A blog of politics, law, religion, and the tricky spots where they collide.

Questions? Contact.

Civil Liberties in the Age of Obama

The NSA has been doing some snooping. By all accounts it was done legally.1 There’s a lot of argument that the snooping has been an effective anti-terror tool. But the scope of the subpoena is staggeringly large. And that may be just the beginning.

A lot of people are angry at the Obama Administration—and I think some outrage is reasonable. I just feel that the claim that “the Obama Administration is trampling your civil liberties” misses the point. Because the NSA really likes data. All our spy agencies like data—and they’re going to get as much of it as they can unless explicitly prohibited by law or direct policy. And no administration would have stopped the NSA from doing this snooping. The Clinton Administration wouldn’t have. Bush I wouldn’t have. Bush II wouldn’t have even gotten a warrant. Hilary Clinton’s administration would have done it. A Romney or McCain Administration would do at least as much snooping with less concern for privacy. The Rand Paul or Rubio Administrations would do the same thing. The Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders administrations might not do this sort of snooping—which is one of the reasons there will never, ever be a Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders administration.

Blaming the Obama Administration for permitting the NSA to request this type of information is like blaming a dog for eating the steak you left on the counter while you were at work. Maybe the perfect dog wouldn’t do that. Maybe. You really should have seen that one coming.

If we have laws on the books that permit this type of overstepping, it is going to happen. The problem isn’t the administration. The problem is the Patriot Act. It’s time to finally make some changes.

  1. Somebody is going to challenge me on the use of the word “legally,” probably by saying that “If it’s unconstitutional, it can’t be legal.” I mean only that it complies with the statute as written and that the statute is not clearly unconstitutional. Yes, the argument can be made that the law as written or interpreted is unconstitutional—but that argument is made about tons of things. 

  1. bradenrussell2 reblogged this from squashed
  2. jufemaiz reblogged this from squashed
  3. jessyspino reblogged this from squashed
  4. rockingguccisneaks reblogged this from squashed
  5. axtigo reblogged this from squashed
  6. alexcuppycakeh reblogged this from squashed
  7. thombeck reblogged this from squashed
  8. darikrosser reblogged this from squashed and added:
    I appreciate this post
  9. chafir reblogged this from squashed and added:
  10. andewayigo reblogged this from squashed and added:
    Some good points are made.
  11. food-for-thoth reblogged this from squashed
  12. ravenwentrogue reblogged this from squashed
  13. corporations8mybaby reblogged this from squashed and added:
    **It’s legal until we change congress.**
  14. nougatmachine reblogged this from squashed and added:
    Well, okay. But if you start from the premise that it’s not politically realistic to elect a president better better on...
  15. passiveaggressivepositivity reblogged this from squashed
  16. vhixxen reblogged this from squashed
  17. i-am-jason-grace reblogged this from team-joebama
  18. purplegem reblogged this from other-stuff
  19. browngurlwfro reblogged this from team-joebama
  20. zigziggityzoo said: It seems clear to me in case law that you need specific, articulable suspicion to warrant a search, and the search has to be narrow in scope. We have the opposite of that happening.
  21. andrerichesque reblogged this from squashed and added:
    Reasonable points.