US Politics: Check with a Court before you see your Doctor

[Suttree]

To call this a "do nothing" Congress is too kind.

Robert Reich:

In case you hadn’t noticed, Congress has left town for the remainder of the summer – without having replenished the highway trust fund, responded to the surge of children from Central America at our southern border, raised the minimum wage, expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit for the working poor, extended unemployment insurance for the long-term unemployed, helped distressed homeowners, eased the growing debt burden on students, moved on climate change, or responded to the increasing numbers of mentally ill and homeless on our streets. To call this a “do-nothing” Congress is too kind, because when nothing is done in the face of worsening problems people suffer more. And if you Congress will do much of anything between when they return in September and Election Day, you’re fooling yourself.

Both parties are to blame, but the Republican Party – responding to its Tea Party extremists -- has relentlessly rejected and stonewalled. We no longer have a functioning government, which is what the Tea Party has aimed for from the start.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Yes, they do. And you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

They can and will turn this into a political shitshow with very real consequences.

I can't believe you are actually naive enough to think that law enforcement is not political.

It's political when elected officials are too fearful of the politics to do anything. Obama is a 2nd term President with little reason to be politically fearful, he will never face the electorate again. I don't give a fuck that Republicans will turn it into a shitshow- welcome to every damn issue in the Obama era.

Do they have the power to actually stop him? Does he require support of the House of Representatives? No, absolutely not. All you're arguing is that Obama should cower before Republicans pitching a fit like they always do.

If the Obama administration were to attempt to bring charges against Bush/Cheney for torture, it would blow up in Obama's face so much that no President would ever consider such an action ever again. Thus your intended effect of showing future presidents that torture will not be tolerated would instead be replaced with showing that the country will line up behind torturers so long as they are "our torturers".

But the administration knows this and would never make such a blunder.

You've jumped several orders of magnitude to Obama indicting Bush and Cheney, and then predicted what the public's reaction would be. I said Obama had the power to order deeper investigation that could lead to indictment. I think there's some space between indicting Bush and Cheney off the bat and acting as Obama has, which has been to do very little and make a public statement defending the people who engaged in torture- calling them "patriots" and declaring their critics "sanctimonious."

I might share your lack of faith in the American public, but I don't think just giving up because, hey, people like torture, is an option. If there's no pushback, if no one faces any consequences, it's far more likely to happen again. You say Obama shouldn't attempt to hold torturer's accountable because he'll fail and then no President will ever attempt to hold their predecessor's administrations accountable again- but that's really no great loss from your stance, since you're opposing accountability in the first place!

[Shryke]

It's political when elected officials are too fearful of the politics to do anything. Obama is a 2nd term President with little reason to be politically fearful, he will never face the electorate again. I don't give a fuck that Republicans will turn it into a shitshow- welcome to every damn issue in the Obama era.

Do they have the power to actually stop him? Does he require support of the House of Representatives? No, absolutely not. All you're arguing is that Obama should cower before Republicans pitching a fit like they always do.

This would be bigger and Obama has more to worry about then his own election. Because the people who support him have more to worry about then Obama's next election.

They do have the power to stop him. They have to power to put enough political pressure on him that he can't proceed with the investigation because of political infighting and obstruction.

I seriously don't think you are actually this naive. There's no way you can believe that governmental investigations into the other party's policies are divorced from political considerations.

[TrackerNeil]

http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-google-gmail-child-pornography-20140804-story.html

Thank you, big brother google for the electronic surveillance. ;-)

Yeah, this disturbed me too. I don't have a problem with the illegality of child pornography, but the notion of Googling sifting through its users emails for signs of illegal activity is...well, disturbing.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

This would be bigger and Obama has more to worry about then his own election. Because the people who support him have more to worry about then Obama's next election.

They do have the power to stop him. They have to power to put enough political pressure on him that he can't proceed with the investigation because of political infighting and obstruction.

I seriously don't think you are actually this naive. There's no way you can believe that governmental investigations into the other party's policies are divorced from political considerations.

I'm not saying that at all. Of course politics are in practice taken into consideration constantly- I'm saying that Obama has by law all the power he needs in this case and is sufficiently insulated from Republican backlash to the extent that the politics of it can't stop him. You're insisting on the basis of nothing that Republican anger would thwart him. What, more Republican screeching- in addition to their already constant screeching- is going to prove so threatening to the Democratic Party that it can't possibly be withstood? Obama had better trot out to the podium and call critics of torturers "sanctimonious" or else a Republican landslide is inevitable? It's nonsense.

[Shryke]

I'm not saying that at all. Of course politics are in practice taken into consideration constantly- I'm saying that Obama has by law all the power he needs in this case and is sufficiently insulated from Republican backlash to the extent that the politics of it can't stop him. You're insisting on the basis of nothing that Republican anger would thwart him. What, more Republican screeching- in addition to their already constant screeching- is going to prove so threatening to the Democratic Party that it can't possibly be withstood? Obama had better trot out to the podium and call critics of torturers "sanctimonious" or else a Republican landslide is inevitable? It's nonsense.

So your point is that in some hypothetical other world populated entirely by clones of Hermes Conrad, technically Obama could probably do this.

Alright then.

[TerraPrime]

Yeah, this disturbed me too. I don't have a problem with the illegality of child pornography, but the notion of Googling sifting through its users emails for signs of illegal activity is...well, disturbing.

Hmm... they're not scanning for illegal activities. They're scanning for keywords for targeted ad placement. Whether you consider this a difference worthy of distinction is your own call. I do.

Also, there are other free email systems out there, some meant to be untraceable and a lot more private. Google offers their service in return of ad placement, and this type of algorithm is how they attract advertisers. You can see it on our site, here, when the banner ad to your left keys into specific keywords it found on the site.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

So your point is that in some hypothetical other world populated entirely by clones of Hermes Conrad, technically Obama could probably do this.

Alright then.

All he needs is one Hermes Conrad to requisition his groove back and he can do it in our world, populated with it's current people. Nothing is stopping him but lack of will- either for fear of the politics or because he doesn't care enough or at all.

[TrackerNeil]

Hmm... they're not scanning for illegal activities. They're scanning for keywords for targeted ad placement. Whether you consider this a difference worthy of distinction is your own call. I do.

As I read it, Google was looking for something specific. Not that they can't do that; Google is a private company and its customers should have only limited expectations of privacy. Still, to me it's a bit disturbing to think of Google becoming an arm of law enforcement.

[TerraPrime]

As I read it, Google was looking for something specific. Not that they can't do that; Google is a private company and its customers should have only limited expectations of privacy. Still, to me it's a bit disturbing to think of Google becoming an arm of law enforcement.

Really?

Most people who work with children are obligated to report signs of abuse. If a school nurse notices bruises and injuries consistent with possible physical abuse, they are required by law to report it, for instance. Does that make him/her also "an arm of law enforcement?"

I'm not arguing that Google has a positive obligation under the law to report child pornography to the police here. I'm just pointing out that what they did in reporting the incident is probably the less controversial part of the story.

[TrackerNeil]

Really?

Most people who work with children are obligated to report signs of abuse. If a school nurse notices bruises and injuries consistent with possible physical abuse, they are required by law to report it, for instance. Does that make him/her also "an arm of law enforcement?"

I think mandatory reporters, who are usually either law enforcement or are certified to work with children, are a bit different from Google, which is a corporation that happens to have access to an awful lot of information. I suppose one could argue that everyone should be a mandatory reporter of child abuse -- in fact, I believe that some states have considered doing just this -- but I would not make that argument.

[Inigima]

It's scary because kiddie porn is always the wedge used to justify infringement on privacy. "We already monitor for kiddie porn, why shouldn't we monitor for xyz other thing?" Speeding is illegal, but no one wants perfect enforcement for that.

In a vacuum, yes, I'm glad someone who traffics in child pornography was caught. But I'm wary of the precedent.

[TrackerNeil]

It's scary because kiddie porn is always the wedge used to justify infringement on privacy. "We already monitor for kiddie porn, why shouldn't we monitor for xyz other thing?" Speeding is illegal, but no one wants perfect enforcement for that.

In a vacuum, yes, I'm glad someone who traffics in child pornography was caught. But I'm wary of the precedent.

This pretty much sums up my unease. Back in 2002 we were told the TSA would focus on airline safety, but of course now that organization is essentially an arm of the FBI, investigating passengers carrying cash or questionable checks. This kind of scope creep should never have been allowed.

[Ramsay Gimp]

This pretty much sums up my unease. Back in 2002 we were told the TSA would focus on airline safety, but of course now that organization is essentially an arm of the FBI, investigating passengers carrying cash or questionable checks. This kind of scope creep should never have been allowed.

Not to mention the PATRIOT Act being used for drug or mob cases

[Guy Kilmore]

I think mandatory reporters, who are usually either law enforcement or are certified to work with children, are a bit different from Google, which is a corporation that happens to have access to an awful lot of information. I suppose one could argue that everyone should be a mandatory reporter of child abuse -- in fact, I believe that some states have considered doing just this -- but I would not make that argument.

Most Mandatory reporters are Teachers, Social Workers, Mental Health Professionals and Medical Professionals. Its a big net. I know I missed some people.

Not really expressing an opinion on this issue, just figured I would point that fact out.

[Paladin of Ice]

Nuking the filibuster on judicial appointments has worked out well for the administration, with his choices now able to actually get up and down votes, Obama is now outpacing both Bush and Clinton in appointments made.

President Barack Obama has already confirmed more circuit judges than his two predecessors did by the end of their sixth year in office, thanks in large part to Senate Democrats nuking the 60-vote threshold in November for most nominees.

Before the Senate left town for recess last week, it confirmed the president's 52nd circuit nominee, Pamela Harris, to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, by a vote of 50-43.

At the end of his sixth year, George W. Bush confirmed 51 circuit judges; Bill Clinton confirmed 50 circuit judges.

[The Notorious]

Back in 2002 we were told the TSA would focus on airline safety, but of course now that organization is essentially an arm of the FBI, investigating passengers carrying cash or questionable checks.

I disagree. Money laundering is serious financial crime that needs more scrutiny.

Not to mention the PATRIOT Act being used for drug or mob cases

What, you don't think drug lords engage in acts of terrorism?

[Commodore]

I disagree. Money laundering is serious financial crime that needs more scrutiny.

What, you don't think drug lords engage in acts of terrorism?

make drugs legal and drug lords go away, easy

prohibition creates an incentive to violence, and the funding to perpetuate it

[Shryke]

Drugs are not the only source of cash that needs to be laundered.

[MerenthaClone]

What, you don't think drug lords engage in acts of terrorism?

Depends on how you define terrorism. If I think the cartels would aid a Muslim extremist attempting to get into the US, the answer is hell-fucking-no, for a simple reason: they saw what we did with Afghanistan, and they have to know that if we determined that an attack on the US was aided by them, suddenly the political will to try to crush them is back in full gear.

edit: Also, lets be clear. There are other forms of terrorism, and I'm sure the cartels do engage in them by most definitions. However, right-wing fucknuts also do as well, and neither of them are especially prosecuted or chased.