• On GameFAQs: Xbox 360: Better vertical or horizontal?
January 8, 2008 1:16 PM PST

Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me

by Anne Broache

Sen. Barack Obama slams President Bush's warrantless wiretap program at Dartmouth College in his last public appearance before the polls close here in New Hampshire.

(Credit: Declan McCullagh/News.com )

HANOVER, N.H.--Barack Obama may be leading the Democratic presidential pack in every major poll here, but that didn't dissuade the Illinois senator from a final early-morning rally with the Facebook generation.

Clearly not content to leave their votes to the whims of online politicking, the Illinois senator stepped onto a stage fashioned in a Dartmouth College gymnasium, pulled an index card from his inside jacket pocket, and launched into a familiar set of talking points centered on what has become a familiar theme for his campaign: change and hope.

"My job this morning is to be so persuasive...that a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack," he told a crowd of about 300 Ivy Leaguers--and, by the looks of it, a handful of locals who managed to gain access to what was supposed to be a students-only event.

For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and "wiretaps without warrants," he said. (He was referring to the lingering legal fallout over reports that the National Security Agency scooped up Americans' phone and Internet activities without court orders, ostensibly to monitor terrorist plots, in the years after the September 11 attacks.)

It's hardly a new stance for Obama, who has made similar statements in previous campaign speeches, but mention of the issue in a stump speech, alongside more frequently discussed topics like Iraq and education, may give some clue to his priorities.

In our own Technology Voters' Guide, when asked whether he supports shielding telecommunications and Internet companies from lawsuits accusing them of illegal spying, Obama gave us a one-word response: "No."

(Democrats Hillary Clinton and John Edwards and Republican Ron Paul, for their part, came to the same conclusion in our survey.)

Barack Obama's audience at Dartmouth College was receptive but, compared to other political events in the state in the last week, relatively small.

(Credit: Declan McCullagh/News.com )

At the event, which was interrupted for about 10 minutes when a woman in the audience felt faint and was carried out on a stretcher, Obama also spent a few moments on another cause that's important to most of his competitors, regardless of party affiliation: the need to "break from the tyranny of fossil fuels" and the "addiction to foreign oil" in favor of a "green economy" built on alternative sources like solar, wind and biodiesel.

"We are going to save this planet, and you are going to help us do it because you are going to be voting today," he predicted.

Already 5 to 13 points ahead in the polls, depending on which ones you consult, Obama may not have needed to air the tried-and-true speech yet again. And thanks to springlike temperatures--a stark contrast from last week's subzero blitz--New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner reportedly predicted a record turnout of half a million voters before the polls close at 7 p.m. (and a few at 8 p.m.) EST Tuesday.

advertisement
Click here!
Recent posts from News Blog
Nvidia puts NForce chipset development on hold
Opera 10 browser is here
Neil Young Archives Blu-ray: Rip off?
Acronis revises survey results about backup habits
Acronis miscalculates data on users' bad backup habits
Flickr co-founder presses beta button
Comcast, Sony open retail store
Cox to try coaxing the Internet into submission
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (25 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
Al Qaeda for Obama
by Dr. StrangeOne January 8, 2008 3:21 PM PST
:-)
Reply to this comment
not exactly
by Dalkorian January 9, 2008 9:39 AM PST
Al Qaeda is all for Bush declaring martial law and tearing up more
of our cherished Constitution. Al Qaeda supports Bush because
Bush allowed 9-11 to happen and has done NOTHING SINCE to
prevent it from happening again.

Someone explain to us why Saddam Hussein is dead, yet OBL is
running around in Pakistan. Try to do it without sounding retarded.
The Blind leading the blind...
by rangerinanm January 8, 2008 3:21 PM PST
Gosh, I feel safer already knowing B.O. will be protecting me from eavesdropping on my critically sensitive personal calls. And I'm sure those who were discovered plotting bombings in the US and the UK prior to this enlightened announcement would never have even attempted to communicate (which led to their capture) if they knew a tough guy like B.O. might be approving warrants for wire tapping here and there. I mean would they want to risk plotting with their brothers on phone lines knowing a warrant could appear to tap their lines at any moment?

Head for the bunkers people, this isn't going ot be pretty.
Reply to this comment
Sad..
by Draxon January 8, 2008 4:19 PM PST
As a canadian I find it terribly sad that you are not only willing to give up your freedom so easily. But now I musta admit i'm frightened that you would go as far as mock anyone who tries to save your freedoms. You do realize more people die car crashes on ANY single day than the combined total of people that have died to terrorists attacks in the last 4 years? Terrrorism is a hot button word the government has used to take away your freedoms and give itself more power.

You sir are a COWARD. Where has courage gone? In world war 2 houndreds of thousands of people lost their lives for your freedom and here you are throwing what they died for away because you've been scared and tricked by your own government.

In the past people died for your freedom, now your giving up your freedem for a false sense of security... Sad...
View reply
Are You Making It Up As You Go?
by lampietheclown January 9, 2008 12:13 AM PST
Quote:
"And I'm sure those who were discovered plotting bombings in
the US and the UK prior to this enlightened announcement
would never have even attempted to communicate (which led to
their capture) if they knew a tough guy like B.O. might be
approving warrants for wire tapping here and there." End Quote

First of all, who was plotting bombings and got caught by an
illegal wiretap? I missed that news story. Or did you just make
it up?
Second, approval for legal wiretaps doesn't come from the
President, it comes from a Judge.
Third, no warrant would "appear". Just like now, the terrorists
won't know if their phone is tapped or not.

You call it the blind leading the blind, but in your case it's more
like the ignorant defending the guilty. Get your facts straight,
and come back when you have something to say.

Lampie the Clown
View reply
surrendering is not the answer.
by ralfthedog January 11, 2008 7:08 AM PST
Giving up everything that makes this country great so we can stop a few radicals from the religious right from blowing up a building or two is not a good deal.

If we want to stop militant Islam from flying aircraft into our buildings, perhaps we should ban freedom of religion and make Islam the official religion of the United States. We could suspend elections and have our new religious leaders select our rulers for us.

I know, lets have our new Theocracy choose our clothing. They can tell us what to eat and when to eat it.

By giving up our freedoms against illegal search and seizure, we are destroying our greatest weapon against tyranny.
Finally
by Lee in San Diego January 8, 2008 3:52 PM PST
A candidate who respects the Constitution of the United States.
Reply to this comment
You're never read...
by shoffmueller January 8, 2008 4:00 PM PST
... the constitution.
View reply
Or . . .
by rbannon January 8, 2008 4:54 PM PST
. . . a voter that actually believes that there's a Constitution in
the United States.

What you don't understand is that these people running for
office will say just about anything you want to hear, but you'll be
robbed blind once they get into office. It really doesn't matter
who it is, or what party they're in.

Bottom line, America is hosed!
Osama for Obama!
by fafafooey January 8, 2008 6:32 PM PST
Osama says yes! He hasn't been able to attack the US since 9/11 because of that pesky Bush...

Fire up those cell phones boys! Let's talk!
Reply to this comment
Osama's been saying that for years
by Dalkorian January 9, 2008 9:36 AM PST
Hello, are you people on drugs? BUSH WAS IN POWER WHEN OBL
ATTACKED US ON 9-11!

Osama's getting depressed because his boyfriend GWB is going
to lose power - unless he declares martial law and violates more
of the constitution.

I'm starting to wonder if it's required for someone to be retarded
in order to be admitted to the repukinazicon party.
What a tool
by bemenaker January 9, 2008 10:26 AM PST
Even our retarded president said it correctly, "They can not change us, only we can change us." When we started carving up the Constitution in the false name of security, (because nothing done has actually made us more secure), they started winning.

Let's be honest, short of killing a few people, what can Al-Queda actually do to us? NOTHING!!!!!!
They Will Be Farmed Out To Third Parties
by dayebreak January 9, 2008 7:22 AM PST
Bull. Obama approves of a government law to collect non-public email and Internet identities of U.S. citizens engaged in free speech; specifically all registered sex offenders pursuant to the Murdoch drafted S.431: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s431:

Designated third parties would be able to ban those addresses and identities from their sites.
Because those addresses are free and annonymous, a proposed bill is in the works to force RSOs to register their IP addresses and have third parties monitor the Internet activity associated with those IP addresses.

Obama would be in favor of this because he owes Murdoch; and Murdoch is a piper who likes to get paid.
Reply to this comment
Immunity for Telecomms?
by bjnovack January 9, 2008 11:21 AM PST
Obama may be beating this drum now, but where was he when Chris Dodd was doing his job in the halls of Congress fighting against Telecomm Immunity and FOR the Constitution and the Rule of Law? Obama didn't take time from the campaign in Iowa for that. Oh no. He would have lost a few votes if he'd taken time out from the campaign trail to actually DO the right thing.

Yes, Obama may be better than many of the alternatives, but until he starts actually acting on what he says, it's all smoke and mirrors.
Reply to this comment
For 20 years Al Qaeda tried to attack the United States at home...
by ralfthedog January 11, 2008 6:53 AM PST
For 20 years Al Qaeda tried to attack the United States at home and for 20 years they mostly failed. Shredding the Constitution did not stop the attacks. Shredding the Constitution was the goal of the attack.
Reply to this comment
Terrorist inside the us are very happy
by sexydarin January 11, 2008 4:56 PM PST
if obumble gets elected.
Reply to this comment
(25 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

FAQ: Buying the right Windows 7 upgrade

Readers still have lots of questions on just which version of the software they need to buy in order to upgrade their PC. CNET News tries to offer some answers.

N.Y. lawsuit details Intel's 'largesse' toward Dell

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's federal antitrust case filed Wednesday alleges a longstanding symbiotic relationship between Intel and Dell.

About News Blog

Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.

Add this feed to your online news reader

advertisement
Click Here
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right