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.'"

Comments

Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion

[AlamedaStone]

...pro-abortion...

Congratulations, you now have zero credibility. Drop the incendiary rhetoric and maybe (rational, moderate) people will be interested in what you have to say.

fear mongering works both ways

[circletimessquare]

that is, many here have pointed out that fear mongering results in breaking laws and protections important to our society. this is correct

but i'd like to point out that fear mongering of another sort you see in comments here: that if someone in the government breaks our laws and protections out of fear, OMG WE LIVE IN A FASCIST AUTOCRACY, ITS ORWELL, THERES NO GOING BACK, etc., etc. zzz

obviously, wiretaps without warrants is a bad thing, and needs to be fought and corrected and reversed. but you have to recognize that all societies lie on a continuum of 100% free to 100% oppressed (never achieving 100% either way, that's impossible), and we simply have moved 0.5% towards the oppressed direction, and still come out by and large on the free side of things. in a way, a little backsliding after the trauma of 9/11 is to be expected. the backsliding is BAD and should be FOUGHT, but its almost a given from basic human pscyhology after a traumatic experience to function on fear and panic for a bit rather than being 100% rock solid level headed. the need to calm down and get a hold of your scruples is the mode we are in now

in other words, being a free society is not a binary either/ or state, its a continuum of interconnecting complex concepts, and this loss of freedom with warrantless wiretaps is a small part of a much larger picture. we can and SHOULD reverse it, and be angry about it, but there's no need to get our panties in a bunch about the fallacy that we are on a slippery slope, an unstoppable slide into oppression. does anyone seriously believe that? we've moved a couple inches in the direction of oppression, not a full mile, and we can move a few inches back. and we can, and we should, and we will, move back with calm, rational level headed effort

there's no need to fear monger and panic from the side worried about our freedoms disappearing. is that the best tactic? that kind of reaction reflects poorly on you if you care about your freedoms, because you need to be level headed and stable about your commitment to your freedoms, not worked up into a tizzy. if you are so easily upset, that betrays a lack of faith, and a lack of strong belief in the strength of your freedoms and their staying power. i believe in our freedoms strongly, and that gives me a faith that will carry me through the hiccups without turning into a hysteric about how my freedoms are going to slide out of my grasp completely on a moments notice. no: our culture and our commitment to our values and freedoms is strong and deep, and will not be trifled with

so stop freaking out some of you. it reflects poorly on the strength of your convictions

Re:Enforce the Constitution - aim gun

[cusco]

And the Marines aren't vicious and organized? We have more troops in Afghanistan today than we did after "conquering" the country, and actually control less than a third of it. Our puppet wasn't even able to steal an election, in spite of millions of US taxpayer dollars backing him. What the Pentagon calls "the Taliban" really have little to do with the pre-2001 ruling party. Just like in Pakistan the people that they previously called "tribal leaders" have been labeled as "Taliban" to demonize them in the US press.

Unfortunately as historian Barbara Tuchmann noted, "One thing that we learn from history is that our leaders never seem to learn anything from history." No invader since the time of Alexander the Great has managed to conquer Afghanistan and hold it for any length of time. Several empires have collapsed attempting to do so, which is why it's sometimes called "the place where empires go to die."