fayfreethinkers.com

DAR
Hang on, did Obama say anything about, or like, "warrantless wiretaps are necessary to fight terror?"

Darrel wrote:DAR
Hang on, did Obama say anything about, or like, "warrantless wiretaps are necessary to fight terror?"

See here about Obama's support for the Bush admnistration legal "reasoning" on the matter--a reversal of what Senator Obama had said.

See here where they cite national security as the reason warrantless wiretapping is not prosecutable.

The Obama Justice Department has adopted a legal stance identical to, if not more aggressive than, the Bush version. It argues that the court-forced disclosure of the surveillance programs would cause "exceptional harm to national security" by exposing intelligence sources and methods.

See here for a summary of the issues--and that GW Bush engaged in wiretapping of Americans, without warrants, even before 9/11.

The Obama Justice Department has adopted a legal stance identical to, if not more aggressive than, the Bush version. It argues that the court-forced disclosure of the surveillance programs would cause "exceptional harm to national security" by exposing intelligence sources and methods.

DAR
So with regard to this one specific case, his team is arguing that "disclosure of the intelligence..." and "sources and methods" used in this specific past instance would cause "exceptional harm to national security." Well, it very well may and neither one of us is going to know about that. I see know incentive for him to go to this trouble if such exposure wouldn't do as he says. And I don't see how this position with regard to this case in any way equates to him saying that now or in the future or in any plan under his jurisdiction:

"warrantless wiretaps are necessary to fight terror."

So I think this part of the cartoon, is right-wing spin. The troop surge is of course true, and the release of the photo's will of course hurt the US, big time. I think his only reason for not opposing their release in the first place was because they thought they couldn't beat the ACLU (praise be their name). Now they are going to try. A judge will decide.

D.

Darrel wrote:So with regard to this one specific case, his team is arguing that "disclosure of the intelligence..." and "sources and methods" used in this specific past instance would cause "exceptional harm to national security." Well, it very well may and neither one of us is going to know about that. I see know incentive for him to go to this trouble if such exposure wouldn't do as he says. And I don't see how this position with regard to this case in any way equates to him saying that now or in the future or in any plan under his jurisdiction:

"warrantless wiretaps are necessary to fight terror."

So I think this part of the cartoon, is right-wing spin.

DOUG
Spin it however you want, but the Obama administration has gone on record stating that the US government and telephone companies cannot be held accountable for warrentless wiretapping due to the danger it would pose to national security if such a case were to proceed. That sure sounds like "warrentless wiretaps are necessary to fight terror," AND the parties involved cannot be held accountable. That's what the Obama administration means, and it's as bad as Bush, if not worse.

San Francisco Chronicle, 4/6/09:

SAN FRANCISCO -- The Obama administration is again invoking government secrecy in defending the Bush administration's wiretapping program, this time against a lawsuit by AT&T customers who claim federal agents illegally intercepted their phone calls and gained access to their records.

See here.

DOUG
Spin it however you want, but the Obama administration has gone on record stating that the US government and telephone companies cannot be held accountable for warrentless wiretapping due to the danger it would pose to national security if such a case were to proceed.

DAR
I have no reason to believe that is not true. And because of my low security clearance level (Arkansas goat farmer), it is unlikely I will receive such information.

That sure sounds like "warrentless wiretaps are necessary to fight terror,"

DAR
It doesn't to me. I don't see how that follows. Aside from the specifics of this case, which deals with past events which occurred under Bush's tenure and policies, is it Obama's position that "warrentless wiretaps are necessary to fight terror" now? I don't think so. So the cartoon is in this respect misleading and inaccurate. That's spin, best case.

Perhaps I am asking too much of a simple cartoon. It's not always good to look for accurate political information in a cartoon. But this seems to be the sort of junk righties like to pass around. The claim is simply not true. Correct me if I am wrong but it is not Obama's position or belief that "warrentless wiretaps are necessary to fight terror." And that claim does not follow from the assertion that revealing the specifics of this particular case, regarding past events beyond Obama's control, may reveal sensitive security secrets that it is in the best interest of the country to not expose to every goat farmer in the land.

D.

Darrel wrote:

DOUG
Spin it however you want, but the Obama administration has gone on record stating that the US government and telephone companies cannot be held accountable for warrentless wiretapping due to the danger it would pose to national security if such a case were to proceed.

DAR
I have no reason to believe that is not true. And because of my low security clearance level (Arkansas goat farmer), it is unlikely I will receive such information.

DOUG
True or not, candidate Obama had a different stance on this. He's done a 180-degree turn, as well as on the issue of military tribunals. Even ultra-liberal Rachel Maddow has said that Obama is turning into Bush.

And in my view warrantless wiretaps are illegal, and expressly prohibited by law. It doesn't matter whether they "work" or not, whether they keep us safe or not.

Doug wrote: That sure sounds like "warrentless wiretaps are necessary to fight terror,"

DAR
It doesn't to me. I don't see how that follows. Aside from the specifics of this case, which deals with past events which occurred under Bush's tenure and policies, is it Obama's position that "warrentless wiretaps are necessary to fight terror" now? I don't think so. So the cartoon is in this respect misleading and inaccurate. That's spin, best case.

DOUG
No, the gist of it is right: Obama's protection of what Bush did in using warrentless wiretaps was, on Obama's view, justified by an appeal to national security. Whether Obama is still using them now is not clear. He probably is and just isn't telling. Just like Bush.

Doug wrote: DOUG
True or not, candidate Obama had a different stance on this. He's done a 180-degree turn,...

DAR
He has? I asked this question: "Is it Obama's position that "warrentless wiretaps are necessary to fight terror" now? This is the claim in the cartoon. If you can show that this is his position (and you can't), then you can talk about 180 degree turns.
Your answer is: "Whether Obama is still using them now is not clear." Meaning, you have no reason to believe he has changed his position, and thus can show no 180 degree turn, or any turn at all.

DOUG
And in my view warrantless wiretaps are illegal, and expressly prohibited by law.

DAR
I agree. And when you can show Obama has authorized them, you have will have him on a very big flip flop. Until then, the "gist" of the claim in the cartoon is not right, is not accurate, and the truth of the claim cannot be shown for reasons I have already stated.

D.

Doug wrote:True or not, candidate Obama had a different stance on this. He's done a 180-degree turn,...

DAR wrote: He has? I asked this question: "Is it Obama's position that "warrentless wiretaps are necessary to fight terror" now? This is the claim in the cartoon. If you can show that this is his position (and you can't), then you can talk about 180 degree turns.

DOUG
The claim of the cartoon is that he thinks warrantless wiretaps are necessary. If he thinks they are just necessary in general (now or otherwise), sometimes but not always, the cartoon is correct. And he obviously thinks they are sometimes necessary since he is defending Bush's use of them.

Dar wrote: Your answer is: "Whether Obama is still using them now is not clear." Meaning, you have no reason to believe he has changed his position, and thus can show no 180 degree turn, or any turn at all.

DOUG
He did change his position. As senator, he was against them and said he would hold telecommunications companies to account for their complicity in the warrantless wiretaps. So obviously he thought they were illegal and shouldn't be done. Once he was the Democratic candidate, he flip-flopped. See here for some really mad Democrats at Netroots who did not like this flip-flop at all.

DOUG
And in my view warrantless wiretaps are illegal, and expressly prohibited by law.

DAR wrote: I agree. And when you can show Obama has authorized them, you have will have him on a very big flip flop. Until then, the "gist" of the claim in the cartoon is not right, is not accurate, and the truth of the claim cannot be shown for reasons I have already stated.
D.

DOUG
I can't find anything showing that Obama has stopped the program. Since it was active under Bush, and Obama defends it, I can only assume that it is still ongoing.

Doug wrote: DOUG
The claim of the cartoon is that he thinks warrantless wiretaps are necessary. If he thinks they are just necessary in general (now or otherwise), sometimes but not always, the cartoon is correct. And he obviously thinks they are sometimes necessary since he is defending Bush's use of them.

DAR
No, it is a non sequiter to go from:

His team is arguing that "disclosure of the intelligence..." and "sources and methods" used in this specific past instance would cause "exceptional harm to national security"

to

"he thinks warrantless wiretaps are necessary." "...since he is defending Bush's use of them."

Even saying "he is defending Bush's use of them" is inaccurate spin, because it leaves out the important qualifying information. That is, that the stated motivation for his position on this case, as cited by the sources you gave, is that:

(a) "disclosure of the intelligence..." and "sources and methods" used in this specific past instance would cause "exceptional harm to national security"

It may be the case, and probably is the case, that Obama is against warrentless wiretaps in the past, now, and in the future but believes (a). His believing in (a) is not incompatible with also believing that warrentless wiretaps, past/present/future, are wrong.

Dar wrote: Your answer is: "Whether Obama is still using them now is not clear." Meaning, you have no reason to believe he has changed his position, and thus can show no 180 degree turn, or any turn at all.

DOUG
He did change his position. As senator, he was against them and said he would hold telecommunications companies to account for their complicity in the warrantless wiretaps. So obviously he thought they were illegal and shouldn't be done. Once he was the Democratic candidate, he flip-flopped. See here.

DAR
That article is from July 2008. So it wasn't until near the end of his candidacy that he had a change of heart about the usefulness of going after the telecoms for their involvement. I'm not interested in getting into that mess. Obama clearly is not a vindictive guy, and that's how he campaigned. And clearly he is not as vindictive, or aggressive in going after Bush transgressions (and his accomplices) as the far left would like. But they have to work with what they got. I think Obama's walking the lines on these issues is near perfect. As evidence I would submit him getting and grade of "A" for his first hundred days from the likes of Pat Buchanan and John Mclaughlin and from Elenor Clift at the same time.

That's when you know you are probably tacking into the wind at the right angle (sailing term). The far right will hate him, and the far left with whine about Bush getting away with too much. I think Obama is right to unite and cause as little division as necessary in this country right now. And this means as little witch hunting as possible while still following the law. On Snuffy yesterday the rightwingers were already charging him with full scale witch hunting, which is ridiculous.

DOUG
I can't find anything showing that Obama has stopped the program. Since it was active under Bush,...

DAR
Can you show it is still active?

and Obama defends it,

DAR
What you have provided has not shown he supports an active warrentless wiretapping program, nor does it even shown the he was/is in favor of Bush's warrentless wiretapping program.

I can only assume that it is still ongoing.

DAR
Better to say you don't know.

D.

Darrel wrote:No, it is a non sequiter to go from:

His team is arguing that "disclosure of the intelligence..." and "sources and methods" used in this specific past instance would cause "exceptional harm to national security"

to

"he thinks warrantless wiretaps are necessary." "...since he is defending Bush's use of them."

Even saying "he is defending Bush's use of them" is inaccurate spin, because it leaves out the important qualifying information. That is, that the stated motivation for his position on this case, as cited by the sources you gave, is that:

(a) "disclosure of the intelligence..." and "sources and methods" used in this specific past instance would cause "exceptional harm to national security"

DOUG
That just supports what I have been saying: Obama cites national security as a reason to uphold the Bush position, which was that (i) warrantless wiretaps are necessary for national security, and (ii) you should not be able to sue any companies that collaborate on helping with the warrantless wiretapping.

Dar wrote:That article is from July 2008. So it wasn't until near the end of his candidacy that he had a change of heart about the usefulness of going after the telecoms for their involvement.

DOUG
WHEN he had a change of heart is not the issue. The fact is that he is now supporting the Bush view of this, as per the cartoon.

DOUG
I can't find anything showing that Obama has stopped the program. Since it was active under Bush,...
DAR
Can you show it is still active?

DOUG
Apparently Obama won't even release that information. In fact, his argument about 'state secrets' is even worse than Bush's in being more sweeping in scope.

See here.

Doug wrote:
and Obama defends it,

DAR
What you have provided has not shown he supports an active warrentless wiretapping program, nor does it even shown the he was/is in favor of Bush's warrentless wiretapping program.

DOUG
If he is defending Bush's program, I think ipso facto we can conclude that he is in favor of it.

DOUG
I can only assume that it is still ongoing.

DAR
Better to say you don't know.

DOUG
If he defends the program, and there is no evidence that he closed it down, I think we know what is happening, don't we?

There is surpisingly little on this issue on the web since the election. There is some evidence that the NSA is still doing Bush-era dirty work, though:

See here about allegedly wiretapping a member of Congress.

See here about claims that the warrantless wiretapping is "still out of control."

DAR
Here is the meat of my argument that didn't make it into your above post:

*****
DAR
No, it is a non sequitur to go from:

His team is arguing that "disclosure of the intelligence..." and "sources and methods" used in this specific past instance would cause "exceptional harm to national security"

to

"he thinks warrantless wiretaps are necessary." "...since he is defending Bush's use of them."

Even saying "he is defending Bush's use of them" is inaccurate spin, because it leaves out the important qualifying information. That is, that the stated motivation for his position on this case, as cited by the sources you gave, is that:

(a) "disclosure of the intelligence..." and "sources and methods" used in this specific past instance would cause "exceptional harm to national security"

It may be the case, and probably is the case, that Obama is against warrentless wiretaps in the past, now, and in the future but believes (a). His believing in (a) is not incompatible with also believing that warrentless wiretaps, past/present/future, are wrong.
*****

DAR
Is the last sentence above, true?

In fact it is true, and this refutes the claim in the cartoon and shows this is all just a silly equivocation on the phrase "supports Bush." Because that sentence is true, it shows that the claim that Obama thinks "warrentless wiretaps are necessary to fight terror" does not follow from him having this position, on this case. The claim is based on a non sequitur.

Obama (or his team) say they take the position they do with regard to this case for reasons entirely different from anything to do with the claim "warrentless wiretaps are necessary to fight terror" and you have provided nothing (and necessarily cannot) showing their claim (a) to be anything less than what they say it is.

D.

ps. The claim, "warrentless wiretaps are necessary to fight terror," put into Obama's mouth, is right-wing crap. Don't defend right-wing crap!

Here is a report from Huffington Post in April of 2009 that Obama's NSA is still doing that warrantless wiretapping. Case closed. Obama DOES think warrantless wiretapping is necessary. The cartoon is not right-wing crap.

You think Rachel Maddow spreads right-wing crap? I told you she had said that Obama is turning into Bush.

Doug wrote:Here is a report from Huffington Post in April of 2009 that Obama's NSA is still doing that warrantless wiretapping. Case closed.

DAR
No, not case closed. This article doesn't accomplish what you want. Did you read the article? Did you notice the title:

"NSA Wiretapping: Justice Department Reining It In"

That is, Obama's Justice Department is turning away from what Bush did. That's the opposite of "turning into Bush."

Here is the gist of it in the first few sentences:

***
WASHINGTON — The head of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Thursday that the panel would hold a hearing to get to the bottom of reports that the National Security Agency improperly tapped into the domestic communications of American citizens.

"We will make sure we get the facts," said Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

The House and Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees learned of the problem in late February from the Justice Department, a congressional official said Thursday. The committees have since had multiple private briefings on the NSA transgressions.

The Justice Department confirmed Wednesday that it had reined in the NSA's wiretapping activities in the United States after learning that the agency had improperly accessed American phone calls and e-mails while eavesdropping on foreign communications.

Justice officials discovered the problems during a routine review of NSA wiretapping. The government's action was first divulged Wednesday by The New York Times.
***

DAR
Obama's Justice department found a problem, a transgression in a big complex department (NSA), and it is being dealt with. And this is a problem how? This is Obama doing something wrong?

There is a whole lot in that article, a lot of nuance and detail that argues against what you have been saying. I encourage anyone interested to read it. Also, the idea that the old law regarding requiring a "warrant to wiretap" is being violated by data sweeps is not at all persuasive to me. Sweep away I say. The law is (or was) anachronistic at best (considering new technology) and this is why congress passed a new law trying to update. To cite your article:

"Congress adjusted the law last year, both loosening some provisions and tightening others in an effort to balance protecting national security and guarding civil liberties.
The law allows the government to obtain broad, year-long intercept orders from the FISA court that target foreign groups and people inside the United States."

Can Obama wave a wand and make laws go away? I don't think so. And it would be profoundly irresponsible to walk in on the job and do that even if he could. That's not how he rolls.

Obama DOES think warrantless wiretapping is necessary.

DAR
You still haven't shown this. "Warrantless wiretapping" is an outdated anachronistic term. It used to mean bugging someone's phone. I am against someone bugging my phone without a warrant. I am sure Obama is too.

The cartoon is not right-wing crap.

DAR
The cartoon is total rightwing crap. And lets look at another claim it makes. The implication regarding the claim: "I've ordered a troop surge in Afghanistan" is that this a change toward Bush. Did Obama give a timetable for getting out of Afghanistan as he did for Iraq? No. Did he say he wouldn't add troops if necessary? No, I don't think so. So that implication is bogus too. The third line is obviously true also. Zero for three.
I am all for going after Obama when someone gets something good on the guy, I just haven't seen anything yet. It'll come but you'll have to wait for it. This is junk.

You think Rachel Maddow spreads right-wing crap?

DAR
Absolutely. Sometimes right-wing crap and left-wing crap overlap. This cartoon pleases the far right and far left and the Obama bashers. But I don't care who it pleases, I care if it's accurate. And it isn't. But it's just a cartoon. The far left and right will giggle.

I told you she had said that Obama is turning into Bush.

DAR
And earlier in this thread you said regarding Obama's policy on this: "it's as bad as Bush, if not worse."

Which is of course absurd. You're not thinking straight.

D.

ps. Now I have fundies to roast. Huge abortion debate here big dog.

Darrel wrote:No, not case closed. This article doesn't accomplish what you want. Did you read the article? Did you notice the title:

"NSA Wiretapping: Justice Department Reining It In"

That is, Obama's Justice Department is turning away from what Bush did. That's the opposite of "turning into Bush."

Here is the gist of it in the first few sentences...

DOUG
If they're "reigning it in," then ipso facto they are doing it. You can't "reign in" something that you're not engaging in.

And since they won't release details, we don't know how much it is being reigned in, nor whether it got worse right after Obama was elected.

How Obama is like Bush is not the degree to which he engages in warrantless wiretapping, but just the fact that he does it.

Regardless of that, Obama clearly does think that "warrantless wiretaps are needed to fight terror," and he believes that this is true right now, so the cartoon is correct. And it is correct that Obama is way too much like Bush.

Doug wrote:And since they won't release details, we don't know how much it is being reigned in, nor whether it got worse right after Obama was elected.

DAR
So your argument devolves to: "we don't know." Which is no argument at all and what I have said from the beginning. The claim is based upon a non sequitur.

DOUG
How Obama is like Bush is not the degree to which he engages in warrantless wiretapping, but just the fact that he does it.

DAR
a) You haven't shown "that he does it" (nor have you defined "it")

b) You haven't shown that he would even have the power/jurisdiction to wave/nullify laws regarding surveillance, enacted by congress last summer, regarding how surveillance is done by the NSA.

You need (a) to get your claim off the ground and you need (b) to make any of this stick to Obama.

What you have provided is "we don't know."

One problem is "warrantless wiretapping" is an outdated term from the 70's that really doesn't translate well 35 years into the future. Data sweeps are hardly "wiretapping" in the sense of tapping a phone as in the old days. So perhaps you should define what you mean by "warrantless wiretapping" before you commit to being so certain it is being done (based upon data you admit "we don't know").

DOUG
Regardless of that, Obama clearly does think that "warrantless wiretaps are needed to fight terror,"

DAR
I see no reason, none whatsoever, to think that is true. See above.

D.

Doug wrote:And since they won't release details, we don't know how much it is being reigned in, nor whether it got worse right after Obama was elected.

Darrel wrote:So your argument devolves to: "we don't know." Which is no argument at all and what I have said from the beginning. The claim is based upon a non sequitur.

No. We DO know that Obama supports these wiretaps because he is doing it and it wouldn't happen unless he allowed it. What we don't know is how much wiretapping there was and how much he is "reigning it in." YOU asserted that he was becoming less like Bush because he is reigning in the wiretapping, but my assertion is that reigning something in is a relative term, and if you don't know the starting point, you don't know how much the reigning is affecting the overall effect. So in other words we don't know that Obama is becoming less like Bush (as you asserted). So your argument, not mine, is "we don't know."

DOUG
How Obama is like Bush is not the degree to which he engages in warrantless wiretapping, but just the fact that he does it.

Darrel wrote: a) You haven't shown "that he does it" (nor have you defined "it")

DOUG
I cited an article from Huffington Post, which is a very liberal website, in which it is explained that Obama's administration is going to "reign in" its wiretapping, but that the details will remain classified. I see no reason to think that the article is in error. Do you have evidence that Obama is NOT allowing warrantless wiretaps?

Darrel wrote: b) You haven't shown that he would even have the power/jurisdiction to wave/nullify laws regarding surveillance, enacted by congress last summer, regarding how surveillance is done by the NSA.

You need (a) to get your claim off the ground and you need (b) to make any of this stick to Obama.

DOUG
Famously, the previous president is the one who authorized warrantless wiretaps. Congress made laws about wiretaps, and Bush ignored them. Then Congress decided to allow Bush to do, in a somewhat limited way, what he was already doing. That's where we are now, and Obama is continuing that program. I still think it is unconstitutional.

Obama could stop warrantless wiretapping because it is his NSA that is doing them, not something directed by Congress. It is in the president's power to do them or not.

Darrel wrote:One problem is "warrantless wiretapping" is an outdated term from the 70's that really doesn't translate well 35 years into the future.

DOUG
It worked all right last year.

Darrel wrote:Data sweeps are hardly "wiretapping" in the sense of tapping a phone as in the old days. So perhaps you should define what you mean by "warrantless wiretapping" before you commit to being so certain it is being done (based upon data you admit "we don't know").

DOUG
I'm not talking about data sweeps. I'm talking about specific wiretaps on the phones/computers/etc. of people in the U.S. who are flagged as suspected of having something to do with terrorism, and this is done without first seeking a court order (warrant) allowing this to take place. This was all in the news last year and the year before. I think most newshounds know what this is referring to.

Obama engages in them, and he is defending Bush's use of them. (BTW, did you see that Obama also decided that he will NOT allow the release of those millions of e-mails the Bush administration tried to hide? I guess Bush forgot his computer too. {Reference to the cartoon that started this non-cartoon thread.}).

DOUG
No. We DO know that Obama supports these wiretaps...

DAR
Without warrants? Show this. You haven't even defined wiretaps.

DOUG
So in other words we don't know that Obama is becoming less like Bush (as you asserted). So your argument, not mine, is "we don't know."

DAR
When did I assert that? Best to respond directly my comments. It's your (stupid) cartoon, if you want to defend it, you have to do better than "we don't know." I don't have to do better than that. It's a non sequitur for reasons I have stated repeatedly and you have judiciously avoided dealing with.

DOUG
I cited an article from Huffington Post, which is a very liberal website,...

DAR
Actually it has a pretty wide range of opinion.

DOUG
in which it is explained that Obama's administration is going to "reign in" its wiretapping,...

DAR
If you want to keep throwing this word around, you ought to define it. I see no evidence in that article, or in anything you have provided that gets you "warrantless wiretapping." That's what you need if you want to defend this stupid cartoon. The guy has been in a little over 100 days. Even if this was occurring, and you haven't shown this, was it "his wiretapping" on day one?

DOUG
but that the details will remain classified.

DAR
As they should.

DOUG
I see no reason to think that the article is in error.

DAR
I agree. But more importantly, I see no reason to think the article supports your conclusion. And that's what you needed.

DOUG
Do you have evidence that Obama is NOT allowing warrantless wiretaps?

DAR
I am not remotely interested in this cartoon enough to do your work for you. If you want to defend the assertion in the cartoon, it's your burden, not mine.

DOUG
Obama could stop warrantless wiretapping because it is his NSA that is doing them, not something directed by Congress. It is in the president's power to do them or not.

DAR
I know you can claim this, can you show this?

Your Huff Po article:

"Congress adjusted the law last year, both loosening some provisions and tightening others in an effort to balance protecting national security and guarding civil liberties.
The law allows the government to obtain broad, year-long intercept orders from the FISA court that target foreign groups and people inside the United States."

Can Obama "adjust" laws?

DOUG
I'm not talking about data sweeps. I'm talking about specific wiretaps on the phones/computers/etc. of people in the U.S. who are flagged as suspected of having something to do with terrorism, and this is done without first seeking a court order (warrant) allowing this to take place.

DAR
Excellent. A definition. This is indeed wiretapping in the classic sense. Now, what is a warrant? If, as your article states: "The law allows the government to obtain broad, year-long intercept orders from the FISA court" in order to "target foreign groups and people inside the United States." Then this is what congress now considers a warrant. And you would have Obama nullify this law how? Shut down the NSA?

If Obama were to follow the lead of the nattering ninnies on his far left he would be a one term president and the country would swing so far back to the right Rick Sanitorum would be elected in 2012. Fortunately, he's smarter than that.

DOUG
Obama engages in them, and he is defending Bush's use of them.

DAR
You still have not shown this. When are you going to do this? If you want to defend the claims in this cartoon, you need to show some important stuff. "We don't know" doesn't cut it.

D.

DOUG
(BTW, did you see that Obama also decided that he will NOT allow the release of those millions of e-mails the Bush administration tried to hide?

DAR
No, I didn't see that.

Darrel wrote:

DOUG
No. We DO know that Obama supports these wiretaps...

DAR
Without warrants? Show this. You haven't even defined wiretaps.

DOUG
The article at HuffintonPost made reference to the use of warrantless wiretaps. We know Obama is doing this because there is going to be a review of this, which will be classified. Show evidence that Obama is NOT doing this. The burden is on you now. I've provided evidence for my position.

Give it up. You've lost this one. You're just nitpicking now.

Here's more stuff about Obama's wiretapping:

New York Times, April 15, 2009:

One official said that led the agency to inadvertently “target” groups of Americans and collect their domestic communications without proper court authority. Officials are still trying to determine how many violations may have occurred.

...Notified of the problems by the N.S.A., officials with both the House and Senate intelligence committees said they had concerns that the agency had ignored civil liberties safeguards built into last year’s wiretapping law. “We have received notice of a serious issue involving the N.S.A., and we’ve begun inquiries into it,” a Congressional staff member said.

...And in one previously undisclosed episode, the N.S.A. tried to wiretap a member of Congress without a warrant, an intelligence official with direct knowledge of the matter said.

The agency believed that the congressman, whose identity could not be determined, was in contact — as part of a Congressional delegation to the Middle East in 2005 or 2006 — with an extremist who had possible terrorist ties and was already under surveillance, the official said. The agency then sought to eavesdrop on the congressman’s conversations, the official said.

The official said the plan was ultimately blocked because of concerns from some intelligence officials about using the N.S.A., without court oversight, to spy on a member of Congress.

See here.

Remember, you can't "reign in" something that isn't occurring.

DAR
I've told you what you need to do to get your case off the ground. What I have asked for is not unreasonable.

DOUG
Show evidence that Obama is NOT doing this. The burden is on you now.

DAR
Sorry, I can't take such a claim seriously. Defend the claim in your cartoon, or don't.

When you go after Obama, or anyone, best to make sure you got some ammo in your gun. This time, you got nothing. "We don't know" is not an affirmative argument and if this were any other topic and you were thinking clearly you would know how ridiculous your claim is that someone else needs to "prove the negative" of your affirmative assertion.

DOUG
you can't "reign in" something that isn't occurring.

DAR
Your article is entitled "NSA Wiretapping: Justice Department Reining It In" not[/u ]"NSA Warrentless Wiretapping: Justice Department Reining It."
If Congress provides approval for an action, this would seem to me to provide "warrant" for an action and would qualify for me as proper oversight. And I have no problem with the details of this being kept secret (I have my ACLU renewal form on my desk right now so my civil liberty credentials are intact and supported by action).
Of course, abuses will occur and routine reviews should catch such problems when they pop up, which is what your article is referring to. Trying to wipe this on Obama is just more of your anti-Obama silliness.

D.