parties and countries. Some stay loyal to the leader or leaders, and others to their own ethics. Of course the reasons for a person taking one position over another are varied. Some positions are better thought out than others, some see a greater good in following the leader, even when a deeply held belief is tossed aside. And others just follow the tide. But what holds true in most cases, is that division happens when a president or leader does the wrong thing, and that person is most culpable for any fallout - even though his or her followers are responsible for their own misguided words and actions.

This is addressing topics that go against values and principles that a particular group espouses, not the everyday give and take of normal politics. When people caught on to the lies behind the Vietnam War, the country was separated into those who supported and those who opposed the war. When the Bush Administration started a war on false pretenses, the country was divided. People switched parties when the Republicans embraced discrimination in the 1960s. And now the left is fighting over wholesale spying. It’s not to excuse in any way those who would sellout values supposedly held by most Americans, but Obama set the ball rolling when he sold out the values he said he possessed.

It should be a given that the degrees of wrongdoing in the examples given are vastly different. But the basic form is the same and the damage done will be long term – much longer than the term of a U.S. president.

I see no caveats in the 4th Amendment that allows blanket spying on all Americans, all the time:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

How can any person pretend that there is probable cause to spy on all of us? It’s indefensible.

“This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.
That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. 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.”

Candidate Obama, August 2007.

34 replies, 1845 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 34 replies Author Time Post
Reply When Leaders Go Wrong. (Original post)
20score Jun 2013 OP
morningfog Jun 2013 #1
20score Jun 2013 #2
pscot Jun 2013 #3
20score Jun 2013 #31
punkin87 Jun 2013 #4
20score Jun 2013 #10
Doctor_J Jun 2013 #5
20score Jun 2013 #9
L0oniX Jun 2013 #12
suede1 Jun 2013 #6
20score Jun 2013 #8
suede1 Jun 2013 #7
20score Jun 2013 #11
suede1 Jun 2013 #29
20score Jun 2013 #30
punkin87 Jun 2013 #13
20score Jun 2013 #28
ProSense Jun 2013 #14
20score Jun 2013 #15
ProSense Jun 2013 #16
20score Jun 2013 #17
ProSense Jun 2013 #18
20score Jun 2013 #19
ProSense Jun 2013 #20
20score Jun 2013 #21
ProSense Jun 2013 #22
20score Jun 2013 #24
sibelian Jun 2013 #34
marions ghost Jun 2013 #32
KoKo Jun 2013 #23
20score Jun 2013 #25
marions ghost Jun 2013 #33
marym625 Jun 2013 #26
20score Jun 2013 #27

Response to 20score (Original post)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 03:32 PM

1. That last quote is quite damning.

I'll add this one: "I firmly believe that Justice Louis Brandeis once said, that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and I know that restoring transparency is not only the surest way to achieve results, but also to earn back the trust in government without which we cannot deliver changes the American people sent us here to make."

President Obama on Day 1 of office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 03:41 PM

2. Good one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 20score (Original post)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 03:42 PM

3. You had me

Up to the very end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 24, 2013, 10:23 AM

31. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 20score (Original post)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 03:56 PM

4. Yeah! I like it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to punkin87 (Reply #4)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 05:37 PM

10. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 20score (Original post)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 04:02 PM

5. Candidate Obama also said his HC plan was guaranteed to include a "robust public option"

and promised to support organized labor and said Gitmo would close and state-sanctioned torture would end and ridiculed candidate McCain for supporting chained CPI. Candidate Obama had almost nothing in common with like the current resident of the WH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #5)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 05:08 PM

9. True.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #5)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 07:09 PM

12. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 20score (Original post)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 04:14 PM

6. Well done! And it's true. Doesn't come up often, but it's true.

Nice work!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to suede1 (Reply #6)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 04:39 PM

8. Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 20score (Original post)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 04:30 PM

7. Where are the people who now hate candidate Obama?

They're all over the other threads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to suede1 (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 07:07 PM

11. Yes they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 20score (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 10:48 PM

29. Guess one showed up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to suede1 (Reply #29)

Mon Jun 24, 2013, 07:15 AM

30. Yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 20score (Original post)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 07:18 PM

13. +1,000! Well thought out!

Some on the other side of this sound like children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to punkin87 (Reply #13)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 10:17 PM

28. Thank you!

And yes they do. It's embarrassing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 20score (Original post)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 07:22 PM

14. That Obama quote

Reposting this:

Another misleading media report implies that warrantless wiretapping is legal.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023026724

Secret to Prism program: Even bigger data seizure
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/secret-prism-success-even-bigger-data-seizure

The entire article is framed to create the impression that warrantless wiretapping is legal, and that Obama approves of it.

The article mentions the Protect America Act, quotes Obama opposing it, and then creates the impression he embraced it when he became President.

From the article:

The Bush administration shut down its warrantless wiretapping program in 2007 but endorsed a new law, the Protect America Act, which allowed the wiretapping to continue with changes: The NSA generally would have to explain its techniques and targets to a secret court in Washington, but individual warrants would not be required.

Congress approved it, with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in the midst of a campaign for president, voting against it.

"This administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide," Obama said in a speech two days before that vote. "I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom."

<...>

Years after decrying Bush for it, Obama said Americans did have to make tough choices in the name of safety.

There have been a number of media reports using the same Obama quote to basically claim that he once called out Bush, but then embraced the policy. They are intentionally conflating a quote about the PAA with his position on the 2008 FISA amendments, which he voted for. They are not the same thing. The PAA was a Republican effort to absolve Bush.

While the article mentions that Obama voted against the Protect America Act (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00309), there is no mention of the fact that the Act expired in early 2008.

Senator Mitch McConnell introduced the act on August 1, 2007, during the 110th United States Congress. On August 3, it was passed in the Senate with an amendment, 60–28 (record vote number 309). On August 4, it passed the House of Representatives 227-183 (roll number 836). On August 5, it was signed by President Bush, becoming Public Law No. 110-055. On February 17, 2008, it expired due to sunset provision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007#Legislative_history


The amendments to FISA made by the Act expire 180 days after enactment, except that any order in effect on the date of enactment remains in effect until the date of expiration of such order and such orders can be reauthorized by the FISA Court.” The Act expired on February 17, 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act#Protect_America_Act_of_2007


Here's Bush's statement at the time: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080214-4.html

It's illegal to collect this information on Americans.

Here is information on the FISA law including the 2008 amendments.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008

Specifically, the Act:

  • Prohibits the individual states from investigating, sanctioning of, or requiring disclosure by complicit telecoms or other persons.

  • Permits the government not to keep records of searches, and destroy existing records (it requires them to keep the records for a period of 10 years).

  • Protects telecommunications companies from lawsuits for "'past or future cooperation' with federal law enforcement authorities and will assist the intelligence community in determining the plans of terrorists". Immunity is given by a certification process, which can be overturned by a court on specific grounds.

  • Removes requirements for detailed descriptions of the nature of information or property targeted by the surveillance if the target is reasonably believed to be outside the country.

  • Increased the time for warrantless surveillance from 48 hours to 7 days, if the FISA court is notified and receives an application, specific officials sign the emergency notification, and relates to an American located outside of the United States with probable cause they are an agent of a foreign power. After 7 days, if the court denies or does not review the application, the information obtained cannot be offered as evidence. If the United States Attorney General believes the information shows threat of death or bodily harm, they can try to offer the information as evidence in future proceedings.

  • Permits the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to jointly authorize warrantless electronic surveillance, for one-year periods, targeted at a foreigner who is abroad. This provision will sunset on December 31, 2012.

  • Requires FISA court permission to target wiretaps at Americans who are overseas.

  • Requires government agencies to cease warranted surveillance of a targeted American who is abroad if said person enters the United States. (However, said surveillance may resume if it is reasonably believed that the person has left the States.)

  • Prohibits targeting a foreigner to eavesdrop on an American's calls or e-mails without court approval.

  • Allows the FISA court 30 days to review existing but expiring surveillance orders before renewing them.

  • Allows eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.

  • Prohibits the government from invoking war powers or other authorities to supersede surveillance rules in the future.

  • Requires the Inspectors General of all intelligence agencies involved in the President's Surveillance Program to "complete a comprehensive review" and report within one year
Effects

  • The provisions of the Act granting immunity to the complicit telecoms create a roadblock for a number of lawsuits intended to expose and thwart the alleged abuses of power and illegal activities of the federal government since and before the September 11 attacks.

  • Allows the government to conduct surveillance of "a U.S. person located outside of the U.S. with probable cause they are an agent of a foreign power" for up to one week (168 hours) without a warrant, increased from the previous 48 hours, as long as the FISA court is notified at the time such surveillance begins, and an application as usually required for surveillance authorization is submitted by the government to FISA within those 168 hours
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008#Provisions






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #14)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 07:26 PM

15. What you wrote and quoted doesn't address the post.

So, it's irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 20score (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 07:31 PM

16. Yes, it does. The quote

"What you wrote and quoted doesn't address the post."

...is not about the current program. You used it to support this claim: "When Leaders Go Wrong."

It divides us. This holds true for small and large groups, parties and countries. Some stay loyal to the leader or leaders, and others to their own ethics. Of course the reasons for a person taking one position over another are varied. Some positions are better thought out than others, some see a greater good in following the leader, even when a deeply held belief is tossed aside. And others just follow the tide. But what holds true in most cases, is that division happens when a president or leader does the wrong thing, and that person is most culpable for any fallout - even though his or her followers are responsible for their own misguided words and actions.


You seem to be implying that President Obama went wrong, and that "divides us." You used the quote to justify your claim.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #16)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 07:41 PM

17. Not implying, I said it.

“This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand."

That is exactly what is being said now

"I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom."

I posted the 4th Amendment. No grey area.

"No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime."

NSL are still being used, and there is no doubt that the collection of our data is wholesale. You may want to parse his statements and make this seem like this is all above board, but that's the case. He made that quote in 2007 and voted for the FISA in 2008. But even that is irrelevant. His statement was clear and unambiguous at the time. No one thought, "He just means the PAA, hope he still spies on us by other means though."

He did do the wrong thing and he did divide us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 20score (Reply #17)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 07:45 PM

18. You used the quote out of context, and applied it to the current program. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #18)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 07:49 PM

19. No I didn't. It absolutely applies. Damn, you just don't give up no matter what the facts are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 20score (Reply #19)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 07:51 PM

20. The facts are that the quote isn't about the current program and it's used out of context. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #20)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 07:54 PM

21. What he said was unambiguous. He doesn't say or imply that he will spy on us

through other means. Your insistence is no longer just misdirection, it's a lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 20score (Reply #21)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 07:56 PM

22. You have

"What he said was unambiguous. He doesn't say or imply that he will spy on us through other means. Your insistence is no longer just misdirection, it's a lie. "

...the facts. You can't claim the quote applies to something it doesn't, and you can't make it so by dimissing my pointing that out as a "lie."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #22)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 08:04 PM

24. The quote speaks for itself. It is not ambiguous and I'm sick of repeating myself.

My post stands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 20score (Reply #24)

Mon Jun 24, 2013, 10:45 AM

34. Points for stamina.


Her main tactic is perpetual assertion. She's a bit robotic and is mostly just trying to wear people down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #14)

Mon Jun 24, 2013, 10:36 AM

32. Thanks for posting

--considering what we know about what is behind the curtain, these words are all the more damning of the PTB. And all the more indicative of the exact methods of abuse, highlighting how the procedures have been twisted and violated.

This very document is "Exhibit A."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 20score (Original post)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 08:03 PM

23. Into the "Memory Hole" goes what and who we voted for. He needs to know that..

K&R! It's early into his Second Term...and he needs to hear this and hear it NOW...and dig himself out from what he has been associated with for so long...before he sends our Dem Party into Down Spiral we won't recover from for Generations.

HE NEEDS TO HEAR IT! It's EARLY...he can do the REAL CHANGE...he promised us...but, it won't be easy and not an easy life for him and his Family if he does it.

But...he needs to Choose for the Country's HEALTH which path he goes down. Is it one of enrichment for his Wife and Children's Future/Himself ... or. for the health of ALL OF US going forward.

It's a tough choice. Definitely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #23)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 08:26 PM

25. You're right and I hope he listens to your advise.

Eventually the rational people in this debate will win and the defense and support of these programs will wane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #23)

Mon Jun 24, 2013, 10:44 AM

33. Absolutely he needs to hear this

and I hope that people will continue to speak this truth until it reaches his ears.

This is a big challenge to Obama -- which path will he choose? I still give him a chance to come out on the right side of history...but it would not be easy, as you say. He's in deep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 20score (Original post)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 09:11 PM

26. Perfect!

Well said! Needed to be said. Nothing at all in this that is in anyway ambiguous. Frankly, with the quote used, it wouldn't matter what context it was made. It's pretty damn clear what is being said and what it means.
During the first term I was disappointed. I was told repeatedly, "wait until his second term. Then he can accomplish what he promised." So, I did. Not that there was much of choice.
Well, here we are in the second term and I'm more disappointed than I was during the first.
Grow some balls and be the man we elected.
thanks for saying this, 20Score!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marym625 (Reply #26)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 09:28 PM

27. Thanks! Very cool!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread