General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFor argument's sake, let's say Obama closed Gitmo, ended the drone program, ended the NSA program
and the terrorist attack in Boston occurs or some other terrorist attack occurs.
What do you think the political fall out would be for Obama and the Democratic party?
Any sane person knows that these are completely unrelated events, but I've lived through the Ronald "tough on defense" Reagan years, and I've lived through 2002-2004 where the Republicans gained control of our government based solely on 9/11. The Republicans would demagouge this issue and keep the Dems out of power for decades.
Yes, you can stand on principle and lose elections to the Republicans who would not only maintain the drone and NSA programs but would go much farther with actual invasions of other countries.
think
(11,641 posts)Andy Greenberg, Forbes Staff
6/11/2013
While many in the U.S. government and the media are busy calling for the extradition and prosecution of NSA leaker Edward Snowden, one group of senators is working to change the laws that allowed the secret surveillance his leaks exposed.
Senators Jeff Merkley and Mike Lee, along with six other legislators, on Tuesday introduced a new bill that would require the Attorney General to declassify significant opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which is meant to oversee the scope and targets of surveillance by agencies like the NSA under the Patriot Act....
~Snip~
Full article:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/06/11/eight-senators-re-introduce-a-bill-to-reduce-secrecy-of-patriot-act-surveillance/
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)...have said absolutely NOTHING about congressional oversight!!
Call Congress!! Demand that they exercise their given *constitutional* authority to oversee exective war powers!!
Repeal the Patriot Act!!!!!!!
im1013
(633 posts)It's ok to condone torture, remote killing of innocent civilians, ignoring the Geneva Conventions, all the
while spying on EVERY citizen of a supposedly free society...
AS LONG AS A DEMOCRAT IS IN OFFICE?!?!
Seriously???
Yavin4
(35,443 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Like the bushies, it is ok as long as my side does it. Moral center...what moral center?
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Romulus Quirinus
(524 posts)if any of that crap actually reduced the chance of a terrorist attack.
Yavin4
(35,443 posts)I am saying that the politics of the issues do matter because one party will demagouge it to gain control.
Romulus Quirinus
(524 posts)in measurably greater danger while delaying justice for innocent men and protecting the surveillance state, all in order to keep up appearances. Right?
I just want to be sure we're all on the same page, here.
Yavin4
(35,443 posts)If Obama had took down the security state and an attack happened like the one in Boston, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE CORRELATING THE TWO ACTS, then the Republicans would demagouge the issue, win elections, and restore the security state.
If you want to dismantle the security state, then you need to rally the people to your cause and not wait for Obama to do it.
That's what I am saying.
Romulus Quirinus
(524 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Republicans will be unhappy and MIGHT gain power again.
Damn grand 11 dimensional chess game that is!
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...and have been losing elections as a result.
Your whole premise is absurd and defeatist.
think
(11,641 posts)is a bit pathetic is it not?
I want bold leadership that knows how to defend morally correct decisions in the face of fearful ignorance created by the Republican / corporate smear machine....
Yavin4
(35,443 posts)Regardless of who or what are the leaders?
think
(11,641 posts)and quit the era of secret law I concur....
Yavin4
(35,443 posts)Where are the marches? Where are the demonstrations? Where are the daily protests?
think
(11,641 posts)in case you missed it
Yavin4
(35,443 posts)think
(11,641 posts)yes. past tense.....
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and they would be likely to think taking these measures had made us susceptible to the attack.
Romulus Quirinus
(524 posts)Because you will never own the media, and therefore you will never own the government if the people are that childish and that stupid.
We will have passed beyond the event horizon, before which we could have turned back.
Now, if you're arguing that we have it coming, well, maybe, but I'd rather avoid it.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)even though it spent all those tens of billions of dollars, it could not prevent Boston AND can't even find one whistleblower. Despite continuous torture of people in Gitmo, extrajudicial killings, and making a mockery of Constitution.
Brilliant strategy!
Romulus Quirinus
(524 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)Is that how you think?
Yavin4
(35,443 posts)That's the political reality of these issues.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)but about the greater good. That is what separates Democrats from Republicans.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But we did have an attack in Boston right? And it gets better, we had the shiny needle pointed to us twice by the FSB?
People far more qualified than you have actually said that this mass surveillance actually hurts the effort to stop terrorists. So I think it's time you brew yourself a strong cup of coffee and develop a moral center independent of who sits in the WH and what letter is behind their name.
It is not about terrorists or commies, or anything else you fear.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)bhikkhu
(10,718 posts)on the drone program, if we didn't have one there would be panic at all the other nations drone programs. Think back to when the soviets launched Sputnik and we had nothing. If we didn't have a drone program we'd wind up with a big drone program, particularly if we had soldiers dying on the battlefield because we had no drone program.
On the NSA surveillance, I think if we had no program and the Boston bombing happened, or certainly 9/11, or the cold war, or the soviet invasion of Afghanistan, or various things in the middle east - we'd wind up with a surveillance program. Perhaps we'd develop a program out of necessity, then sit back and worry about how it might be abused. Then we'd come up with something like the FISA courts. Then maybe we'd still worry, and maybe we'd come up with a better set of standards that would let people worry a little less about abuse.
We probably will.
Pale Blue Dot
(16,831 posts)This smacks of "I think Obama is too weak to do the right thing."
A strong leader takes chances in order to do the right thing. A weak leader tries to consolidate control in the face of threats.
Which one is the President?
Yavin4
(35,443 posts)You cannot post: "we're not blind followers", and then complain about "Obama not leading". That doesn't make any sense.
Pale Blue Dot
(16,831 posts)like you've created a straw man, which only weak people who don't trust their own arguments would do.
Yavin4
(35,443 posts)It's not logical to complain about people following Obama and then later complain about Obama's lack of leadership.
mazzarro
(3,450 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)cuz otherwise the Republicans will get mad and say mean stuff? And that will doom us for decades? Really?
lol
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Your argument seems to be that the most important and the overriding concern is the political. What happens if we don't do this? Yet polling coming out since this started seems to indicate that the majority are concerned with the moral, and the ethical. Apparently the one political aspect that the experts didn't consider is what happens when the sheeple learn that they are being watched constantly by Big Brother ala 1984?
They should have. Eisenhower let the lie that Gary Powers was just doing a weather research flight go out because he was assured by the CIA that there was no way that the Soviets would ever capture him alive, and even if they did, there was no way that the plane would survive because of the self destruct devices. After all they gave Powers a suicide pill with his parachute.
In 1961, the CIA promised Kennedy that the Navy would not be needed, because their plan was perfect, and the bay of pigs invasion would go off without a hitch. Then the CIA was furious when amazingly, JFK actually refused to send the Navy in to rescue/support the bay of pigs invasion.
The intelligence agencies have a long history of making promises and assurances that they can't possibly keep. So the first question, the absolute first question you should ask is what will the people think when they learn of this? If someone was able to convince President Obama that the people would be fine with it, after President Obama saw his popularity and support soar during the primary when promising to shut it down then there were at least two fools in that conversation.
But they decided the political was the way to go. Keep the programs, and that way if there was a terrorist attack, they could shunt some of the blame and keep clear of the defecation that was going through the rotary oscillator. Meanwhile, the people are pissed, because for nearly twelve years, we've been hearing about this war on terror, and watching excessive programs, immoral actions, and unethical people get away with abominations all in the name of the war on terror.
My Father told me many times, never do something that I could not explain as moral, or ethical. When I had to start parsing, and explaining how this wasn't exactly prohibited by some vague language or ill written rule, I was already down two strikes. The first doing the thing, the second, being unable to defend the thing. The example he used was breaking a window on a car. I'd better have a real good reason, like a baby or an animal inside that needed rescue, before I broke it. If I had a good reason, I would almost certainly get out without any trouble, but if I just broke it because I felt like it, I would have no such defense.
In other words, the ethical and moral grounds would trump the political. Doubt me? Imagine if Zimmerman had shot Travon Martin as he was breaking into a home. Zimmerman could have been the most racist son of a bitch on the planet, and gotten away with it no problem, because he had an ethical excuse for the action as opposed to the current situation, where he has no such fallback position.
What about when people find out? The first question, the first position, the first thing you should consider. What do I tell people when it is found out? Am I doing the wrong thing for the right reasons?
The answers given by the Administration, and the people involved clearly show that nobody has asked themselves that simple question at any point of this debacle. Nobody wondered what they would say if people found out, because it was Top Secret, and they were prohibited from finding out. So now President Obama and the administration are floundering, screaming that Snowden is a criminal, and looking even more incompetent because they can't convince Governments that they were spying on that they should cough up the traitor for the sake of amiable relations, amiable relations that ain't gonna exist for years now anyway.
If they had considered the inevitable question of what to say when people found out, the administration would be in much better condition than they are now. The younger voters, the ones who turned out in droves to support Candidate Obama, are dumping him, they're the tech gen right? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/13/poll-obama-nsa-leaks-trust
We keep making the same mistake. All the way through this administration, we keep trying to be kinder gentler Republicans, instead of the party of the smart. We trumpet our smart power, and then accept a slightly less odorous version of a program that stinks to high heaven. Our defense seems to be just as ill conceived. Well, we're doing something wrong, but we're doing it less wrong than the last guy. Let's say that stupid sentiment is true, what does that say about the next guy? Will he be more or less evil than this one?
The political should be considered, but the first consideration should always be what do we say to the people when we get caught. Can we defend our actions? Can we justify our positions? If you can't, then the political ramifications of not doing it, are far outweighed by doing it in the first place, and getting caught.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)and the Boston terrorist attack occurs.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)Most tend to rally around the flag/admin when under attack.
Most realize nothing can stop lone wolf attacks anyway, just look at Iraq and we had tanks, jets, drones, and spying... Not to mention Boston.
It's a fools errand, besides the spy apparatus isn't aimed at terrorists, it's aimed at US.
We need leaders who have something else to sell beyond fear.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)afraid of the big bad republies ability to frame issues.
Yavin4
(35,443 posts)It will get worse than it already is.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)drhobo
(74 posts)Ending those programs would go a long way towards winning over this libertarian. Giving up privacy and freedom is too high a price for security
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Listen to me carefully:
There is absolutely NOTHING this president could ever do that is right. NOTHING!
There will always be people here and elsewhere who will complain that he did or didn't do this or that right.
Everyone thinks they can do the president's job better than he can.
People talk so much shit on the message forums and in commentary circles, but they wouldn't be able to handle this president's job for a day. Complaining gets harder when you're forced to GOVERN!!!
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)POOR OBAMA!
He knew what he was getting himself into. I don't feel sorry for him, or anyone else that decides to run.
Please stop taking message forums so seriously. There's a lot of good people here and elsewhere that do good things, that work hard for progressive causes, that give their time, money and energy.
You, though, seem to only focus on the negative.
POOR OBAMA!
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Hekate
(90,726 posts)gulliver
(13,186 posts)The Republicans would sweep to power if Obama took the positions some folks here think he should take. It would be another decade of darkness.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)than as party that stands for freedom, justice and the constitution that might possibly under the wrong scenario loose.
Of course we could still loose even if we support a militaristic, authoritarian state. But, what's so great about freedom and independence anyway?