Keith Olbermann attack Obama on warantless wiretapping

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Nice try, but this article addresses policies that are not in place anymore. In other words, its irrelevant now.

Excuse me? Irrelevant how?

The article I responded to is mostly regarding TSP, which is no longer in place. Therefore, irrelevant.

If it broke the law back then, then it is highly relevant. If there is even a possibility that old policies/actions were illegal, they too are highly relevant.

It's only relevant if past actions were deemed illegal, and are continuing. Fortunately, TSP was put to bed and we have moved forward. So in that sense, its not relevant at all. So far nothing Obama has done has been ruled on, so we cant say for sure. Mostly all we have is a bunch of armchair lawyers (myself included in this case) saying that even the provisions of the change in 2008 are skirting the law. But until its ruled on, we really cant say.

Wrong. If Bush (or anyone in his admin or in the government) ordered actions that were in violation of the (then current) FISA, then those actions are 100% illegal and need to be investigated and prosecuted. FISA is very explicit about this, and says that any breach of FISA is a felony and punishable with prison time. Clear?

Just because the law was changed in 2008 doesn't make previous actions legal all of a sudden. You should know that. Unless you support the unlimited ability for a President to be able to break all of our laws.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Nice try, but this article addresses policies that are not in place anymore. In other words, its irrelevant now.

Excuse me? Irrelevant how?

The article I responded to is mostly regarding TSP, which is no longer in place. Therefore, irrelevant.

If it broke the law back then, then it is highly relevant. If there is even a possibility that old policies/actions were illegal, they too are highly relevant.

It's only relevant if past actions were deemed illegal, and are continuing. Fortunately, TSP was put to bed and we have moved forward. So in that sense, its not relevant at all. So far nothing Obama has done has been ruled on, so we cant say for sure. Mostly all we have is a bunch of armchair lawyers (myself included in this case) saying that even the provisions of the change in 2008 are skirting the law. But until its ruled on, we really cant say.

Wrong. If Bush (or anyone in his admin or in the government) ordered actions that were in violation of the (then current) FISA, then those actions are 100% illegal and need to be investigated and prosecuted. FISA is very explicit about this, and says that any breach of FISA is a felony and punishable with prison time. Clear?

Just because the law was changed in 2008 doesn't make previous actions legal all of a sudden. You should know that. Unless you support the unlimited ability for a President to be able to break all of our laws.

Virtual programs were not addressed in the 30-year old original FISA, hence the majority of the modifications in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

The program in question is the TSP, which was actually not even operated under the authority or judicial oversight of the original FISA -- rather, Bush's administration claimed the power to operate the TSP under the authorities granted a President during war time in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, Executive Order 12333, and USSID 18. And, since no proper judgment by a higher court has been made on the limitations of those powers, or the legality of the TSP specifically, it remains in the "gray areas" everyone keeps discussing.

Get it?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: blackangst1

It's only relevant if past actions were deemed illegal, and are continuing.

U, yo dojn't understand how crimes work. They're relevant if they happened whether or not if they're continuing. Gov. Blagoiavich didn't get a pass because he stopped selling Obama's Senate seat. He had done it, and it was relevant because it was a crime he had committed.

The government doesn't get to choose to violate the law, and then say it's not relevant if they decide to stop violating the law. They hould get punished for violating the law.

And it's not only relevant if it's 'deemed' illlegal. If it was legal, it's relevant, whether or not some corruption of the justice process happens.

I understand. Let me try a third time in different words since apperantly my say what I mean words arent doing it. TSP's actions are irrelevant NOW because those rules were changed in 2008.

This appears to say the same thing as before. I'll try again as well.

Congress makes an action illegal for the president.

Later, the president commits the illegal action.

Later, Congress passes a law saying from now on, the action is legal.

In that scenario, the president has committed a crime, and it's still 'relevant' that he did.

The fact that the action later became legal does not make the committing of the act while illegal, 'legal' or 'irrelevant'.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Congress makes an action illegal for the president.

See, that's where your entire line of thought falls apart. The original FISA may not have been applicable -- as it was severely outdated prior to 2008 -- or even relevant, given the administration's claims of Article II coverage for so many of their actions.

If/when we see a high court rule on the matter, you may end up being proved correct. However, as of now, today, your entire argument fails to take into account any of the actual legal history surrounding the issue, or the lackthereof. You're too busy looking at it as thought the legality is obvious, or factual; when, the truth of the matter is that the actual legality or constitutionality are still complete unknowns...

 

[chucky2]

palehorse, you just don't seem to get it:

Craig, Harvbot, etc., just don't care. Bush being Satan is so essential to their core being, TSP must be illegal, regardless of the gray area legality of Title II that has never been ruled on. It has to be illegal so as to link Bush in with knowingly authorizing illegal actions....

.....else all the huffing and puffing they've been doing for the past few years looks pretty F'ing stupid - and they obviously couldn't have that, now could they?

"Do you like apples"
'Yeah, I like apples...'
"I got her number...how do you like them apples?"

They just can't be that guy that likes apples...that'd mean they were, gasp, wrong.....

Chuck

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Craig234
Congress makes an action illegal for the president.

See, that's where your entire line of thought falls apart. The original FISA may not have been applicable -- as it was severely outdated prior to 2008 -- or even relevant, given the administration's claims of Article II coverage for so many of their actions.

If/when we see a high court rule on the matter, you may end up being proved correct. However, as of now, today, your entire argument fails to take into account any of the actual legal history surrounding the issue, or the lackthereof. You're too busy looking at it as thought the legality is obvious, or factual; when, the truth of the matter is that the actual legality or constitutionality are still complete unknowns...

I'm so sick of hearing this line of reasoning. Just because the TSP hasn't been ruled illegal by a court doesn't mean that Bush's actions relating to it weren't EXTREMELY likely to be illegal. The overwhelming majority of legal scholarship concerning the issue has come to this conclusion and particularly because it will likely never be ruled on by a court it is not unreasonable to call it illegal. If I kill someone and never go to trial, I'm still a murderer no matter if I'm convicted or not.

The whole 'it was never ruled on, we'll never know, so you can't speak out against it' is just a means by which to deflect valid criticism.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Craig234
Congress makes an action illegal for the president.

See, that's where your entire line of thought falls apart. The original FISA may not have been applicable -- as it was severely outdated prior to 2008 -- or even relevant, given the administration's claims of Article II coverage for so many of their actions.

If/when we see a high court rule on the matter, you may end up being proved correct. However, as of now, today, your entire argument fails to take into account any of the actual legal history surrounding the issue, or the lackthereof. You're too busy looking at it as thought the legality is obvious, or factual; when, the truth of the matter is that the actual legality or constitutionality are still complete unknowns...

No, that's not where anything falls apart.

Where your post above falls apart is in not understanding the topic we're discussing: Blackangst's statement that the 2008 law makes any previous acts irrelevant.

There are all kinds of other topics that can be discussed - the one you are raising on whether the acts were clear violations of FISA (as the federal judges who have ruled on th ematter say they were); on the issue of whether, regardless of the 2008 law, they are unconsditutional (again, as the federal judges said they were); and of course things like the court history, the security needs, the Unitary Presidency theory and Article II powers, etc.

But what this exchange is about is his assertion that the 2008 law, by legalizing the acts, made any violations of the law before that 'irrelevant'.

Now, as for your repeated claim that the existin glaw pre-2008 is somehow unclear on the legality of TSP - you are not in agreement with the federal judges who wrote opinions, not many other experts who have said that the program was a clear violation of existing law. You use the word 'virtual' as the basis for your position, claiming that the existing law did not cover the 'virtual' programs. As I said, the legal experts generaly appear to disagree.

I'ts fine to discus your claim, but let's be clear what my post was about - the issue of when a law *is* clear, that acts committed while illegal are not made 'irrelevant' by the law changing later. My statement how clear it was that the acts were illegal was to speak to that specific point, not to say something about TSP.

I'd say if you do want to discuss that, you shoud first understand why you are not responding to my post above, and then lay out the case more cmpletely - define 'virtual', quote FISA - if you really want to argue decently, go look up expert commentators who disagree with you like Glenn Greenwald or the rulings I linked, and quote and address *their* interpretations of FISA, why they got it wrong in your opinion. Instead, you make essentially a one word argument "virtual" and then expect others to do all the heavy lifting.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
[
I'm so sick of hearing this line of reasoning. Just because the TSP hasn't been ruled illegal by a court doesn't mean that Bush's actions relating to it weren't EXTREMELY likely to be illegal. The overwhelming majority of legal scholarship concerning the issue has come to this conclusion and particularly because it will likely never be ruled on by a court it is not unreasonable to call it illegal. If I kill someone and never go to trial, I'm still a murderer no matter if I'm convicted or not.

The whole 'it was never ruled on, we'll never know, so you can't speak out against it' is just a means by which to deflect valid criticism.

Note how carefully he phrases it - not ruled on by a 'high' court. Thr careful contructin of his phrasing suggests an intent to hide how closely he's skirting the facts, but I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt that it's just a coincidence that the facts are that the judges who *have* ruled - a district court judge, and an appeals court judge - have rules finding the acts clearly illegal. Instead of admitting those facts, he uses that casual phrase which literall matches the facts, barely, but implies a lot more, like no judge has ruled.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: chucky2
palehorse, you just don't seem to get it:

Craig, Harvbot, etc., just don't care. Bush being Satan is so essential to their core being, TSP must be illegal, regardless of the gray area legality of Title II that has never been ruled on. It has to be illegal so as to link Bush in with knowingly authorizing illegal actions....

.....else all the huffing and puffing they've been doing for the past few years looks pretty F'ing stupid - and they obviously couldn't have that, now could they?

"Do you like apples"
'Yeah, I like apples...'
"I got her number...how do you like them apples?"

They just can't be that guy that likes apples...that'd mean they were, gasp, wrong.....

Chuck

Your idiotic theory would not quite explain why I've defended Bush and others on the right when I've felt they were wrongs - but it does explain you are an idiot.

You're doing what's caled projecting. You can't understand our position of actually forming rational opinions, and all you do understand is the sort of idiocy you describe.

You're like the liar who says 'everyone lies', the thief who says 'everyone steals'.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: sandorski
I murdered a guy last week, but won't get Charged, cause I stopped Murdering.

:roll:

Comparing murder, a well-defined crime in the U.S., to the gray areas that exist in the war powers portion of Article II of the Constitution, is flat out f'n ridiculous.

Of course it's fucking ridiculous. Thanks for getting the point. If something Illegal is done, it should be pursued and people should be charged whether they quit doing it or did it with good intentions.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Obama never reversed his position on wiretapping. He never said there would be transparency, he voted consistently for telecom immunity and FISA 2008. He said:

Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill [FISA 2008], and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

He never ever advocated the illegal wiretapping of Americans, and yet recognizes that there are extenuating circumstances where Americans who seek to harm us with International help will have to be wiretapped without a warrant. There is no way around it, a court has ruled this, Congress has agreed with majority. Furthermore, I applaud his DoJ for NOT providing transparency in the Jewel v NSA case. Why the fck should the NSA divulge state secrets and give terr0rists the upper hand? That's stupid, and Olbermann/Greenwald are morons who would probably give away classified documents on NSA ops just to see Bush and co go to prison. They need to take the blinders off and realize that nothing good can come out of publically revealing still classified NSA information. Nobody I know has this point of view except extremists, uninformed idiots, or mentally unstable hospital patients.

I don't know why you claim to discuss Obama's reversing himself, when you don't quote the relevant information, such as his pledge to oppose immunity for telecom execs.

Something else our monitoring-friendly posters have ignored while they repeats the mantra about the 2008 bill, is that the acts done before that bill weren't yet legal.

Is there some new ex post facto immunity that says that you can break the law, as long as the acts are later made legal?

You complain that I didn't provide quotes of Obama's pledge to oppose immunity for telecom execs and then fail to provide them. Sure, I believe you. Post what he said or don't post at all.

Regarding your last 2 sentences: You're beating a dead horse. Nobody ever said TSP was legal. If you're talking about telecom's actions their actions may have been questionable at the time due to the grey area with digital data regarding old FISA, but that was explained numerous times in this thread and others. Keep up and stop macroing responses like "they broke the law then and that means it's still illegal and they should be prosecuted even though it's legal now!".

Last, you failed to address the main crux of the issue which your heroes Greenwald/Olbermann keep touting as talking points: the secret doctrine. Do you agree with what I said above? Or would you rather have classified information exposed publically for a stupid witch hunt of the past admin?

IMO I think they should preside over the Jewel v NSA case in the FISC court secretly. Nothing classified is uncovered publically but it's still ruled on. How hard would that be? If information is a threat to national security, then rule on it in a classified court would be my solution. People settle privately all the time, and I don't see why this would be any different.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm so sick of hearing this line of reasoning. Just because the TSP hasn't been ruled illegal by a court doesn't mean that Bush's actions relating to it weren't EXTREMELY likely to be illegal. The overwhelming majority of legal scholarship concerning the issue has come to this conclusion and particularly because it will likely never be ruled on by a court it is not unreasonable to call it illegal.

I bolded your most important word for you.

If I kill someone and never go to trial, I'm still a murderer no matter if I'm convicted or not.

Ever heard of Self-defense? There are justifiable exceptions to every rule. That may or may not be the case with the TSP, but that's kinda the whole point.

The whole 'it was never ruled on, we'll never know, so you can't speak out against it' is just a means by which to deflect valid criticism.

I never said that you can't speak out against it. I did say that I personally believe it was unconstitutional.

All we have are opinions.

Originally posted by: Craig234
But what this exchange is about is his assertion that the 2008 law, by legalizing the acts, made any violations of the law before that 'irrelevant'.

What "acts," specifically? Which program(s), specifically?

Stop lumping each and every "act" -- program -- together. It is completely unacceptable to discuss their merits or legality collectively.

Now, as for your repeated claim that the existin glaw pre-2008 is somehow unclear on the legality of TSP - you are not in agreement with the federal judges who wrote opinions, not many other experts who have said that the program was a clear violation of existing law. You use the word 'virtual' as the basis for your position, claiming that the existing law did not cover the 'virtual' programs. As I said, the legal experts generaly appear to disagree.

Which "Federal" rulings do you keep referring to? The lowly district court ruling that was later dismissed on standing is the only such case that I'm aware of; so, you better have some super secret case stuffed somewhere in your back pocket, because that one ain't gonna cut it -- and neither is your collection of so-called "experts," with their expert opinion.

Until such a time that a higher Federal court rules on the matter, definitively, then I'm sorry, the TSP will forever remain in legal limbo, regardless of your or my opinions on the subject -- which, I hope you realize, are actually the same.

bah, forget it. It's like beating my head against a dense brick wall...

 

[daniel49]

does this mean Obermans leg has quit tingling for 30 seconds?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Nice try, but this article addresses policies that are not in place anymore. In other words, its irrelevant now.

Excuse me? Irrelevant how?

The article I responded to is mostly regarding TSP, which is no longer in place. Therefore, irrelevant.

If it broke the law back then, then it is highly relevant. If there is even a possibility that old policies/actions were illegal, they too are highly relevant.

It's only relevant if past actions were deemed illegal, and are continuing. Fortunately, TSP was put to bed and we have moved forward. So in that sense, its not relevant at all. So far nothing Obama has done has been ruled on, so we cant say for sure. Mostly all we have is a bunch of armchair lawyers (myself included in this case) saying that even the provisions of the change in 2008 are skirting the law. But until its ruled on, we really cant say.

Wrong. If Bush (or anyone in his admin or in the government) ordered actions that were in violation of the (then current) FISA, then those actions are 100% illegal and need to be investigated and prosecuted. FISA is very explicit about this, and says that any breach of FISA is a felony and punishable with prison time. Clear?

Just because the law was changed in 2008 doesn't make previous actions legal all of a sudden. You should know that. Unless you support the unlimited ability for a President to be able to break all of our laws.

Uh, Im not disagreeing with you....

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: blackangst1

It's only relevant if past actions were deemed illegal, and are continuing.

U, yo dojn't understand how crimes work. They're relevant if they happened whether or not if they're continuing. Gov. Blagoiavich didn't get a pass because he stopped selling Obama's Senate seat. He had done it, and it was relevant because it was a crime he had committed.

The government doesn't get to choose to violate the law, and then say it's not relevant if they decide to stop violating the law. They hould get punished for violating the law.

And it's not only relevant if it's 'deemed' illlegal. If it was legal, it's relevant, whether or not some corruption of the justice process happens.

I understand. Let me try a third time in different words since apperantly my say what I mean words arent doing it. TSP's actions are irrelevant NOW because those rules were changed in 2008.

This appears to say the same thing as before. I'll try again as well.

Congress makes an action illegal for the president.

Later, the president commits the illegal action.

Later, Congress passes a law saying from now on, the action is legal.

In that scenario, the president has committed a crime, and it's still 'relevant' that he did.

The fact that the action later became legal does not make the committing of the act while illegal, 'legal' or 'irrelevant'.

And I dont disagree with this either. I guess I suck at making my point, so I'll stop trying. Im not disagreeing with you though. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out many times, his actions were not CLEARLY illegal AT THAT TIME, so he wont be prosecuted.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Craig234
Congress makes an action illegal for the president.

See, that's where your entire line of thought falls apart. The original FISA may not have been applicable -- as it was severely outdated prior to 2008 -- or even relevant, given the administration's claims of Article II coverage for so many of their actions.

If/when we see a high court rule on the matter, you may end up being proved correct. However, as of now, today, your entire argument fails to take into account any of the actual legal history surrounding the issue, or the lackthereof. You're too busy looking at it as thought the legality is obvious, or factual; when, the truth of the matter is that the actual legality or constitutionality are still complete unknowns...

I'm so sick of hearing this line of reasoning. Just because the TSP hasn't been ruled illegal by a court doesn't mean that Bush's actions relating to it weren't EXTREMELY likely to be illegal. The overwhelming majority of legal scholarship concerning the issue has come to this conclusion and particularly because it will likely never be ruled on by a court it is not unreasonable to call it illegal. If I kill someone and never go to trial, I'm still a murderer no matter if I'm convicted or not.

The whole 'it was never ruled on, we'll never know, so you can't speak out against it' is just a means by which to deflect valid criticism.

Look. Its black and white. Its legal or its not. If its not ruled on, its presumed to be legal. So until then, we talk till we're blue in the face about it how *might* be, but until then, its all hot air.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: sandorski
I murdered a guy last week, but won't get Charged, cause I stopped Murdering.

:roll:

Comparing murder, a well-defined crime in the U.S., to the gray areas that exist in the war powers portion of Article II of the Constitution, is flat out f'n ridiculous.

Of course it's fucking ridiculous. Thanks for getting the point. If something Illegal is done, it should be pursued and people should be charged whether they quit doing it or did it with good intentions.

Agree. But until its clear whether its legal or not, nothing will happen. Its not because people dont want to prosecute, its that there were so many loopholes in which his actions could be slipped through, they cant. We can quote experts like Greenwald all day long, but there are also experts with differing OPINIONS. Theyre just that-opinions.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: palehorse

bah, forget it. It's like beating my head against a dense brick wall...

Funny, the wall said the same thing.

Originally posted by: Craig234
But what this exchange is about is his assertion that the 2008 law, by legalizing the acts, made any violations of the law before that 'irrelevant'.

What "acts," specifically? Which program(s), specifically?

Stop lumping each and every "act" -- program -- together. It is completely unacceptable to discuss their merits or legality collectively.

You can use TSP for the purposes of discussion. I did not lump 'each and every act' together anywhere - I referred to those that are illegal.

I'm not making a list here - the specific breakdown is not important for my points, if there is any one such act.

Now, as for your repeated claim that the existin glaw pre-2008 is somehow unclear on the legality of TSP - you are not in agreement with the federal judges who wrote opinions, not many other experts who have said that the program was a clear violation of existing law. You use the word 'virtual' as the basis for your position, claiming that the existing law did not cover the 'virtual' programs. As I said, the legal experts generaly appear to disagree.

Which "Federal" rulings do you keep referring to? The lowly district court ruling that was later dismissed on standing is the only such case that I'm aware of; so, you better have some super secret case stuffed somewhere in your back pocket, because that one ain't gonna cut it -- and neither is your collection of so-called "experts," with their expert opinion.

Until such a time that a higher Federal court rules on the matter, definitively, then I'm sorry, the TSP will forever remain in legal limbo, regardless of your or my opinions on the subject -- which, I hope you realize, are actually the same.

As I said, you are creating an arbitrary, excessive barrier for the discussion, exclusing the clear facts for your insistence on a 'high court ruling'.

There's no point in the discussion with someone who is going to refuse to consider the available facts that way.

You have no counter for the district judge's ruling (other than to call the entire federal district court system 'lowly'); even Glenn Greenwald, who agrees with the ruling, had some reasonable critcism of the ruling you are unable to provide, while he agreed with its conclusions; you also have no counter for the appelate judge who also found the acts illegal and unconstitutional.

You say each time how the rulings were not put into effect because of the lack of standing, but that does nothing to change the pertinent issue, the rulings on the program's legality.

I'm not arguing that they had standing. I'm not arguing that the rulings went into effect. So your point has no relevance. I'm saying there's a strong case of the actions being illegal and unconstitutional, based on the expert analysis you dismiss while basically agreeing with it, and even the two rulings I mentioned which you dismiss for not being 'from a high court' and the irrelevancy of standing on the issue of legality and constitutionality.

You have gone, it appears to me, from the 'gray area' position to saying it's your personal opinion that it was unconstitutional, leaving us with little to disagree about, where your trying to keep the hair split rather than just agreeing appears to be nothing more than obstinance. You have pretty much said what I asked, at least in your 'personal opinion', so it seems to me my request was pretty much met. There's a very strong case the acts in question were illegal and unconstitutional, not a 'gray area'.

You did not address my second request to make your case more fully on the issue you have mentioned when you aren't agreeing they were illegal and unconstitutional, regarding the 'virtual' distinction, where I asked you to review the commentary by Greenwald and the court rulings to see how they addressed it, and respond to their points. You just ignored the request, so that part has not been addressed.

I think it's reasonable, with the strong case for illegality, for you to address those points to disagree with all of them, instead of pretending the positions they hold don't exist.

 

[Craig234]

Todays' column by Glenn Greenwald on Obama and secrecy, excellent as always.

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Todays' column by Glenn Greenwald on Obama and secrecy, excellent as always.

Wow, thanks Craig234, good article.:thumbsup:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I'm so sick of hearing this line of reasoning. Just because the TSP hasn't been ruled illegal by a court doesn't mean that Bush's actions relating to it weren't EXTREMELY likely to be illegal. The overwhelming majority of legal scholarship concerning the issue has come to this conclusion and particularly because it will likely never be ruled on by a court it is not unreasonable to call it illegal. If I kill someone and never go to trial, I'm still a murderer no matter if I'm convicted or not.

The whole 'it was never ruled on, we'll never know, so you can't speak out against it' is just a means by which to deflect valid criticism.

Look. Its black and white. Its legal or its not. If its not ruled on, its presumed to be legal. So until then, we talk till we're blue in the face about it how *might* be, but until then, its all hot air.

That's absolutely absurd and you know it. Evolution hasn't been proven and never will be proven, but the evidence overwhelmingly points to it being a fact, so we treat it like one. This case isn't proven, and never will be proven, but the overwhelming majority of legal experts believe it to be illegal. It's okay to speak of things with imperfect knowledge.

Not only that, but this is about something far more important than any one particular murder, this is about the president deciding to purposefully break the law to spy on American citizens. To throw up our hands and say 'I guess we'll never know!' is a betrayal of our duty as citizens.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
This case isn't proven, and never will be proven

there it is.

/thread

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Todays' column by Glenn Greenwald on Obama and secrecy, excellent as always.

Greenwald is all over the place on that one, going from state secrets to Bagram.

All you really need to read by Greenwald is in this article.
Even though I'm not a fan, he explains the State Secrets Protection Act thoroughly and what it hopes to accomplish. It'll be very interesting to follow and see if it makes it through Congress, especially since the White House has declined comment on whether BHO supports it or not.

In essence, you *could* have a court proceeding and omit the classified evidence. But what if the major part of the proceeding is classified? See:

Sec. 4055. Procedures when evidence protected by the state secrets privilege is necessary for adjudication of a claim or counterclaim

`After reviewing all pertinent evidence, privileged and non-privileged, a Federal court may dismiss a claim or counterclaim on the basis of the state secrets privilege only if the court determines that--

`(1) it is impossible to create for privileged material evidence a non-privileged substitute under section 4054(f) that provides a substantially equivalent opportunity to litigate the claim or counterclaim as would that privileged material evidence;

`(2) dismissal of the claim or counterclaim would not harm national security; and

`(3) continuing with litigation of the claim or counterclaim in the absence of the privileged material evidence would substantially impair the ability of a party to pursue a valid defense to the claim or counterclaim.

It will be interesting to see if this passes. My guess is that the DoJ is dismissing most cases now with the State Secrets reason in order to prevent retroactive prosecution. This way, they don't get holding the bad hand and it just goes away before the State Secrets Protection Act passes (or has a good shot to pass). If it passes, then courts will have to preside on whether or not the State Secrets privelage can be applied after reviewing the classified evidence in question vice the current admin (and Bush's) just outright dismissing it by enacting the SS privelage.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Craig234
Todays' column by Glenn Greenwald on Obama and secrecy, excellent as always.

Greenwald is all over the place on that one, going from state secrets to Bagram.

He has to be. Any one part of the column leaves the others unaddressed. Complicated situation.

All you really need to read by Greenwald is in this article.

I disagree and think he has a lot of excellent columns on this, but the one you linked is one of them.

Even though I'm not a fan, he explains the State Secrets Protection Act thoroughly and what it hopes to accomplish. It'll be very interesting to follow and see if it makes it through Congress, especially since the White House has declined comment on whether BHO supports it or not.

I agree. If one commentator is right that his motive is fear of alienating the intelligence community, it's very disappointing. JFK had to learn the same lesson with the Bay of Pigs.

In essence, you *could* have a court proceeding and omit the classified evidence. But what if the major part of the proceeding is classified?

We can't have our justice system gutted by the issue of confidential information. Talk about 'above the law'.

It will be interesting to see if this passes. My guess is that the DoJ is dismissing most cases now with the State Secrets reason in order to prevent retroactive prosecution.

Justice dismissing charges does not prevent them being filed later. Double Jeopardy doesn't kick in until trial begins, as I understand it.