Slashdot Mirror
Obama Administration Defends Warrantless Wiretapping
a whoabot writes "The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the Obama administration has stepped in to defend AT&T in the case over their participation in the warrantless wiretapping program started by Bush. The Obama administration argues that that continuation of the case will lead to the disclosure of important 'state secrets.' The Electronic Frontier Foundation has described the action as an 'embrace' of the Bush policy." Update: 04/07 15:18 GMT by T : Glenn Greenwald of Salon has up an analysis of this move, including excerpts from the actual brief filed. Excerpt: "This brief and this case are exclusively the Obama DOJ's, and the ample time that elapsed — almost three full months — makes clear that it was fully considered by Obama officials."
Yeah, the kind left in your pocket.
This is a full blown leg humping.
Aside from that, business as usual I guess. No point in getting rid of all the cool toys the last guy left lying around, right?
On another note, have you begun your responsible phased withdrawal from Iraq you promised me when I voted for you, Mr. Obama?
Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 -- more than 7 years after the war began.
How's that going, by the way?
My work here is dung.
"The Obama administration argues that that continuation of the case will lead to the disclosure of important 'state secrets.'"
Well thats what happens when you use unconstitutional and illegal methods to obtain those secrets. Tough shit!
Does this remind anyone else of the argument that "when the president does it, it's not illegal"?
Nice to see that change came to town...
Unlawful. That is all that should matter, how disappointing.
I voted for him.
This is my biggest disappointment so far in his presidency. It's a signal that, for all the talk about transparency, it's talk.
I'm not saying that he's a failure as President, but I am saying that this issue marks the end of any honeymoon.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Dude. They have secret spy courts. They have secret spy courts. They have secret spy courts. Say it 3x and it's still true. The only reason to now want a wiretap OK'd through a secret spy court is because you might not get the warrant. And if you might not get the warrant, it might be illegal to do the tap. Duh.
I'm not. Who's going to willingly remove power from themselves once said power is already granted? Only an idealist or philosopher would do something like that..unfortunately no one fitting these descriptions is fit for the game of politics in this country..or any country holding a world power for that matter.
Any concept can be used for both good and bad. IMHO, listening in on conversations to suspected terrorist contacts outside the US can be useful if the information sheds light on terrorist operations. Listening in on conversations that occur completely within our borders? That's tres KGB or Stasi. The radical left in this country has a paranoia about its own people. Ooo, a Ron Paul bumper sticker. They must be militia members! Better call the FBI. Newsflash: dissent is protected in this country and doesn't just apply to leftist speech.
The Obama administration argues that that continuation of the case will lead to the disclosure of important 'state secrets.'
Never mind the, "Obama is just as bad as Bush," rant. What's the secret? Any guesses?
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html
Is this going to be his excuse for his lack of leadership for the next 4 years? I mean really. At what point is he going to step up and say he's the President now and actually follow it up with action?
Between the promise to not hire lobbyists, the parade of appointees who have had problems paying their taxes, the proposal floated to have soldiers provide their own insurance for battle injuries (since rescinded), and now this, I hope people start to realize they voted for Obama for the wrong reason. It was more of a vote against Bush and his party than anything. and it was also a fantastically executed marketing campaign. More money was spent on the Obama campaign than any other election. They tapped into what their target audience wanted, hired the best speech writers, and pulled it off.
My user name was a mistake. Input wasn't restricted, my bad.
And people wonder why we have the Republicrat meme.
Because "Democan" sounds like a suitable name for a superhero's pet?
The secrets would be the techniques and procedures used by our intelligence agencies.
Call me simple, but maybe we just need to let those 'secrets' go so the public's faith can be restored.
Blar.
I feel sorry for the people who voted for Obama (I voted "none of the above"). They're getting more of Bush when they wanted to "move on". This is the exact opposite of what they expected, but it's been par for the course. Besides this, we also have his reversal on the ban on federal funding for stem cell research: one day he signed a bill overturning the ban, and two days later, he reinstated the ban in an omnibus spending bill. He definitely should have read and understood the latter before signing it. In addition is his complete 180 on earmark spending. During his campaign, and early in his election, he was adamantly opposed to earmarks. Then recently he came out in favor of them, and stated that he had always supported them.
Say one thing, do another. Just like Bush and the GOP. Were you really expecting any better from the Dems?
You know, while I am pretty much completely against most everything Kuchinich is for, I must say, out of all the candidates, I think I may respect him the most.
I feel with him, at least you know 100% where he stands on what, and is clear about it. He doesn't say shit just to get elected, or pander to his current audience.
Unfortunately, with the typical 'drone' American citizen today, that can be led by the nose via TV, this means a person of this type, will never get elected.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Yet he forcibly reversed Bush's policy on dealing with known terrorists in Guantonimo Bay and there is fear that that might have consequence as well. I guess if the US citizens are to be stripped of rights, we have to give rights to someone... might as well be terrorists. :)
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Clearly, the President is choosing something over our ideals. It's about time that he explained what he's choosing.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
I find the increasing emphasis on surveillance technology to be worrying. Aerial reconnaisance technology developed for use in Afghanistan will eventually be used domestically in my opinion. Surveillance satellites are already used that way, with hardly any public outcry. It seems the American left that's in power cares about equality, but not so much about protecting against abuse of government power. And I don't think the philosophy has been very good for the rest of the world either. Unmanned reconnaissance followed by poorly informed airstrikes has been a big part of the reason people in Afghanistan dislike and don't cooperate with the US-led coalition.
I know there are a few others here on Slashdot like myself who did not believe a word out of this guy's mouth during the campaign (and no I did not vote McCain)
You didn't really believe half the stuff he promised would come to pass did you? His own voting record (what little of it that is) and his writings (we actually got two) pointed to a direction not in line with his campaign. Throw in the fact he had basically zero experience people either were relying on the novelty of a black President or were so partisan that anyone not "R" was the only choice.
Look at his appointees, I would swear Hillary won. I was one of the deluded types who didn't really fret over Bush having such powers and holding such views because I knew the press would be merciless. I was worried about the next guy and apparently it will be fun to see if anything gets made of it, let alone the clowns in Congress who had a cow when he did this.
So did ya'll really buy into this shit or not?
It really blows my mind that so many act surprised.
News at 11, water is wet, fire is hot, and politicians only want power for themselves.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
You know, as a Republican, I suppose I could take the cheap shot and say, "Hah, there you go, see, he's not really any different after all."
But...
Bashing Obama for doing something supposedly conservative is just silly. Conservatives bashing Obama for doing something conservative is even sillier still. If it was so right for Bush to wiretap, then, shouldn't conservatives be defending Obama at least on this issue? If it was so wrong for Bush to wiretap, well, conservatives, where were you for eight years?
The thing is, one could make the argument that Obama is defending Bush on warrantless wiretapping not necessarily because he plans on doing it himself, but because he wants to spare the USA the damage from some foreign policy implication of what Bush did.
If you look at his overall record, Obama is acting like the dyed in the wool hardcore liberal that he is. Come on, Obama has spent his last European trip apologizing for everything the USA has ever done - a typical liberal thing to do. Do you think Bush would ever apologize for American foreign policy? Don't think so.
This is my sig.
Didn't those who voted for him expect he would try to clean up the mess rather than pile more crap on top?
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Obama voted for FISA while in the Senate. Were people just hoping he didn't really mean it?
Look, the handwriting has been on the wall for a while. He's a politician from Chicago.
People went all crazy about him without pausing and realizing he is still a politician.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Imagine Watergate today. The Whitehouse would just get AT&T or another friendly telco to bug their conversations and then claim state immunity. Nixon would never have resigned. Does anyone think that would have been a good idea?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
...and contributing to the EFF, the ones actually pushing this issue.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Obama very clearly opposed this, then got in office and supports it. The clear inference here is that he learned _something_ between then and now to lead him to believe this was saving lives or in some other way acceptable. I get 'those who would sacrifice privacy for security deserve neither'. I have to believe that there are pros and cons both ways to this, but that the scale tip toward the pros. (For the record, I'm not an Obama supporter on just about any other issue.)
Original article by John Goekler: http://www.counterpunch.org/goekler03242009.htmlhttp://www.counterpunch.org/goekler03242009.html
Of the top things to be scared of there is no mention of terrorism. But watch out for family members! "Over 16,000 Americans will be murdered this year, most often by a relative or friend."
I understand that those lawsuits can't move forward without incriminating some former leaders and putting others in jail.
I understand that. But maybe that's what we need and want. Maybe we want to see some former leaders go to jail to get some closure.
I understand that Obama is respecting the office, but what the fuck? Someone needs to pay the price. John Yoo should be hanged for treason. Dick Cheney should be hanged for treason. Bush should spend his life in prison because he is too stupid to know what he was doing was seriously illegal and wrong. Those people subverted the Constitution of the United States and attempted a coup de'tat. That is treason.
Bush ignored his presidential oath. You remember the one he took where he swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America? He wiped his ass with the constitution. That is impeachable. That is unforgivable. The people of the United States of America demand justice. The fact that we can't get it means we've lost our republic. Touché Mr Franklin.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Obama has done A LOT of good and reversed many of the horrible mistakes Bush made already, even in the first weeks
Like what? Obama has done almost nothing except dramatically overspend. This completely overshadows all else he may have done or will do that is somewhat good, and points to voting for McCain as having been the wiser choice - McCain would have done all of the good things Obama has done, but not put forth nearly as onerous a budget (though he would have unfortunately continued the bailouts, but possibly not to such a scale and certainly not for the automakers).
McCain also would not have been so totally left footed in international relations, just as an aside on something else that will matter in the long run.
There's no way Obama is any kind of "lesser evil" here, on any scale you care to measure - though of course bandying around the term "evil" for either side is totally bombastic. Instead I would say, that Obama is by far the most misguided and lacking in long-term thinking than McCain was....
Not that I'm a Republican, just a Libertarian who can sadly see through the smoke and mirrors that both parties erect.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There are two Americas. Guess which one gets all the rights and breaks the rules?
Enjoy your prison state. Pay your taxes. The economy is bad for YOU the poor... but not the wealthy. The wealthy get your tax dollars through hand outs.
Steal from the poor, give to the rich. And they sold you that Robin Hood story too, just like the fairy tale that is America.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
The Who in "We won't get fooled again".
...two legs better.
And technically, adding soldiers to Afghanistan is the exact opposite of "bringing our troops home"
You are aware that throughout his campaign, he was fairly consistent about the idea that we should be escalating in Afghanistan and Pakistan, right?
He didn't campaign on the idea that aren't wars we should be fighting, nor on the idea all troops should be home. He *did* focus against the Iraq war, which, as he'd been saying since 2002, he thought was a problematic conflict to begin with.
Tweet, tweet.