General Discussion

LuckyTheDog

(6,837 posts) Wed Jun 4, 2014, 11:38 AM Jun 2014

Why is it wrong to call on the courts and Congress to rein in the NSA program?

I have been piled on for posting this:

I think it is worth noting that the NSA program started under GW Bush and had far less judicial oversight before Obama took the reins.

Should Obama have stopped it? If I was him, I would not have done so. But I would have encouraged Congress to force me to stop it.

Here is why: The president is responsible for the security of the country. If we get hit, the president has to be able to say he (and, after 2016, probably "she&quot

did everything legally possible to keep the country safe. Nobody would have patience that, sure, those people are dead, but our integrity is intact. A president who could have stopped an attack, but didn't do the things required, would be run out of office.

So, once started, it was the responsibility of Congress and/or the courts to stop it. No president could be expected to take that risk alone.

By posting that, I in no way indicated that I think the NSA program is just peachy or that it should be continued. I was accused of that. But that was not my point.

My sole point is that ending the NSA program unilaterally has no upside for the president and plenty of downsides. Given the political realities of Washington and public opinion, Obama can realistically end this program only if Congress cooperates or forces him to do it. And it would probably be the latter because Obama does not seem inclined to stop the storage of metadata.

We're making a tactical mistake by sticking to the dogma that the only acceptable course would be for Obama to end the NSA program via executive action. That's never going to happen.

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why is it wrong to call on the courts and Congress to rein in the NSA program? (Original Post) LuckyTheDog Jun 2014 OP

Because that's hard work. randome Jun 2014 #1

It's also easier to mindlessly bash Obama... LuckyTheDog Jun 2014 #2

You don't need to be an 'Obama Worshipper' to recognize bashing when you see it. randome Jun 2014 #3

Thank you (nt) LuckyTheDog Jun 2014 #4

It is certain the NSA would NOT have been reined in by Bush, at all. blm Jun 2014 #5

Because the Republicans don't want to be held accountable for Sections 215's reauthorization. msanthrope Jun 2014 #6

I put a DUer on "full ignore" today over this whole Snowden thing LuckyTheDog Jun 2014 #7

more tension between White House an Congress ? Leme Jun 2014 #8

No objections to Congress or the courts reeling the Executive in here TheKentuckian Jun 2014 #9

randome

(34,845 posts)

1. Because that's hard work.

Reply to LuckyTheDog (Original post)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 11:41 AM

Jun 2014

It's far easier to sit at our desks and cheer Snowden's 'Run For Freedom' without having to parse the information available to us and provoke the appropriate changes.

The changes so far at the NSA had nothing to do with Snowden's documents. He, himself, apparently has no opinions, he just likes to steal stuff.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

LuckyTheDog

(6,837 posts)

2. It's also easier to mindlessly bash Obama...

Reply to randome (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 11:42 AM

Jun 2014

... without considering the whole scope of the problem. I am kind of tired of the "blame Obama first" attitude I see around here sometimes.

randome

(34,845 posts)

3. You don't need to be an 'Obama Worshipper' to recognize bashing when you see it.

Reply to LuckyTheDog (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 11:45 AM

Jun 2014

And you don't need to be an 'NSA apologist' to recognize that something is wrong with Snowden.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

LuckyTheDog

(6,837 posts)

4. Thank you (nt)

Reply to randome (Reply #3)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 11:46 AM

Jun 2014

blm

(113,047 posts)

5. It is certain the NSA would NOT have been reined in by Bush, at all.

Reply to LuckyTheDog (Original post)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 11:46 AM

Jun 2014

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)

6. Because the Republicans don't want to be held accountable for Sections 215's reauthorization.

Reply to LuckyTheDog (Original post)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 11:51 AM

Jun 2014

Look--if every poster on this board who supported Snowden took a good hard look at just how you 'fix' all this, they'd realize that the upcoming 215 reauthorization was the big daddy of all privacy fights. It's the whole enchilada----the Patriot Act Section 215 reauthorization fight.

And the Republican's don't wanna us to look at that. They don't want us voting in the midterms based on that. They want the attention on Obama.

LuckyTheDog

(6,837 posts)

7. I put a DUer on "full ignore" today over this whole Snowden thing

Reply to msanthrope (Reply #6)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 12:08 PM

Jun 2014

It's only the second time I have ever done that. I did it as much for the sake of the other member as for myself. We were getting too angry with each other. I felt bullied. Maybe the other person felt the same way. I felt we should just avoid each other from now on.

Leme

(1,092 posts)

8. more tension between White House an Congress ?

Reply to LuckyTheDog (Original post)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 12:10 PM

Jun 2014

about limits to the ways he or she can "protect" America. Interesting. Just seems never on the table in a open discussion forum there. especially since you know when.

TheKentuckian

(25,023 posts)

9. No objections to Congress or the courts reeling the Executive in here

Reply to LuckyTheDog (Original post)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 03:22 PM

Jun 2014

But such is not reasonably expected at this time and the authorizations put virtually the entire apparatus under the purview and control of the Executive so primary responsibility rests right there for what actions are taken.

Your rationale is understandable but is also an excuse and a cop out and not a reason for a pass, this administration is violating our civil liberties and is legally empowered to stop it and it doesn't matter at all that BushCo started it.

Reply to this discussion