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.'"

19 of 493 comments (clear)

  1. From www.BarackObama.com by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative
    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?

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. 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
    2. Re:From www.BarackObama.com by elfprince13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obama - "Change we can forget about."

    3. 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.

  2. 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.
  3. 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 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. 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.

  5. Let Mr. Holder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    know how you feel:

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

    1. Re:Let Mr. Holder by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Funny

      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 not a crackpot.
  6. 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. 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.

  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.

  10. Re:Rabid issue people - anit gay and abortion by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are