"...the previous POTUS, a constitutional scholar that campaigned on ending domestic surveillance..."
1) This line reminded me how fallible my memory is. I held a view of Obama as always toeing the line on government surveillance. Then senator Obama's 2008 vote in favor of the FISA Amendments Act and pro-surveillance actions as POTUS dominate my memory. I had completely forgotten his anti-surveillance rhetoric and actions from '04 - '07 [1][2].
2) How incredible would it be to candidly hear answers from Obama about what changed his mind?
3) I also wonder what it would be like to hear his candid thoughts now about handing over a surveillance state, that he directly entrenched as POTUS, to our current president.
Wishful thinking, I know, but it's something so few have any direct information about aside from conjecture.
> 2) How incredible would it be to candidly hear answers from Obama about what changed his mind?
It would be biased bullshit anyway. If they had any examples of real attacks being thwarted, they would have presented this evidence just to stop the criticisms. The surveillance is effective for political and economic reasons, and possibly for law enforcement's domestic use, which is borderline unconstitutional.
> The surveillance went as far as spying on members of Trump's campaign, which is eerily similar to Watergate.
Obvious hyperbole. They monitored everyone that communicated with foreign nationals, which Trump's aides were doing. They used the word "incidental collection" in that article for a reason.
Surveillance on foreign nationals that "inadvertently" intercepted communications from their political opponents.
> Nunes suggested this unmasking might have been done for political reasons, saying the evidence he had seen had been widely disseminated across the intelligence community and had "little or no apparent intelligence value."
We're rightfully worried about what Trump could do with such power; we should also be investigating what Obama actually did with it.
> It's ok to spy on your political enemies as long as you spy on everyone else too?
The real issue is whether it's ok to spy on everyone. Spying on everyone means spying on your political enemies too, and your specific focus on the political enemies is ignoring the important debate. You're effectively arguing that spying on everyone isn't important, as long as you don't spy on your political enemies.
> But you're right, I'm not interested in conspiracy theories. That's why I said we should investigate.
And waste time and resources on a completely stupid premise. Spend your political capital more wisely.
Spying on your political enemies is a serious threat to democracy.
Not many seem to care, frankly, that the government is spying on them. I have some hope that they might care about America turning into a dictatorship where elections are decided by abuse of power.
On the other hand, I also see many reasons to fear that they won't care, as long as "their side" wins.
1) This line reminded me how fallible my memory is. I held a view of Obama as always toeing the line on government surveillance. Then senator Obama's 2008 vote in favor of the FISA Amendments Act and pro-surveillance actions as POTUS dominate my memory. I had completely forgotten his anti-surveillance rhetoric and actions from '04 - '07 [1][2].
2) How incredible would it be to candidly hear answers from Obama about what changed his mind?
3) I also wonder what it would be like to hear his candid thoughts now about handing over a surveillance state, that he directly entrenched as POTUS, to our current president.
Wishful thinking, I know, but it's something so few have any direct information about aside from conjecture.
[1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/obama-on-mass-gove... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/03/barack-obama...