Slashdot Mirror
EFF Says Obama Warrantless Wiretap Defense Is Worse than Bush
SonicSpike writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation has just said that 'In the warrantless wiretapping case, Obama DOJ's new arguments are worse than Bush's.'"
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Without much more than a speculative sentence in the summary, what is slashdot going to talk about? We're not going to RTFA no matter how hard you try!!
*WE SHALL WE SHALL NOT BE MOVED!!*
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
It's gratifying to see this issue getting some exposure here. God knows this is not a story that the doting MSM would ever run on its own, without significant blogosphere activity forcing them to acknowledge it.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
If they don't tap the phones, how will they know that we're getting the "Change we can believe in"?
Tibbon
tibbon.com
Was one hell of a marketing slogan, don't you think?
"The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying â" that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes."
Sure, it's a bullshit argument, but the fact that they're actually trying it, reeks of the kind of tactics used to build up the NKVD's influence in post-revolutionary Russia. Putting even one fragment of the government "outside the law" is a very frightening precedent.
Hey, you asked for a government that would listen to the people...
Now that you've got one, you're all mad and stuff. Man, this democracy stuff is weird. There's just no pleasing you people!
This is kind of disturbing. I know politicians turn 180 at the drop of a hat but Obama's entire popularity -- and the benefits that come from it -- relies on being anti-Bush. This is a very hot issue. One of the most important ones in fact. For him to continue supporting it is almost political suicide. Yet he's doing it anyway. Which makes you think, what could possibly be so important to keep secret?
We know it has nothing to do with national defense. The crones in Washington have never had a problem with outing CIA agents in the field for political gain.
Do they have illegal records of Dick Cheney torturing kittens or something? Wait, that wouldn't surprise anyone.
Hurry, someone please shoot the messenger so we can place our craniums comfortably back into the sand.
"State secrets" and "sovereign immunity" are two concepts that have no place in any democratic country.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
At this point, the people who railed at me for supporting Nader, for daring to call Obama an opportunist tool of the status quo, can now officially kiss my ass. Those who simply couldn't be bothered to check his Senate voting record but who insisted on wearing that Maoist "Hope" portrait at all times, I say to you today: I told you so.
And as for the EFF, please use well the money I just sent you, and keep up the good fight.
The Obama administration has roughly the same goals as the Bush administration, so it's no surprise that they're continuing to pursue them.
The change, and it is a change, is that they are pursuing them in a smarter way.
1) By making this extreme argument, they give judges wiggle-room to reject it and then accept the state secrets argument, while still allowing the judge to make token gestures in favor of the rule of law, even write a long, pious opinion dismissing the second argument while accepting the first. I can see that it would be very easy for any judge to delude himself into believing he was making a Solomonic compromise. Very smart on their part.
2) If the second argument *does* somehow fly, they have carte blanche to do what they want. I suspect that the Bush administration would've argued for the same thing, except that they weren't smart enough to come up with a line of argument that would've passed the laugh test (IANAL, maybe this one doesn't either.)
Begin broken record mode: The only way to get real improvement from Obama (or from Bush, for that matter,) is to mobilize the public to control the government. No elected leader is going to do this for us as a gift, we have to maintain the pressure constantly.
Personally, I'm much more disappointed with his ongoing embrace of "public-private partnerships" in education (crooked self-dealing and cronyism do not focus group so well, so they rebranded them as "public-private partnerships" in which the government partners with a private entity to give it money with minimal oversight and much righteous rhetoric.) My saintly mother blogs about it: http://chemtchr.dailykos.com/
And I'm sure Obama has not delivered from progressives on a dozen other fronts. Only way he will is *if we make him*. In the case of progressive causes that are popular with the public, this should be relatively easy, and ought to benefit the election prospects of the Democratic party anyway, so let's get going.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Read up on it if you don't understand it. Just like it took Nixon to go to China, it will take Obama to get this through. Those of you who voted for Obama and really believed that he stood for "hope and change" were every bit as big of morons as the people in the Republican Party who thought that McCain was some maverick conservative.
Obama voted yes for the telecom immunity bill. He supported the wiretapping program in the Senate, why do you think he'd stop supporting it when he was elected President?
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
when we're talking only about a single administration.
Yes, the Obama administration's stance is intolerable. But the problem, I believe, is not the administration -- it is the law. Repeal the PATRIOT Act. Pass a law requiring stricter oversight of government surveillance.
THAT is the answer. Not some mindless, useless "Obama is teh suxxor" bullshit.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I distinctly remember, way back when during the Reagan years, people were crowing about how we in the U.S. had it so much better than the Soviets. We didn't have to worry about providing papers to travel (Red October anyone?), we didn't have to worry about our neighbors spying on us and reporting "unpatriotic" deeds, we didn't have to worry about government agents bursting into our homes without a warrant and we especially didn't have to worry about the government listening in on our phone calls.
Now we have two different parts of the government trying to justify why they can, whenever, they feel like it, listen to our phone conversations all in the name of stopping "them" from causing us harm. The worst part about it, the same people who 25 years ago were crowing about how free we were compared to the Soviets are now the same people (assuming they're still alive) who are defending these blatant infringements on our freedoms, all in the name of securing our freedom.
Is that like, "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it."?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Concepts like probable cause, innocent until proven guilty, checks and balances on government power, government for the people and by the people, restriction on governmental power --- are best described as "quaint"?
I wish the people who want to destroy America would take up arms and revolt -- that's easy enough to put down. Insidiously destructive notions such as yours that fundamental rights for individuals and limits on government power are "quaint", ensures that American principles of government will die out. America may keep the name, but that's it.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
So it's starting to sound like one of several things is going on here:
I'm not sure which of these possibilities would worse.
It would help, however, if Obama would be more forthcoming as to the reasons behind the continuation, though; surely some more substantial explanation than "it's all a state secret" can be given without damaging national security.
The economy was cruising on the downslope after the internet bubble burst in mid-2000. That happened on Clinton's watch.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
Under the rules they already had, they can actually apply for a warrant up to (I think) 48 hours after they perform the wire tap. And the success rate in asking for a warrant is somewhere around 100%. Warrantless wiretapping is about being terrified of ever letting even a Federal judge know what's going on, even after the wiretap has been performed.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
So Bush tried to hide behind state secrets, and now the Dems. They must be both in on whatever it is.
After Bush madness, it seems that the Dems could go on a witch-hunt. Perhaps they don't because they're better than the Rs (think back to clinton's sex life). It seems much more plausible, however, that political MAD (mutually assured destruction) is keeping everything in check. I'm suggesting that the state-secrets would be hideously embarrassing for both Dems and Rs.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Sorry man, but your argument flies in the face of what this country was built around: the US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.
Violating our constitutionally guarenteed rights is unacceptable, period.
Here's a refresher for you. I've bolded the important bits: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
You might argue that the Constitution is outdated or wrong, but that's the beauty of it. If it's wrong, we can amend it. (Just like we did for prohibition). To ignore it because it doesn't currently fit in with our needs is a very dangerous road to be on, and not one that my fellow citizens should tolerate in any way.
Your claims that we should accept this and just move on are, frankly, unamerican. In America, we're subject first and foremost to the constitution. We believe that our government gets its power from us, as granted explicitly by the Constitution. Your proposal is utterly unacceptable.
Oh, and since you didn't rtfa, let me spell out the scariest bit of Obama's position on this issue: his adminsitration has taken the position that the federal government is immune from prosecution because of sovereign doctrine. Therefore, they're claiming that you can't sue the government. If that's not opaqueness, I'm not sure what is.
And I voted for Obama. Clearly I should've voted for Mickey Mouse.
I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
I'm a bit cynical about the Obama Administration willingly giving up powers it has been given in the long run. But I'm not ready to say this motion represents the will of the Administration yet.
The author of the piece, ACTING Assistant Attorney General Michael F. Hertz, is a leftover from the Bush administration and is due to be replaced once his successor is confirmed.
Folks, this is what many of us voted for and this is the conclusion of the EFF;
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.
Tyranny we can believe in.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
You can ship out the neocons just as soon as your buddies who said they would leave the country if Bush got (re)elected actually leave the country and renounce their citizenship.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Pelosi says it is un-American to enforce our immigration laws. How does that grab you?
It "grabs me" that you're misrepresenting what she said. What she actually said was first that the values of immigrants who struggle to make it in America is in itself part of the American spirit:
"that optimism, that hope, that courage, that determination of immigrants of your families when you arrive here make America more American."
She then asked her audience:
"How then could America say it's okay to send parents of children away? What values system is that? I think it's un-American." Later she added "who in our country would not want to change a policy of kicking in doors in the middle of the night and sending a parent away from their families? It must be stopped."
She is clearly attacking as Un-American the value system that believes kicking in doors at night and separating families is good. If you want to generalize that to "Pelosi says it is un-American to enforce our immigration laws", that's your own business, but it's clearly not what she was saying.
I do take offense when Americans go off to France, for example, and criticize our President or our country. All they are doing is selfishly making themselves more important at the expense of the rest of us. Its a kick in the teeth to the brave soldiers risking their lives for our safety.
You must be pretty damn insecure about your country then. And totally missing what's great about America-- for criticism of America by its own citizens is what makes our country strong- because American can withstand that criticism and also change for the better when appropriate. This country's strength is that it's in a way an "open-source" country (at least when its at its best.) . The more eyeballs who can find flaws and suggest improvements means that its flaws are discovered, debated, and hopefully corrected. It is the national right (and duty) to be critical of this country and speak about how we can be a better people that is one of the many great strengths of America. Self-analysis and criticism of America by Americans anytime, anywhere should be encouraged and celebrated. It is, in fact, the essence of our country of, by, and for the people, and is what our soldiers are fighting for.
I can remember most of the Hollywood-hating folk telling outspoken actors to GTFO and go to Canada/Europe.
Actually I believe that was directed at the hysterical actors/actresses who claimed they would leave but then failed to actually do so. Any information to the contrary?
Hell, do you really think the 2004 election went the way it did if not for the GOP implying that most Democrats were unpatriotic?
It's always easy to make excuses for being unpopular (see Republicans today). Are you REALLY claiming that you believe that the Republicans won big in 2004 merely because you think "the GOP impl[ied] that most Democrats were unpatriotic." I think you've got to back up that first of all, that actually happened, and second of all, the alleged mere act of claiming somebody is unpatriotic changed votes from Dem to Republican.
For those who don't follow, let me make this easy for you: The term 'flip-flop' existed because Rove & Co. were using it to nail anyone who wished to support the troops but also dissented from the President's edict for fighting terrorism without question.
What utter BS, and just goes to show how you are lacking any and all introspection for your beliefs/party here. The term flip-flop didn't come to characterize Kerry because of "Rove Co" but because of KERRY. Talk about not taking responsibility!
Amazing...as someone who did not vote for Obama, I have to say that I was never that disappointed that he was elected. For one, I wasn't a McCain fan, and secondly, I thought it would mean an end to the tireless squawking about evil BushCo and Cheney. I'm actually still waiting for that... Despite Obama's messages of chance and unity, it seems a lot of people are having trouble moving on!
>>>if you said "87 Billion with no known limit might be unreasonable,"
And now Obama and the Democrats are spending 3000 billion, and yet we're all supposed to smile and act happy about it. Bush's war was bad, but Obama's credit-card spending spree is about 400 times more expensive!
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall