Slashdot Mirror
Attorney General Says Wiretap Lawsuit Must Be Thrown Out
Mr Pink Eyes writes with news about comments from US Attorney General Eric Holder, who said a San Francisco lawsuit over warrantless wiretapping should be thrown out, since going forward would compromise "ongoing intelligence activities." From the AP report:
"In making the argument, the Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration's position on the case but insists it came to the decision differently. A civil liberties group criticized the move Friday as a retreat from promises President Barack Obama made as a candidate. Holder's effort to stop the lawsuit marks the first time the administration has tried to invoke the state secrets privilege under a new policy it launched last month designed to make such a legal argument more difficult. ... Holder said US District Judge Vaughn Walker, who is handling the case, was given a classified description of why the case must be dismissed so that the court can 'conduct its own independent assessment of our claim.'"
Eliminate Warrantless Wiretaps. Barack Obama opposed the Bush Administration’s initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens. As president, Obama would update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law.
Also, I thought he was assembling a cabinet critical of warrantless wiretapping?
My work here is dung.
know how you feel:
Leadership
Eric Holder
Attorney General
Contact
Office of the Attorney General
(202) 514-2001
...we no longer have a democracy.
You're right there.
Remember: Ballot, Soap, Jury, Ammo.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
The Bush administration based their court arguments on an extended interpretation of executive privilege , whereas the Obama administration is making an argument based in precedent and case law - state secrets.
That you've presented your argument as "See, Bush is right because Obama seems to be doing the same" shows you probably know nothing about the arguments in this case, or the executive privilege abuses Bush's administration made in the name of our country.
You do your country a serious disservice with the same old mindless "my team right, your team wrong" dittohead rhetoric. Means another ignorant voter, with no idea what their government is up to, regardless which party is in office -- and no clue how to fight it.
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
Actually the opposition to her comes more from her being pro-stimulus and pro-cardcheck and generally being more aligned with the Democrat party than it does from those who are "rabid anti-abortionists and bigoted anti-gay people don't mind having their civil rights and freedoms taken away (except the guns!) as long as the "fags" and those "baby killers" are controlled" as you put it... but no doubt her pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage stance didn't help her with the republicans.
So which is it? Is she really more of a Democrat who happens to anti-gun control... or more of a Republican who is pro-card check, pro-same sex marriage, pro-stimulus, and pro-abortion?
One is far easier to believe than the other personally... but mostly because I've known more of the latter than the prior over the years.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
if Ron Paul were president, I guarantee you that he'd keep the new surveillance powers, too.
If Ron Paul were President, he might change his mind.
But as a Congressman, he opposes it. He didn't vote on the FISA bill, reportedly because he was unavailable to do so after a last-minute change to the calendar.
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/06/24/ron-paul-on-the-wiretap-bill/
Mr. Speaker, I regret that due to the unexpected last-minute appearance of this measure on the legislative calendar this week, a prior commitment has prevented me from voting on the FISA amendments. I have strongly opposed every previous FISA overhaul attempt and I certainly would have voted against this one as well.
The main reason I oppose this latest version is that it still clearly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens' communications without a search warrant. That US citizens can have their private communication intercepted by the government without a search warrant is anti-American, deeply disturbing, and completely unacceptable.
In addition to gutting the fourth amendment, this measure will deprive Americans who have had their rights violated by telecommunication companies involved in the Administration's illegal wiretapping program the right to seek redress in the courts for the wrongs committed against them. Worse, this measure provides for retroactive immunity, whereby individuals or organizations that broke the law as it existed are granted immunity for prior illegal actions once the law has been changed. Ex post facto laws have long been considered anathema in free societies under rule of law. Our Founding Fathers recognized this, including in Article I section 9 of the Constitution that "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." How is this FISA bill not a variation of ex post facto? That alone should give pause to supporters of this measure.
Mr. Speaker, we should understand that decimating the protections that our Constitution provides us against the government is far more dangerous to the future of this country than whatever external threats may exist. We can protect this country without violating the Constitution and I urge my colleagues to reconsider their support for this measure.
I'm not particularly enthusiastic about Ron Paul, but claiming he would support warrantless wiretapping is a misrepresentation of his public statements on the subject.
So, on the statement "we are no longer a democracy", you are answering: "correct, we are not a monarchy".
Truly, check it out. There are democratic republics (apparently not the US, but let's say France and Germany), non-democratic republics (US, China), democratic monarchies (Denmark for instance), and non-democratic monarchies (Saudi-Arabia). I know that you get taught in school that the US is not a direct democracy, but a representative democracy, but given that since ancient Athens we haven't seen a direct democracy, it is safe to assume that if one utters the word democracy it is with an silent 'representative'. Correcting this with saying that the US is a republic is very close to a non-sequitur.
Actually - if you'd ever listend to the show you'd know that the terms "ditto", "megaditto" and "dittohead" came to be from callers skipping the all-too-often-heard radio call-in introductorary remarks such as "I love your show", "long time listener", "i've tried many times to get on the air", etc with a shortened coined phrase. Early on in the show's history the tradition began to instead just say "dittos" at the beginning of the call and get on with it. Everyone assumes that it means that his followers simply follow blindly whatever he says. While there are surely many who fall into that category - that's not how the term came into being. Just fyi.
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
>>>Where was the tea party during the Bush administration.....
There were a number of anti-war/anti-Bush protests. I know because I attended one of them.
>>>I support Obama, except for this.
I don't. He's raising our national debt from $120,000 to $200,000 per U.S. home, in just eight short years (2016). We're never going to be able to pay that off. First we wasted money on war; now we're wasting it on other shit. We need fiscal restraint.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
If you read the article is says exactly that.
Holder said U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who is handling the case, was given a classified description of why the case must be dismissed so that the court can "conduct its own independent assessment of our claim."
Not to mention that he assessment can't possible be independent - because it is based on evidence presented only by the respondent without the opportunity for the plaintiff to examine and refute it.
If you look hard enough, you'll discover that governments only expand in power and revenue throughout their lifetimes, never reduce.
I can think of only two counterexamples to this, and both, Cincinnatus and George Washington, are singular leaders relinquishing massive powers after the end of a massive conflict.
This hearkens back to the adage that the best rulers are those who reluctantly accept the ruler's staff...
... so where do we find more of those?
>> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
Umm, just FYI, as a Canadian who is perfectly happy living in a nation that most Americans would consider virtually communist, I have to disagree rather strongly with this. And I'm sure your average European would agree with me.
Socialism, hybridized with a liberal democracy and a free (but regulated) market *does* work
As a Russian who has "USSR" as place of birth in his passport, and now living in Canada, I have to note that Canada isn't anywhere near "virtually communist", and it isn't particularly socialist either. Socialism is when all production is directly controlled and owned by the state, and free enterprise in any form is forbidden. High taxes != socialism; and not that Canadian taxes are all that high, in fact.
Canada (and most European states) is a welfare state. It's still capitalist through and through, and you have full freedom to go and earn as much money for yourself as you can and want to do; it's just that part of that money (and not a bigger part) goes towards a safety net for the rest of the citizens. Calling that "socialist" is highly misleading (and I know that you probably used that word because many Americans use it that way, so it's really directed more towards them).
I swear, Friedman/Reagan destroyed rational economic thinking for a generation. Less government spending is not always better government spending.
For starters per household debt numbers are useless because, among other reasons, they don't factor in the business/institutional share of the debt, and it's a stealthy way of bungling the mean/median income disparity. If you're going to talk debt, talk about raw dollars, or better yet or percent GDP. Right now it's at ~90% and headed to somewhere around 100% GDP. National debt is like a mortgage, lower is better, but the ability to take out a second mortgage in dry times is extraordinarily important. One thing you don't ever do (if you're rational) is become hawkish on the deficit during a recession - government spending factors into the GDP, so cutting government spending actually increases the debt/GDP ratio, additionally public spending has a multiplier factor (essentially a way of increasing the velocity of money), removing those multiplying dollars can turn a recession into a depression.
It would always be better if the debt were lower, but the real cost of constraining spending now would more than counter-balance the decreased debt. We have the largest economy in the world, as the US's global influence wanes, we will be able to support less debt, but for now with global political realities the way they are we can support the debt we carry. People are still buying our debt at very low interest rates - which in itself should tell you that there's no debt crisis. And with all the panic about China holding our debt, their share of the national debt is actually decreasing, with domestic firms are picking up the slack. It's also worth noting that every T-bill held domestically is money we owe to ourselves - it's important to keep it in the debt column, but when it's paid back it's win-win. Come back to me about the defect when we're not shedding jobs every month, or when a t-bill auction fails, or when inflation is approaching double digits.