What do you liberals think of this?

[j2k4]

All of you who decried the Patriot Act and your perceived intrusiveness of the Bush administration - Obama is putting all of that in the shade:

http://goodtimepolitics.com/2010/07/30/invasion-of-privacy-by-fbi-and-the-obama-administration/

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2010/07/did-congress-exempt-the-sec-from-foia.html


Transparency, my ass.

Tell me why this is totally okay, and why you're not at all worried - after all, he's not doing this in aid of the fight against terrorism, is he?

[clocker]

I don't like it.

Now, you tell us why this is so much worse than when Bush/Cheney did it.

[j2k4]

It is ironic because it is not directed - even ostensibly - at terrorism.

It is worse because liberals won't speak out against it as it is taking shape under democrat rather than republican auspices.

Let's see what the others here have to say, eh?

Edit:

Added a link because I was informed they weren't working.

Now it's a conspiracy.

[MagicNakor]

What exactly is new here? The sparse information from those links don't point at anything that hasn't already been implemented (re: FBI authority/NSA/Patriot Act). The section of the Dodd-Frank Act that has Fox's dander up doesn't appear to keep any information secret- if requested by Congress, the courts or another government or regulation agency the SEC must comply. That the SEC uses bureaucratic red-tape to delay the process isn't exactly a revelation. Governments and corporations have a knack for using the law to keep justice at bay.

As for the B.C. license plate... It could be a commentary on the provincial Liberals (a misnomer if ever there was) and their governing practices, or perhaps a more meta-comment on the Conservatives who campaigned on transparency and ushered in the least-transparent government of our modern times... but I doubt it.

:shuriken:

[devilsadvocate]

It is ironic because it is not directed - even ostensibly - at terrorism.

It is worse because liberals won't speak out against it as it is taking shape under democrat rather than republican auspices.

Were/are you okay with the patriot act and warrantless wiretaps?

The article makes no mention of what it's directed at. How do you know it isn't directed at terrorism?

I'm pretty sure anyone who objected to the patriot act would feel the same about this.

The constitution is quite clear "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."

Get a warrant.

[clocker]

It is worse because liberals won't speak out against it as it is taking shape under democrat rather than republican auspices.


So, your contention is that this is only "worse" because it's happening under a Democrat's administration.
It was fine before- because it was a Republican policy.

Uh huh.