Is Obama the anti-openness president?

[Kulindahr]

I got this bit in an email today:

The Obama Justice Department has prosecuted more government leakers under the Espionage Act than all prior administrations combined.


We thought Bush was bad. But Obama's Justice Department prosecutes people for talking about non-classified material and issues secret warrants . . . .


How did we get such aright-wing statist in office? What happened to his pledges of openness?

 

[opinterph]

Charting Obama’s Crackdown on National Security Leaks (ProPublica)

 

[T-Rexx]

Obama has been a big fan of secrecy and illegal spying on Americans.

It is in sharp contrast to what he advocated before he became president.

 

[tigerfan482]

I got this bit in an email today:

The Obama Justice Department has prosecuted more government leakers under the Espionage Act than all prior administrations combined.


We thought Bush was bad. But Obama's Justice Department prosecutes people for talking about non-classified material and issues secret warrants . . . .


How did we get such aright-wing statist in office? What happened to his pledges of openness?

Do you have a link to support anything in this post? Some facts or additional information other than a headline would be useful. In addition, I applaud the President for cracking down on leaks. Classified information is classified and should not be leaked to the media or those not cleared for it. If you allow that to occur, then it just gets worse and worse. I'm sure the idea of that makes you cream your pants hard, but there are things the world shouldn't know in order to protect our country. Every country has classified information.

But I would definitely like to see the supporting evidence for your claims.

Charting Obama’s Crackdown on National Security Leaks (ProPublica)

Half of those aren't even Obama's doing. The other half needed prosecution. I would argue that since more leaks have occurred under Obama than other administrations, then it would logically follow that more prosecutions of such would. Besides, have you looked at some of the things these people leaked?

Leibowitz, a linguist and translator for the FBI, pleaded guilty to leaking classified information to a blogger. He was sentenced to 20 months in prison. At the time of his sentencing, not even the judge knew exactly what he had leaked, though later disclosures indicated it was FBI wiretaps of conversations between Israeli diplomats about Iran.

Kim, an analyst working under contract with the State Department, was indicted for giving classified information to Fox News about North Korea. His case is still pending. In a July 2013 ruling in the case, a federal judge said the government did not need to show that the information leaked could have damaged national security – just that Kim knew it could and willfully leaked the information.

Sterling, a CIA officer, was charged with leaking information about the CIA’s efforts against Iran’s nuclear program. His case is still pending.

And we all know what Manning and Snowden did. These are people who broke the law. They should be charged and prosecuted. Unless you feel like lawbreakers should be able to do so without having to worry about prosecution.

Obama has been a big fan of secrecy and illegal spying on Americans.

It is in sharp contrast to what he advocated before he became president.

How do you know that didn't happen? Just because you feel something might be unconstitutional doesn't mean it actually is. As the President stated the other day in his speech, there were things he though as a Senator that he changed his view on once he got into the White House and saw the totality of the facts. He promised reviews, not any particular action. And I believe we have well established no one has any evidence of Americans' e-mails being read or their phones being tapped.

 

[T-Rexx]

How do you know that didn't happen?

Probably it did.

Obama and his AGs just happen to agree with GWB.

And I believe we have well established no one has any evidence of Americans' e-mails being read or their phones being tapped.

Indeed. Secure email services are closing just because they don't like being in business, Microsoft gave the NSA back door access to Skype because everyone knows they will never try to use it. And Google, Apple, yahoo, MS, et. al. only gave access to their servers so the NSA could have a really huge cloud drive.

 

[tigerfan482]

Probably it did.

Obama and his AGs just happen to agree with GWB.

Or they just happen to have found that it didn't violate the law. In that quote, he promised to have the programs reviewed and overturn those that were found to be un-Constitutional or encroaching on civil liberties unnecessarily. He did not promise to automatically shut down programs which have contributed to stopping terrorist attacks.

 

[Jack Springer]

The Obama Administration just doesn't 'crack down on leaks', they have created an environment where less information is given to Congress and the American people. Administration officials lie or take 'the fifth' or just don't respond to Congress on requests for information. The key word is 'stall'.

We have a check and balances systems where Congress has the right to oversee what the Executive branch does ... right now that system is broke. One side will simply not cooperate.

It will be interesting in 2015 when Obama is no longer in charge to see the number of books that come out talking about the arrogant, 'only I know best' leadership that Obama employed while in office. I doubt that Obama's people will have the loyalty and admiration that those within the Clinton and Bush White House staff had.

 

[tigerfan482]

The Obama Administration just doesn't 'crack down on leaks', they have created an environment where less information is given to Congress and the American people. Administration officials lie or take 'the fifth' or just don't respond to Congress on requests for information. The key word is 'stall'.

We have a check and balances systems where Congress has the right to oversee what the Executive branch does ... right now that system is broke. One side will simply not cooperate.

It will be interesting in 2015 when Obama is no longer in charge to see the number of books that come out talking about the arrogant, 'only I know best' leadership that Obama employed while in office. I doubt that Obama's people will have the loyalty and admiration that those within the Clinton and Bush White House staff had.

The President has given more than enough information to Congress. The problem is that certain people in Congress like to engage in witch hunts against the administration and continue to keep demanding more and more until they hit something that can't be handed over (there is a court upheld precedent throughout US history of administrations keeping certain information from Congress to maintain the separation of powers) and then they scream about lack of cooperation. It's been an attempt since January of 2009 to undermine a president certain members of Congress didn't want to be elected.

 

[T-Rexx]

Or they just happen to have found that it didn't violate the law. In that quote, he promised to have the programs reviewed and overturn those that were found to be un-Constitutional or encroaching on civil liberties unnecessarily. He did not promise to automatically shut down programs which have contributed to stopping terrorist attacks.

He promised to overturn them if he found any programs that were "encroaching on civil liberties."

Obviously, spying on Americans without a court order and even without suspicion of wrongdoing is not "encroaching on our civil liberties." The president is just trying to protect us. We should really be grateful.

Don't you agree, Mr. President?

 

[tigerfan482]

He promised to overturn them if he found any programs that were "encroaching on civil liberties."

Obviously, spying on Americans without a court order and even without suspicion of wrongdoing is not "encroaching on our civil liberties." The president is just trying to protect us. We should really be grateful.

Don't you agree, Mr. President?

First off, please use the entire quote (I'm feeling like we're re-hashing the Benjamin Franklin quote on liberty again.) "...if they're encroaching on civil liberties unnecessarily..." So there's one of two ways this went - either they found it wasn't encoraching on civil liberties (the Supreme Court has ruled metadata has NO reasonable expectation of privacy and thus is not covered under the Fourth Amendment) or they found that the didn't encroach unnecessarily. Secondly, you're making an argument based on the government spying on Americans which you have yet to provide any proof of. Thirdly, this collection of metadata is done with a court order (hint: it's the thing that was leaked by Snowden to the press.) So none of what you said is rooted in any fact.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes, secret courts with secret interpretations of the law withheld even from the Congress that passed the law certainly helps our civil liberties. It's an excellent way to have an informed public for a strong democracy!

 

[tigerfan482]

Yes, secret courts with secret interpretations of the law withheld even from the Congress that passed the law certainly helps our civil liberties. It's an excellent way to have an informed public for a strong democracy!

The committees in Congress that are responsible for oversight of the intelligence community were made WELL aware of these court rulings and court proceedings. Committees have been established and charged with oversight of their various areas for decades. The make-up of Congress and the rules, regulations, and laws it passes dealing with its own operations are not within the purview of the NSA or the Executive Branch.

 

[T-Rexx]

First off, please use the entire quote "...if they're encroaching on civil liberties unnecessarily..."

Indeed.

It surely is necessary to read all of our emails and BB postings, our online (and offline) documents, and to listen in on our phone conversations in order to keep us safe.

I'm feeling like we're re-hashing the Benjamin Franklin quote on liberty again.

No doubt, the protection against unreasonable search and seizure is one of the liberties Ben Franklin did not feel was necessary to a free people.

 

[CowboyBob]

For those of you who think President Obama is bad.... remember who preceded him and what it could have been like if McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan won.

We don't have it so bad.

 

[JayHawk]

The REASON he is rampantly prosecuting leakers is because LEFTIES were demanding it after Valerie Plame during the Bush years, including MOST of the left side of JUB. Be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.

 

[tigerfan482]

Indeed.

It surely is necessary to read all of our emails and BB postings, our online (and offline) documents, and to listen in on our phone conversations in order to keep us safe.

Ahhh, more unfounded and unproven conspiracy theories. Some people have gotten really good at these. You should work on writing novels. Or would you care to provide some evidence of these claims?

No doubt, the protection against unreasonable search and seizure is one of the liberties Ben Franklin did not feel was necessary to a free people.

Oh no, he felt it was necessary. However, the Supreme Court has rules that metadata is not protected under the Fourth Amendment and thus collection of it is not an "unreasonable search and seizure." Plus I brought up Mr. Franklin because people love to leave out the words "temporary" and "essential" from his quote, thinking that he didn't really mean for those to be in there.

 

[tigerfan482]

For those of you who think President Obama is bad.... remember who preceded him and what it could have been like if McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan won.

We don't have it so bad.

I think this is the important thing to remember. When the dust settles and people come down from their panic, they'll see that their rights are actually protected and much more so than they were under Bush and would have been under McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan. Keep in mind it was Bush who authorized the warrantless wiretaps, not Obama.

 

[JayHawk]

Hell just the fact that you know they are going after folks on Obama's watch is extraordinary. Unlike the Bush era extraordinary rendition.

 

[T-Rexx]

Ahhh, more unfounded and unproven conspiracy theories. Some people have gotten really good at these. You should work on writing novels. Or would you care to provide some evidence of these claims?

You're right.

Just because some G-men were caught outside your window with their hands cupped around their eyes, pressed to the glass, does not mean they were actually trying to see inside.

That would be a crazy conclusion. And where is the proof? The president says they were just making sure the glass was safe for you. Why would anyone question that?

Oh no, he felt it was necessary. However, the Supreme Court has rules that metadata is not protected under the Fourth Amendment and thus collection of it is not an "unreasonable search and seizure." Plus I brought up Mr. Franklin because people love to leave out the words "temporary" and "essential" from his quote, thinking that he didn't really mean for those to be in there.

You still haven't told us which of our liberties are the nonessential/unnecessary ones.

Your point that Ben Franklin believed we are just too free and can toss out some of our liberty because it is "nonessential" is just bizarre. You copied that idea from an internet posting of a right-wing fanatic/idiot. You should be informed that there are a lot of stupid people out there, posting stupid stuff on the internet. Not everything you read necessarily makes sense.

Franklin used the term essential liberties to emphasize the fact that liberties are essential and therefore need to be protected at all cost - not to imply the existence of some bizarre, lesser freedoms that we don't really need.

 

[Just_Believe18]

For those of you who think President Obama is bad.... remember who preceded him and what it could have been like if McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan won.

We don't have it so bad.

This is true, however, this is legitimate criticism to lay on the President. How are we to hold the Democrat party and Obama accountable, if we merely shrug our shoulders and concede, "Well, it would have been worse with the other guy?"

We should press this issue against Obama as much as we have with Republican leaders in the past. The NSA's spying on Americans is unacceptable.