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."
"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.
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.
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.
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.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
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.
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.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
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.
"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)
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.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
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.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
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?
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.
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.
But with option 2 you spent 50 years with the lesser evil the whole time.
Why vote for a lesser evil?
Cthulu 2012
Bring back Sirius Punk!
Warrantless wiretapping isn't a "conservative" thing to do. We should bash Obama because what he's doing is un-American.
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?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
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?
It's been a long time.
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.
"...because Obama is certainly marketed differently from Bush..."
There fixed that for ya.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
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.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.