Saturday, February 13, 2010

Obama Advocates for Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking

I thought it was only the Bush administration and the evil Republicans that wanted to shred the Constitution and perform illegal surveillance on American citizens. So what is the Obama administration doing advocating for warrantless cell phone tracking.

"the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice Department's request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans' privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed.


  1. shouldn't you be happy about this?

    Obama is continuing pretty much every part of Bush's "counter-terror" program. Military tribunals, indefinite detentions, reserving the right to arrest american citizens the government suspects of being "terrorists". When you take it upon yourself to expand the powers of your institution, its pretty silly to think then at some point the next guy will want to reign it in.
    none of this surprises me, its how things tend to work in a one-party state like the U.S.
    Obama is a right-wing politician, the democrats are far and away a right-wing political party. just because your to the left of rush limbaugh doesn't mean your a "socialist", or a "liberal".

  2. @Ian Spencer Dubrowsky - there is a big difference between military tribunals for individuals caught on foreign battlefields violating the rules of war and warrantless cell phone tracking of American citizens. One of those groups is entitled to Constitutional protection while the other is not.

    Obama has been continuing a number of Bush programs, programs which he previously criticized. Still, Obama is most certainly not a 'right wing' politician if by right wing you mean Conservative.

  3. Your right, there is a big difference. especially when we now define a "foreign battlefield" and "violating the rules of war" however dick cheney or whoever is running the government wants to. And your wrong, the constitution does not just apply to american citizens.

    Again, "conservative" doesn't mean anything just because you have a notion of what it should mean. Yes, he is continuteing policies he critisized Bush for doing. What most of Bush did made him the most unpopular president in the last hundred years. But that is what politicians do to get elected, they say things that are popular but that don't always mean anything about what they are going to do. Kind of like how "Conservatives" say they favor "small government" but their policies always amount to more government intervention in the economy.
    Obama is right-wing, just not a movement conservative like Reagan or Bush- which is considered far-right in most places on earth

  4. @Ian Spencer Dubrowsky - Dick Cheney is not running the government, and there is a lot less interpretation then you are implying.

    Conservatives do favor small government. Some Republicans advocate for greater government intervention. That is why Republicans and Conservative are not the same thing. Those Republicans are liberal, as is Obama (he is not a right-winger). Bush was not a conservative when it came to his economic policies.

  5. no, a disgraced and humiliated liar like dick cheney is no longer running the government, we agree.

    If Bush wasn't conservative then neither was reagan if you wanna bother to check the numbers. Yes, im aware about what conservatives "say" about what they believe, but your analysis ignores what it is they actually do. "compassionate conservatism" was not an acceptance of new society programs but a dog-whistle to the religious right-wing. And if something like "Heritage" is conservative like you say to me, then how do you reconcile that with that Bush pretty much was following their policy advice done the line when he was in office?

    there hasn't been a "liberal" republican since arguably Nixon, who founded the EPA.

    Obama is basically a continuation of Bush. The differences they do have are within an ideological spectrum so narrow that in no other democracy on earth would they even be considered in different political parties. Only in a one party state like the u.s. does one faction jockey for power over the other by trying to delineate arcane ideologial fault lines like you do when you parrot over and over again "conservatives beliieve this... conservatives believes this..." . Obama is a right-winger, he could never get elected in western europe, latin america, India, the U.K., austrialia or even Japan. His being right-wing is just a function of the relative concentration of power in the United States. If you don't understand what right vs left wing comes from i'll be happy to explain it to you

  6. @Ian Spencer Dubrowsky - you seem to constantly be confusing theologies with people's actions. Bush was a fiscal Liberal. If he said he was a Conservative that does not change what it means to be Conservative, it means he is mistaken. The same way that saying your on a diet and then wolfing down a few tubs of ice cream does not change what it means to be on a diet, it just means you are not really on one despite your claim. Reagan was a Conservative, Bush was not economically, Obama is not.

    Obama could never get elected in Europe; I thought the people loved him despite the almost total lack of concessions he has gotten from the rest of the world.

  7. Haha "confusing theologies with people's actions" talk about projection.

    Ok if Bush was a "fiscal liberal" (a pretty ridiculous term by the way) then I think you should also be so insightful in examining the gap between Reagan's rhetoric and his actions. Like Bush he cut taxes with no way to pay them, spent massively on defense department contracts and put us in massive structural deficits. by your definition he would be even more "fiscally liberal" then bush if you consider that he was the most protectionist president since world war two.

    I think your referring to the fact that the european press was even more gushing over Obama then the sickening level of adoration that he got in the U.S. press (something you've documented on this site). He couldn't get elected in Europe because Major industries have alot more power to set the policies in the U.S., then say western europe, where working class movements historically havn't been violently put down by the government and form the basis of major political institutions that uphold the interest of these classes in the public policy realm. The dominant institutions and ideologies in a society are always just a reflection of the interests and concerns of the most powerful people in that society, Obama broadly represents the interests of internationally oriented, high-tech, low- labor intensive and urban based industries. I guess you could argue that makes him more left then being a "conservative" which really just means you advocate for nationally oriented, low-tech, labor intensive industries.

  8. @Ian Spencer Dubrowsky - the economy that I advocate for is one free market, free from government intrusions and burdensome taxes/policies; save monopoly and trust busting.

  9. Right i know, thats what you keep saying, which is why its so befuddling to everyone else that the policies you seem to advocate make people less free, the markets more dependent and evetually call for the government to step in a much more burdensome way eventually anyway on the belhalf and in the interest of low-tech labor intensive industries. Is there no dissonance when you at once say you want the eocnomy free from government "intrusions" and then say you want "monopoly and trust busting".

    to say you advocate for a "free market", reminds me of the anecdote where someone once asked gandhi what he thought about Western civiliazation, he replied "it sounds like a good idea, maybe someone should try it". A free market would be a great thing, it certaintly sounds like a good idea, the problem is we don't have that, never did.

  10. @Ian Spencer Dubrowsky - I am not advocating for "the policies you seem to advocate make people less free, the markets more dependent and evetually call for the government to step in a much more burdensome way eventually anyway on the belhalf and in the interest of low-tech labor intensive industries." I am arguing for Free markets. The only 'government intrusion' I advocate is the minimal level possible to keep it free.

  11. you are like your hypothetical abortion clinic bomber in a sense, he thinks he's stopping murders from happening.

    When the markets are dependent on coordination from a central government, when the markets themselves exist in a state-capitalist system where profit is privatized and loss is socialized, when high level officials in corporate and government bureaucracys spin through revolving doors of the same institutions. then the markets are not "free" of government.

    Re-evaluate these concepts please, like "free-markets" they are nebulus

  12. @Ian Spencer Dubrowsky - "you are like your hypothetical abortion clinic bomber in a sense, he thinks he's stopping murders from happening." I think that was an insult, but I am not really sure what you are going for.

  13. I guess you can say I was insulting your intellect. I like you very much personally you know.

    You have no power, your not killing anybody of course. I don't think the things you advocate for are helpful, but you know that already.


Related Posts with Thumbnails

Like what you read; Subscribe/Fan/Follow