Bush wiretaps ruled illegal

[Lanyap]

I'm in love with that woman...

She is pretty hot for a woman of the left. I think she and Palin need to get together and do tea parties. Maybe some of her smarts will rub off on Palin.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Oh yeah, now that she sees and acknowledges some of the problems of the left, she's crazy. DENIAL - DENIAL - DENIAL. LOL.

Clearly you don't know a great deal about Naomi Wolf, and are thinking with your 'little head'.

Something she would find quite repulsive, by-the-way ....





--

 

[Jhhnn]

Here's a good article by Glenn Greenwald discussing the issues that many of the left have with Obama's continuing surveillance decisions.
New and worse secrecy and immunity claims from the Obama DOJ
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html

I have a question for the Obama supporters who are disappointed that Obama is continuing with this type of surveillance activity. I'm looking for a good, honest, reasonable and logical explanation. I know that's asking a lot from P&N but please try. This does not refer to the legality or constitutionality of the activity but why Obama's administration is defending it. I can come up with only one answer.

I think that the first thing that needs to be understood is that legal briefs, particularly govt legal briefs, often take years to prepare and be reviewed before they're submitted. Just because the Bush DoJ didn't advance this argument doesn't mean it's not their argument in the first place. It's not like there's no continuity at the DoJ.

The next thing that needs to be understood is that the argument is based on the specifics of the Patriot Act, which was in force at the time of the alleged misdeeds. Neither side even approaches the constitutionality of the Act itself. Attempts to amend the act, to remove its most abusive aspects have been thwarted by Republicans for at least another year. Partisans on the Right attack the actions of their own, yet attempt to put it off onto the Obama Admin. Just because the DoJ defends past actions does not mean that they're engaged in them today, either. Anybody claiming that they are doing so is jumping to conclusions.

Had the Act been allowed to lapse, many of the voices now indirectly decrying the abuses of the Bush Admin, putting them off onto the Obama Admin, would likely be raving about how the latter is "Soft on Terrar!"

The real answer is for Republican supporters to pressure their representatives to work for positive changes to the Patriot Act. If that can be done, then the legalistic justifications for abuse will be removed. Until that's done, or the Act is struck down as unconstitutional, the potential for abuse will remain, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office. Republicans in office and the federal bench now act as a rear guard wrt the misdeeds of their former leaders.

While my faith in the Obama Admin is not large, it's greater than I had in the Bush Admin, who were entirely too eager to exploit 9/11 for domestic political gain in any way they could. Expanded surveillance and secrecy were merely part of that, an attempt to grab headlines from apprehension of alleged terrorists rather than an actual defense of the nation.

 

[heyheybooboo]

....

The real answer is for Republican supporters to pressure their representatives to work for positive changes to the Patriot Act.

...

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Not all of the Patriot Act is bad, and Dims are not so foolish as to get pilloried as being in cahoots with bin Laden for attempting to excise the ugly from it. A combination of court rulings and co-operation with the Cons on legislative action can fix it.

And as far as I'm concerned, they can start with 'National Security Letters' (the thought of which should be offensive to ALL Americans).





--

 

[Ozoned]

Which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but you knew that, right?

Right. It does have everything to do with your post that I quoted.

 

[piasabird]

I wonder who Obamma is wire tapping. You know he is doing it!

 

[Jhhnn]

Right. It does have everything to do with your post that I quoted.

Hardly. There's a distinction between what the CIA and the NSA can do domestically and what they can do internationally, always has been... well, except under the Bush Admin.

I suspect that every president from Lincoln forward has authorized extraordinary rendition in other countries. We just didn't know about it. Just the way the espionage game is played. It's not the same as domestic spying, and we both know it.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I hate to actually post some real facts about this, since so many people are in denial about facts, and believe what they want.

Note that this is the third different judge to rule that this is illegal. That's right, the third.

And if you read the ruling and case, Obama's DOJ didn't even offer a real defense, other then basically "we can do what we want, and the law doesn't apply". Not a good way to try and win a court case, when you basically don't' even try and defend what you did.

The FISA specifically says that this is illegal, so legally, it is pretty much an easy case to rule on. Everyone involved knew about FISA, and knowingly broke the law. The only question is does anyone get punished.

I mean, all you people that believe in the law, and tough punishment on crime, you do support punishment, right? FISA clearly says that this is a criminal act and the penalty is 5 years in jail.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I wonder who Obamma is wire tapping. You know he is doing it!

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/04/obama_wiretap_ruling.php

Hope and change or something...

 

[Jhhnn]

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/04/obama_wiretap_ruling.php

Hope and change or something...

Not exactly an unbiased source, CSG.

Here's the NYT take on it-

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/us/politics/02nsa.html?nl=us&emc=politicsemailema4

It's remarkable that the catcalls here towards the Obama Admin are coming from ardent Bush Admin supporters. As the NYT article points out, the Obama DoJ is loathe to prosecute the miscreants in the Bush Admin, or to open them or the govt up to additional lawsuits and discovery motions wrt the scope of Bush Admin domestic surveillance.

So, be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it, and it could put your idols in prison...

 

[bamacre]

I hate to actually post some real facts about this, since so many people are in denial about facts, and believe what they want.

Note that this is the third different judge to rule that this is illegal. That's right, the third.

And if you read the ruling and case, Obama's DOJ didn't even offer a real defense, other then basically "we can do what we want, and the law doesn't apply". Not a good way to try and win a court case, when you basically don't' even try and defend what you did.

The FISA specifically says that this is illegal, so legally, it is pretty much an easy case to rule on. Everyone involved knew about FISA, and knowingly broke the law. The only question is does anyone get punished.

I mean, all you people that believe in the law, and tough punishment on crime, you do support punishment, right? FISA clearly says that this is a criminal act and the penalty is 5 years in jail.

You must have read this, too.

And don't forget the $10,000 fine for each offense.

 

[Lanyap]

You must have read this, too.

And don't forget the $10,000 fine for each offense.

From the HuffPo link in that article. This is why I asked the question earlier and nobody can really answer it yet. My theory is that when Obama and his administration took over and was given the intell on terrorist activities they realized the next big attack is being planned and felt they had to continue the wiretapping to prevent it. It's not about Repubs or DOJ policy. They know they are pissing off a big part of their base but don't really have a choice.

And you know what's still a mystery? The answer to these questions I posed last April: What is motivating Obama's lawyers here? What exactly trumped his promises of transparency and the restoration of the rule of law? It's got to be something big. Is this about not wanting to give up executive power, now that they have it? Is it about protecting Bush-era secrets? Are they terrified of rebellion in the CIA or NSA? Are Justice Department lawyers still somehow under the influence of the old regime?

 

[Jhhnn]

From the HuffPo link in that article. This is why I asked the question earlier and nobody can really answer it yet. My theory is that when Obama and his administration took over and was given the intell on terrorist activities they realized the next big attack is being planned and felt they had to continue the wiretapping to prevent it. It's not about Repubs or DOJ policy. They know they are pissing off a big part of their base but don't really have a choice.

I think you're really, really reaching... and that you somehow believe that bush's illegal activities somehow were of benefit to the nation.

There's no evidence that they were, nor any actual evidence to support your "theory", either...

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

From the HuffPo link in that article. This is why I asked the question earlier and nobody can really answer it yet. My theory is that when Obama and his administration took over and was given the intell on terrorist activities they realized the next big attack is being planned and felt they had to continue the wiretapping to prevent it. It's not about Repubs or DOJ policy. They know they are pissing off a big part of their base but don't really have a choice.

Or, being politicians, once they got into power, said, "cool, now we can do it", and want to use it themselves.

My theory is a bit more realistic, given the proven history of both sides wanting power.