"Many Americans are waking up to the fact we have created a presidency that is too powerful.”
How many times in the last 8 years did real progressives get told by Democrats to "shut the f@ck up" about Obama's failure to rein in the surveillance state, the global assassination program, torturers, the MIC, and the abusive of civil rights in general?
How many times in the last few years were warnings of "What if President Trump has these powers?" brushed off?
Now the warnings have become reality.
Privacy and human rights campaigners in the US and UK say a Trump presidency will tip the balance between surveillance and privacy decisively towards the former. The UK surveillance agency GCHQ is so tied up with America’s NSA, often doing work on its behalf, it could find itself facing a series of ethical dilemmas.
On the campaign trail, Trump made an ambiguous remark about wishing he had access to surveillance powers.
“I wish I had that power,” he said while talking about the hack of Democratic National Committee emails. “Man, that would be power.”
Although Obama’s administration introduced a few modest concessions to the privacy lobby following Snowden’s revelations, he left the rest of the surveillance apparatus untouched. His approach has been to offer a modicum of transparency, much of it forced on him by the courts, in place of reform.
The White House, which would not comment for this story, has no evident regrets about that approach
If you have hope that Congress or the courts will put some limits on Trump, you don't know how this works.
John Napier Tye, a former state department official who became a reluctant whistleblower in 2014, warning of NSA dragnets, said: “Obama and Bush could have set the best possible privacy protections in place, but the trouble is, it’s all set by executive order, not statute.
“So Trump could revise the executive order as he pleases. And since it’s all done in secret, unless you have someone willing to break the law to tell you that it happened, it’s not clear the public will ever learn it did. Consider that even now, the American people still do not know how much data on US persons the NSA actually collects.”
Thomas Drake, an NSA whistleblower who predated Snowden, offered an equally bleak assessment. He said: “The electronic infrastructure is fully in place – and ex post facto legalised by Congress and executive orders – and ripe for further abuse under an autocratic, power-obsessed president. History is just not kind here. Trump leans quite autocratic. The temptations to use secret NSA surveillance powers, some still not fully revealed, will present themselves to him as sirens.”
One specific surveillance measure Trump proposed on the campaign trail was surveilling mosques and keeping a database of Muslims
Of course this goes far beyond just domestic spying.
The possibilities here are truly terrifying.
In the years after the 9/11 terror attacks, Vice President Dick Cheney and his legal adviser David Addington dramatically expanded the powers of the presidency, asserting the unilateral right in wartime to ignore legal limits on things like torture and government eavesdropping. Congressional Democrats generally caved, but made a few efforts to push back.
The Democrats went silent on executive overreach when Obama was elected, however.
When the New York Times revealed Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program in 2005, 60 percent of registered Democrats thought the program was “unacceptable.” But after NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed a dramatically larger surveillance apparatus in 2013, a 61 percent of Democrats said the opposite — presumably because they trusted the man in charge.
After eight years of trusting the President with expanding military power, liberals must now reckon with the fact that Obama will pass the same capabilities to a man who has proposed killing terrorists’ innocent family members, who has said he would do “a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding,” and who has suggested dipping bullets in pigs’ blood is sound counterterrorism strategy.
And most of the paltry few legal limitations that regulate the security state could easily be repealed by a President Trump.
Yes, it could get that bad. Consider what Trump might do with just one 9/11-style attack.
Trump will also take over the FBI, which has 35,000 employees and a network of 15,000 paid informants. Trump, who has said Muslim Americans should be forced to register on a government list, could easily rewrite its investigative guidelines.
As for the NSA, Congress passed a law in 2015 ending the bulk collection of Americans’ phone records and replaced it with a modified program. But according to a former State Department official, the phone records program is minuscule compared to the government’s “universe of collection” under Executive Order 12333, which Trump is free to reinterpret or modify.
To make matters worse, the Obama administration has convinced courts that citizens cannot challenge the legality of NSA programs until they can prove they are under surveillance. Because government secrecy makes that generally impossible, courts have started to reject anti-surveillance lawsuits on procedural grounds.
With an additional stroke of his pen, Trump could reopen the global network of CIA “black sites” and imprison people there without any due process. After the Supreme Court ruled under Bush that Guantanamo detainees have rights under habeas corpus, the Obama administration in 2009 fought to avoid having the same rule applied to military prisons around the world.
Trump could also make good on his promise to resurrect the CIA’s torture program with a “hell of a lot worse than waterboarding,” despite the fact that it would be clearly illegal under a law passed by Congress in 2015. Trump said he would “expand the laws,” but he could probably get away with it regardless, because by refusing to prosecute any CIA officials involved in Bush-era torture, Obama made clear that presidents can get away with illegal torture.
The Obama administration has also convinced courts that they have no role to play in reviewing the legality of drone strikes – even when it involves killing a U.S. citizen. Lawsuits on behalf of drone victims, filed both before and after strikes took place have all been dismissed, setting the stage for Trump’s targeting decisions never to see their day in court.
Comments
Some are even questioning the need for a president
at all. Maybe this is progress. Maybe we're actually making progress and we don't even know it.
Nah.
dejavu
It is just like the states that the GOP took over, and the Democrats didn't care. This sweep has emboldened those red states, and now DeVos is demanding that the Snyder lame duck kill off teacher pensions. All new hires already lost theirs. So he is after people in the system or already retired.
Thanks Obama. Gingrich was asked on TV, do you come in full boar or ease in. Gingrich said you go from broke and get everything you can while you can. Yep, Obama and the tesla dems...
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
New CIA head?
link
I was reading about him last night
Because he is Puerto Rican. Talk about deplorabes! Now, I am a very non-violent person but if Rodriguez is chosen any Puerto Rican who tells me they are proud is getting a punch in the nose.
ETA: the Puerto Rican thing? I am from PR.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur.
Sadist torturers can come from anywhere
Rodriguez is that before he is from PR.
If he gets to be CIA Director, many people around the world will be reminded of the dark era of Operation Condor and CIA agents like Dan Mitrione.
This is the sort of torture he taught the Brazilians and Uruguayans, how much electrical shock to apply;
Trump must be drooling, at least Obama didn't drool.
[video:https://youtu.be/Kpj3pp10wD8]
The political revolution continues
Of course, but PRs sometimes
Get carried away with pride at our "achievements" and I'm afraid this will be one time. Also there are plenty people out there who see nothing wrong with torture.
BTW, one of my proudest moments as a Puerto Rican was reading Guantanamo Diary and learning how Puerto Rican guards were so different from the rest. They were kind snd humane. And of vourse, got in trouble with their bosses.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur.
"we tortured some folks"
Democrats have no high ground here. Obama fully embraced the torture program of the CIA and has yet to close Guantanamo. Prisons in the U.S. (not just private ones) routinely use isolation techniques, sleep deprivation, withholding medication and water, etc.
The carceral state and perpetual war are destructive and dehumanizing to both the victims and the perpetrators.
There is no justice in America, but it is the fight for justice that sustains you.
--Amiri Baraka
Obama -- chief whistle blower hunter
Obama loves government secrecy, particularly for the executive branch. Lack of transparency is and has been one of the largest problems the populous faces. Warrant free spying, secret courts, and a nothing but a nod from the dems in congress. I can't remember a time when the government actually made me feel safer.
Orwell's scenario if preferable.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
I'm getting really sick of
all of the OMG!!!! trump!!! stuff.
What, we're going to start complaining now about torture and privacy when we barely blinked when Obama continued (and HRC would have continued) bush policies??
I'm now listening to Leslie Stahl trying to convince Trump and his wife how ascared they should be, and how upset everyone is, and why doesn't Trump help all these ascared people. I had no idea what a bunch of whiny, ascared wimps liberals are. No wonder we can't prevail - our own people are as weak as baby animals.
dfarrah
Indeed
Sadly the Democrats have lost their moral standing on a lot of issues. Case in point, complaining about "outside interference in our elections" while supporting a candidate like Hillary, who as recently as 2008 was supporting a coup in Honduras. It has become a party of whiny hypocrites, not unlike the Republicans.
Has been a bipartisan effort between dems and gopers
Amazing that both parties have reached common ground on giving the President more and more powers. Well, actually, to give the president with their team's jersey more and more power.
The majority
will only wake when it's much too late.
If then.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
Frightening
Frightening. I'm asking myself the question, given how we've seen the Clintons operate for years, do I feel even a modicum easier with Trump in control, than I would with Shrillary. Probably. Not good, but at least it's not the Clintons and all their cronies. David Brock, Sidney Blumenthal, Lanny Davis, John Podesta, Cheryl Mills, Huma, - you all know the list.
I recall
back when Obama expanded Presidential powers and instituted his kill list, everyone said it was OK because "we" could trust Obama.
I wonder how they feel now that Obama is no longer in charge.
They say that there's a broken light for every heart on Broadway
They say that life's a game and then they take the board away
They give you masks and costumes and an outline of the story
And leave you all to improvise their vicious cabaret-- A. Moore
They are all crying in the streets.
Poor little critters.
dfarrah
I argued with many kossacks about his use of drones
They said that they save American troops from having to fight and risk their lives.
That wasn't the point. The point was that they were being used in countries that hadn't threatened us and were against international law.
As for Trump bringing back torture, does anyone think that it was stopped just because Obama said not to do it anymore?
They were torturing people at baghram air base and on navy ships called black sites.
They are still renditioning people to other countries that will do the torturing for us.
I'm still seeing people write that Obama hasn't started any new wars and has saved a lot of lives.
I got that from an email from my friend yesterday and thought how could she be that ignorant about what Obama has been doing?
I asked her if she had heard about what we did to Libya and Syria and that Obama has put troops back in Iraq and in over 20 countries surrounding Russia.
In an EBs last week there was a video where a guy was asking people if they could name the countries that the military is in. Most could only name one.
Today on my walk I spoke with a lady whose husband was in the military and she had no idea what was happening in the Middle East and elsewhere.
I remember during the Bush administration when Cheney had all that power and the discussions on DK about Obama inheriting it and people told me that he wouldn't abuse it.
Remember when he went back on his promise to filibuster the FISA vote and people said that he had to vote for it in order to become president, but once he was then he'd roll back the spying.
Yeah, how did that work out?
I was told numerous times to STFU about the drone program because Obama has got this!
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
100% spot on
Add Gitmo to that heap. When it comes to Gitmo, Obama is suddenly powerless and can't possibly do a thing about it. Disgraceful.
I often wondered about that
I have a question if anyone has a unspun answer to it... unladen with Obama hate and the like.
I thought Gitmo was a military operation. I thought the President was the head of the military. I thought the military was not a democracy. I have no idea why he couldn't just say to the joint chiefs, "Close Gitmo. That is the mission. Does anyone here think they cannot accomplish the mission?" If anyone answers in the affirmative you can them on the spot then ask again.
Does anyone know what I'm oversimplifying?
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
It's my understanding that Obama has plenty of options on gitmo
and closing it himself, but remember just because he wants to close it doesn't mean that the prisoners are going to be freed.
He wanted to bring them to a prison here in the states where the ones who are on hunger strikes will still be anally forced fed.
The descriptions of what happens when they do that is considered torture and I agree.
They could insert a nasal tube and leave it is instead. But even when they feel them that way, they don't leave the tube in and it's still very painful and they aren't gentle when they put it in.
Obama has hid behind the republicans obstruction during his two terms. If he actually wanted to pass legislation there are plenty of ways to do so, but this way he can blame them because it gives him cover.
Why else would he have kept DWS on instead of firing her after she lost so many seats in congress and so many governorships?
He's been an empty suit for Main Street but has given everyone else everything that they wanted.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
was habeus corpus ever restored under obama?
No, gustogirl. Habeous Corpus is still gone
But what's worse is Obama's NDAA and a clause in it says that the president has the power to have the military arrest US citizens and lock them up indefinitely without charges and no access to a lawyer.
The rule of law in this country is dead.
Only the little people are charged.
Comey said that he wouldn't charge Hillary because there was no intent to break the law.
BS! The minute she made the decision to use a private email server there was her intent.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Yep.
Yep.
Today, I officially abandoned and defected from dkos. I suppose I held out longer than most, with hope some sort of reasoning might prevail, but finally caved to reality -- never will happen.
I spend quite a bit of time on other sites, including a couple that don't support either R/D parties, but are comprised of many Trump voters. While trying to explain to the poor, confused souls over at dkos how someone could vote Trump, I offered what I had seen:
The first response I got was this:
That sound you heard, was the sound of my jaw hitting the floor. That Democratic party of inclusiveness, love, peace, lives matter...a.k.a. death to far away foreigners by Hellfire missiles!
Anyway, to the OP topic RE surveillance and other Executive powers, I recently posted my own diary 'over there', after witnessing too much contradiction and hypocrisy and flip-flop in their own logic, I felt obligated to reach out in hopes to elucidate where their real failing and problems lie (so far, nobody has read it, so I presume my history has earned me a "tune that guy out" medal, LOL):
So yeah, sucks for the future, sucks now...sucked then...but in typical dkos fashion, blindly praise the anointed celebrity, bash anyone outside the bubble, and carry on oblivious.
In a cursory read so far, this place appears more in tune with the root issues and receptive to actual discourse.
I don't totally agree
The forces of neoliberalism have not won the day over at GOS. It looks like it's going that way but there's still a healthy liberal voice trying to stop that. I just bailed because I think my message has been delivered and at some point that sort of message just becomes annoying rather than productive.
Insofar as this place, it is much like GOS except the default conceptual framework more closely matches reality. You'll find much support and knowledge so long as your line of thinking doesn't transgress any of the social boundaries. I assess it as more reality based than DKOS but that makes defending against the spin even harder because you get fooled. I find great value here in some areas but as always, you must question everything and read all the citations or find supporting information yourself. Ask anything anti-establishment and you'll find a trove of well cited responses come back.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
Yea-- it does save American lives...
Are you sure KOS? How many American lives and lives in general may be lost due to the vendetta created every time you blow up civilians near the terrorist you want to take out?
Chomsky said it best when he said, "If the United States wants to stop terrorism, then the United States needs to stop participating in terrorism".
Kos is just one more sycophant.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
People are finally sick of Politicians
that's all I heard today at work, people are done with the corruption, the power, and the "laws for thee but not for we" bs.
The too big to fail bs has to be over. People are fed up.
"Love One Another" ~ George Harrison
This Too Shall Pass
When (and not if) Trump crashes the economy, all people will care about is their own welfare. Needing to eat more than once a week will do that to a person. Sure, they will still grumble about crooked politicians, but their energies will be needed for scavenging and fighting off predators seeking to steal the results of their hard efforts.
And where will they live? Police in my area have been quietly "moving the trash along" and destroying their belongings in the process. Then signs go up declaring any future encampments to be illegal and threatening arrest and imprisonment.
And let's not forget how many laws Obama has allowed or pushed for which essentially makes being alive while poor a crime.
So people may well be fed up. That's a good and necessary step. How much are they willing to lose in order to do something about it?
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
American presidents have become
much like late medieval English monarchs such as Edward III. Somewhat circumscribed by Parliament for money, but powerful enough to make war by themselves alone.
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
George III
Also fits that bill.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
George III had really bad, really powerful advisors
Edward III was, take him all in all, far from the worst king England ever had (that was probably Stephen, with John a close second - and both of those were before Parliament existed).
Charles I tried to rule without Parliament - and it cost him his head. No one since has dared.
Charles II was a lot smarter, and knew when not to buck Parliament. Lord Rochester's mock "epitaph":
"Here lies our sovereign lord the King,
Whose word no man relies on.
He never said a foolish thing,
Nor ever did a wise one"
drew a snarky retort: "That is very true, for my words are my own, while my actions are my ministers' ".
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
George III was a throwback.
He tried to turn back 150 years of British history in order to reestablish close monarchical control over Parliament through Lord North (his powerful toady).
He was successful for a time, but after the Brits lost the American colonies, his influence, along with his sanity, waned considerably.
A really good history of all this is Don Cook's "The Long Fuse: How England Lost the American Colonies" written by a Brit from the perspective of the losers.
It's a real eye opener about George's leading role and how the internal struggle between the Monarchy and Parliamentarians struggling to regain their prerogatives helped the cause of the colonists.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Well... there was the fascist response to the industrial rev
that George and the establishment were trying to corral.
Basically what you've seen in China is how the Brits dealt with the turmoil, disruption and dislocation in the UK from 1745 thru the Napoleonic wars. Rotten boroughs, Pitt machinations in foreign policy with Russia which were essentially state crimes of high treason. A fascinatingly ignored era and very relevant to the post-industrial societies we've botched.
[Edit] Wild Goose Lodge takes place in 1816 and while it is an illustration of where the British state was at the end of George III's reign, not so much the 18th century.
And speaking of Charles II...
This explains it all.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
There will be an Obama legacy alright.
Orwell: Where's the omelette?
It's strange,
but I'm beginning to think we Americans need to hope for an invasion by the rest of the world. We cannot continue with this rapacious behavior. We are ruining the planet and our souls.
LOL, gustogirl
I agree that people would like to see our government removed.
Have you watched the show Designated Survivor?
At each state of the union, one person goes to an undisclosed location in case something happened at it and everyone there was killed.
That person is then the president.
Poof! No president, vp, speaker of the house, joint chiefs of staff, Supreme Court or congress.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Libertarians
As a libertarian, I've been told to STFU about governmental power for as long as I can remember. It's nice to have company.
I bet a Ron Paul presidency would look downright enjoyable right now, eh?
"I know it's true, all so true, because I saw it on TV"
or read it some magazine that I can cut and paste to C99.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho