Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Mephansteras]

Here's the thing though - what power does Obama get from the NSA?

I expect government officials to act in their own interest. Supporting the NSA, at this point in time, doesn't seem to align with Obama's interest. Sure, it gives the a government agency more power, but how does it give him more power?

Either he's found some use for beyond which is already publicly known or admitted, or he has some other reason to support them, or he thinks he's going to be able to use them for something.

Hmm. Maybe because the NSA spying on everything and everyone gives him a lot of information with which to make decisions? Especially ones about foreign policy? Or maybe they're feeding him useful info about various Congress members that he can use to his advantage to get things he wants passed passed?

I don't know. But knowledge is power, especially for someone responsible for policy making and even more so for someone as influential in the world as the POTUS. It's a stressful job and I could see having more information to use when making decisions helping to reduce some of that stress.

Especially since Obama doesn't have to worry about getting reelected anymore, I could see him holding onto something so unpopular just because it makes his own job easier.

In fact, I could even see him holding on to that power up until his final year when he can declare that he's 'heard enough and come up with a plan' to undercut the NSA power in meaningful ways after he no longer needs it personally. That gives him a legacy of reducing their power and 'caring about personal freedoms and government power limits' without ever having to live with those limits himself.

[mainiac]

If we look at historical examples, presidents generally took controversial powers because they felt those powers were important for accomplishing things they thought needed to be done.  Andrew Jackson moved the Cherokee (something many in Congress tried to block) because he thought that any unassimilated natives were an impediment to the development of the South.  Abraham Lincoln suspended haebus corpus (quite controversial) because he thought the executive needed to be able to imprison willy nilly in order to enforce the peace during the civil war.  We don't need to engage in complicated theories here, their motives are rather straightforward, we just agree or disagree with their assessment of the circumstances.

The same logic very easily applies to Obama in this case.  He wants the NSA to have these powers because he feels they are important for counter-terrorism purposes.  Personally I disagree with his assessment of the circumstances.  That doesn't mean I need to imagine some secret motive.  I just understand that he has come to a conclusion (the NSA needs to have free reign) that I and many others disagree with.  He's hardly unique in this regard, a lot of people disagree with me on stuff.

And saying the NSA is blackmailing him shows a serious lack of consideration.  Trying to blackmail the president of the US in such a fashion be an act of treason.  Furthermore you would be alienating someone who has the power to unilaterally fire you at any time and prosecute you for treason while keeping the details secret.  I'm not saying that it's not theoretically possible but it would be a very, very stupid move, not even getting into why the everliving hell would they care enough to risk it.

[GlyphGryph]

I'm not implying any specific blackmail. I agree, the NSA isn't stupid enough to do that against the President. Our intelligence services certainly have done it against powerful figures, but that's a step too far for any self-serving spy with even a shred of common sense. You don't threaten the President, agreed.

But Obama isn't stupid, either. I doubt they'd need to. You don't need to threaten intelligent people at all, you simply need to make it clear you possess abilities they must consider when planning their actions. The recent admission that they were spying on congress and other government positions seems in line with that. There doesn't need to be blackmail for their power to have an influence over elected officials who might be worried about what they can do. It's not like the individuals in our government are against petty and self-destructive political revenge, and there's been a long-standing run of "official" leaks that just so happen to benefit the organizations doing the leaking, with no consequences for those involved.

But yes, obviously there's also a good chance he has some other reason to continue supporting them. It could just be hubris, the whole pulling together a team of experts to study and advise you on an issue and then almost completely disregarding their reports and deciding things work the way you want. It could be there's a lot of evidence they are combatting terrorism that the publications and leaks simply don't reveal.

Or, as I put as my alternative, it could be the things he thinks he's achieving via them have less to do with terrorism and more to do with some other less-publicized goal. The NSA has had significant involvement in economic espionage at this point as well, haven't they? Certainly seems like there's evidence of a lot more victories there than their is against terrorists.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Mike Huckabee has...interesting views on women's rights.

While I'm on the subject, New Mexico Representative Steve Pearce had this to say:

“The wife is to voluntarily submit, just as the husband is to lovingly lead and sacrifice,” Pearce writes. ”The husband’s part is to show up during the times of deep stress, take the leadership role and be accountable for the outcome, blaming no one else.”

[Zangi]

Well, the NSA is pretty useful for the government if they help out against against organized dissenters like the occupy movement I reckon...

[misko27]

I am going to register protest as the phrase "Illegal". There has been no evidence of illegal activity, nothing among all of Snowden's documents. Unconstitutional, perhaps; Poorly-run, clearly; actively malevolent, possible; but all they're actions have been stamped with the court Seal of Approval. Take issue with the laws themselves.

I'm not implying any specific blackmail. I agree, the NSA isn't stupid enough to do that against the President. Our intelligence services certainly have done it against powerful figures, but that's a step too far for any self-serving spy with even a shred of common sense. You don't threaten the President, agreed.

But Obama isn't stupid, either. I doubt they'd need to. You don't need to threaten intelligent people at all, you simply need to make it clear you possess abilities they must consider when planning their actions. The recent admission that they were spying on congress and other government positions seems in line with that. There doesn't need to be blackmail for their power to have an influence over elected officials who might be worried about what they can do. It's not like the individuals in our government are against petty and self-destructive political revenge, and there's been a long-standing run of "official" leaks that just so happen to benefit the organizations doing the leaking, with no consequences for those involved.

But yes, obviously there's also a good chance he has some other reason to continue supporting them. It could just be hubris, the whole pulling together a team of experts to study and advise you on an issue and then almost completely disregarding their reports and deciding things work the way you want. It could be there's a lot of evidence they are combatting terrorism that the publications and leaks simply don't reveal.

Or, as I put as my alternative, it could be the things he thinks he's achieving via them have less to do with terrorism and more to do with some other less-publicized goal. The NSA has had significant involvement in economic espionage at this point as well, haven't they? Certainly seems like there's evidence of a lot more victories there than their is against terrorists.

I'm against this from a historical perspective. All Presidents come into office saying something like, as Politico put it, 'I can square the hole"; but consistently they've changed their tune upon coming into office and gaining access to information and operations. This has been going on long before the NSA (and before Hoover died too). I don't think it's anything like the agencies themselves being actively (or passively) threatening. I do think they are in a much better position to lobby the President, as they have access to their own statistics (which we don't for obvious reasons), and can skew how effective they look. Remember, spying is solely the President's job; if people die, for most it's sad, for a President it's both personal failure and a potentially devastating political blow (look at Benghazi. Compared to what a major attack by Al Queda might do. They'd have Obama's political head on a stick). An agency can simply submerge him in statistics and files that say they do better with XYZ, and it happens. Especially up until Snowden, there was no backlash to increasing spying, and all to gain (has there been a terrorist attack lately? Can't be too careful).

[GlyphGryph]

I am going to register protest as the phrase "Illegal". There has been no evidence of illegal activity, nothing among all of Snowden's documents. Unconstitutional, perhaps; Poorly-run, clearly; actively malevolent, possible; but all they're actions have been stamped with the court Seal of Approval. Take issue with the laws themselves.

The congressional inquiry found the programs enacted by the NSA were actually illegal. The FISA courts themselves have said the NSA has engaged in illegal activity (although the program itself was legal, the way they followed it was not). The Senator who wrote the law the NSA claims to be operating under says that what they are doing is not within the bounds of that law (and since no other law gives them the power, is de facto illegal).

Where is your argument that the NSA has been doing things that are actually legal, other than that the President and NSA insist it so? Because there seems to be a lot of experts who have looked at the evidence and concluded otherwise.

[misko27]

I would take issue with the Senator, and use of the generic "experts", but the congressional inquiry is new and I confess ignorance.

Similarly to the bridge scandal; Actually fucking over bridges and messing things around is not illegal in and of itself (if bad for poll numbers), but there are related things that may be.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

His Imperial Majesty Rick Perry wants Texas to decriminalize marijuana.

Wait, what?

[GlyphGryph]

I would take issue with the Senator, and use of the generic "experts", but the congressional inquiry is new and I confess ignorance.

It's not really a "generic experts" when I identified the experts previous to referencing them. Judges, Senators, and these guys:
http://www.pclob.gov/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/01/surveillance-watchdog-concludes-metadata-program-is-illegal-should-end/

Created by congress specifically to investigate the NSA activities.

[SalmonGod]

I agree with Reelya.  The NSA is just one of the larger parts of a general trend towards an increasingly overbearing surveillance/police state that serves the ultra-wealthy elite.  To maintain order and dominance as their continual hoarding of resources and destruction of the planet continues to make life increasingly shitty for the growing majority.  Obama has been their unwavering servant throughout his time in office, and taken on plenty of hate in the process.  Why would he stop now?

[Max White]

Because he wants to continue to get reelected, right? It isn't like there is a two term limit, encouraging presidents to just let it all hang out and do what ever they want in their second term without fear, right? The constant need to maintain image keeps your politicians on their toes and serving the public interest, right?

[Descan]

I'd be curious to see a statistical map of when the more draconian measures in the past have been put in place, in terms of second or first term. With an adjustment to account for presidents who may have known they had no chance to get re-elected, and so would be more in the second-term boat than first.

[Helgoland]

Eh, Salmon - how exactly does the NSA serve the wealthy elite?

[Frumple]

... hasn't the NSA already been used to coordinate counter-protest efforts? Pretty sure that's come up a few times in here and in the occupy thread, if my memory's not failing me.