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."

Comments

The Only Change You Can Believe In

[eldavojohn]

The little R next to the president's name indicating party changed to a D and some Wikipedia pages were updated.

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?

Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In

[Nursie]

This is just so much more ammo for the "Please don't vote for either R or D!" argument.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is not a good policy. "Throwing away" your vote on a third party is always decried as the best way to let the other guy in. No, no, no, you need to vote for whichever (R or D) is closer to your views or else all your doing is letting the other one, that you really hate, in.

Can we agree that their both evil yet?

Can we make 2012 a third party year? Please?

Signed by me, a cynical brit that would love to see actual change on either side of the atlantic.

Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In

[CRCulver]

The little R next to the president's name indicating party changed to a D and some Wikipedia pages were updated.

When it comes to wiretapping, the same status quo was maintained when Bush senior yielded the presidency to Clinton. In fact, Clinton expanded wiretapping for US economic gains, claiming it would "level the playing field." See James Bamford's Body of Secrets .

Nearly all our presidents over the last few decades have pretty much been in agreement that violation of privacy is cool. The exception is Carter, who actually tried hard to limit the intercepts. And old-time NSA employees, military and civilian, despise him for it, because a lot of them get off on unhindered access to communications.

Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In

[Em Emalb]

And old-time NSA employees, military and civilian, despise him for it, because a lot of them get off on unhindered access to communications.

No, for them, it makes their job easier. The issue, when boiled down, is the old "greater good" argument again.

Suppose they wiretap 1000 phones without a warrant. 999 of them are mistakes and nothing comes from it except the violation of citizen rights. (which is a huge thing, IMO) but that 1000th one yields a goldmine of terrorist activity that they would have missed had they been forced to wait for a warrant. Because of the wiretap being quickly put in place, they're able to stop a legitimate terrorist threat.

That's a good thing, right? But it's also a hugely BAD thing as well.

A damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. But to say it's because NSA folks get off on it is simply stupid.

Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In

[gnick]

I think that some people are just learning that the D's respect your privacy roughly as much as the R's. But, of course, when it's the R's doing it, the D's are very vocal about how they're violating people's rights and need to be run out on a rail. If this was a new policy and not a continuation of one from the previous administration, the R's would likely be waxing Libertarian and doing the same thing now.

I won't go so far as to welcome "the new boss - same as the old boss" because Obama is certainly markedly different from Bush on a wide swath of issues, but some things never change. Once a government claims a power, taking it back is very, very difficult.

Personally, I voted Barr/Root mainly because fiscal liberalism scares me and social liberalism just seems right (even though I wished that they had a better VP choice). Still, I'm holding my breath that having a charismatic president in office will have some positive repercussions domestically and internationally.

Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In

[anagama]

This last election I quit forever voting for the lesser evil. Your vote is wasted only if you vote for a candidate because the candidate can win, even if you don't really like him/her. While people may get some warm fuzzies by supporting a winner, it's sort of like picking the way you die: some ways are better than others but in the end, you're at the same spot.

Our problem is that two private organizations, the Democratic and Republican parties, have hijacked our government. They've created self-protecting rules for elections, as if the election system was made for them. And when it all comes down to the end, they aren't all that different except on the edges. Both want to spend us into oblivion. Both are warmongers (just google up some Clinton speeches from the time she helped Bush go to Iraq) or look at Obama's lack of progress on that front. Both are out to further their parties' interests with only a glance toward their constituents interests.

If people would quit drinking the "wasted vote" kool-aid, we'd have some hope. As it is, America is being destroyed by inches from the inside.

Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In

[vsingh165]

This is just so much more ammo for the "Please don't vote for either R or D!" argument.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is not a good policy. "Throwing away" your vote on a third party is always decried as the best way to let the other guy in. No, no, no, you need to vote for whichever (R or D) is closer to your views or else all your doing is letting the other one, that you really hate, in.

Can we agree that their both evil yet?

Can we make 2012 a third party year? Please?

Signed by me, a cynical brit that would love to see actual change on either side of the atlantic.

Can we please make 2012 a no party year? Candidates should be themselves rather than cloak themselves in stupid pointless ideologies.

Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In

[downix]

Except.....

You can get the warrant retroactively through the FISA courts. If you happen to be polling, and run across something critical, you file the paperwork, BAM, warrant. If you happen to not, the data is purged.

Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In

[Shakrai]

because Obama is certainly markedly different from Bush on a wide swath of issues, but some things never change

Yeah, like gun rights. "Markedly different" doesn't always mean better.....

Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In

[Gizzmonic]

Suppose they wiretap 1000 phones without a warrant. 999 of them are mistakes and nothing comes from it except the violation of citizen rights. (which is a huge thing, IMO) but that 1000th one yields a goldmine of terrorist activity that they would have missed had they been forced to wait for a warrant. Because of the wiretap being quickly put in place, they're able to stop a legitimate terrorist threat.

This happens frequently on TV shows, but has it ever really happened in real life? No.

The entire national security apparatus is a huge expense and a bigger curb to our freedom than anything an outside enemy has ever imposed on us. And what do we get in return? Bloated bureaucracies that have no clear mission. "Homeland Security" was created after 9/11 because the "Department of Defense" failed to defend us, as did the FBI, CIA, NSA, Secret Service, etc. So what's the solution? Another nebulous bureaucracy to drain taxpayer money and entangle us in more foreign wars, all the while bickering with the other agencies for prestige. It's a raw deal if you ask me.

Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In

[Nursie]

It's hard to argue that "the lesser of two evils" is bad policy when you're holding the greater of the two evils up as an example.

But surely at some point you have to concede that the lesser of two evils really isn't that much lesser, or that different, and that it doesn't really matter which evil gets in because when it comes down to it they are actually both evil?

So now you can be surprised. And you can be surprised again in 10 years when you look back at how we used to have the best healthcare in the world until Obama flushed it down the toilet for a more European style system.

You don't have the best health system in the world. You have a good health system in terms of quality, and a poor one in terms of coverage and costs. You know that you already pay more in taxes towards the state health provisions in the US than I do as a UK citizen? And that you don't get the benefit of that because you or your employer have to pay for insurance on top of that?

I also have top-up insurance, BTW, as an employer perk, but it's not quite the same thing. I only mention it to demonstrate that if you have money you can still buy your way to better accommodation, private rooms etc. in the UK.

Well anyway, that's up to you crazy Americans to decide upon, but don't be so quick to dismiss the models used by the rest of the civilised world.

Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In

[lorenlal]

The problem with everyone voting for the lesser evil is that it allows the two at the top to keep taking care of themselves in the name of "representing the people." It doesn't take a majority to create real change. 10% of the population can have a huge impact on the dealings of two parties that each have 40-45% of the population's support.

But continuing the status quo is a guaranteed loser. If you are indeed truly happy voting for someone in the D or R range, then please vote for them. If you aren't, then vote for someone you actually like, not against someone you don't.

Voting for someone (third party or not) should be a statement of who you want representing you.

Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In

[lorenlal]

Mod parent up.

Just ask George Washington what he thought of political parties.

Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In

[Dark_Gravity]

But with option 2 you spent 50 years with the lesser evil the whole time.

Why vote for a lesser evil?

Cthulu 2012

Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In

[FishWithAHammer]

Obama's also done a lot of bad. Or, rather, Tim Geithner has. And it's just gonna get more interesting from here.

Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In

[Shakrai]

Obama's also done a lot of bad. Or, rather, Tim Geithner has. And it's just gonna get more interesting from here.

I gotta say I got a kick out of the political game that the White House was playing a few weeks ago -- trying to link the GOP to Rush Limbaugh. That came right out of the West Wing, courtesy of Axelrod and Plouffe. I seem to recall Democrats complaining at the top of their lungs when the GOP used these types of tactics (say by linking every Democrat to Al Sharpton, Michael Moore or Sean Penn), so where's the outrage now that one of their own is engaged in the same behavior?

Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In

[Shakrai]

Yes, because anybody who is opposed to gun control must agree with 100% of what the religious wing of the GOP stands for. I'd love to have a debate with you about abortion (I'm pro-choice) and stem-cell research (in favor of, but skeptical about governmental involvement) but based on the close minded remark above, I'm doubtful that you have anything interesting to say.

Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, no. It's only bad when the other guy does it.

Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In

[gnick]

Yeah, like gun rights. "Markedly different" doesn't always mean better.....

Nobody ever said anything about "better" - Just markedly different. Bush, for example, would never have said that he's striving toward a world without nuclear weapons. And, even though he and Obama are both for spending huge amounts of $$ that we're borrowing from the Chinese on credit, it never would have occurred to him to spend that money domestically.

I've got major issues with both administrations, but you have to admit that they really are different.

Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In

[Shakrai]

Bush, for example, would never have said that he's striving toward a world without nuclear weapons

Probably because for all of his faults he knew how naive such a statement was.

Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In

[Attila Dimedici]

Can we please make 2012 a no party year? Candidates should be themselves rather than cloak themselves in stupid pointless ideologies.

And this sums up the problem, you think the only elections that matter are the Presidential ones every four years. Why wait for 2012? Why not make 2010 a no party year? Why not make sure that the guys running the local government are doing a good job?
If people would start putting more emphasis on local and state elections, it would have a much bigger impact on the state of affairs than any amount of effort on the Federal level.

Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In

[Sj0]

I've long said the left/right dichotomy is dangerous, and here's why.

I've been called a liberal bastard, and I've been called a conservative bastard. At the end of the day, I'm a HUMAN bastard, and backing all the stupid inconsistent hypocrisy of the left/right dichotomy doesn't do a thing.

So why do deficits matter when Obama is running them up but they're awesome when Bush is doing it? Why are rebate cheques communist when Obama is sending them out but they're awesome when Bush is sending them out? Why am I strange when I'm against the idea no matter who is sending them out?

Re:The Only Change You Can Believe In

[ArsonSmith]

"...because Obama is certainly marketed differently from Bush..."

There fixed that for ya.

Too bad so sad

[Anonymous Coward]

"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

[PuckstopperGA]

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...

Re:Does this

[cbiltcliffe]

Preface: I didn't vote for Obama, and I didn't vote for Bush. I also have never voted for any other American president, party, or political idea. I'm not an American, and I don't live in the USA.

My point:

Well, honestly, we can give him the benefit of the doubt, in that state secrets might actually be revealed if the case continues.

However, this does not mean that Obama is not being a moron.

There's a reason courts have the ability to seal records. If something that truly needs to be kept secret comes out in the court case, the judge reviews it, then orders the records for that particular part of the case sealed. It doesn't go into court records, doesn't show up on websites later, and in general, stays between those who heard it in the courtroom, with the threat of contempt of court charges if anybody ever says anything about it.

So, Obama is either an idiot who doesn't realize the above is possible, or he's a corrupt jerk, little or no better than Bush.

Either way, he shouldn't be running your country.

One word

[Dyinobal]

Unlawful. That is all that should matter, how disappointing.

Biggest disappointment thusfar

[mcrbids]

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.

Re:Biggest disappointment thusfar

[erroneus]

I didn't vote for Obama. I voted Libertarian. If you want to end the corruption and game playing with business, you should too. "But why should I waste my vote?" Is it really a waste? Democrat/Republican parties are two sides of the same coin. Vote for them and you vote to continue the game. We have seen attempts at change from within, and each time they are silenced quickly. In Obama's case, I can't say whether or not he was sincere, but his promises and attitudes changed VERY quickly once he got into office.

This is more than disappointment. It's our death.

Re:Biggest disappointment thusfar

[nadamsieee]

Obama took out of his Presidential campaign to vote in favor of spying on innocent Americans.

What did you expect?

Re:Biggest disappointment thusfar

[anagama]

So vote for a socialist candidate. If you're trying to get to New York from Philly, your best bet is to head north, not west.

Your libertarian comment is quite political in the truest sense, as it is the far right which has tried to paint itself as libertarian without actually being so, and the far left which has encouraged the misunderstanding to keep its own faithful. I fail to see how being anti-war, anti-empire, anti-drug war, pro-privacy, and pro-freedom are characteristics of the far right.

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

One man's trash...

[RogueWarrior65]

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.

Read Between The Lines

[Thelasko]

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?

Re:Read Between The Lines

[Thelasko]

Never mind

They also said disclosure of whether AT&T took part in the program would tell the nation's enemies "which channels of communication may or may not be secure."

I thought we pretty much knew this information. I guess that's the case for most "classified" information, the public already has a pretty good idea about what it is.

An even bigger power-grab than Bush admin tried

[fotbr]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html

Re:don't act so surprised

[EastCoastSurfer]

insofar as this is a mess that the bush administration created,

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?

The Biggest Marketing Campaign, ever

[your_mother_sews_soc]

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.

I don't think it works that way :)

[FatSean]

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.

We reject as false

[PMuse]

"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.

Re:Change?

[Moryath]

"Change"... is all you'll have left in your pocket or bank account once Obama is done.

Be up front with us ( I have too much karma)

[Shivetya]

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.

Defending Obama

[tjstork]

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.

Re:Defending Obama

[nothing2seehere]

Warrantless wiretapping isn't a "conservative" thing to do. We should bash Obama because what he's doing is un-American.

Okay, I'm getting out my wallet...

[Dr. Manhattan]

...and contributing to the EFF, the ones actually pushing this issue.

Re:Change?

[jasmusic]

Wait till you see all the people killed when he socializes our healthcare on the lie that "it will help the economy".

Re:Change?

[Sun.Jedi]

He may be yet another sleazy politician, but at least as of today, he hasn't invaded another country based on lies, and gotten over 4200 American soldiers killed

Give him time. He's only had 3 months to screw us all over. We must endure another 3 years and 9 months AND pray there is enough left for a [sleazy or not] conservative to straighten out.

And technically, adding soldiers to Afghanistan is the exact opposite of "bringing our troops home" which only reinforces your sleazy politician comment.

Re:Change?

[jav1231]

What's funny is watching so many who voted for Obama who still can't bring themselves to find anything to disagree with him on. There's nothing wrong with saying you find something disturbing even from someone you largely support. We've been an all-or-nothing politico.

Re:Change?

[severoon]

Oh no. Things were so much easier when we could move forward based on the simple algorithm Bush = bad. Now that we have to actually think about stuff, what ever will we do?

Re:Change?

[Miseph]

I haven't really seen that... I've just seen a lot of anti-Obama types criticizing people who did for their unwillingness to do so before they even say anything.

That said, I'm extremely disappointed by this, I am disappointed that he can't find a single cabinet member who knows to pay their taxes, and I am even more disappointed in these Democrats who are committing tax evasion: I am OK with paying taxes to support social services and the like, and I am willing to accept that a great deal of that money will also, unfortunately, be spent on offense (it's not "defense" anymore when you're invading nations unprovoked)... but supporting such spending and then NOT paying taxes is just beyond contempt. I'm also not thrilled with his continuation of the Bush policy of socializing completely inappropriate industries (banks, autos) rather than ignoring the "too big to fail" bullshit and letting them die like they deserve and get replaced by businesses that know how not to fail.

On the other hand, I'm glad that he's put and end to Gitmo and started to reclaim any sort of American claim to a moral high ground, that he's put us on a path to getting out of Iraq sometime in the next decade (better than never, like Cheney wanted), that's he refocusing the US military into the legitimate military operation in Afghanistan (a lot of us never opposed this war at all, despite what the vocal fringe claims), and that's he's at least giving lip service to the idea that average working Americans are more important than a small number of extremely wealthy ones.

In any event, he's still a dramatic improvement on the last guy. He'd have to work pretty hard not to be.

Re:Change?

[severoon]

You know, I was not a big Bush fan, but I also never drank the kool-aid that he's the devil incarnate either. Now that we're seeing Obama adopt some of the same positions after a careful and studied review of the facts available to the Office of the President, there are two possibilities to consider. (1) Obama is Bush III. (2) zOMG just because Bush did it doesn't automatically make it wrong and evil.

It's easy to oversimply situations and reduce people to caricatures. It's easy, and it's a mistake, and many of you are guilty of doing it with Bush. Again, not a huge Bush fan...but do we really have to start judging Obama not based on what he does, but only based on what he does differently?

Re:Change?

[Hordeking]

Oh no. Things were so much easier when we could move forward based on the simple algorithm Bush = bad. Now that we have to actually think about stuff, what ever will we do?

Don't look at me. I didn't believe Hussein Obama when he first said it, then I saw proof when he voted for telecom immunity. If you honestly believed he wasn't going to do this, you really shouldn't be voting.