Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama Signs One-Year Extension Of Patriot Act

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
Purveyor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 07:15 PM
Original message
Obama Signs One-Year Extension Of Patriot Act
(02-27) 15:11 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

President Barack Obama has signed a one-year extension of several provisions in the nation's main counterterrorism law, the Patriot Act.

Provisions in the measure would have expired on Sunday without Obama's signature Saturday.

The act, which was adopted in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, expands the government's ability to monitor Americans in the name of national security.

Three sections of the Patriot Act that stay in force will:

_Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.

_Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.

_Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

MORE...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/0...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
provis99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. more Change we can Believe In.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 04:22 AM
Response to Reply #1
24. The House voted for it 315 to 97.....
And the Senate voted in the majority on a voice vote.

This means that even if Obama would have vetoed this,
his veto would have been overidden.

Do you really think that Democrats were going to vote against
the patriot act in an election year....with the GOP/Cheney/Media
chomping at the bits?

Really?

Because if you think that this would have been a good idea,
you'd be seeing some changes alright, but not anything you'd ever imagine.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clintonista2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 04:24 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Gee you're right
Acting like Republicans for all of this time has worked out just dandy. Why stop now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 04:42 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. So you think he should have vetoed the Patriot Act?
and if so, when they would have overidden it,
then what?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #26
36. Had he vetoed, or threatened to veto, he would have shown,
what is that word....oh , yeah LEADERSHIP.

More shame on Obama. Continuing bush policies, cleaning up for his crimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #36
48. It wouldn't have shown shit, beyond giving the Right more talking points.
The point is that the votes wouldn't be there to uphold his veto,
and so we're talking about playing kabuki theater for the sake of doing so.
What you are encourage would do is to make the President a one year, not one term President.

But than I forgot, that for some, it ain't about the Patriot Act being repealed (as overidding a veto means it would still become law), it's all about Pres. Obama showing us "Leadership".....which is actually not the result you'd would get. The only thing you would get is most Americans siding with the Right, and an election that would use this, and it would work.

But don't let those who want to see a very short lived show down in congress while they eat popcorn,
for a result being a President that is vilified worse than he has been up to this time.

But some would be happy.....and after all, isn't that all that counts?

And as we all know, same folks would then quickly find something else to relentlessly dog this President about, and now, he'd be back to square one; being insulted and told that he isn't exerting leadership.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #48
57. It would have shown that Obama stood for the Constitution he swore to uphold
Our civil liberties are not to be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #57
61. Who cares about leadership?
He just looks so cool. That's all some here care about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-10 06:23 AM
Response to Reply #57
78. Hey if
Alan Grayson and Anthony Weiner supported it, it can't be that bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-10 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #78
85. How many Democrats rushed to vote for PATRIOT and IWR?
Edited on Wed Mar-03-10 04:39 PM by IndianaGreen
There were quite a few of them standing alongside Bush in the Rose Garden after they signed off on getting thousands of GIs killed, not to mention the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-10 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #85
86. ah
but THEY weren't our progressive heroes like Grayson and Weiner and Conyers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #48
58. Ineffectiveness necessitates excuses.
Leadership, action and results speak for themselves.

I am disappointed in those on DU who defend the renewal of the Patriot Act. There was surely no one here making excuses for Bush. Hypocrisy is rampant when trying to defend Obama's extensions of Bush policies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-10 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #58
81. Some don't remember when the Patriot Act was first introduced
it was after the OKC bombing. And the repukes were the ones fighting against the passing--citing it was unconstitutional. I remember that day well--I remember the MSM pushing the ME terrorist meme, and I knew at that time who wanted to attack Iraq. How surprising to some to find out it was one of our own. McVeigh who actually thought that history would remember him as another Nathan Hale. The ex-soldier who apparently was influenced by something or someone that he would one day be famous murdering children.

After 9/11 (and I still have questions about that day), the repukes couldn't pass it fast enough. Nothing surprises me anymore--sometimes I view these past events as an orchestrated theater where we are the audience and some of us become the unwitting players.

Once the act was passed, I figured we'd be going down that slippery slope. What I do know is that we had the ability and the intelligence (and had been doing so for some time) to stop such events from happening. I've said this before, if you really want to rid the world of terrorism tract the flow of money and cut it off. But, that won't happen anytime soon, because I believe there are major world players who make money off of keeping us scared, while making money off of such acts. Remember the put options after 9/11?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ishoutandscream2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #48
64. I'm sorry, but I can't take you seriously anymore
When will you ever question something President Obama does? I always expect you to spin anything negative to the positive when it comes to this president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
golfguru Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #48
69. I beg to differ...Patriot act is UN-American
Whatever happened to personal privacy & freedom to act on your pursuits
without uncle Sam eavesdropping on every thing?

If my memory serves me right candidate Obama was against Patriot Act.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #69
70. Parts of it certainly were. And we dont know which parts are still in and which ones are no longer
in force as a results of the recent actions. We know of three that are still in force, and as they are explained in AP's article, those three dont seem like the worst of the worst.

I dont know enough yet about what has happened to judge. We arent given enough information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #26
37. It would have shown the courage of conviction.
Something, so far, this man seems to know nothing about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clintonista2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #26
39. Yes he should have vetoed it
Because at least he would have been doing the right thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #26
42. YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!
Edited on Sun Feb-28-10 12:07 PM by TankLV
Do what's fucking RIGHT instead of POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT - just ONCE!!!

But that would take political COURAGE and BALLS - neither of which he seems to have...

But he sure is a good TALKER...

feh...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #26
67. Yes. Some courage for what's right goes a long way.
You've both backed off of anything of import just to be on the winning team. But hey, when our rights are in the shitter you can claim you stood by your man! That's what really matters.....right? I don't think that's what you really believe...is it?

It seems that you will support this president no matter what he does, no matter what the reason (and don't even try the "well you haven't supported him at all" response...I've told you personally my feelings for Obama). What were you even fighting for when Bush was in control? I'll be damned if I can tell. I saw you stand up for a lot for years here on DU....before November 4th 2009. Since then it's been one big meh on the very same issues you stood for before. Your rationalizations ring very hollow. I don't hate you or even dislike you...I'm just bewildered as to what happened to the Frenchie pre: November 4th. You harp on the media, yet use them when it suits Obama. The same machine is doing the same things they were before....but if it's favorable to Obama you don't see it anymore.

Get pissed at me for noticing, don't dare look in the mirror though. We've never seen eye to eye completely, but I've never bullshitted you. I told you how I feel about Obama in another post. I don't make my comments out of hate...I make them out of disappointment, both about Obama and you. You'll find this hard to believe, but I've looked up to you here for quite awhile. I've seen few others with a grasp of the media that you have...yet you're blind to it being used in ways that fit Obama's narrative...despite it's minuscule differences from what you fought before. It's truly sad to see, and one of my biggest disappointments on DU since Obama was elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #24
56. The same 'brave' Democrats that voted for Iraq War Resolution in October of an election year
How many people have died and suffered on account of that "brave" vote?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warm regards Donating Member (350 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #24
76. "Do you really think that Democrats were going to vote against the patriot act in an election year"
I suppose this means that health care doesn't stand a chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-10 05:35 AM
Response to Reply #24
77. How sad that you've accepted that.
That you are so casual about your President and Congress not following their consciences 1/4 or more of the time because it's near an election is rather depressing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxsolomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-10 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #24
87. its always an election year.
considering they don't do anything in the year after an election to keep their powder dry in the next election year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moochy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
54. oops
Edited on Sun Feb-28-10 04:50 PM by Moochy
wrong place
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigdarryl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. this isn't good
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Webster Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
3. I thought he was a constitutional lawyer..
I guess he forgot all that shit.

This country is truly fucked!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaujolais Donating Member (13 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
44. Constitutional Lawyer
I didn't think he ever actually practiced law. I mean, he has a law degree of course, but where did he work as a constitutional lawyer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Webster Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. Fucked if I know.
Maybe he didn't. I thought I read that was his specialty.

My point is that this is so obviously unconstitutional that it's absurd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #44
50. He was a civil rights attorney in Chicago.
Edited on Sun Feb-28-10 03:28 PM by JTFrog
Wasn't your first question asking about Obama and a teleprompter?

What's the next question? Where is his birth certificate? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jesus_of_suburbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. .....
:rofl:

Something tells me that poster comes from that other board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DesertRat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #44
52. He was a constitutional law professor
at the University of Chicago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hutzpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
4. Whats that suppose to mean?
Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.


Sounds more like a vendetta than actual terrorist watch.


I don't believe this s__t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Think non-affiliated nutters.
Underwear dude wasn't exactly part of al Queda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nemo137 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #10
20. Scott Roeder, Timothy McVeigh, The Unabomber, Eric Rudolph, etc.
more than Al Qaeda, I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 03:22 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. Eggsactly.
A blanket warrant on an organization doesn't cover people outside of organizations.

The abuse angle/problem, of course, is that if the criteria is too loose, everybody (or massive amounts of people) become "suspects".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lojasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #20
45. No. They are US citizens. EOM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
43. This?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 07:49 PM
Response to Original message
5. Why? Any reason given? And does the entire thing have to
be renewed, or could they have just renewed certain aspects?

If that would have been a big legislative hassle, maybe this admin won't actually do any of the dastardly stuff Bushco did. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I think the Senate tried to make changes, but failed.

WASHINGTON -- Key provisions of the nation's primary counterterrorism law would be extended for a year under a bill passed by the House Thursday evening after Democrats retreated from adding new privacy protections.

The House voted 315 to 97 to extend the USA Patriot Act, sending the bill to President Barack Obama. Without the bill, the provisions would expire Sunday.

The Senate approved the extension Wednesday. The privacy protections were cast aside when Senate Democrats lacked the necessary 60-vote supermajority to pass them. Thrown away were restrictions and greater scrutiny on the government's authority to spy on Americans and seize their records.

The three sections of the Patriot act that would stay in force:

--Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.

--Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.

--Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., noted that the bill with privacy protections had been approved in committee by a bipartisan majority. He said the measure "should be an example of what Democrats and Republicans can accomplish when we work together, but I understand some Republican senators objected to passing the carefully crafted national security, oversight and judicial review provisions in this legislation."

But Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on Leahy's committee, said Thursday that any changes to the Patriot Act would weaken it.

"Recent terror attacks, such as those at Fort Hood and on Christmas Day, demonstrate just how severe of a threat we are facing," Sessions said. "This extension keeps Patriot's security measures in place and demonstrates that there is a growing recognition that these crucial provisions must be preserved."

The Obama administration supported the revisions to the law as approved by the committee.

Republicans have been steadily pounding the Obama administration over the closing of the detainee prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as well as the possibility of holding civilian trials for detainees in the United States. They have also criticized federal agents for informing a Nigerian, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (OO'-mahr fah-ROOK' ahb-DOOL'-moo-TAH'-lahb), of his right to remain silent after 50 minutes of questioning for allegedly trying to ignite explosives on a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas.
http://www.wsmv.com/politics/22676032/detail.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Thanks, Frenchie. I may be in the minority here, but I'm not
too concerned with these. As I said (or meant to imply, anyway) I don't think the Obama administration is chomping at the bit to spy on us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLyellowdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I agree.

"Court approved" terminology seems to bring oversight into the issues. As for the third, doesn't seem unreasonable. I think people are just thrown off by the title and it's association with Bush. Wish the Patriot Act had expired and these other issues addressed in a differently named Act. Then maybe they would have been more acceptable. I don't think this administration will be eavesdropping on the American public and I fear them sooooooooo much less than I feared the Bush Administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harkadog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Oversight is not being brought "into the issues"
Court approved was part of the language in the Patriot Bill during the Bush administration. Nothing has changed there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
60. I don't think court approved was part of the language
I remember Russ Feingold specifically saying that one of his major objections to the Patriot Act was that the roving wiretap didn't require approval from a judge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhiannon55 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #11
65. Actually a lot has changed.
We now have a moral, sane, reasonable President. Unlike Bush, I don't think he wants or plans to spy on ordinary citizens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harkadog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #65
66. Yes but we have to watch those who are not "ordinary"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. PATRIOT is a dog whistle for some.
Not to say that parts of the act weren't excessive, but not requiring a separate warrant every time somebody upgrades/changes their cell phone seems fairly trivial in comparison to, oh, NSL authorized covert sneak-and-peek.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. Senate fail is damn near axiomatic these days
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brand404 Donating Member (161 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
8. Obama = Center-Right -- so this action is HIGHLY Expected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imnKOgnito Donating Member (132 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
14. I see this as an election year gambit
As much as I detest the Patriot Act and everything it stands for, the fact is there are a lot of people, even amongst independents and democrats, that fall for the 'furrin terriers under the bed' rhetoric. A one year extension takes explicit use of the Patriot Act in this manner off the table and airwaves for the election season. If, however, the Democrats retain a majority and renew this pile of crap next year (and the President signs it), I will sing a different tune.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Democrats rushed to vote for Iraq War Resolution in order to deprive GOP of an election issue
We have been down this road several times before, and thousands have died on account of it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. It's all about the election
not about what is good for the American people.

:thumbsdown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imnKOgnito Donating Member (132 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. And I don't disagree with either of you
I'd much prefer the Democrats do what's good for the American people. That doesn't mean they're going to stop playing politics any time soon. It does mean they will lose the support of progressives completely if the don't come to soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
18. To be honest, I don't see anything wrong to these provisions.
Well, only the first and I wonder if there is any more language on this and how far reaching it is. Otherwise, this doesn't sound bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dream Detector 2010 Donating Member (19 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 02:13 AM
Response to Original message
19. That's my President!
Bwaaahahahaha! Man, I'm glad that blood thirsty Bush isn't in power any more!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 05:00 AM
Response to Reply #19
27. Hmmmmmmmmmm
is it pizza time yet? :9
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 02:53 AM
Response to Original message
21. Obama had no choice
The CIA or another Shadow Government in charge has the final say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 04:17 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. The bill was put on his desk to sign,
the only thing he could have done is not signed it....and as we see by the votes, his veto would have been overidden, and even if it wasn't, he would go down has having been a 1 year president.

So maybe it's the Shadow stuff, or maybe it's just Congress in an election year who weren't gonna do anything to rock the boat to that extent. period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 05:03 AM
Response to Original message
28. -
:mad:
I don't think that this is what people elected Obama to do. ...Again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ipaint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
29. The double standard reeks.
One of the strangest prongs of conventional Beltway wisdom is the lament that there is not enough bipartisanship. The opposite is true: many of the most damaging acts inflicted on the country by Washington are enacted on a fully bipartisan basis -- the most destructive political act of this generation, the invasion of Iraq, was fully bipartisan, as were most of the post-9/11 civil liberties abuses and other Bush-era initiatives-- and, at least in certain areas, the harmonious joining together of Republicans and Democrats continues unabated...

...A mountain of evidence has emerged over the last several years documenting pervasive, systematic abuse of the Patriot Act powers. The proposed safeguards were extremely modest and would have provided minimal oversight on how those powers were exercised. Leading Democrats such as Dianne Feinstein spent all years ensuring that the proposed reforms were weakened to the point of virtual meaningless. But as weakened as they were, "some Republican senators objected" and might have called Democrats "soft on terror," so that was the end of that. The domestic surveillance law that Democrats spent years assailing as dangerously overbroad when out of power is renewed in full now that they are in power. That's the Beauty of Bipartisanship, and the last thing we need is more of it.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald /

It's ok for us to do but not ok for them. No wonder no one in the last administration will be prosecuted for their crimes. That would be a dangerous precedent to set when you continue to commit the very same crimes once the excessive amount of power is in your hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
invictus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #29
33. +1,000,000,000,000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
30. Obama loves the warrentless wiretaps that is for sure n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. Wouldn't, "Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance"
mean there is warranted wiretappings and with permission?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #31
34. True that is what the OP says I stand corrected
He is still a fan of them though. His FISA support bear that out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #34
71. I'm fully aware of his position on FISA and it says the same thing as the OP in FISA.
No investigation without court approval.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ipaint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. and indefinate detention and military tribunals. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
35. This is bullshit.
But of course, I'm sure there are more than a few here, especially in this forum, that will tell us it's just peachy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
38. This is so sad. Obama just can't seem to do the right thing
when it comes to war and civil liberties. Shame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #38
62. Someone NetFlicks this movie to the White House: "Do the Right Thing"
Or maybe Spike can send him a copy.

Idea from post by tekisui above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
40. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
41. Wow - more "change" we fell for...!!!
BUT HE IS NOT LIKE A REPUKE SO STOP SAYING THAT!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laylah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
46. Well,
THAT sucks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DesertRat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
49. UGH
x(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
craigmatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
51. I wish he hadn't done that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moochy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
55. What a patriotic act!
democracyfail
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
59. Roving wiretaps didn't require court authorization in the original Patriot Act
In fact that was one of Russ Feingold's main reasons for voting against it the first time. This time he voted for it, like every other Senator since it passed with a voice vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clear Blue Sky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 08:15 PM
Response to Original message
63. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 01:06 AM
Response to Original message
68. The article is misleading and incomplete and should not be used to judge anything either way
A good article would have listed the provisions of the Patriot Act in force before now and explained the changes. This article did not do that. We dont really know the impact of what has happened from this article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #68
72. Obviously many DUers care less about that. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #68
73. Provisions that were to expire were extended. Nothing was changed.
Not now. There were some changes in 2006, but this renewal renewed everything that was set to expire.

Further, most of the Patriot Act provisions were made permanent through the last few years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #73
75. Links/Evidence?
Thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric Condon Donating Member (761 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
74. Correct headline: "Obama Signs One-Year Extension Of Patriot Act Because Of Course He Does" nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-10 06:33 AM
Response to Original message
79. Looks like these people agree with Obama
Edited on Tue Mar-02-10 07:05 AM by CTLawGuy
Alan Grayson, Anthony Weiner, Joe Stesak, John Conyers, Charlie Rangel.

So maybe it's not so bad...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-10 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #79
82. That's why I say we need a full explanation. Kneejerk reactions dont make sense
unless you are just looking for an excuse to do what you want to do anyway
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-10 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
80. I love the smell of 'change' in the morning..
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
branders seine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-10 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
83. and the neat thing is, no one knows what "terrorist" really means!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-10 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
84. Two on your list are court-approved
If something has to be approved by a court, it's all right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ncteechur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-03-10 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
88. It is called punting and buying time to complete other pressing items i.e. HCR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 18th 2014, 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC