I know all y'all DU'ers trust President Obama

[MNBrewer]

How many trust the FISA court?

How many trust Chief Justice Roberts?

Chief Justice Roberts appoints the FISA court.

How many trust the FISA court?

[MrSlayer]

1. I don't trust any of them.

Any of them.

[Sherman A1]

4. +1

[woo me with science]

6. +1

[truebluegreen]

25. +1

[99Forever]

32. EVERY TIME I have trusted ANY of them...

.. they have proved I shouldn't have. EVERY TIME.

[MotherPetrie]

36. +1

[L0oniX]

39. Trust is for suckers.

[Enthusiast]

42. PLUS ONE! nt

[treestar]

61. So you are an anarchist?

Why would you trust nobody? Does that tell us we should never trust you?

[Hydra]

83. Trust? Really?

We have laws for a reason, and these people are PUBLIC SERVANTS. They are not our family and friends, they are our EMPLOYEES.

They can follow the laws or they can find new jobs.

[MrSlayer]

85. No. But trusting in paid liars is folly.

And I'm no fool.

And yeah, if you were smart you wouldn't trust me. Trust no one.

[Kolesar]

2. _

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=trash&forum=1002&mid=3028429&rp=1002

[DirkGently]

3. It's the process that cannot be trusted. Using

Last edited Sun Jun 16, 2013, 07:30 PM - Edit history (1)

the excuse of national defense to shield government (or should we say, government-contracted) activities from scrutiny and accountability leads to abuse, period.

Best case scenario for "trusting Obama" is that he does not expressly condone such abuse.

But the fact his administration is fighting to keep Bush's conceit that no one can even ask what they're doing with Americans' private communications indicates he also doesn't care to give up that power -- and that's what this is about -- for our benefit.

If not him, who? If we don't address it now, when?

[woo me with science]

17. Thank you. They have no right to conduct mass surveillance

in the first place.

[Marrah_G]

5. I don't trust any of them

Including the president.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

7. what happens when we dont have a democratic president. that's why i dont understand

the complacency.

do we trust Jeb Bush with this metadata?

[Kolesar]

9. We shouldn't spy on China or the Wahabbists, I suppose,

...by extension, following your concern.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

10. how does that follow?

[MNBrewer]

12. It doesn't follow

It's a red herring argument designed to distract from the point being made above.

[Kolesar]

20. 'cuz that is how we actually use the data

Despite the fantasizations of MN Brewer.
It is useful.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

22. are you saying there is no way to spy internationally without spying domestically?

also how exactly does one know how the data is being used, when all access to said uses are classified?

[Kolesar]

23. I don't know how you wrote that subject line based on my posts

sad
DU2013

[Quantess]

77. And I don't know what caused you to write any of your posts

based on what the other people said. None of your comments seem to follow any rhyme or reason.
Sorry if that sounds rude.

[Kolesar]

79. ^Who asked junior to jump in here? eom

[Romulus Quirinus]

58. Because some people are simple-minded and can only imagine the world

as a massive set of binary states. In their world, if one is not with the president and the spy agencies, they must be for the terrorists.

[treestar]

63. projection

mostly it's been that if you even consider the spy agencies have uses, you are against the bill of rights.

[Romulus Quirinus]

69. Have we met? nt

[sabrina 1]

73. And who said the spy agencies don't have uses? What people are saying is, spying on the American

People is against the very law they are invoking to defend what they are doing.

FISA = Foreign Intel. There is NO LAW that permits the US Government to spy on its own people, unless they are suspects in a crime, and even then they must get a warrant, and before that, they must show probable cause sworn by oath before a judge.

Show us any law that permits this kind of massive intrusion into the lives of millions of innocent people. They claim they had a warrant. Which court has the authority to issue such a warrant? And what was the probable cause? Because it is not the FISA Court, which itself, IF it issued such a warrant, needs to be investigated.

[sulphurdunn]

46. That's a red herring.

We were discussing Americans, not Wahabbists or the Chinese. Maybe we should or maybe we shouldn't spy on them. Let's have that discussion sometime without confusing one with the other.

[L0oniX]

40. Democracy is an illusion.

[Kolesar]

48. ^this guy always comes up with some good ones

wow. four words

[treestar]

62. Bush had the powers and claimed more

And he didn't turn into a dictator - had he done so, he'd still be in office.

[Hydra]

84. Why would Bush want to still be in office?

The sitting President is doing a perfectly good job keeping him out of jail and keeping his policies rolling, and even making some "improvements" along the way.

And I thought you said before that what Bush was doing was illegal? That would have to mean he stepped out of the role of President into whatever you want to call it when someone does whatever they feel like with Gov't and Military power.

[forestpath]

8. I don't trust him or anyone else you mentioned.

[G_j]

11. Or private contractors?

also, anyone who keeps up with Occupy knows how they have been targeted.

[RKP5637]

19. Yep, that one was blatantly obvious it would seem to everyone, but some

still didn't get it ... and it will happen again and again.

[KittyWampus]

13. Aw, you just learned that Roberts appoints the FISA court so you had to start a thread about it.

How precious.

[burnodo]

15. Do you trust Republicans?

Wait til the next time they're in charge of the "legal" information gathering.

[MNBrewer]

18. Nice to learn about your confidence in Roberts

[KittyWampus]

26. who said I had any confidence in Roberts?

[treestar]

64. The Chief Justice is of the judiciary

So if he appoints the FISA court, that comes from another branch, which contributes to the separation of powers.

[sabrina 1]

24. So, do you support the secret FISA Court? Which is only allowed to do FOREIGN intel btw not

Domestic. I know how these pesky old fashioned ideas get in the way of Republicans and others on the right, but for now, we still have some laws left, and some of us old-fashioned believers in Democracy are glad we do.

[KittyWampus]

28. I am ambivalent about the FISA court. My main concern right now is cost. Good old money. The NSA

programs are sucking huge amounts of money out of our schools etc. Vast amounts. Into a black hole.

and regarding NSA programs… there are two from what I have learned over this past week.

I am less concerned about PRISM (getting info via warrants/FISA) than I am about the govt. taping directly into underseas cables etc and storing that info.

The scale of doing that… taping into various communication lines that move overseas and storing it… is so huge it almost seems impossible.

And it's the latter programs that is apparently the most secretive of all.

It seems insane to me. I can see where PRISM could definitely help in security. And there doesn't seem any way to argue against that. Argue for move oversight and less secrecy? Yes. Argue for less contractors and more vetted govt people? Yes. Making sure the business side is holding the data & only accessing it when necessary? Yes.

But getting and storing unimaginably huge amounts of communications data? Directly doing what the govt claims it isn't doing?

[treestar]

65. Before FISA, Presidents could do as they pleased.

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/nat-sec/duggan.htm

I guess you would prefer not to have that check on the President?

[sabrina 1]

68. Are you serious? Have you forgotten the US Constitution, which is the standard by which all laws

and actions, especially by elected officials, are measured. Presidents could not do as they liked, ever. See Nixon.

The Constitution, the People and Congress and the Judiciary are the checks on the President and so far, though our democracy has been threatened before, our system has managed to put the brakes on before it went too far. The guide has always been the Constitution when that became necessary.

The FISA Court was an example of Congress' role in our system of checks and balances. It was always a weak solution to the problem that initiated it. Secret courts are not conducive to a Democracy, but the intentions were good, to confine spying to Foreign Enemies and therefore strengthen the 4th Amendment which had been under assault.

The American people are not the enemy of this government, which is why spying on them and propaganda used to deceive foreign enemies are forbidden in this country.

Under Bush Congress chose to weaken that law after he broke it, in order legalize retroactively what they had done.

Any form of domestic activity against the American people by the NSA and their 'security' contractors, is a violation of FISA. The 'F' stands for FOREIGN not Domestic. And it's time to have public hearings to get some answers as to just what they have been up to.

[treestar]

70. And the link I posted is to a case

interpreting that standard.

You have to be kidding that you don't realize how the separation of powers works yet seek to have your opinions considered here.

[tavalon]

30. I see what you did there

How precious.

[rhett o rick]

14. I dont trust the Boosh Republicans that are in our security services. nm

[RKP5637]

16. Trust and credibility has flown out the window for all of them. n/t

[bigwillq]

21. I don't trust any of them

including Obama.

[Historic NY]

27. Why not ask how many would trust President Romney?

[tavalon]

29. That is a broad brush you have there in your title

but the body of the OP is straight on.

[graham4anything]

31. Smith vs. Maryland decided this is legal in 1979.

[bowens43]

35. No, it didn't and even if had, why would that matter?

I'm always amazed when I see people here so willing to roll over and forfeit their civil liberties. very sad.

Thanks for regurgitating the administrations talking points.....

[graham4anything]

37. It is legal. Smith vs. Maryland 1979.Jimmy Carter was President at the time.

[MNBrewer]

43. And everything that is legal SHOULD be legal and SHOULD be done, right?

[graham4anything]

44. I want the 2nd reinterpreted. Maybe we there can be a deal. Get rid of the 2nd and this together.

[MNBrewer]

49. You're more likely to get agreement to get rid of the 4th and the 1st for nothing

than to get agreement on getting rid of the 2nd.

[treestar]

66. What else should be done?

We should not live under the rule of law? What then? The rule of your latest hero? Grayson 2016! Let's get a better dictator!

[bowens43]

33. I don't trust any of them including Obama

[avaistheone1]

34. i don't trust any of them

and I don't see any reason why I should.

[SamKnause]

38. Trust

I have zero trust in secret courts.

I have zero trust in the Supreme Court. Corporations are NOT people. MONEY is NOT SPEECH.

I have zero trust in President Obama.

The candidate that ran in 2007 disappeared after the election.

I have zero trust in the U.S. government.

I have zero trust in the judicial system.

Corruption and greed have created politicians that are above the law.

If there is no rule of law, there is no trust.

This did not start with the Bush administration.

The powerful elites have been ruling this country and the world for quite some time.

[Catherina]

53. Wow. Well said! n/t

[stuckinodi]

54. But I trust government more than the "free market"

[treestar]

67. So what do you suggest?

All that would work apparently would be you as dictator.

Why should we trust you? Over the people we would have chosen by election?

[humbled_opinion]

41. The NSA has Admitted

monitoring email, text and phonecalls without any FISA warrants.... They are trampling on our liberty, literally as we speak.... I never in a million years thought this would be happening with a Democratic administration in charge, imagine the liberties that the next CINC will take in this regard, simply astounding....

[Egalitarian Thug]

45. More than a few of us don't trust the President very much either. But yours is the real point to all

of this, nobody, no person or office should be trusted, ever. We have (had) the systems of checks and balances for this very reason.

[Fire Walk With Me]

47. Obama 2011: "...attacks on peaceful protesters are unacceptable".

And in 2012, the United States:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002710303

Obama either ordered or allowed to go unpunished well over a years' worth of domestic terrorism upon the Occupy Wall Street movement.

I trust Obama to do the right thing for our plutonomist masters, not the citizens of this country:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022445620

[OilemFirchen]

50. I don't trust Government AT ALL.

Drown it in a bathtub!

[Skittles]

51. I TRUST MY PRESIDENT 100%

only a swooner would say that

[Progressive dog]

52. Looks like you need a poll

unless you have ideas about what to do when we don't like legally elected and appointed government officials.

[tblue]

55. Give me one reason why I should.

Please. Tell me.

[sigmasix]

56. sometimes the replies in this OP look like a right wing confessional

"drown the government in a bathtub"-isn't that a Fox "News" call to arms? LOL
Yeah... these folks are progressives; no sock puppets here- just a bunch of progressive people worried about liberties- move along, nothing to see behind the Koche Brother's curtains.

[alarimer]

57. I don't trust any of them.

I think all politicians are liars, saying what they have to to get elected, then breaking their promises.

[MrMickeysMom]

59. Well, I don't trust any of them either...

And, this explains some, but not all reasons to quit "believing".

Perhaps we should have a thread on why we quit believing. Ah, that's probably been done already.

[treestar]

60. The FISA court has been there since the late 70s

It does not seem to have ruined America. Before FISA, the courts held the Presidents could do what they want. Even then, they don't seem to have turned into dictators.

Why is Roberts Chief Justice? Electing republicans. Even so, he does his job and bases his decisions on the law. It's Scalia I worry about, but why is he there? Electing republicans.

What has the FISA court done wrong that is deserves to be mistrusted? Name a case where they authorized spying without any cause and in bad faith. They are a measure taken to oversee Presidents.

[MNBrewer]

74. Name a case where they authorized spying without any cause and in bad faith.

LOL

[treestar]

81. LOL at yourself too then

Since we are equal on that. I have a better chance of finding something as some of the activity might be old enough to be declassified.

As as I've said, we have not become a police state yet even after all these years. In fact, Presidents subsequent to the FISA are at least subject to it, and before were not, so we were a police state before that to a greater degree.

[MNBrewer]

82. Can you name ANY FISA case?

[Ken Burch]

71. It's not as though Obama's going to get the chance to depose Roberts as Chief Justice.

So posing this as a contest between the two of the.m is kind of silly.

Roberts will be Chief Justice 'til he freaking dies...which is likely to be at least another fifteen to twenty years or so.

[MNBrewer]

75. I did no such thing

[Ken Burch]

78. Ok...could you clarify the point you were trying to make, then?

At the moment, I'm not really sure what you were getting at there.

[MNBrewer]

80. A lot of DUers are saying

"This domestic spying is fine with me because I trust President Obama, and besides, it's being overseen by the Courts. They have to get permission from the FISA court to read the emails."

Putting aside the question of whether or not FISA is a rubber-stamp court, how many of those who are OK with the spying program because it's OBAMA'S spying program are willing to extend that trust to John Roberts' FISA court appointees?

[cherokeeprogressive]

72. I trust NO politician. I vote for the ones I distrust the least. n/t

[DCBob]

76. +1

[datasuspect]

86. trust is earned

i don't personally know any of these people.

[bobduca]

87. When Obama became president

his personal magnetism and honesty changed everyone in govt. instantly.

[MineralMan]

88. Trust? I don't trust anyone I don't know.

That said, how would you change how things are set up in our government? We have an Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branch in our Federal Government. That was set up in the Constitution.

We elect the first two. The third is appointed and confirmed by the first two. That's the system we have in place. The only thing we can trust is the system in general. Do I trust that? No. I don't know the people involved. I only voted for a very few of them, and those I have met, except for the President.

We have a system. It is in place. It is functioning. In order to change that system, you'll have to create an entirely new system. What's your plan for doing that?

In the meantime, I'll be working as hard as I can to elect people I trust in the elections where I can participate. Beyond that, I have no power whatsoever to change a damn thing. Do you?

GOTV 2014 and beyond.