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.'"

27 of 493 comments (clear)

  1. Change. by base3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Indeed. Looks like all the apologists who said his vote for the FISA amendments was just political expediency but that he'd work against wireless wiretapping once in office have a little egg on their faces.

    --
    One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    1. Re:Change. by Shotgun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Forget the egg. It looks like they have secret taps on their phones.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  2. So let me get this straight.. by skgrey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let me get this straight - the case is against warrant-less wiretapping, and since the case would expose on-going warrant-less wiretapping investigations, it should be thrown out? That's about the worst circular argument I've ever heard.

    Why don't they just say it - they're going to do what they want, and it doesn't matter what anyone outside the "secret" circle thinks.

    1. Re:So let me get this straight.. by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let me get this straight - the case is against warrant-less wiretapping, and since the case would expose on-going warrant-less wiretapping investigations, it should be thrown out? That's about the worst circular argument I've ever heard. Why don't they just say it - they're going to do what they want, and it doesn't matter what anyone outside the "secret" circle thinks.

      Precisely, man. I want ongoing operations to be compromised. Ruined, even. Because they are illegal, immoral and wrong. If the government insists that it can break the law with impunity, how do they expect to govern? How do they expect to get juries to convict anyone, if nothing is really illegal as long as you want it bad enough.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    2. Re:So let me get this straight.. by Shotgun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the government insists that it can break the law with impunity, how do they expect to govern?

      By keeping the public distracted with arguments over what talk radio hosts are saying. No, really, who cares what Rush Limbaugh has to say, unless he is raising valid points against you? It's all about keeping the sheep preoccupied until they're in the gates and can't back out from the slaughterhouse.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    3. Re:So let me get this straight.. by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The law is not a matter of opinion. The law is clear. Warrantless wiretaps are illegal, and anyone who endorses them is a criminal. First it was Bush who was the criminal, now AG Holder, and if Obama supports his AG then he too will be a criminal. The law is the law.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:So let me get this straight.. by Omestes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nothing wrong with that.

      Yes there is. If you agree with everything someone says, there is something wrong. If you agree with what someone says only because they are saying it, there is something wrong as well. I like Rachel Maddow, but I often don't agree with her. I dislike Limbaugh, and sometimes I agree with him.

      Both of them are just people, as asinine and fallible as the rest of us. Worse, they exist to publish purely ideological rhetoric as news. And if you agree with any proper-noun ideology your suffering from laziness of thought. A lot of the problems in the world come from people agreeing with their party just because it is their party.

      I'm a life long Democrat, and the democrats are often complete morons, and sometimes the Republicans have better ideas. I self-identify as a socialist or progressive, but I would rather have the libertarians in charge of social issues (get the government out of my life), but the socialists in charge of economic issues (keep the corporations out of my life).

      Life is much more nuanced than any stupid political ideology. If you find yourself constantly agreeing with anyone, perhaps you should go make your own opinions?

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  3. It's official... by shentino · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...we no longer have a democracy.

    I'm probably not even going to bother voting anymore. These days, I can only choose between Kodos and Kang. It doesn't matter which side you pick, both of them suck.

    Sometimes, I don't even know why we the people even bother voting these days. Three cheers for exercising our rights and all, but expecting things to get better when all we have to pick from are scumbags is like trying to lose weight in a restaurant that has nothing on the menu but deep-fried food.

    1. Re:It's official... by vadim_t · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So vote for the Pirate Party for instance, which opposes all this nonsense.

      It probably won't win, but it will at least show people's concerns, which may get results.

    2. Re:It's official... by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then vote Constitution Party instead. They don't support warrantless searches of any kind.

      Also there's more offices than just the president. A third party will probably never win the top office, but I beat we could win enough seats in Congress so that neither the Rs or Ds would have a majority. The duopoly will have been broken.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  4. I am really dispointed. by kurt555gs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The quote "since going forward would compromise "ongoing intelligence activities." makes me think the Obama administration is still doing this.

    I don't care if it is easier. We need to respect our constitution, even if it makes our security agencies do a little more work.

    Power is so hard to give up. Once people have it, it corrupts them.

    Sad day in American history.

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
    1. Re:I am really dispointed. by Aladrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's possible, in theory, for all the current wiretaps to be completely legal, but be compromised by information that would have to be made public to have a court trial over past (possibly illegal) wiretaps.

      Not that I necessarily think the current ones are all legal, though.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    2. Re:I am really dispointed. by Schadrach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not even that, but it's entirely possible that making available who had an illegal wiretap might either expose persons who need to be known not to be in on "ongoing intelligence activities" or that acknowledgment that X had an illegal wiretap placed might be harmful if X is still under suspicion of something but is not aware of said suspicion.

      Personally, I think someone with proper clearance ought to go through the data and clear whichever taps are not part of an ongoing intelligence activity and those and only those should be used for purposes of the legal actions. If there are no such taps remaining, then set a date by which some percentage of said taps will no longer be part of an ongoing intelligence activity and go from there.

    3. Re:I am really dispointed. by Hizonner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, you're wrong.

      It's not "We need to respect our constitution, even if it makes our security agencies do a little more work.".

      It's "We need to respect our constitution, even if some of us die".

      By not addressing their arguments head on, you give the bad guys strength. This is a matter of principle; you don't need to hide from their safety claims.

      I don't actually believe that these methods save lives in the long run. I think that these people underestimate the real, physical risks of making enemies and losing the moral high ground. But I could be wrong. It's possible that there is some increase in safety.... small, compared to the risk of say driving a car, but real nonetheless. The point is that this stuff is wrong even if it does make people safer.

      Fuck the cowards. There are some things you don't do.

  5. Knee-jerk by crndg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know the previous administration had an effect on us, but it appears to me that the current administration is actually handling this the right way. It may not be transparent to *us*, but matters of national security aren't supposed to be.

    They provided the judge with the specifics, and let him decide. If the Bush White House had done that, rather than declare themselves above the law, we wouldn't be so jaded about executive privilege today.

    This isn't as bad as it seems, and it's actually a huge step in the right direction.

    1. Re:Knee-jerk by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know the previous administration had an effect on us, but it appears to me that the current administration is actually handling this the right way. It may not be transparent to *us*, but matters of national security aren't supposed to be..

      Gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there. I paid for it. National security, whatever that is, needs to be above-board. I have no sympathy with the fear-mongers who hyperbolically exaggerate risk just to justify their actions. Put it in perspective for once, and quit arguing that there are big-bad-scaries out there who can only be fought by lawless thugs who will just do the right thing, trust us.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
  6. Meet the new boss... by EzInKy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...same as the old boss. But this is not just a bit of education for Obama supporters, it is a valuable lesson for Bush II supporters as well. The extraordinary powers to further your agenda that you grant to your glorious leaders today are certain to be abused to further the agendas of their successors tomorrow.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  7. Enforce the Constitution - aim gun by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...at tyrant's head (General Attorney Eric). Pull trigger. "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....."

    Warrantless searches are illegal, and if the courts won't protect the Constitution against domestic enemies, then We the People will do it instead.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:Enforce the Constitution - aim gun by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...at tyrant's head (General Attorney Eric). Pull trigger. "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....."

      Warrantless searches are illegal, and if the courts won't protect the Constitution against domestic enemies, then We the People will do it instead.

      For once, I agree with you. Maybe this is twice now.. If Holder doesn't feel he should be constrained by the rule of law, then I don't see how he could argue he should be protected by it either. It's simple hermeneutics, you just can't interpret the law to protect you and not others (unless you're power crazed or insane).

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    2. Re:Enforce the Constitution - aim gun by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In my opinion there was no need for war.

      We should have ignored Bin Laden the same way we ignore Internet Trolls. Don't feed them with a response. Was 9/11 a tragedy? Yes, and so was the challenger disaster, and the New Orleans flooding, and so on. Rather than declare war, we should have just picked up the pieces, secured the border the same way you install a more-solid door on your house after a breakin, and continued to live in peace.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:Enforce the Constitution - aim gun by Uberbah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There were a number of anti-war/anti-Bush protests. I know because I attended one of them.

      He said teabaggers, Slick. But much like the militia movement from the 90's, that stockpiled guns in preparation for Clinton's "New World Order", they took a vacation when Bush actually started to dismantle the Constitution.

  8. Re:From www.BarackObama.com by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not surprised. Republicans and Democrats are just two halves of the same tyranny. They both desire power to control the people, and damn the constitution, and damn the requirements for searches.

    Next time you walk into a voting booth, and elect a congresscritter, choose one that is neither R or D. We need a Congress that has no clear majority, due to the presence of third parties. Just imagine how much healthier our Republic would be if, instead of 60% democrats and 40% republicans, the ratio was 40% democrats, 30% republicans, 20% libertarians, and 10% socialists. No party could dominate.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  9. Well what is happening in New York is giving me by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    hope. Granted it is only on the Republican side. Where grass roots Conservatives told their party elders to take a hike.

    Still, it is hard to claim much freedom of choice when there are only two parties who can always get on the ballot, two parties who have done much to prevent other parties from having a chance. Where they could not do it by law they did by influence over media outlets.

    In Obama's defense, promises made on the trail tend to fall by the wayside because reality sucks. The naivete of the Administration, let alone their voters, was astonishing. I think they both bought the hype. The problem of course is the world is harsh and all your "we love you love me" crap has no affect on the world stage.

    Throw in a good dose of the Washington establishment (sorry - but his Chief of Staff was a dead give away the only change was the party who sat in the house) and how did anyone here honestly expect things to change? Then again I seem to recall a large number here who buy into Michael Moore's crap so no matter education or intelligence level snake oil sells.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  10. Re:Change? What change? by davmoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, Bush wasn't right. He used the US Constitution as toilet paper, and Cheney was worse.

    But anyone who thought Obama was going to revoke anything Bush had done was only kidding themselves. Its always easier to just keep a bad power that your predecessor gained for the office...Obama figures the Bush administration already absorbed the damage and the heat, so why should he get rid of a nifty new super power?

    Once we started down this slippery slope, there's no way to go back up.

    --
    I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
  11. Re:From www.BarackObama.com by elfprince13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Obama - "Change we can forget about."

  12. Re:From www.BarackObama.com by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration's position on the case but insists it came to the decision differently

    Meet the new Boss. Same as the old Boss.

  13. Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion by Abcd1234 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now, the other side..the people who actually think Socialism can work even though it has never before and big Government can solve our problems, have their own rabid beliefs.

    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, and works every single day all over the world. Just because Americans can't seem to figure it out, doesn't mean the idea is flawed. It just means the American system of government is so fundamentally fucked up it's hamstrung from the get-go.