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

Remove the words from title:

[Shikaku]

says wiretab lawsuit

From www.BarackObama.com

[eldavojohn]

From his own site (PDF) a fact sheet (page 6 under "Restoring Our Values"):

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?

Re:From www.BarackObama.com

[commodore64_love]

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.

Re:From www.BarackObama.com

[elfprince13]

Obama - "Change we can forget about."

Re:From www.BarackObama.com

[Kral_Blbec]

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.

Re:From www.BarackObama.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Next time you walk into a voting booth, and elect a congresscritter, choose one that is neither R or D.

But how will we, as a nation, move forward without research or development?

Re:From www.BarackObama.com

[Abcd1234]

To be clear, I'm not trying to apologize for Obama, but you should pay very close attention to what that says:

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.

Note, there is nothing in there about allowing existing lawsuits to go forward in order to punish those who violated the rights of Americans during the previous administration. In fact, Obama has stated, time after time, that he feels we should all just, you know, move on and get over it...

Re:From www.BarackObama.com

[boombaard]

So be against Majoritarianism/Winner Takes All voting. The problem would be that the district system would have to go, because officials couldn't/wouldn't be elected locally any more (unless you, say, quadruple the number of representatives). But that would probably also cut down on those ridiculous amounts of money needed for elections, and, furthermore, decrease the possibility that votes are bought through "campaign contributions," or legalized bribery, because individual representatives would be less directly connected to special interests. In all, I would call it an enormous win, but YMMV.

Re:From www.BarackObama.com

[Xest]

Us Brits were already aware that Obama follows Bush era policies.

One of the Britons detained in Guantanamo bay, Binyamin Mohamed, was finally released to the UK earlier this year. Since then he's been trying to prove that he was tortured by, or at the behest of British agents. The courts recieved documents from US intelligence that would back his claim, however their release was blocked by our foreign secretary.

Now, our foreign secretary is an idiot, and part of it is ass covering for sure, but the reason he has cited for blocking their release is that the US has threatened to cut intelligence ties with the UK meaning we could be left vulnerable to attack (as could the US) if this data were released. Originally this threat came from the Bush administration, but it seems since then the Obama administration has been asked with the same threats. Journalists and politicians here have contacted the white house to confirm this and have found that the Obama administration does in fact support this policy.

The fact is, the Obama administration has no interest in accountability for it's security services, it knows and has admitted they were complicit in torture, but it seems the extent to which they were is such a problem that they are willing to put the national security of an ally and their own national security at risk to cover this up and keep that evidence secure.

It's not like we're not used to this attitude from the US, as when a US airforce pilot was guilty of strafing British troops in an A10 in a friendly fire incident in Iraq they refused to release the pilots name for questioning and the gun camera videos etc. (which were later leaked anyway) for our enquiry into how it happened. We expected this kind of attitude of coverups from the Bush adminsitration, but the Obama administration? It did come as a suprise I'll admit.

The original story is here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/04/guantanamo-torture

An update is here, the court reversed it's decision and stated the documents can be released pending the outcome of an appeal by the British government. Hopefully they'll lose it and we'll be able to see if Obama really is willing to do as he says and damage security of both countries over it:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-britain-gitmo17-2009oct17,0,2433061.story

Change? Not from what we can see over this side of the Atlantic, the only difference here in Europe is instead of a US president having his leg humped by Tony Blair, we've now got a US president having his leg humped by Sarkozy and Berlusconi instead.

Re:From www.BarackObama.com

[demachina]

I think you are the thick one here. He was implying that the current Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, are already socialist in practice if not in name. and he has a pretty viable argument.

Here is a chart from Wikipedia of the size of the Federal budget for the last 14 years:

* 2010 United States federal budget - $3.60 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
* 2009 United States federal budget - $3.10 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
* 2008 United States federal budget - $2.90 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
* 2007 United States federal budget - $2.77 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
* 2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
* 2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
* 2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
* 2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
* 2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
* 2001 United States federal budget - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)
* 2000 United States federal budget - $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)
* 1999 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)
* 1998 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)
* 1997 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)
* 1996 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)

Its more than doubled in 14 years and its been done by both Democrats and Republicans. Bush, supposedly the small government Conservative nearly doubled it all by himself in eight years. He not only doubled spending but cut taxes to create staggering deficits. They would have been really staggering earlier if it hadn't been for the housing bubble generating fantasy tax revenue. We don't have that bubble any more which is why deficits are going to be running more than a trillion until we gin up a new bubble(Ponzi scheme).

The U.S. GDP is maybe 14 trillion so the Federal budget alone is more than 20% of the economy. If you count secondary effects from all that spending it could easily be half our GDP now.

The budget deficits are now projected to run over a trillion a year indefinitely which is nearly as much as the ENTIRE federal budget in 1996. Of course the Fed and Treasury have also destroyed the dollar in the same period so a dollar in 1996 was worth a lot more than it is now which is why Gold is now over $1000. Gold has actually out performed the stock market the last couple decades thanks to the last couple years of economic devastation.

And of course in the last two years under both Democrats and Republicans there has been MASSIVE intervention in the economy to bail out Wall Street and Detroit. In so doing they have created massive moral hazard, by allowing giant corporations to do truly awful, incompetent, sometimes criminal things in the mortgage and auto market and just have the government step in to clean up their mess at the expense of ordinary Americans. Banksters pocketed billions and billions of dollars in the process and with collusion of their shills in government like Paulson have completely shredded free market capitalism in this country. They then turned around and have completely gutted all recent attempts to regulate them to keep them from doing it again... and they will do it again.... probably alread

Re:From www.BarackObama.com

[boombaard]

Remember what happened when people decided to vote for a third candidate in Fla 2000? Right, the votes were lost. A two party system is a direct consequence of winner takes all voting. And the ruling parties have a huge incentive to gerrymander districts in such a way that any third party is neutralized; or they can just raise the voting bar to, say, 5% of national votes, to ensure no "fringe" parties are elected into parliament. (see Russia, Germany for examples.) There are so many ways to keep out newcomers. Lastly (and I'm not trying to be insulting here), but local interests are generally pretty stupid, and only encourage porkbarrel spending and logrolling practices to buy voters with. Practices like that are what kept the rust belt in business and innovation-free.
Anyway, you probably didn't want to hear that. The point, however, is that "your being heard" is a joke and a fiction. Sure, you'll be heard, if "you" consist of 30-50% of the voters in your district. But that'll never happen on every piece of legislation that impacts "you", most of which you don't even hear about. And in those cases your shiny toy representative just votes for the guys who paid for his TV indoctrination campaign.

Re:From www.BarackObama.com

[TheRaven64]

This is change. You see, he's being evil in the same way as Bush, but for a different reason, which makes it okay. Bush was supported wiretaps because it served the interest of President Bush. Obama, on the other hand, supports them now because they serve the interests of President Obama. As you can see, this is an entirely different matter and so it's disingenuous to regard them as the same thing.

Re:From www.BarackObama.com

[mvdwege]

The EU Charter of Rights has no requirement for the general government to obtain a warrant.

Don't be disingenuous. Article 8 states that privacy shall not be infringed except as provided by law, for specific purposes only (among them fighting crime).

The exact formulation of the law is not the remit of the EU, but up to the member states. And given that most of these are representative democracies building on the same philosophers as your precious Founding Fathers, it is no coincidence that in fact, the law in almost all member states requires for warrants to be issued before wiretaps can go through.

Now, that some judges just rubberstamp everything the police holds in front of them, that is a different matter. But in that we're no different from the U.S. with it's Executive-lapdog FISA court.

Mart

Re:From www.BarackObama.com

[demachina]

"The bulk of the spending increases have been in defense, an area where traditional socialists oppose massive spending and where libertarians support it."

I think you missed the point. I'm not saying our government is "Socialist" in the left leaning, pro worker nanny state form. I'm saying the U.S. is Socialist in the right wing, state capitalism sense(a.k.a. Fascism). I know using that word causes immediate invocation of Godwin, and half the readers thinks its wacko the instant they see the word, but it really is the only term that really applies to the U.S. political/economic system now. It can easily be applied to Russia, China and the U.K. too.

Massive military spending it a hallmark of Fascism, it defines it, it is a mandatory part. The fact that the U.S. has, and spends so much on, such a massive, aggressive military, engaging in aggressive wars (and the invasion of Iraq was classic unprovoked aggression based on fabrication) just helps prove my case. Even better the U.S. also has a gigantic web of intelligence agencies who are increasingly spending more time spying in America than anywhere else furthers my argument. The infamous East German police state had to have an army of people to eavesdrop on a small fraction of its people. Thanks to computers and telecommunications the U.S. can now spy on nearly everyone all the time.

Re:From www.BarackObama.com

[DanielHast]

We are now for all practical purposes living under state capitalism (a.k.a. Fascism) and that is the right wing form of Socialism. Its socialism completely against workers and for the plutocracy/kleptocracy. Obama and the Dems do throw bones to unions like the UAW but unions are just a different form of kleptocracy.

This completely mixes up economic and political systems. State capitalism is an economic system; I agree that the U.S. has moved significantly closer to this in recent years. (Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration have moved the country in the direction of state capitalism.) Plutocracy and kleptocracy are both similar in nature to state capitalism.

Fascism, however, is completely different. It's a political system characterized by authoritarianism, a one-party system, and extreme nationalism. State capitalism and/or government-established racism are common components of fascism, but are not strictly necessary. By no means does state capitalism in itself imply fascism, and the United States is definitely not a fascist state. The nationalism, use of torture, and general authoritarianism of the Bush administration had fascistic tendencies, but were not sufficient to reasonably call the country fascist as a whole.

Socialism is a completely different matter. It is both an economic and political system, characterized by distribution of wealth, democratic control of the economy, and worker control of the means of production. Socialism can be either libertarian or authoritarian, and a libertarian socialist government could represent a significant decrease in the size of government from what we have now. "Socialism completely against workers" is a contradiction; by definition, socialism supports workers. If a system does not give workers significant control, it is not socialism. The U.S. is currently nowhere even close to socialism; capitalism is established throughout the political system and the economy. A move towards state capitalism will not turn the country socialist.

Unions are not inherently part of any particular economic or political system. They are socialist in principle (more worker control), but are generally not politically radical enough or strong enough to determine a political system. Most major modern unions are quite politically moderate, so they don't really act to support either socialism or capitalism.

demachina's post seems to equate state capitalism, fascism, socialism, plutocracy, and kleptocracy as one generic political and economic system. This presents a false dichotomy between libertarian capitalism and pretty much everything else. While state capitalism and fascism sometimes align, there are plenty of state capitalists who are strongly opposed to fascism, and socialists are opposed to both state capitalism and fascism. For that matter, opposition to fascism is a major part of socialism, and fascist states are usually anti-socialist as well, so it's ridiculous to equate the two.

Support whichever system you think is best, but please use the correct terminology in talking about it.

Re:From www.BarackObama.com

[demachina]

"And, please stop calling every fiscal policy you don't like a "Ponzi scheme."

I wasn't referring to fiscal policy, I was referring to the housing bubble. It WAS a ponzi scheme, the only other useful term would be pyramid scheme. The people originating all those half million dollars mortgages to hairdressers and gardeners knew they would eventually implode, so did all the mortgage auditors and the bond rating agencies, so did most of the Wall Street banksters who securitized them and sold them off to pension funds and assorted other investors as AAA bonds. There is absolutely NO WAY subprime mortgages to people with either no proof of income, or insufficient income, could ever warrant AAA bond ratings.

All the way through the system people were just cashing in on the front end of the pyramid scheme and were indifferent that a crash was inevitable when all the ARM interest rates ballooned and those gardeners and hairdressers would inevitably default. The whole system was designed to allow people to grab money where none existed, and to screw people at the end of the scheme(mainly bond investors who thought they had bought ultra safe AAA bonds).

The original Internet bubble was just as much a pyramid scheme(there I didn't call it a Ponsi scheme). In case you haven't noticed the U.S. economy is so dysfunctional now the only way it keeps going is through one pyramid scheme after another, borrowing money from the rest of the world, or just printing it. That will probably continue until the rest of the world gets a clue and removes the U.S. dollar as the sole global reserve currency. Charles DeGaulle in the 1960's railed that allowing the U.S. dollar to be the global reserve currency allowed the U.S. to print money, borrow money and generally steal the rest of the world blind. Once the world switches to a different reserve currency, and the world has finally figured out the scam the U.S. was running the last two years, the U.S. wont be able to borrow a plugged nickel, the dollar will implode and the party will be over. Every other country that can't pay its bills ends in the arms of the IMF because they can't just borrow and print like the U.S.. Well not every country, Zimbabwe also tried to print its way out of its economic problems....

Change.

[base3]

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.

Re:Change.

[Shotgun]

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

So let me get this straight..

[skgrey]

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.

Re:So let me get this straight..

[Rob the Bold]

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.

Re:So let me get this straight..

[Almost-Retired]

The more things change, the more the same they are. You expected any different once he had taken the oath?

Re:So let me get this straight..

[Shotgun]

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.

Re:So let me get this straight..

[LordKazan]

This is obviously me being an optimist.. but let's hope they're putting up that argument just so it can be officially destroyed.

the realist in my recognizes now (as i did before i voted for him) that the president isn't perfect, and that sometimes information you learn after you say something changes your opinion - even if that change is for (what everyone else sees) the worse.

Re:So let me get this straight..

[commodore64_love]

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.

Re:So let me get this straight..

[Watson Ladd]

Three umpires were asked about their jobs. One said "There are balls and there are strikes, and I call them as they are." The second said "There are balls and there are strikes, and I call them as I see them." The third said "There are balls and there are strikes, but they ain't nothing 'till I call them". There are plenty of court cases decided on opinion, like the ending of discrimination in DC schools. This is a case we should all be happy with, but it wasn't decided on any word of the Constitution, just an argument that the Constitution should bind the federal government more then the states.

Re:So let me get this straight..

[Keebler71]

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.

Re:So let me get this straight..

[commodore64_love]

So in other words the United States government is covering-up its previous crimes. Gee. Golly. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I guess that makes it okay then.

Re:So let me get this straight..

[commodore64_love]

No warrant; no search.

There's no need for opinion; it's quite clear. The wiretaps were illegal, and the court case needs to be allowed to continue to its conclusion so the U.S. officials responsible can spend a couple months in jail, just like any criminal. The AG's attempt to stop the court case means justice will be denied for the innocent victims.

Re:So let me get this straight..

[Omestes]

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?

It's official...

[shentino]

...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.

Re:It's official...

[Rob the Bold]

...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.

I got my new state's driver's license, and specifically checked "No" for the "Do you want to register to vote". More that I just don't want to put down roots here, but still a bit because of political pissed-offness. I also declined to be an organ donor, so to anyone who says "Don't vote, can't complain", I can reply: "No liver transplant for you, punk!"

Republicans are just out-and-out evil corporate scum with their armies of undead idiot-fundamentalist zombies desperate to protect themselves from any benefit of living in a civilized society, and the Democrats, when they're not going along with them are pissing their pants to avoid keeping their promises. Pussies.

Re:It's official...

[vadim_t]

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.

Re:It's official...

[commodore64_love]

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.

Re:It's official...

[Rob the Bold]

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 hear you on the need to break up the collusion betweens the R's and D's against the wishes and interests of the people.

Since I never investigated the Constitution Party, I took a look at the their Website. Here's Doug Stewart's story of how he became a member from the front page of the aforementioned site:

George W. Bush had just been re-elected to a second term, but his remark, "the Constitution is nothing but a G.. D... piece of paper", really turned me off, but I had not voted for a Democrat since I was compelled into the Kingdom of God on the evening of 8/19/85.

Being a VA native and devotee of Southern history and heritage, though I went along for the ride after my conversion, I had always had a problem with "the Party of Lincoln". Bush's desire to expand the U.S. Empire abroad showed me what one of the big problems was. I began doing some research.

Seeing the reprobate Democratic platform, especially where abortion and homosexuality were concerned, I knew I needed to select a third party. The Libertarian Party was eliminated because they'll believe anything. More research showed me that the Constitution Party was tailor-made for me. I've now been a member for nearly five years, and am more politically active here than I ever was with the Republican Party.

From this "testimony" (published right there on the home page of the party), it sounds like the Constitution Party is the resurrection of the Confederacy.

The one thing that had kept me a Republican for so long (too long) was the fact that they were the "Party of Lincoln," which is precisely what turned off Stewart. If it's tailor made for Mr. Stewart -- a christian fundamentalist, unreconstructed Confederate -- it's exactly wrong for me. I'm still looking, believe me.

Re:It's official...

[ptbarnett]

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.

Re:It's official...

[NoOneInParticular]

Hmm, your reply doesn't make much sense. From your link:

A republic is a form of government in which the head of state is not a monarch[1] and the people (or at least a part of its people)[2] have an impact on its government

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.

Re:It's official...

[Anonymous Coward]

A third party won the Whitehouse in 1860. The president's name was Abraham Lincoln and he was a Republican. In fact, he was the first Republican president. Many don't know that the Republican party was created for the singular purpose of stopping the spread of slavery in the US.

It's proof that a noble cause and good leadership can get results. Coincidentally, Lincoln was an attorney and an Illinois state legislator.

Let Mr. Holder

[Anonymous Coward]

know how you feel:

Leadership
Eric Holder
Attorney General
Contact
Office of the Attorney General
(202) 514-2001

Re:Let Mr. Holder

[Rob the Bold]

know how you feel:

Leadership Eric Holder Attorney General Contact Office of the Attorney General (202) 514-2001

Couldn't you just call any number, and figure he's listen in?

I am really dispointed.

[kurt555gs]

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.

Re:I am really dispointed.

[Aladrin]

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.

Re:I am really dispointed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Power is so hard to give up.

Of course they won't give it up: power itself is the end goal, not a means to an end as the career politician endlessly preaches. Once they achieve it, that job is done. The next concern is the next acquisition of power, not how to lose the previous one.

If you look hard enough, you'll discover that governments only expand in power and revenue throughout their lifetimes, never reduce. There's a reason why no government in history has ever significantly, permanently, and willingly reduced their level of power or revenue: because power and revenue are the ends, not the means, and the people in the business of government work for themseleves, not you and me.

Re:I am really dispointed.

[Schadrach]

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.

Re:I am really dispointed.

[Hizonner]

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.

Re:I am really dispointed.

[commodore64_love]

Repeat after me:

No warrant; no search.
No warrant; no wiretaps.
No warrant; no entrance into private homes.

That may piss you pro-big-government tyrants off, but that's what the Supreme Law of the land says and it will continue to say that until you can convince people to amend the Constitution and strike-out that law. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLpSY8d3gRc - "ACLU, Flex Your Rights, and ACORN volunteers go door-to-door in Southeast DC educating residents about their 4th Amendment right to refuse warrantless police searches."

Re:I am really dispointed.

[Abcd1234]

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

Not necessarily. For example, suppose the Bush administration was tracking the activities of terrorist group X, and doing so using warrantless wiretaps. Obama takes over, cancels the wiretapping program, but continues to investigate terrorist group X using other means. Well, now, if a trial about warrantless wiretapping goes forward, it's possible that sensitive information about the investigation of terrorist group X will be exposed, despite that being an "ongoing intelligence activity".

Re:I am really dispointed.

[IorDMUX]

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?

Knee-jerk

[crndg]

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.

Re:Knee-jerk

[Rob the Bold]

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.

Re:Knee-jerk

[commodore64_love]

>>>It may not be transparent to *us*, but matters of national security aren't supposed to be.

You're right that spying needs to be secret, but you're wrong when you say these warrantless searches should be allowed to continue. It's illegal. The government is a criminal and guilty of breaking the law, just as surely as microsoft was found to be an illegal monopoly. We punished microsoft, and now we must punish the United States leadership.

No man; no organization is above the law, or the will of the people, the ultimate source of all authority.

Re:Knee-jerk

[DerekLyons]

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.

Except the Obama White House is also declaring themselves above the law - by insisting the suit be thrown out based on secret evidence rather than in open court.

Re:Knee-jerk

[numbski]

Thank you! Disclosure is happening - just in a way that proceeds with caution. If they said outright that it had to be dismissed and didn't say why *at all*, I'd be bothered. The judge is being told why. He can still say that the case will proceed.

Re:Knee-jerk

[DerekLyons]

Except the Obama White House is also declaring themselves above the law - by insisting the suit be thrown out based on secret evidence rather than in open court.

If you read the article, it does not say that.

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.

Don't blame me

[Shotgun]

Vote Barr next time.

Re:Don't blame me

[machine321]

I'm not sure I agree with Roseanne, either.

Meet the new boss...

[EzInKy]

...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.

Enforce the Constitution - aim gun

[commodore64_love]

...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.

Re:Enforce the Constitution - aim gun

[Rob the Bold]

...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).

Re:Enforce the Constitution - aim gun

[commodore64_love]

>>>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.

Re:Enforce the Constitution - aim gun

[Stolovaya]

Funny, I don't remember too many drug offenders violating the constitution.

Re:Enforce the Constitution - aim gun

[Bigjeff5]

First we wasted money on war; now we're wasting it on other shit. We need fiscal restraint.

While I don't agree that war in Afghanistan or Iraq were a waste, we have certainly wasted a crapload of money in both wars because we namby-pamby around and get distracted. They should have been over and done with in a few years and cost a fraction of what they have cost and will continue to cost.

My biggest beef since Bush's first term has been how much he spent on useless crap (asshole had the gall to cut taxes and raise spending, it's cut-cut, raise-cut, or raise-raise, unless you've been severly over-taxing it's never cut-raise). Now Obama seems to be on the war path to completely destroy our economy. There is a reason we have been the dominant financial power in the world for decades, and it's because our government didn't waste as much money as all the other first world countries, which allowed us to be more productive than everybody else. Now that is changing as Bush hit us hard with debt, and now Obama is trying to out-spend Bush in his very first year in office. It's insanity.

Why the hell can't presidents get their heads around the idea of "spend less than you take in"? It's not that hard, any responsible adult can do it. I suppose when you never have to live in the real world you don't have to learn these things.

Re:Enforce the Constitution - aim gun

[commodore64_love]

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.

Re:Enforce the Constitution - aim gun

[sp3d2orbit]

I understand your desire to be a responsible citizen in the world and to avoid unnecessary bloodshed. I can understand the arguments against going into Iraq (no WMD's, lies, lies, lies, etc). BUT, to say that we should not have done anything about Afghanistan is pure pacifism.

There are times when nothing except for force will change things for a people. Think back to the Revolutionary War. We wouldn't have stood a chance against Britain if it weren't for France's intervention. Britain and France would not have stood a chance against Germany in either world wars without our intervention.

Pacifists, like you, assume the people are inherently good, and left to their own devices they will act as such. I wish that were the case, but people are assholes. Everyone once in a while you have to punch an asshole in the face to get him to leave you alone.

Re:Enforce the Constitution - aim gun

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Say what you like, but one person acting lethally on their own one-eyed interpretation of the law is still murder. And yes, despite your sig, it would make you a crackpot.

Assuming you and the GP are correct and the Attorney General is indeed breaking the law, he is still entitled to a fair trial in which to tell his side of the story to a jury of his peers.

Re:Enforce the Constitution - aim gun

[fugue]

I agree--mostly. Gun to the head of anyone who allowed wiretaps, right from the assholes who gave the orders all the way down to the techs who implemented it. And YES to raising taxes and cutting spending--with one small caveat.

The small caveat is that Obama came to power as our economy was crumbling due to many decades of bad decisions, and the theory--crazy though it was--was that if the government encouraged lots of Americans to buy lots of American products (some of them even involving smart investment in energy-saving technology like insulation), then the economists would see GDP figures that they liked. The Bush plan, in contrast, was to enrich a bunch of his friends at the expense of the rest of the country and world, and blow up many billions of dollars' worth of expensive electronics and munitions in a foreign country in order to secure our future as The Country Whose Whole Economy Is Based On A Resource That We Don't Have (and that would destroy us if we did have it, anyway).

Obama's plan worked a little bit, anyway. GDP is up and the growth looks like it's attributable to the stimulus money (says yesterday's The Atlantic). Unemployment is not down, so his plan wasn't really a huge success (education incentives and the end of the Gag Rule will take quite a few more years to do any good). I think that as soon as we prop up failing businesses like GM we have strayed idiotically far from capitalism (and this from a confirmed socialist Canadian) but when you get right down to it, Obama had an impossible problem to solve, and he's making mistakes but at least he's trying.

Assuming we need to rebuild our economy from scratch (not completely unreasonable since it's a pyramid scheme at the moment), is Obama going about it the right way? Not really, but a little bit. Bush was the exact opposite--a total sell-out to deregulation- and hate-mongers, completely and proudly ignorant of history and science.

One area that our government needs to spend more on is regulating the industries and individuals that destroy the commons. Just as someone needs to enforce the Constitution, so also someone needs to ensure that I don't get rich by destroying common resources, like air, water, topsoil, etc. Cutting spending here will exacerbate a problem we've known about for quite a few hundreds of years, and it's rather shocking that Americans are still even more primitive here than the quality of our bread and cheese would suggest. If we prop up the economy by allowing industry to dump toxic manufacturing byproducts into the water table or the air, etc, then we all die. Yay economy? Why is this not considered a matter of National Security? Why don't we have restrictions on SUVs? Why does the EPA have so little power?

Ultimately, I suppose it's a good time to start learning Chinese.

Re:Enforce the Constitution - aim gun

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

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.

Unfortunately, this wouldn't really work. The US can't afford to turn a blind eye to attacks on its own soil. International relations can be ruthless. Simultaneously controlling much of the world's power and other assets, while appearing weak and refusing to retaliate to direct attacks, is a suicidal combination. You're just opening yourself up for other attacks and threats of attacks.

I know that war was (is and always has been) an ugly option, but it was far less ugly than not retaliating at all.

Re:Enforce the Constitution - aim gun

[Runaway1956]

"We're never going to be able to pay that off"

Neither party has any desire whatsoever to either pay it off, or face responsibility for incurring the debt. The fools running Washington went to the same schools, and sat in front of the same professors as the batch of fools who ran Wall Street into the ground.

Responsibility is the least likely lesson to be taught to any student in America today.

Re:Enforce the Constitution - aim gun

[AndersOSU]

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.

Re:Enforce the Constitution - aim gun

[Uberbah]

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.

Re:Enforce the Constitution - aim gun

[dcw3]

Or... you could just wait for Bin Laden to get old and die. Problem solved.

If you believe that Bin Laden's death would solve the problem, you're delusional. Knocking off a figurehead isn't going to bring the organization to it's knees. Oh wait, don't we have peace in Lebanon now that the PLO is gone and Arafat dead, right? Iran isn't a threat now that Ayatollah Khomeini is dead, right? How about North Korea with Kim Il-sung dead...damn, it's Kim Jong-il now.

Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion

[NoYob]

Sometimes, I don't even know why we the people even bother voting these days.

There's a Republican in upstate New York who's probably going to lose because she's not "conservative" enough. She's pro-gun - good thing in my government conservative book because it's a Constitutional (Second Amendment) issue and the other things have no business being regulated by the Government. But the 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. Oh, and they're also the ones who think invading a country for oil is defending our country. What I mean is that politicians have to pander to those people to get elected and those people are ones who are controlling that side of the government.

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.

There's no room for moderates or rational people in American Politics.

Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the "invading for oil", that gets me as that is actually a reasonable posture. It's the "we are nice guys and are invading to help them" while we are invading for oil, other resources or staging points for attacking other countries, that gets me. If we want to be bastards we should be honest about it.

Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion

[Abcd1234]

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.

Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion

[DaHat]

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.

Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion

[DaHat]

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

... says the man who accuses another of using "incendiary rhetoric" while claiming I suddenly now have "zero credibility" without naming specifics. Or are we all to know not only where this magical power of yours to declare ones credibility as zeroed out and its underlying basis?

FYI: I refuse to use the poll tested terms of 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life'... I could use 'incendiary rhetoric' and call the opponents of given views 'anti-choice' and 'anti-life' as both sides tend to do about each other... however I've never been a big fan of framing words used in politics... so I call it what it is. Abortion. Those who are in favor of easy access to it, are pro-abortion, those who are against easy access to it are anti-abortion.

Remember... most people passionate about this issue are in favor of both choice, and life... it's just abortion they can't agree on.

I know... so hate filled and incendiary of me.

Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion

[ScentCone]

OTOH, the corporatists must be *loving* it.

Why? Because they're being more regulated, more taxed, more taken over by the government? Because they're dealing now with banks run by the government? Because the government wants to tell them how they can use their communication networks, or whether their employees are allowed to have an anonymous vote in the presence of labor union thugs? Oh, yeah, they're loving it. Sure.

Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion

[Chris Burke]

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.

Well that's the thing, most Americans can't and don't distinguish between communism and socialism, which is why when he said socialism has never worked before, I'm certain in his head he was thinking of the USSR and Eastern Europe during the Cold War.

I think it was during the 50s McCarthyism when Socialism somehow got equated to Communism. So while Western Europe et. al. were implementing rational socialist policies while still resisting the Soviets, we had to reject all of these things as somehow being equal to what our enemy was doing... even though they aren't...

The funny thing is that since both McCarthyism and the Cold War are long gone, you'd sound pretty silly accusing someone of being a communist. First because almost nobody really is, and second because it's considered a non-threat in this day and age, like accusing someone of being a British sympathizer it has no weight. Socialism still retains it's swear-word status, and since it's still alive and well in the world, it still retains its weight as a threat and thus insult -- at least if you don't distinguish between it and communism.

Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion

[shutdown -p now]

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).

Change? What change?

[Jay Maynard]

For all of the howling the Obamessiah's followers made during the campaign about how evil Bush's policies were, he's sure continuing a lot of them that he originally pledged to do away with. Of course, nobody would DARE admit that maybe, just maybe, Bush was right...

Re:Change? What change?

[davmoo]

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.

Re:Change? What change?

[Maxmin]

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.

Re:Change? What change?

[BitZtream]

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

Tell that to our founders and the souls lost in the revolutionary and civil wars.

Its a hard slope to climb, and it is very costly, but its not impossible. They need us (the people) more than we need them. There is no them without us, and there will always be an us, with or without them.

The real problem is, regardless of the bitching, and moaning, and whining, its really not bad enough to warrent such actions at this point. The general population is rather content with the current state of things. Even with all of the 'OMG BAD ECONOMY' and 'OMG WARRENTLESS WIRETAPS' and other silly things like 'OMG DMCA/COPYRIGHT/RIAA/MPAA', its still really not that bad. At least, not bad enough to make enough people get off their asses and do something about.

Ethiopia is bad. Somalia is bad, Sri Lanka is bad. Afghanistan is bad. Iraq is bad. We're sitting pretty really. We may VERY QUICKLY end up as bad as one of those, but until Americans are actually suffering, we're not going to do shit about it. And by suffering I mean things like actually starving to death and other real issues. Not the 'I can't get a job doing what I want to do so I'm going to collect unemployement and ignore the help wanted signs at the retail stores and fast food chains' bad that we are currently calling a 'horrible situation'.

Well what is happening in New York is giving me

[Shivetya]

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.

A point about surveillance

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no political ideology or form of government that is not, on the face of it, well served by surveillance. Consequently, everyone will do it if they can. Anyone who sees surveillance as evil but a group of politicians as good should note this, because you will be sorely disappointed when your good people do evil. This applies in Europe as much as in the US.

I'd love to see examples of a significant withdrawal of surveillance anywhere in history that did not result from a revolution.

Federal Rules of Procedure

[malx]

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.'"

Would any (real) lawyers on Slashdot care to comment on how the Federal Rules of Procedure regard ex parte communications between the respondent and the judge, held secret from the plaintiff?

Re:Figures

[MasseKid]

Umm... This week by beating innocent civilains I have caught 5 MAJOR terroist plans. Just trust me on this one. How can you possibly take an unverifiable statement made by a party that serves that party's interest at face value?

Re:Am I the only one?

[dkleinsc]

He's a smart guy, he now has all the information possible

No he doesn't: he simply wouldn't have the time to process it. The information he now has is whatever the various TLAs (CIA, FBI, NSA, etc) are giving him about their activities. These agencies have been known to lie to Congress, and I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find out they were lying to the president as well. Heck, in the CIA's case there was a recent spat in which the director found out about a longstanding program for the first time and immediately shut it down, which might have motivated the agents who were doing things they shouldn't have been to hide their programs from their own agency director.

What the Constitution says

[Simetrical]

Okay, I know this post probably won't get modded up too high, given Slashdot libertarian groupthink, but: the Constitution doesn't say warrantless wiretapping is illegal. Let's take a look at the text of the Fourth Amendment:

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.

This only says that searches must be "reasonable". It does not say "no search whatsoever can occur without a warrant". It mentions warrants, but doesn't say when exactly they're required. So, it's as legitimate an opinion as any to say that the government should have to get warrants for all domestic wiretapping, sure. But the Constitution doesn't say that.

Court precedent (based partly on the Constitution) might say that warrantless wiretapping is illegal, of course. Or it might not. There's no decision on the matter that hasn't been overruled, so it's an open question. I imagine, however, that most of the people calling warrantless wiretapping illegal and, e.g., advocating (+4 Insightful) assassination of the attorney general, are not lawyers and aren't really qualified to have an opinion on what the legal precedent implies.

So, might I request that we all make it clear what our personal opinions are, but don't claim support of the Constitution if it doesn't actually say anything clear on the issue?

Non-Retaliation?

[DesScorp]

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'm at a loss for words. Would you have advised that we ignored Pearl Harbor? That if we just grieved and then ignored it, that was acceptable policy? That Japan would have went "Oh look, those Americans aren't a threat to our interests after all. Let's give them a wide berth from now on"?

I can think of no worse policy for national security than ignoring a major attack and then going "La La, we don't care, we're just going to keep on living". You just sent a message to every nation in the world that your country can be attacked with impunity, and no consequences will come of it.

AT&T's new Secret Circle of Friends plan!

[vaporland]

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.

Hey, is this a new calling plan from AT&T: Secret Circle of Friends?

In cooperation with the NSA and the FISA court, AT&T offers the new Secret Circle of Friends calling plan. Place your friends' names on our surveillance list, and all of their calls are monitored for "quality assurance", while you receive credit for "rollover" testimony when you rat them out in a star chamber hearing.

Earn bonus points for entrapping the stupid into terror plots while earning frequent "no-fly" miles that can't be redeemed on any airline!