Is Obama the anti-openness president?

[Jack Springer]

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.

Love is Blind.

 

[tigerfan482]

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?

Except in this case all you have shown is that a window exists and that there are G-men somewhere who have the ability to see. What you've failed to do is show that those two things are related in any way. This is not a case of the G-men being caught at your window. This is a case of the G-men looking through the window of someone on the other side of the world and you saying "Gee, I have a window and they have the ability to look through windows thus they must be looking through mine."

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.

Making phone calls through third party systems with the expectation that only you and the person you're calling will ever know you made that call is a non-essential liberty. Being able to fly without being screened or searched is a non-essential liberty. Being able to drive wherever you want without being pulled over for a sobriety checkpoint is a non-essential liberty. The list goes on. Franklin understood there were times when what some people considered liberty would have to be given up in the interest of a more permanent security. I highly doubt he was dumb enough to believe that things would always remain the same in the US and that nothing that anyone would consider a liberty would ever have to be sacrificed for the lasting security of the nation. I mean we'll forget the fact that the suspension of habeas corpus or the activation of the militia during times of insurrection were written into the Constitution, a document that Franklin himself was a member of the drafting convention. But you're right, he probably forgot that he really meant that no liberty, no matter how small and insignificant, can ever be given up for security, no matter how long-lasting and necessary.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

 

[palbert]

I keep waiting for Obama to tell me that Bills of Attainder are necessary. But then the ruinous prosecution of whistleblowers and journalists is perhaps the same thing.

The DoJ - incapable of recognizing a 4th or 5th Amendment issue - will have no problem redefining that historic punishment.

 

[tigerfan482]

I keep waiting for Obama to tell me that Bills of Attainder are necessary. But then the ruinous prosecution of whistleblowers and journalists is perhaps the same thing.

The DoJ - incapable of recognizing a 4th or 5th Amendment issue - will have no problem redefining that historic punishment.

I love the streams of unsubstantiated ideas that flow in these threads. You guys really should get together and write a movie or a book. The amount of fiction you guys generate could rival Tom Clancy. But in reality, there are whistleblowers and then there are people like Snowden. Federal law is clear on what defines a whistleblower and what defines someone who broke the law. Had Snowden gone directly to Congress to get this debate started, he would be protected as a whistleblower. Since he went to the media with classified information, he will be hunted as a criminal.

 

[CowboyBob]

Love is Blind.

So is hate.

 

[eastofeden]

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.

Good point. I knew Mr Obama was a conservative before he even announced his candidacy so unlike a lot of people on either side he is exactly what I expected...with a few very pleasant surprises. He throws liberals a bone when he has to...bones are good.

 

[Kulindahr]

Since someone brought up a contention about what Ben Franklin really meant, here's some flavoring for that pot:

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

In modern times, this famous quote from Ben Franklin is used to strike a healthy balance between individual liberty and government-provided security from external threats. But as we’ve learned more and more recently, context matters. Looking at Franklin’s words in the historical context of their time, does this quote really mean what we think it does?


Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow of governance studies with the Brookings Institute, contends no:

The words appear originally in a 1755 letter that Franklin is presumed to have written on behalf of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the colonial governor during the French and Indian War. The letter was a salvo in a power struggle between the governor and the Assembly over funding for security on the frontier, one in which the Assembly wished to tax the lands of the Penn family, which ruled Pennsylvania from afar, to raise money for defense against French and Indian attacks. The governor kept vetoing the Assembly’s efforts at the behest of the family, which had appointed him. So to start matters, Franklin was writing not as a subject being asked to cede his liberty to government, but in his capacity as a legislator being asked to renounce his power to tax lands notionally under his jurisdiction. In other words, the “essential liberty” to which Franklin referred was thus not what we would think of today as civil liberties but, rather, the right of self-governance of a legislature in the interests of collective security.

What’s more the “purchase [of] a little temporary safety” of which Franklin complains was not the ceding of power to a government Leviathan in exchange for some promise of protection from external threat; for in Franklin’s letter, the word “purchase” does not appear to have been a metaphor. The governor was accusing the Assembly of stalling on appropriating money for frontier defense by insisting on including the Penn lands in its taxes–and thus triggering his intervention. And the Penn family later offered cash to fund defense of the frontier–as long as the Assembly would acknowledge that it lacked the power to tax the family’s lands. Franklin was thus complaining of the choice facing the legislature between being able to make funds available for frontier defense and maintaining its right of self-governance–and he was criticizing the governor for suggesting it should be willing to give up the latter to ensure the former.

In short, Franklin was not describing some tension between government power and individual liberty. He was describing, rather, effective self-government in the service of security as the very liberty it would be contemptible to trade. Notwithstanding the way the quotation has come down to us, Franklin saw the liberty and security interests of Pennsylvanians as aligned.

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2011/07/15/security-vs-liberty-what-did-ben-franklin-really-mean/

 

[tigerfan482]

Since someone brought up a contention about what Ben Franklin really meant, here's some flavoring for that pot:

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2011/07/15/security-vs-liberty-what-did-ben-franklin-really-mean/

URL to the full paper that the above quote is from. It's a very interesting read and a good viewpoint of the whole debate.

 

[CowboyBob]

Yep..... if anyone thinks Barack Obama is not a very good President, think of what it could have been. And don't forget what we had before him.

 

[Jack Springer]

^^

The question of the thread 'is he the anti-openness President'. The simple and correct answer is yes.

The question isn't .. .do you love the President.

 

[cm98059]

Except in this case all you have shown is that a window exists and that there are G-men somewhere who have the ability to see. What you've failed to do is show that those two things are related in any way. This is not a case of the G-men being caught at your window. This is a case of the G-men looking through the window of someone on the other side of the world and you saying "Gee, I have a window and they have the ability to look through windows thus they must be looking through mine."


Making phone calls through third party systems with the expectation that only you and the person you're calling will ever know you made that call is a non-essential liberty. Being able to fly without being screened or searched is a non-essential liberty. Being able to drive wherever you want without being pulled over for a sobriety checkpoint is a non-essential liberty. The list goes on. Franklin understood there were times when what some people considered liberty would have to be given up in the interest of a more permanent security. I highly doubt he was dumb enough to believe that things would always remain the same in the US and that nothing that anyone would consider a liberty would ever have to be sacrificed for the lasting security of the nation. I mean we'll forget the fact that the suspension of habeas corpus or the activation of the militia during times of insurrection were written into the Constitution, a document that Franklin himself was a member of the drafting convention. But you're right, he probably forgot that he really meant that no liberty, no matter how small and insignificant, can ever be given up for security, no matter how long-lasting and necessary.

Well, actually the ability to drive from here to there is not a liberty, it is a privilege, so being stopped at a sobriety check point is not a violation of your liberties. With the privilege of driving comes the responsibility to not drive impaired. Likewise, air travel is not a liberty. People from every country can get on an airplane and fly to a destination, whether or not their government's constitution provides for individual liberties. Getting on an airplane is a privilege for those that can afford to buy the ticket. One cannot go to the airport and demand a seat on an airplane because they have the right to fly to Palm Springs. So that security check point you have to go through is a requirement that you have to pass to ensure the safety of your fellow passengers. So that their right to arrive at their destination alive is protected. When telephones were invented, you picked up the phone, put one part to your ear, and another part you held I front of your mouth. When the operator came on the line, you told her who you wanted to call. She then connected you to the person you wanted to talk to and their phone rang. You then started your conversation with the person you intended to talk to and you hoped that the operator had actually hung up. I really do not see where switching from a live in person operator to having your calls switched by a computer gave you a right to privacy. From the very beginning, through the age of party lines, to the current century, I fail to understand how anyone who is old enough to remember party lines or a live operator when you dialed zero (0) would ever think that a telephone conversation is privileged. Unless you are on the phone with your attorney, most jurisdictions do not hold that privilege carries over to phone conversations. A large part of the problem is that people have come to expect that certain privileges are in fact rights. We do not have a right to air travel, we do not have a right to drive, And making a telephone call, has never been a right, it is a privilege afforded to us by the phone company. A privilege that can be restricted or denied simply by not paying your phone bill.

If you do not want your phone company to allow the government to listen to your conversations, that you are making on their equipment, have those conversations in person. The cables, the switching equipment, and until recently, even your telephone were property of the phone company. Today, you own your computer. The minute that cable goes through your wall and connects to the phone company, cable company, or whoever your internet service provider is, your transmission is on their equipment. You are allowing a third party to handle your email or whatever. You are contracting with whoever provides your internet access to handle the information you are putting out there. Do you trust a secret to an outside source, and then expect them to hold the confidence that you promised the person that told you?

 

[tigerfan482]

^^

The question of the thread 'is he the anti-openness President'. The simple and correct answer is yes.

The question isn't .. .do you love the President.

The simple and correct answer is it depends on who you ask. If I were to ask someone who hates the President and looks for wrong in absolutely everything he does, then the answer would be yes. If I asked someone who supports the President and what he is trying to do, then the answer is no. However, I think in all of the posts on here, you've provided the least support (read: none) for your position.

Well, actually the ability to drive from here to there is not a liberty, it is a privilege, so being stopped at a sobriety check point is not a violation of your liberties. With the privilege of driving comes the responsibility to not drive impaired. Likewise, air travel is not a liberty. People from every country can get on an airplane and fly to a destination, whether or not their government's constitution provides for individual liberties. Getting on an airplane is a privilege for those that can afford to buy the ticket. One cannot go to the airport and demand a seat on an airplane because they have the right to fly to Palm Springs. So that security check point you have to go through is a requirement that you have to pass to ensure the safety of your fellow passengers. So that their right to arrive at their destination alive is protected. When telephones were invented, you picked up the phone, put one part to your ear, and another part you held I front of your mouth. When the operator came on the line, you told her who you wanted to call. She then connected you to the person you wanted to talk to and their phone rang. You then started your conversation with the person you intended to talk to and you hoped that the operator had actually hung up. I really do not see where switching from a live in person operator to having your calls switched by a computer gave you a right to privacy. From the very beginning, through the age of party lines, to the current century, I fail to understand how anyone who is old enough to remember party lines or a live operator when you dialed zero (0) would ever think that a telephone conversation is privileged. Unless you are on the phone with your attorney, most jurisdictions do not hold that privilege carries over to phone conversations. A large part of the problem is that people have come to expect that certain privileges are in fact rights. We do not have a right to air travel, we do not have a right to drive, And making a telephone call, has never been a right, it is a privilege afforded to us by the phone company. A privilege that can be restricted or denied simply by not paying your phone bill.

If you do not want your phone company to allow the government to listen to your conversations, that you are making on their equipment, have those conversations in person. The cables, the switching equipment, and until recently, even your telephone were property of the phone company. Today, you own your computer. The minute that cable goes through your wall and connects to the phone company, cable company, or whoever your internet service provider is, your transmission is on their equipment. You are allowing a third party to handle your email or whatever. You are contracting with whoever provides your internet access to handle the information you are putting out there. Do you trust a secret to an outside source, and then expect them to hold the confidence that you promised the person that told you?

You illustrate a good point. What is defined as liberty? There are some who would consider precious little outside of the rights specifically mentioned in the Constitution liberties and others who would consider everything that is done day-to-day as liberties. This accounts almost totally for the difference in positions on the matter. But the idea that people think their metadata (we'll avoid content of calls since there is no evidence showing that occurs) should be private when being willingly passed to third parties is laughable. The companies could easily voluntarily hand that data over to the government (or anyone for that matter). That is their data to handle, not the end user's.

 

[justright25]

So because our government entrusts classified communications to the telcos, our government should have no expectation that the information disclosed over those same phone lines will remain private and classified?

 

[tigerfan482]

So because our government entrusts classified communications to the telcos, our government should have no expectation that the information disclosed over those same phone lines will remain private and classified?

Actually, most of their classified communications goes over government-run, encrypted networks. Any small portion that goes over commercial telcos is heavily encrypted (see STE and SCIP).

 

[cm98059]

So because our government entrusts classified communications to the telcos, our government should have no expectation that the information disclosed over those same phone lines will remain private and classified?

Exactly. I do no know where this expectation of privacy came from when people are utilizing a third parties network. And like Tigerfan said above, the government pretty much has their own system an encrypts everything else.

 

[Kulindahr]

The simple and correct answer is it depends on who you ask. If I were to ask someone who hates the President and looks for wrong in absolutely everything he does, then the answer would be yes. If I asked someone who supports the President and what he is trying to do, then the answer is no.

And if you asked someone who doesn't care, but is just looking at the record?

 

[tigerfan482]

And if you asked someone who doesn't care, but is just looking at the record?

Then the answer would be depends on what you're comparing it to. If you're judging him on how much information he's given to the public on classified programs, then I think he ranks right there with all of the other Presidents in the "doesn't give out classified information" category. If you take the totality of what his administration has done, then I think again he's right there with most other Presidents. He;s definitely been more proactive about making websites to post information to (such as the website that tracked government spending of the economic stimulus money).

But you obviously feel differently. So what Presidents should Obama model himself after in terms of transparency? Who is at the top of your list of most open Presidents?

 

[Kulindahr]

URL to the full paper that the above quote is from. It's a very interesting read and a good viewpoint of the whole debate.

I have thought this before, but not quite so clearly:

I hope to convince the reader that any crude notion of a “balancing” between security and liberty badly misstates the relationship between these two goods — that in the vast majority of circumstances, liberty and security are better understood as necessary preconditions for one another than in some sort of standoff. The absence of liberty will tend to guarantee an absence of security, and conversely, one cannot talk meaningfully about an individual’s having liberty in the absence of certain basic conditions of security. While either in excess can threaten the other, neither can meaningfully exist without the other either.

 

[Kulindahr]

Then the answer would be depends on what you're comparing it to. If you're judging him on how much information he's given to the public on classified programs, then I think he ranks right there with all of the other Presidents in the "doesn't give out classified information" category. If you take the totality of what his administration has done, then I think again he's right there with most other Presidents. He;s definitely been more proactive about making websites to post information to (such as the website that tracked government spending of the economic stimulus money).

But you obviously feel differently. So what Presidents should Obama model himself after in terms of transparency? Who is at the top of your list of most open Presidents?

I don't have such a list. My comparison is between what he said about openness and what we've seen.

 

[tigerfan482]

I don't have such a list. My comparison is between what he said about openness and what we've seen.

I don't recall him ever saying he would release details on classified programs. And since we've now acknowledged he is no different than any other President in those regards, I do not believe he is the anti-openness President.