Obama's wiretapping reach worse than Bush's

Canceled2

Banned
Interesting that Obama's far-left anti-Bush supporters are not marching in the street over this!



In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ's New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush's

Commentary by Tim Jones

We had hoped this would go differently.

Friday evening, in a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA, EFF's litigation against the National Security Agency for the warrantless wiretapping of countless Americans, the Obama Administration's made two deeply troubling arguments.

First, they argued, exactly as the Bush Administration did on countless occasions, that the state secrets privilege requires the court to dismiss the issue out of hand. They argue that simply allowing the case to continue "would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security." As in the past, this is a blatant ploy to dismiss the litigation without allowing the courts to consider the evidence.

It's an especially disappointing argument to hear from the Obama Administration. As a candidate, Senator Obama lamented that the Bush Administration "invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court." He was right then, and we're dismayed that he and his team seem to have forgotten.

Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes.

This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one — not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration — has ever interpreted the law this way.

Previously, the Bush Administration has argued that the U.S. possesses "sovereign immunity" from suit for conducting electronic surveillance that violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). However, FISA is only one of several laws that restrict the government's ability to wiretap. The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and claims that the US PATRIOT Act also renders the U.S. immune from suit under the two remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. Essentially, the Obama Adminstration has claimed that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes.

Again, the gulf between Candidate Obama and President Obama is striking. As a candidate, Obama ran promising a new era of government transparency and accountability, an end to the Bush DOJ's radical theories of executive power, and reform of the PATRIOT Act. But, this week, Obama's own Department Of Justice has argued that, under the PATRIOT Act, the government shall be entirely unaccountable for surveilling Americans in violation of its own laws.

This isn't change we can believe in. This is change for the worse.

For further reading, we suggest Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald and The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder.

Related Issues: NSA Spying

Related Cases: Jewel v. NSA
 
Wow. That's a bit more disconcerting. Refusing to allow the banks to pay back money, and now this...

Yeah. I'm really not liking this.
 
I called this way before the election when people kept harping on Bush's violations of the Constitution. I said at that time that when Obama came to power he'd leave everything Bush did in place and probably extend them if he could.

That is the way of governments, even constitutional republics. The federal government will push and push and push; and if the people do not push back they'll end up with no liberties left. That is why the 2nd Amendment (AS INTENDED, not gutted by mindless twits) is every bit as important today as it was when written.
 
I called this way before the election when people kept harping on Bush's violations of the Constitution. I said at that time that when Obama came to power he'd leave everything Bush did in place and probably extend them if he could.

That is the way of governments, even constitutional republics. The federal government will push and push and push; and if the people do not push back they'll end up with no liberties left. That is why the 2nd Amendment (AS INTENDED, not gutted by mindless twits) is every bit as important today as it was when written.
This.
 
First, they argued, exactly as the Bush Administration did on countless occasions, that the state secrets privilege requires the court to dismiss the issue out of hand. They argue that simply allowing the case to continue "would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security." As in the past, this is a blatant ploy to dismiss the litigation without allowing the courts to consider the evidence.

I have a feeling you're gonna hear more of this argument in the future.....
This is gonna be Obama's reason for keeping his birth certificate from the public...."simply allowing the case to continue "would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security"....

Of course in this case the Dimwit Dems will agree completely...
 
I'm wondering if anyone has read the FISA ruling not too long ago, that Bush's wiretapping was not illegal.

quote=Ice Dancer;423057]Interesting that Obama's far-left anti-Bush supporters are not marching in the street over this!



In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ's New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush's

Commentary by Tim Jones

We had hoped this would go differently.

Friday evening, in a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA, EFF's litigation against the National Security Agency for the warrantless wiretapping of countless Americans, the Obama Administration's made two deeply troubling arguments.

First, they argued, exactly as the Bush Administration did on countless occasions, that the state secrets privilege requires the court to dismiss the issue out of hand. They argue that simply allowing the case to continue "would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security." As in the past, this is a blatant ploy to dismiss the litigation without allowing the courts to consider the evidence.

It's an especially disappointing argument to hear from the Obama Administration. As a candidate, Senator Obama lamented that the Bush Administration "invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court." He was right then, and we're dismayed that he and his team seem to have forgotten.

Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes.

This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one — not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration — has ever interpreted the law this way.

Previously, the Bush Administration has argued that the U.S. possesses "sovereign immunity" from suit for conducting electronic surveillance that violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). However, FISA is only one of several laws that restrict the government's ability to wiretap. The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and claims that the US PATRIOT Act also renders the U.S. immune from suit under the two remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. Essentially, the Obama Adminstration has claimed that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes.

Again, the gulf between Candidate Obama and President Obama is striking. As a candidate, Obama ran promising a new era of government transparency and accountability, an end to the Bush DOJ's radical theories of executive power, and reform of the PATRIOT Act. But, this week, Obama's own Department Of Justice has argued that, under the PATRIOT Act, the government shall be entirely unaccountable for surveilling Americans in violation of its own laws.

This isn't change we can believe in. This is change for the worse.

For further reading, we suggest Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald and The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder.

Related Issues: NSA Spying

Related Cases: Jewel v. NSA[/quote]
 
The FISA ruling from FISA repub judges? How predictible. <snicker>

I'm wondering if anyone has read the FISA ruling not too long ago, that Bush's wiretapping was not illegal.

quote=Ice Dancer;423057]Interesting that Obama's far-left anti-Bush supporters are not marching in the street over this!



In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ's New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush's

Commentary by Tim Jones

We had hoped this would go differently.

Friday evening, in a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA, EFF's litigation against the National Security Agency for the warrantless wiretapping of countless Americans, the Obama Administration's made two deeply troubling arguments.

First, they argued, exactly as the Bush Administration did on countless occasions, that the state secrets privilege requires the court to dismiss the issue out of hand. They argue that simply allowing the case to continue "would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security." As in the past, this is a blatant ploy to dismiss the litigation without allowing the courts to consider the evidence.

It's an especially disappointing argument to hear from the Obama Administration. As a candidate, Senator Obama lamented that the Bush Administration "invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court." He was right then, and we're dismayed that he and his team seem to have forgotten.

Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes.

This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one — not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration — has ever interpreted the law this way.

Previously, the Bush Administration has argued that the U.S. possesses "sovereign immunity" from suit for conducting electronic surveillance that violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). However, FISA is only one of several laws that restrict the government's ability to wiretap. The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and claims that the US PATRIOT Act also renders the U.S. immune from suit under the two remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. Essentially, the Obama Adminstration has claimed that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes.

Again, the gulf between Candidate Obama and President Obama is striking. As a candidate, Obama ran promising a new era of government transparency and accountability, an end to the Bush DOJ's radical theories of executive power, and reform of the PATRIOT Act. But, this week, Obama's own Department Of Justice has argued that, under the PATRIOT Act, the government shall be entirely unaccountable for surveilling Americans in violation of its own laws.

This isn't change we can believe in. This is change for the worse.

For further reading, we suggest Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald and The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder.

Related Issues: NSA Spying

Related Cases: Jewel v. NSA
[/QUOTE]
 
Info about Tim Jones:
http://www.eff.org/about/staff/tim

Not exactly a credentialed investigative reporter, but then not exactly one who would blindly attack Obama just for being a democrat, either....

BTW, EFF.org is part of Jewel v NSA lawsuit, which Obama is saying must be tossed by the court to "protect state secrets". So a staf member of EFF would definitely be in the know what is going on there.
 
Last edited:
I mean really Beefhead... I am enjoying watching the leftist 'anti-bush-war-on-terror-violating-our-rights-taking-our-freedom' morons, who largely supported Obama because he "said" the right things and looked good... having to squirm through conversations with those of us who predicted as much, before the election. I am thoroughly enjoying rubbing it in the nose of those who were so Anti-Iraq, whenever Obama policy mirrors (or surpasses) that of Bush, and actually takes a pretty bold unilateral stance toward Pakistan, an ally nation under Bush. So far, the only reaction they seem to have, is to revert back to 2002, and pretend Bush is still president! I firmly believe, some of them will end up in the old nutty folks house, blaming 'that damn bush' for their oatmeal being too hot!
 
I mean really Beefhead... I am enjoying watching the leftist 'anti-bush-war-on-terror-violating-our-rights-taking-our-freedom' morons, who largely supported Obama because he "said" the right things and looked good... having to squirm through conversations with those of us who predicted as much, before the election. I am thoroughly enjoying rubbing it in the nose of those who were so Anti-Iraq, whenever Obama policy mirrors (or surpasses) that of Bush, and actually takes a pretty bold unilateral stance toward Pakistan, an ally nation under Bush. So far, the only reaction they seem to have, is to revert back to 2002, and pretend Bush is still president! I firmly believe, some of them will end up in the old nutty folks house, blaming 'that damn bush' for their oatmeal being too hot!

No, you misunderstand. You see, I was coming from a place where your ideals would precede your party, and that you must be jizzing your pants because we got more of the same. But apparently, your joy comes from a more partisan perspective.
 
Wow. That's a bit more disconcerting. Refusing to allow the banks to pay back money, and now this...

Yeah. I'm really not liking this.

The part of the law that goes further than even Bush allowed? You cannot sue the government for damages if they "mistakenly" listen into you without cause. Imagine if Bush had pushed for that kind of protection.
 
Way back when, when The Patriot Act was being created I said that though I understood why our government, being charged with the duty to protect, needed to be able to know what was going on with suspected terrorists I knew that this would only create room for more intrusion and a loss of rights, it has.

The wiretapping was not illegal because congress passed it into law. That is different however from being supported by our constitution.

What should have happened imo was that we rounded up anyone here from terrorist sponsoring nations and sent them packing until their governments got terrorism under control and we got a better at refusing entry into our country by suspected terrorists.

Of course the leftist nut-bags would not have allowed that to take place. Instead we ended up with the P.A.



I'm wondering if anyone has read the FISA ruling not too long ago, that Bush's wiretapping was not illegal.

Interesting that Obama's far-left anti-Bush supporters are not marching in the street over this! [URL="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush" said:
In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ's New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush's[/URL]

Commentary by Tim Jones

We had hoped this would go differently.

Friday evening, in a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA, EFF's litigation against the National Security Agency for the warrantless wiretapping of countless Americans, the Obama Administration's made two deeply troubling arguments.

First, they argued, exactly as the Bush Administration did on countless occasions, that the state secrets privilege requires the court to dismiss the issue out of hand. They argue that simply allowing the case to continue "would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security." As in the past, this is a blatant ploy to dismiss the litigation without allowing the courts to consider the evidence.

It's an especially disappointing argument to hear from the Obama Administration. As a candidate, Senator Obama lamented that the Bush Administration "invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court." He was right then, and we're dismayed that he and his team seem to have forgotten.

Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes.

This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one — not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration — has ever interpreted the law this way.

Previously, the Bush Administration has argued that the U.S. possesses "sovereign immunity" from suit for conducting electronic surveillance that violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). However, FISA is only one of several laws that restrict the government's ability to wiretap. The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and claims that the US PATRIOT Act also renders the U.S. immune from suit under the two remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. Essentially, the Obama Adminstration has claimed that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes.

Again, the gulf between Candidate Obama and President Obama is striking. As a candidate, Obama ran promising a new era of government transparency and accountability, an end to the Bush DOJ's radical theories of executive power, and reform of the PATRIOT Act. But, this week, Obama's own Department Of Justice has argued that, under the PATRIOT Act, the government shall be entirely unaccountable for surveilling Americans in violation of its own laws.

This isn't change we can believe in. This is change for the worse.

For further reading, we suggest Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald and The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder.

Related Issues: NSA Spying

Related Cases: Jewel v. NSA
[/QUOTE]
 
Where did meme go? I miss her feistiness.

Way back when, when The Patriot Act was being created I said that though I understood why our government, being charged with the duty to protect, needed to be able to know what was going on with suspected terrorists I knew that this would only create room for more intrusion and a loss of rights, it has.

The wiretapping was not illegal because congress passed it into law. That is different however from being supported by our constitution.

What should have happened imo was that we rounded up anyone here from terrorist sponsoring nations and sent them packing until their governments got terrorism under control and we got a better at refusing entry into our country by suspected terrorists.

Of course the leftist nut-bags would not have allowed that to take place. Instead we ended up with the P.A.
[/quote]
 
Back
Top