White House Invokes ‘STATE PRIVILEGE’ To HALT Inquiries Into Data Mining

[Segami]

Officials use little-known ‘military and state secrets privilege’ as civil rights lawyers attempt to hold administration to account

The Obama administration is invoking an obscure legal privilege to avoid judicial scrutiny of its secret collection of the communications of potentially millions of Americans. Civil liberties lawyers trying to hold the administration to account through the courts for its surveillance of phone calls and emails of American citizens have been repeatedly stymied by the government’s recourse to the “military and state secrets privilege”. The precedent, rarely used but devastating in its legal impact, allows the government to claim that it cannot be submitted to judicial oversight because to do so it would have to compromise national security.



The government has cited the privilege in two active lawsuits being heard by a federal court in the northern district of California – Virginia v Barack Obama et al, and Carolyn Jewel v the National Security Agency. In both cases, the Obama administration has called for the cases to be dismissed on the grounds that the government’s secret activities must remain secret. The claim comes amid a billowing furore over US surveillance on the mass communications of Americans following disclosures by the Guardian of a massive NSA monitoring programme of Verizon phone records and internet communications.



The director of national intelligence, James Clapper, has written in court filings that “after careful and actual personal consideration of the matter, based upon my own knowledge and information obtained in the course of my official duties, I have determined that the disclosure of certain information would cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States. Thus, as to this information, I formally assert the state secrets privilege.”



The use of the privilege has been personally approved by President Obama and several of the administration’s most senior officials: in addition to Clapper, they include the director of the NSA Keith Alexander and Eric Holder, the attorney general. “The attorney general has personally reviewed and approved the government’s privilege assertion in these cases,” legal documents state. In comments on Friday about the surveillance controversy, Obama insisted that the secret programmes were subjected “not only to congressional oversight but judicial oversight”. He said federal judges were “looking over our shoulders”. But civil liberties lawyers say that the use of the privilege to shut down legal challenges was making a mockery of such “judicial oversight”. Though classified information was shown to judges in camera, the citing of the precedent in the name of national security cowed judges into submission.

cont'



http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/07/white-house-invokes-state-privilege-to-halt-inquiries-into-data-mining/

[BlueStreak]

1. Anybody who thinks Eric Holder doesn't do anything

needs to understand THIS type of stuff is why he is still the AG. He has been doing exactly what Obama wants him to do.

[Segami]

2. Hmm,...sounds familiar.

[BlueStreak]

4. These are not stupid men

When we think of them that way, we completely miss the real picture.

[Segami]

5. I don't think of them as stupid men.

Arriving to point B takes some clever theatrics & misdirection.

[Poll_Blind]

6. I hear ya. I fall into this trap, myself, from time to time. And you're right, it's...

...completely missing the real picture. I will say one thing, though: The reality of the situation causes so much cognitive dissonance, it's like people are being merciful to themselves by just jumping to the "stupid" appellation.

You know what I mean?

PB

[BlueStreak]

7. I am the same way -- all the time, and you are right about cognitive dissonance

The implications of the alternative to "these are stupid men" is extraordinarily distressing. Out minds are genetically wired to not go there.

[byeya]

37. Vile, not stupid, and this is 0bama's system of governance.

[BlueStreak]

65. The assimilation is complete. Bwahahahaha

Has he been sucked into the system or did he just con us all along?

Or I guess there is a third option, that he was always this way and never really covered it up, but we wanted to believe otherwise so much that we refused to see it.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

3. Why did they quickly shut-down the extra scrutiny given TeaBag FREAKS yet want to maintain

massive extra scrutiny to ALL Americans?

These 2 different reactions to a simular problem (extra scrutiny) seem to be not only inconsistant but in the latter's case unconstitutional, so what explains this inconsistant reaction, not to mention this hostile reaction now to the press seeking more information for weTHEpeople, another constitutionally protected entity?

Very strange :shakes-head:

[Coyotl]

69. Can you show when and where there was "extra scrutiny given TeaBag FREAKS"

I know there is "extra scrutiny given TeaBag FREAKS" trolling here, but I assume you refer to something else

[DevonRex]

8. Haha. The Bush Administration used it 23 times in 5 years. Little known? Bullshit.

It's an absolute LIE for them to call it little known. Can't you tell when you're being manipulated?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege

[freshwest]

9. But it feels soooo good.

[DevonRex]

11. It must.

As often as it happens.

[brett_jv]

17. Thanks for pointing this out ...

Last edited Sat Jun 8, 2013, 04:38 AM - Edit history (7)

EVERY story I've read that COULD provide important context such as what you're mentioning here ... does the exact opposite.

As such, IMHO ... (pulling my tin foil firmly into place)

I believe that TPTB are trying to send PBO a clear message ... "OUR people are EVERYWHERE, and we CAN bring you DOWN ... Perhaps you should consider resignation?"

All of this sort of news, coming out all rapid-fire, the way it's been coming out ... I'm sorry, but this doesn't just randomly 'happen'.

Anyone who doesn't see the all-out attempt to bring down the Obama Administration happening in pretty much EVERY remotely mainstream media outlet (the WaPo in particular) ... appears to me to be either clueless, or willfully blind.

Someone with a lot of money, and a lot of power, is trying to take Obama down/get him to resign.

It's freaking obvious as hell to me. People like Greenwald are (probably) just unknowing pawns in this scheme. You think it's a just a coincidence that HE, of ALL PEOPLE ... given his recent, freaked-out 'Fascism is coming'-themed articles ... just HAPPENS to be the one to get the 'secret info', and break this particular story?

I don't think it's a coincidence at ALL. The goal here is to turn Progressives against Obama. It's not enough to get the Freeper-types onboard ... that's already been done, long ago. But get the PROGRESSIVES to turn on Obama as well? Successfully do THAT, and it's game-over for this guy.

That (again, imho) is exactly why the news of this story broke via Greenwald and the Guardian (and more recently, through Gellman and the WaPo). It's now been given the imprimatur to all of us DU-types that it would NEVER have had coming from places like the NY Post and Faux News.

I expect impeachment Articles to hit the House by next month at the latest.

Meanwhile, these exact sorts of leaks will continue as the papers are drafted.

[freshwest]

18. +1,000

[brett_jv]

21. I've edited my post since you replied ...

Hopefully, I haven't changed anything that would make you withdraw your +1000 rating

[freshwest]

22. You did well. There are posts I learned a lot from a long-time DUers. I saved them to read again.

I'm going to PM them to you, since I don't have time to format them and it's so long. See you later, tomorrow whenever.

[byeya]

39. Progressives don't need this to turn against 0bama. There's a myriad of other deceitful

actions by his administration dumping on those whose help was critical for putting him into office.

[Freddie]

34. I totally agree

This has been going on since Bush, nothing has changed. It's part of the great scandal barrage (Benghazi, IRS, etc.) with a very clever turn to get the Left pissed off, and it's working exactly as they want. I'm not 100% fan of everything Obama does but the alternative is beyond frightening.

[LondonReign2]

46. Ah yes, defenses #1 and #3 -- Nothing New/The Republicans are Worse

We hated it when Bush did it, but Obama actually EXPANDING the programs? Invoke defenses #1 and #3 -- This is Old News/Republicans are worse --even though in this case it is clear Obama has enhanced and worsened what Bush left behind.

[uponit7771]

96. Ah yes, ... FUDr meme 4 and 7 obfuscate the point and act like there's no difference between two

[pacalo]

67. This is the first post on the matter that has hooked me.

It's very plausible.

[DevonRex]

85. I totally agree. I've been saying this is an obvious

op for awhile now. Anyone who has paid attention knows it. The leaks to RW media BY RWers in the government are no accident. They were deadly serious - enough to necessitate investigations involving the journalists.

Here's an interview/transcript of Walter Pincus on Andrea Mitchell. He explains the AP leak and the ramifications perfectly. He's the only one who got it right.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/mitchell-reports/52097085/

Timing is everything and it is just too perfect, don't you think? The media is all pissed off at the same time that suddenly faux scandals are popping up here and there. One was even exposed by the woman who did it planting a question in an open forum so she could blurt it out! This, after having denied it to Congress previously. Media storm created.

Nobody is talking about this one. Benghazi. There was a leak. They knew exactly when the Ambassador would be there. They even knew where "there" was. The safe house. That is as serious as it gets. The reason is obvious.

[brett_jv]

87. Thanks for making me feel like I'm maybe not crazy ...

I'm sorry, but the timing of all these 'revelations' lately is just way too 'convenient' for me to chalk up to coincidence.

I'm not HAPPY about this spying, not by any stretch. But ... letting the other side 'win', in the sense that they nail Obama to the cross and impeach him over simply continuing a program put in place by THEIR guy, and that THEY have signed off on repeatedly ... along with all the Faux outrage and ridiculous 'investigations' by the likes of Darrell Issa ... it's just not something I'm prepared to 'stomach'. My head will quite literally explode.

And I'm really getting suspicious that this is where this is all going. If the 'thugs play this right, it could result in far more damage to Democrats than would've been the case had Obama simply lost to RMoney. This could mean 10 years in the friggin wilderness for our Party. This is looking more and more to me like it's part of a grand 'plan' that's being executed here ... and I've little doubt that Rove is behind it.

As pissed as I am about this spying, I'm MORE concerned about the GOP successfully using this information to impeach and remove Obama. There, I said it ... I'm willing to side with MY guy, and MY party ... over pure, dogmatic 'principles'. Everyone on the 'other side' does EXACTLY that. That's why they've won/held power so often over the past 33 years, even though GOP policies SUCK for 99% of Americans. They 'stick together', no matter what. And if we Progressives refuse to do the same thing ... we might as well just not even bother to vote.

It sucks, in many ways, but until we actually have >2 viable political parties, this is the landscape we live in. Lesser of Two Evils is really the best we can presently hope for. And I know who I think fits that bill. There's NO WAY that McCain or RMoney would've disbanded these programs either, nor will Rand Paul or whoever the 'thugs throw at us next.

[Mojorabbit]

93. It makes sense to me that he would get the info

if he were in the media warning of such things and someone out there saw what was happening and had the same fear.

[Twofish]

58. The bush administration is gone.

[sabrina 1]

77. The Bush Administration did an awful that WE disapproved of. Since when did the Bush War Criminals

become our standard to go by? Is that where we are now, 'well Bush did it so ...' Yes we know what he did and we sure didn't work this hard to continue his policies.

[tridim]

102. Crying wolf must be addictive.

Because they do it over and over and over and over and over.

And the GOP loves them for it every time.

[DevonRex]

103. It's getting ridiculous.

People couldn't possibly be like this in their real lives. Can you imagine freaking out over everything all the time?

[Cha]

10. Good, they ain't playin' around..

The director of national intelligence, James Clapper, has written in court filings that “after careful and actual personal consideration of the matter, based upon my own knowledge and information obtained in the course of my official duties, I have determined that the disclosure of certain information would cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States. Thus, as to this information, I formally assert the state secrets privilege.”

I trust the Obama WH more than I trust the whining for everything to be dumped crowd.. like Bradley Manning did. Like Julian Assange published.

[JDPriestly]

13. The people who wrote the Constitution created three

separate branches. They created a system of checks and balances. The system described in the OP gives the president the power of an absolute monarch. He alone can declare information to be of vital national security importance. He alone can shut that information off and protect it from the scrutiny of the courts.

That is not government of the people, by the people and for the people. That is not one person one vote, at least not one person one informed and meaningful vote.

This is a dictatorship, pure and simple. It may not be a dictatorship in all things, but all the president (regardless what his name is) has to do is to declare something to be of national security importance, and he can dictate that we can't know about it. That is nonsense. It wouldn't be nonsense if it were used carefully. But the problem is that Bush and Obama have used this authority too broadly. This needs to be stopped.

I'm not interested in having any particular information, but apparently others are. And they should be able to acquire the information they need.

As I said, this rule makes the president and his security administration into a dictatorship. It violates the highest values of our nation.

[marmar]

14. "this rule makes the president and his security administration into a dictatorship"

And some people are apparently fine with that, at least since the election of 2008. And that's perhaps the most disturbing thing about this whole debate.

[brett_jv]

20. I, for one, am not 'fine with it' ... however, I consider the 'alternative' to be worse ...

To whit, watching the opportunistic GOP shitbags in the House, many of whom not only signed off on this shit all along, but led the cheers for * when he was doing the same stuff ... draft the articles of impeachment against the Black Guy ... for having done the same thing.

And then, whoever 'takes over' after Obama ... and I fully believe these clowns will force a Constitutional Crisis by demanded Biden ALSO be impeached ... will simply continue the exact same programs ... only difference being, that person will keep a lid on the leaks about the fact that it's happening ... much better than Mr Capitulator and Nominator of RW appointees, President Obama.

If there was a possible outcome here that involved this spying actually STOPPING ... I'd be ALL FOR that. However, nothing like that is on the table, nor will it ever BE on the table. The only actual option any of us are going to see is ... the option to remove Obama through Impeachment.

By the likes of Darrell Issa.

You're welcome to jump onto that bandwagon, but I ain't gonna.

[Savannahmann]

43. So to make sure I understand your point.

Since any Republican would be worse, any Democrat can violate any principle, and take any action, and we or at least you personally will not object because the Republicans might gain in prestige.

I on the other hand disagree. I believe both parties suffer when things like this come out. The Republicans voted for it along with our own. Yes it was started under George W. Bush III Jr. and all of that. But we should have shut it down. We should have brought it to a screeching halt. There is no balance between civil rights and security. Constitutional Civil Rights wins every time. We have fought too long, too hard to get them against more powerful forces than just Republican Opportunism.

Can't you see it now? What Moral Authority do we have to argue for GLBT rights when we won't stand up for Civil Rights clearly spelled out in the Constitution for the rest of the population? You think that the opportunism exists for the Republicans, and if we stand stiffly in opposition to them and squarely on the side defending this we will see it first hand. Because this program is indefensible to anyone who calls themselves a Liberal.

[brett_jv]

88. My issue is mostly in the way things are being represented in the Media

Take this very article, where GREAT pains are taken to create the impression in the reader that what is going on here is UNPRECEDENTED. When, in reality, neither the spying program(s), NOR the use of the State Secrets Act, is remotely 'new'. Bush used State Secrets Act over 20 times (pretty sure Sibel Edmonds was a famous example), yet we're being led by the nose into thinking that it's NEW, and RARE, to the point of nefariousness, by this article.

I'm not saying I'm not 100% against the use of the Secrets Act in this way. I Hated it when Bush did it, and I hate it now that Obama is.

But look at the timing, and the way the article is written, esp. the title. This is OLD NEWS, really. It has NOTHING to do with the current Verizon 'data mining' operation ... but it's constructed in way designed to manipulate the casual reader into thinking that the Administration is 'protecting itself' by shutting down investigations into the CURRENT 'scandal'.

As evidence for this, just check out the link right there in the first line, that takes you to the NSA Verizon thing ... and the author does this even though the (oh so rarely used) SSA is ACTUALLY being invoked regarding something TOTALLY DIFFERENT ... a couple of Bush-era court cases ... IOW, the REAL story is about an ongoing act of protecting friggin BUSH!

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that it was, in fact, Bush ... who was the one who originally invoked State Secrets in these Court Cases that the article is referring to. But ... there's NO mention of that ... just a blatant attempt to conflate application of SSA to the Verizon case.

So, my big gripe overall is explained in my responses to one of the sub-threads above ... In a nutshell, I'm starting to strongly believe that we're watching an 'Operation TakeDown Obama' going down right before our eyes. And that it constitutes, basically, an illegal coup.

[ReRe]

16. Bravo, JD

+++++^^^^^^^^^^^^

[tritsofme]

23. If Congress feels a president is abusing power, they have a host of options to check him

Ranging from withholding funding to impeachment. The dictator talk is nonsense.

[Segami]

53. +1000

[marmar]

12. K&R

The defenses of this in various threads range from desperate to humorous to bizarre.......to downright frightening. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.

[Iliyah]

15. Pres O is now a dictator.

Didn't say that when you know who was in office huh?

[LittleBlue]

19. This is becoming surreal

We operate on checks and balances, not unchallenged power.

[unhappycamper]

24. Ben Franklin once said:

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

[Nimajneb Nilknarf]

63. Thank you for remembering.

[FarCenter]

25. The privilege is not obscure; the judges reviewed the documents and agreed with its assertion.

There are judges with security clearances to review these things.

[hamster]

26. People are just trying to make President Obama look bad

He's a great man. The best person to ever hold the office of president and I have his back. The Republicans drove the car into the ditch and now they want the car back. Just because everyone didn't get a horse when President Obama was reelected, some people without the horse are mad about that. Haters gonna hate but I have PRESIDENT OBAMA's back.

[WinkyDink]

29. I'm sure he'll be pleased reading this. Heh.

[hamster]

30. President Obama's got this.

He's an extremely smart guy. He went to Harvard, not Hogwarts. This is chess, not checkers.

[LondonReign2]

47. Wow, blind love. How touching

Unfortuantely its President Obama making President Obama look bad.

[hamster]

48. It's not President Obama's fault

It's because of Bush and congress. That's who's fault this is, not President Obama's. Now more than ever, we need to have his back. The Republicans drove the car into the ditch and now they want the car back.

[LondonReign2]

49. No, it's never Obama's fault

Your agruements are so poor I think you're just trolling, but...

Poor Obama. Nothing is ever his fault. I mean, he's only the President, right? There was NO way for him to NOT expand the spying programs Bush started, amiright? If only he somhow had some power....

[hamster]

52. At least I have President Obama's back.

[Agschmid]

57. Oh you do? I was not sure about that yet...

[Marrah_G]

111. So if the President was against this, you would be too?

Your posts read like a caricature.

[hamster]

54. And another thing...

Everybody knows that the Republicans drove the car into the ditch and now they want the car back. Can't you see that? So you didn't get your pony. Obama's got this. Remember, chess, not checkers.

[LondonReign2]

105. Sweet, more hackneyed tropes

No ponies, and chess.

Aren't you a couple of years late trotting these out?

[Agschmid]

56. Nope wrong.

We can be supportive but blind love is very lemming like... and with you it's very repetitive as well.

Up to 24 already huh?

[hamster]

61. yeah, chippin away.

Support comes in many forms. I'm not afraid to show my support for my President. I haven't seen you defending him too much during this whole ordeal.

[Agschmid]

62. You won't.

I voted for him twice but I do more then blindly follow people and profess my love. I also enjoy other parts of DU such as the lounge and LBN so my posts are often not about Obama.

[hamster]

66. Well thank you

For voting for President Obama twice. I guess that could be construed as having his back. Thank you for having President Obama's back. It's chess, not checkers. President Obama's got this.

[uponit7771]

97. FUDr response 1 and 5; ad hominem condenscending tone and then state Obama is bad person...

...we can tell these tacktics from miles away

[LondonReign2]

106. Wow, your reading comprehension is for shit.

I said Obama is making Obama look bad. You think that is saying Obama is a bad person? Try reading more slowly.

I *am* curious: has Obama ever done anything you haven't reflexively supported? Is there *anything* he could do that you wouldn't reflexively support?

I voted for Obama twice. That doesn't mean I'll support him when he takes a Bush program and manages to make it even worse.

[Blecht]

75. Bravo!

This is the best parody of blind obedience I have seen in a long time.

[Niceguy1]

27. makes me wonder

If there isn't anything that these people won't defend when it comes to Obama...........

Scary...

[WinkyDink]

28. Do all gov't lawyers graduate from the Faust Law School?

[FarCenter]

31. All lawyers graduate from the Faust Law School

If you knew someone was guilty of murder, would you still defend him in court?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. That's why God operates on Grace and not Law.

Cuz the Devil has the best legal team.

[WinkyDink]

38. I thought defense lawyers operated under "DA, DT."

[FarCenter]

74. The defendant may tell or the evidence known to the lawyer may be clear

Lawyers defend people who are guilty as well as innocent.

[treestar]

45. IN law school you do learn about the evidence and other privileges

Even at Harvard. There's attorney/client, priest/penitent, marital confidentiality, doctor/patient, legislative (wait until they find out about that one!). Are you suggesting the state secrets one was made up by some evil law school and never learned at reputable ones? Does it not show up on the bar exam?

[WinkyDink]

80. Never took the bar exam. But I never sold my soul to defend twisted govt policies, either.

[treestar]

81. Then you know nothing about the state secrets privilege?

Just a vague emotion that you don't like it and think the law schools should not teach it?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. So much for the "It's just mundane meta-data" defense.

If all they're logging is who called whom when and for how long and there is no private information then why are they hiding it?

[randome]

35. Maybe because the fewer people who know, the fewer chances someone will leak?

There already is judicial review so why add another layer on top of that?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. Mother Jones is reporting judicial reviewers told them to blow it out their hineys.

Perhaps that is related to this. Perhaps the demand for secrecy is n executive branch-style copping of the 5th.

[FarCenter]

36. Because in the intelligence business, you do not reveal your means and methods

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. We already know the means and methods.

They filed a bogus warrant app that was granted by a Reagan appointee to shakedown Verizon, Google, etc.

[Nimajneb Nilknarf]

40. That sounds strangely... ...familiar.

[treestar]

44. I knew there was going to be a dust up when you found out about the state secrets privilege!

Further, in the Jewel case there is a question of STANDING. OMG!!!!!!

The courts using established legal doctrines! HOW DARE THEY!!!!!

[hamster]

50. President Obama's got this.

It's rope-a-dope. President Obama is roping the dopes. All strategy. Watch and learn.

[Agschmid]

59. So what have you gotten out of your DU...

Experience so far? What do you feel you have added to our community that was missing before? Have you visited the welcome and help forum yet? Have you reviewed the TOS? If you'd like some guidance let me know.

[hamster]

83. I've gotten a chance to show

Last edited Sat Jun 8, 2013, 02:29 PM - Edit history (1)

that I've got President Obama's back. The Republicans drove the car into the ditch and now they want the car back. I used to just read DU and not comment, but lately all these malcontents are ripping President Obama because he's spying on them. Who do they think they are? They're just mad that they didn't get a horse when President Obama was re-elected. The malcontents just don't get it. Always letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Somebody needs to post the picture of President Obama saying like, "I got this" because President Obama's got this. This is chess, not checkers. Thank you for the offer on the guidance. Sincerely appreciated.

[ohheckyeah]

113. Please stop...

if I have to roll my eyes one more time, my head will explode.

[cherokeeprogressive]

73. I've only ever seen fall4anything use those words.

Those EXACT words.

[Puglover]

116. It's ssooooooooooooooooo obvious.

Are you and I the only two folks that see this?

[Faryn Balyncd]

51. nixon

[kenny blankenship]

79. Nixon can only stare in slack jawed wondrous admiration from his fiery niche in Hell

[Coyotl]

55. Bush used it to cover up his own criminal conduct of illegally spying.

Maybe this will draw more attention to Bush Junta crimes.

[Twofish]

64. I'm more concerned about addressing the crimes currently being committed.

[Coyotl]

68. So are the people at the NSA, FBI, DCI, White House, and DU

I assume this is what you are implying

[Twofish]

78. You assume wrong.

[Coyotl]

86. Do you have some "crimes" to report? Please, sir, continue.

This should be interesting.

[Twofish]

91. 18 USC § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

And don't call me Sir.

[Coyotl]

94. And who are you saying is breaking the law, please continue.

[Twofish]

95. The federal government.

[Ian David]

109. If that's the case, don't you think the previous administration should be put on trial as well? n/t

[Ian David]

115. And while Bush was pResident, did you ever express the opinion that he should be impeached? n/t

[Ian David]

108. Your concern is duly noted. n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

60. He couldn't invoke "Executive Privilege"

as that was pretty much a one time shot and Nixon already used it so now it's "military and state secrets privilege." I've seen this movie before.

[LuvLoogie]

70. There is an alternative

There is an alternative to getting all ascared and mad. We are/have been under surveillance since whenever it was possible. We all have elected the government we've got. Inasmuch as some of us try to be super secret rebels in our hidey holes, we act not unlike the bunker monkeys on the right. You want anonymity. Become a grain of sand in the dunes. Or become a computer forensics expert.

Live proudly and openly. Nobody can keep a secret. Their only alternative is to nuke us all. Screw 'em. Don't stay home and sulk. Paint a big "Fuck You!" on your roof top.

Vote for Progressive Lefties in the primaries. And for the Democrat in the general. It's time for the big tug. You're gonna get muddy. Possibly twist a knee and pull a muscle or two.

[TheKentuckian]

71. No thanks, I demand my civil liberties be treated as sacred and to hell with anyone who does not

How about that? Take your phony bullshit with you.

I will never knowing vote for anyone that goes in for this and if I later discover they do then I will drop them like a trillion degree hot potato.

[LuvLoogie]

82. Only one senator voted against the Patriot Act.

That doesn't leave you with a lot of options. You cannot tell me that this was some kind of revelation. The government invented the internet. Do you not think that they were always privy to every one and zero?

That 2 trillion dollars that Rummy says was unaccounted for at the Pentagon? They built a shadow government and have developed microdrones and heat rays beyond which has been officially funded, leaked or fed to the public.

Don't be like the people at the supermarket who peel the ends of the corn to make sure they aren't getting ripped off.

[hootinholler]

72. Ask Sibel Edmonds about that 'little known' thingy. n/t

[morningfog]

76. This Administration is getting more shameful everyday.

[WillyT]

89. K & R !!!

[great white snark]

90. The caps for emphasis is a nice touch. Now all you need is an ominous DA DA DUM sound.

Amateur.

[brett_jv]

92. This article is a joke ...

It's so amazingly disingenuous to use this framing:

The government has cited the privilege in two active lawsuits being
heard by a federal court in the northern district of California –
Virginia v Barack Obama et al, and Carolyn Jewel v the National Security
Agency. In both cases, the Obama administration has called for the
cases to be dismissed on the grounds that the government’s secret
activities must remain secret.

The claim comes amid a billowing furore over US surveillance on the
mass communications of Americans following disclosures by the Guardian
of a massive NSA monitoring programme of Verizon phone records and internet communications.

Actually, no, these 'CLAIMS' they're referring to do NOT (or rather, DID NOT) come 'AMID' any 'billowing furor'.

These 'claims' are from 2007 (made by the Bush Admin) and 2009 (made by the Obama Admin, but it's the Bush Admin being sued for things that happened on their watch).

The whole thing is written to convey the idea that Obama is JUST NOW 'claiming' State Secrets for the Verizon thing, to stop it from being 'looked at' or whatever.

But their evidence for this appears to be that since Obama invoked State Secrets in 2009 to stop a court case involving NSA spying (Jewel), and Bush did the same in 2007 (Shubert) ... he's therefore NOW also making that same claim re: Verizon.

This is just sloppy, sensationalistic journalism. The Guardian should be embarrassed, frankly.

In reality Obama Admin has been trying to declassify as much as possible, so that the public can be re-assured, whilst (presumably and hopefully) still keeping the public 'safe'. They've not invoked State Secrets over Verizon at all (yet).

[uponit7771]

98. ***THIS IS ANOTHER BS FUDR POST*** Link Inside

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2973901

[Autumn]

99. What is FUDR ? That's another one I haven't figured out n/t

[LondonReign2]

107. Apparently it is anyone that doesn't immediately support every action

and policy of the President.

[ProSense]

100. ACLU: DOJ Tells Court It's Reconsidering Secrecy Surrounding Patriot Act's Spying Powers

ACLU: DOJ Tells Court It's Reconsidering Secrecy Surrounding Patriot Act's Spying Powers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022973455

Obama Administration Declassifies Details On “PRISM,” Blasts “Reckless” Media And Leakers.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022972852

Obama administraton releases details on Senate briefings
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022974680

[alarimer]

101. FU, Obama.

I am so done with this guy. Bush II.

[uponit7771]

104. What Bush did was illegal, what did Obama do that was illegal? Regards

[winter is coming]

110. Why not rent a blimp sporting an "Our position is indefensible" sign?

[pnwmom]

112. Do you have a link for when and how they invoked that in the case of this data mining?

Why would they declassify much of this and yet invoke state secrets?