• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Presidential Address on NSA Data Collection

cpwill

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,605
Reaction score
39,893
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Breaking on the telly. Looks like thus far he's going to pretty much keep the programs. Articles sure to follow.
 
WASHINGTON — President Obama will require intelligence agencies to obtain permission from a secret court before tapping into a vast trove of telephone data, but he will leave the data in the hands of the government for now, an administration official said.

Mr. Obama, in a much-anticipated speech on Friday morning, plans to announce that he is pulling back the government’s wide net of surveillance at home and abroad, staking out a middle ground between the far-reaching proposals of his own advisers and the concerns of the nation’s intelligence agencies.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/18/u...speech-on-surveillance-aides-say.html?hp&_r=0
 
They have a funny definition of middle ground.
 
I did enjoy the swipes at China and Russia.

But the idea of extending American' citizens protections to foreign populaces..... I am mulling that one. It seems.... contradictory.
 
Obama was against it before he was for it. Views change with circumstances. It would be remarkable if they didn't, I suppose.
 
"permission from a secret court"

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Secret Court. That's a good one!

My cats have a secret court that is very flexible.
 
"It's not broken, so I'm not going to fix it, but we're certainly going to provide more constitutional protections to foreign citizens".
 
apdst said:
"It's not broken, so I'm not going to fix it, but we're certainly going to provide more constitutional protections to foreign citizens".
Click to expand...

What does that even mean?
 
Basically what I gathered is Obama saying, "Next time we won't get caught"
 
AliHajiSheik said:
What does that even mean?
Click to expand...

I means, "we know you the people don't like this, but tough ****. This is more about placating Andrea Merkel than honoring my oath to defend and uphold the constitution. Because I can detain any citizen indefinitely without due process... but there sure are a lot of foreigners who don't like this."
 
AliHajiSheik said:
What does that even mean?
Click to expand...

Foreign citizens aren't taking kindly to the suggestion that they are having their data intercepted by a foreign government.
 
Fiddytree said:
Foreign citizens aren't taking kindly to the suggestion that they are having their data intercepted by a foreign government.
Click to expand...

As if their own governments aren't doing the exact same thing when they can.
 
Lachean said:
I means, "we know you the people don't like this, but tough ****. This is more about placating Andrea Merkel than honoring my oath to defend and uphold the constitution. Because I can detain any citizen indefinitely without due process... but there sure are a lot of foreigners who don't like this."
Click to expand...

An, "foreigners are the good guys, afterall".
 
Fiddytree said:
Foreign citizens aren't taking kindly to the suggestion that they are having their data intercepted by a foreign government.
Click to expand...

You think foreign countries aren't doing it to us?
 
cpwill said:
I did enjoy the swipes at China and Russia.

But the idea of extending American' citizens protections to foreign populaces..... I am mulling that one. It seems.... contradictory.
Click to expand...

It's probably not even true.
 
Maenad said:
Courts in the US are supposed to be a matter of public record.

The idea of a 'secret court' is as bad as spying on American citizens.
Click to expand...
A competent intelligence community requires a certain degree of insulation from the general public for the most obvious of reasons.
 
a351 said:
A competent intelligence community requires a certain degree of insulation from the general public for the most obvious of reasons.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that there is nothing between secret, and full public knowledge?
 
a351 said:
A competent intelligence community requires a certain degree of insulation from the general public for the most obvious of reasons.
Click to expand...

That was not provided for in the Constitution. Any warrant issued with probably cause can be issued by any court in the land. Any warrant issued by any court without probably cause is unconstitutional and therefore illegal. That is the entire crux of the Snowden issue. There was no probably cause for the government to be violating the privacy of American citizens.

Your comment is perfectly reasonable regarding non US citizens on foreign soil. But US citizens on US soil are protected by the Constitution of the United States and cannot be subject to search and seizure without probably cause. It is written plainly in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom