How About A Big Cup Of "CHILL THE FUCK OUT" Regarding Ongoing DOJ Court Cases

[Beetwasher]

There have been numerous threads lately regarding various ongoing lawsuits in federal courts in which it APPEARS that Obama is backing Bush era thinking on various horrendous policies.

Let me clarify some things because people are freaking out over this unnecessarily, IMO, because they don't understand the process of how these things work (DOJ, courts, lawsuits etc.).

First of all, I am not telling you to shut up. Please, by all means, yell loudly, let Obama and Holder know you disagree w/ the positions and motions that these attorney's are filing in these cases. Let him know those policies are unnacceptable. Anyone telling you not to is a douche and you can tell them I said so. However, keep in mind the following:

JUST BECAUSE A DEFENSE ATTORNEY FILES A MOTION IN A LAWSUIT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS THE OFFICIAL POLICY POSITION OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. The attorney is merely conducting a DEFENSE OF HIS CLIENT and TRYING TO WIN HIS CASE. This is what attorneys do.

Let me repeat that because it is a VERY important point:

JUST BECAUSE A DEFENSE ATTORNEY FILES A MOTION IN A LAWSUIT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS THE OFFICIAL POLICY POSITION OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. The attorney is merely conducting a DEFENSE OF HIS CLIENT and TRYING TO WIN HIS CASE. This is what attorneys do.

Now, let's move on to some other important things to keep in mind regarding these ongoing lawsuits against Bushco.

Raise your hands if you are familiar with something called Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Anyone? Here is what the CFR says about DOJ's involvement in lawsuits:

"28 C.F.R. § 50.15, a former federal employee “may be provided representation in civil, criminal and Congressional proceedings in which he is sued, subpoenaed, or charged in his individual capacity when the actions for which representation is requested reasonably appear to have been performed within the scope of the employee’s employment and the Attorney General or his designee determines that providing representation would otherwise be in the interest of the United States.”"

Like it or not, Bushco. scum were Federal employees and deserve representation. When the gov't is sued, and/or it's employees are sued DOJ represents and defends. Accordingly, the attorney will TRY TO WIN HIS CASE. That includes filing motions to have the case dismissed. This is what attorney's do.

In addition, these lawsuits were filed and have been ongoing for SEVERAL YEARS. This Is An ONGOING LEGAL ISSUE and the attorney's involved are ALL BUSH APPOINTEES. Now, I know what you're going to say. You're going to say "Well, why doesn't Holder or Obama fire them?". Fair question. But here's the thing. While US Attorney's serve at the pleasure of the President, they cannot be fired for political purposes OR to INTERFERE OR OBSTRUCT ongoing cases. Get that?

If Obama inserts himself or interferes he would be guilty of politicizing DOJ. The Bush appointed attorney's and their scumbag clients would scream bloody murder that Obama/Holder was OBSTRUCTING THEIR DEFENSE. As much as we might WANT him to do so, Obama WILL NOT POLITICIZE DOJ and OBSTRUCT ongoing cases. He is not Bush. Holder is NOT Gonzalez. They know that it is INAPPROPRIATE for them to do so.

The case needs to work its way through court and their legal arguments NEED TO GET SLAPPED THE FUCK DOWN by the courts. That is HOW you determine that this shit IS ABSOLUTELY illegal and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The court HAS to rule on this.

Finally, these civil trials in no way preclude any possible, eventual CRIMINAL trials. In fact, if the courts rule favorably (from our POV) on these cases, those rulings may in fact HELP in criminal trials.

I would suggest Obama knows what he is doing here. I could be wrong, perhaps he fully intends to keep some of these malignant Bush era policies. I can't be sure. But I do think there is certainly a good case to be made that in fact he is LAYING THE GROUNDWORK FOR COURT RULINGS TO FIND THAT THOSE POLICIES ARE ACTUALLY ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. By having the courts rule against these obnoxious motions by Bush DOJ holdovers, it makes it EASIER to eliminate them AND in addition it can SUPPORT any FUTURE CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS of those involved.

So while it's nice and inflammatory to write "OBAMA's DOJ DEFENDS BUSH POLICY ON TORTURE/WIRETAPPING ETC." and technically accurate, it doesn't give the whole picture and is in fact somewhat misleading. The issue is not as cut and dry as some make it out to be. Reality is rarely black and white, especially when it comes to the workings of the legal system. I think Obama knows what he's doing. Could I be wrong? Sure I can, but so can you.

[billyoc]

1. Technically accurate is misleading?

:rofl:

[Uzybone]

3. You personally provide financial support for the war in Iraq.

technically accurate ain't it.

[billyoc]

9. And not in the slightest bit misleading.

[nvme]

168. thanks for clarifying but to ensure you want the prez to uphold

the constitution rather than continue with BUSH eviscerations than raise hell.thats the link to the prez's work let him know your pissed then tell me how you feel after you let him know.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

[mkultra]

214. well, im not pissed and NO

im cool with giving him some time. Ill wait and see whats hes doing. As far as im concerned, hes done just about everything i have expected so far. The only silly move was the SOS appointment.

Ill show some patience, thanks though.

[barbtries]

283. i'd say it could be pretty misleading

the fact that i financially PAY for the war in iraq might lead some people to believe that i also SUPPORT the actions of my government in waging that war, which could not be farther from the truth.

[mkultra]

4. yes, technicality is always the nugget used to craft disperssions

Thus all lies have a basis in truth.

[Teaser]

83. What the fuck is a "disperssion"?

Dispersion:

1. Also, dispersal. an act, state, or instance of dispersing or of being dispersed.
2. Optics.
a. the variation of the index of refraction of a transparent substance, as glass, with the wavelength of light, with the index of refraction increasing as the wavelength decreases.
b. the separation of white or compound light into its respective colors, as in the formation of a spectrum by a prism.
3. Statistics. the scattering of values of a variable around the mean or median of a distribution.
4. Military. a scattered pattern of hits of bombs dropped under identical conditions or of shots fired from the same gun with the same firing data.
5. Also called disperse system. Physical Chemistry. a system of dispersed particles suspended in a solid, liquid, or gas.
6. (initial capital letter) Diaspora (def. 1).

[mkultra]

134. oh thanks, Aspersions! :)

[JJ]

177. OH, ASPARAGUS

[Beetwasher]

6. Uhh, Yes

n/t

[billyoc]

12. 100% accurate. Obama is claiming Sovereign Immunity.

Chill out my ass.

[Beetwasher]

15. Obama Is Claiming NO SUCH THING

The attorney's in the case filed a motion. That is it. That is NOT a "claim" by Obama. It is a filing by attorney's.

[Windy]

21. You're raining on their ignorance parade beetwasher. They don't want facts.

If they would put some effort in lobbying their representatives to strip the patriot act of those provisions referenced in the motion, they would put their anger to better use.

[billyoc]

24. Where does the buck stop, again?

Those are Obama lawyers and everyone knows it.

[Beetwasher]

25. LOL! Whooosh!!!!

Point of OP goes sailing over your head. :eyes:

"Those are Obama lawyers and everyone knows it."

Really? They were appointed by Bush and defending Bushco. employees and Bushco. decisions and policies.

Obama can't fire them w/out being guilty of obstruction and polticization.

[billyoc]

29. The point of the OP is to defend the indefensible and it is sailing nowhere.

You don't have to fire lawyers to settle a case, Matlock. :eyes:

[Beetwasher]

30. Who Said That's The Only Way To Settle? Not Me, Mr. Hutz

Stick to shoe repair. And no, you can't have the rest of my Orange Julius. :eyes:

[billyoc]

31. "Obama can't fire them w/out being guilty of obstruction and polticization."

That'd be you.

[Beetwasher]

32. So That Means I Think That's The Only Way To Settle????

On what planet? Way to jump to conclusions, Einstein.

I've seen that claim by many here, that Obama should fire the attorney's, so I merely explained he can't.

Any involvement by Obama would be considered Obstruction/politicization.

You also fail to consider that a court ruling on these issues may in fact be a GOOD thing.

How should DOJ settle lawsuits if the defendents involved DON'T WANT TO?

[billyoc]

40. No, it means that's the only method you saw fit to mention, I drew no conclusion.

He "involved" himself when he campaigned against wiretap abuses. Then he stopped talking about it.

All he had to do was affirm that his administration would behave the way he promised it would.

But he didn't, and he'll lose support because of it.

The administration is the defendant, btw, so it should be an easy matter to "want to".

[Beetwasher]

42. You Obviously No Nothing About The Case

There are numerous defendents including individuals.

[billyoc]

45. The only relevant cases are the ones where the US govt is the defendant.

I read the motion.

[Beetwasher]

52. Bullshit

There are several ongoing lawsuits involving the gov't as well as individuls employed by the gov't.

[billyoc]

111. The only relevant lawsuits, i.e., the ones that will cause Obama to lose votes,

are the ones where the US government is the defendant and "Sovereign Immunity" is cited.

[Beetwasher]

112. I See, So YOU Get To Decide What's Relevant?

Got it.

[billyoc]

113. Yes, that's right, I get to decide what's relevant.

[Beetwasher]

114. Glad That's Cleared Up!

Now just make sure Obama pays attention to your decisions. :rofl:

[billyoc]

115. I guarantee he'll pay attention.

[Beetwasher]

117. Oh, Yeah, Sure He Will

:rofl:

[mkultra]

227. go back to pumaville

[billyoc]

320. Get your enemies list sorted out, dumbass.

[JDPriestly]

184. Hm, Beetwasher, no profile.

[Beetwasher]

215. Uhh, What?

I have a profile. Does it not meet your specifications? :shrug:

Since YOU are so interested in profiles, I'm sure you've noticed I have more posts and have been here longer than you. Does that make a difference?

[mkultra]

225. the obama bashers are trying to call your rep into question because you dont have a profile

even though they are too stupid to understand that the DOJ is acting autonomously as its intended. They way Obama to interfere like Bush did because its OK to break the rules if its in their interest.

[Beetwasher]

231. Yeah, Except I DO Have A Profile

So, I don't get it. I guess it's just not up to their snuff. Personally, I could care less. But it is pretty stoopid.

Yeah, I'm a freeper infiltrator doing my damn best to DEFEND Obama! :rofl:

[JDPriestly]

262. No. If does not make a difference.

[Beetwasher]

292. Well I Guess When You've Got Nothing, Then Insinuating I'm A Troll Is Probably

the only thing you can do.

[ProfessorGAC]

277. Beet's Been Here Almost As Long As I Have

And the profile has always been enabled. So, something must have happened recently.

Beetwasher is not a provocateur.
GAC

[HughMoran]

305. You call that an argument?

:wtf:

[JDPriestly]

183. Do you mean "individuals"?

[Beetwasher]

216. Does That Mean You're Engaging In Typo Flames?

How droll. And relevant. :eyes:

[JDPriestly]

181. Traditionally, presidents fire the previous president's political

appointees including attorneys in that category in the Justice Department. In addition, as in any law firm, attorneys can be reassigned and new attorneys can be assigned to their cases. It is a bit soon for that, but Obama could handle attorneys who are not dealing with cases in accordance with ethical standards in that manner.

An attorney has a duty to avoid raising frivolous arguments. If these arguments are deemed frivolous by Holder or others in the Justice Department -- and they could be if they are not in accordance with the current government's view of the law, then these attorneys, it seems to me, could be fired.

The Obama administration could define the scope of employment to exclude illegal activities such as wiretapping that violated FISA or torture. There is nothing unusual about that. The government itself becomes liable for its policy if that policy violates the Constitution. Based on my experience, I think the Obama administration will settle this suit. That is usually what governments do when caught violating the rights of citizens. The conduct of the Bush administration was indefensible with regard to the wiretapping.

[Beetwasher]

217. Point To A SINGLE Instance In Which All USA's Were Replaced W/in Three Months

Go ahead. I'll wait.

[HughMoran]

306. They got nothin'

The arguments against your point are, to put it succinctly, pointless.

[defendandprotect]

145. New presidents are entitled to appoint their own AG's -- all of them--!!!

It is after the initial replacing of the AGs that firings would be looked

at with suspicion -- political reasons or lacking misconduct, etc.


And, Obama invited ALL of Bush's AGs to stay --

51 of them accepted -- !!!

[OnyxCollie]

147. Link, please?

[defendandprotect]

153. Each new president traditionally replaces his predecessor's U.S. AGs ....

Obama Administration Poised To Pick U.S. Attorneys : NPRJan 27, 2009 ... Each new president traditionally replaces his predecessor's U.S. ... Each U.S. attorney is like a local attorney general, ... It's traditional for each president to replace all of the former president's U.S. attorneys. ...
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99881017 -

Again, Obama invited all the Bush AGs to stay -- 51 of them accepted.

Each new president traditionally replaces his predecessor's U.S. attorneys with new appointees. Obama has not yet nominated anyone. But according to sources close to the process, administration staffers have solicited recommendations from some members of Congress about who the new U.S. attorneys will be.

Those recommendations primarily come from the senior Democratic senator in each state. In states where both senators are Republicans, the administration is working with the state's most senior Democrat in the House.

In early January, the Justice Department asked all of President Bush's U.S. attorneys to remain in their posts until further notice. Not all of them chose to stay. There has been a steady exodus over the past several months, as is typical at the end of an administration.

According to the Justice Department, by the time President Obama was inaugurated, only 54 of the 93 U.S. attorneys were Senate-confirmed appointees. The rest were a mix of acting officials and interim appointees.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99881017

[Beetwasher]

219. Point To A SINGLE Instance In Which All USA's Were Replaces W/in Three Months

I'll wait.

[defendandprotect]

269. Where does it say they have to be replaced in three months?

I'll wait.

[Pacifist Patriot]

280. We're three months into the Obama administration.

I think he is comparing the time frame to the same time frame in previous administrations. It's not a deadline, it's a relative comparison. No other president replaced the entire department in this same time frame. For Obama to have done so by now would be unprecedented.

[defendandprotect]

334. As I made clear . . . because the Bush DOJ was so toxic . . .

I would prefer to see them treat this as an emergency --- and move quickly
to overturn the DOJ/AGs...

Almost HALF of the AGs have already left --- and require replacement --

And I think most of these appointments are made by recommendations -- from Congress,
as I recall -- so it's not like Obama has to go out to find and solicit lawyers!

[Beetwasher]

295. You First, You Claim Obama Should Have Done It Already, So YOU Claim It

Show me anyone who's replaced all the USA's in three months as YOU think Obama should have done.

[defendandprotect]

335. Beetwasher . . .

you're showing your fanatacism . . . which is a large part of the tone/attitude of your OP.

Again, as I've said repeatedly, I would like to see Obama move on this immediately because
of the corruption in the overall running of the Bush DOJ. Further, that I would take on
the Bush AGs who were fired. But, before and after Bush, I would be very concerned
about those Bush didn't fire -- i.e., the balance who remained.

Again, if you watched any of the AG hearings, you would understand the negative standards
set by the Bush administration/Monica Goodling for hiring the AGs. Obama's DOJ should have
lawyers who are "loyal" to a people's government, to justice - to the Constitution.

Also, let me recommend this website to you re Olbermann's comments on Obama's embrace
of "sovereign immunity" and Howard Fine's comments to add to Turley's . . .

Glenn Greenwald at --
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

PS: If you want to prove your fanaticism by taking this around again, then I'll be putting
you on ignore.

[Beetwasher]

336. "If you want to prove your fanaticism by taking this around again,"

:rofl:

Back up your bullshit. Show me a single precedent of a Pres. replacing all USA's in three months time. You can't.

Can't take the heat, click ignore. Pathetic. Yes, run away lil doggy!

[defendandprotect]

339. Show me a precedent of a DOJ as corrupted as Bush's . . .

Unfortunately, since you began this thread which I have an interest in . . .
ignore will have to wait.

But I'd suggest to you that you stop the attempted bullying and deal with what
people are actually saying to you about this thread --

which from the beginning of it --

to this ....

Can't take the heat, click ignore. Pathetic. Yes, run away lil doggy!

is mainly based on aggressive declaration and personal attack.

[Beetwasher]

340. LOL! Waahhhh! Obama's Not Doing The Impossible!

And firing every USA right off the bat like I want him too! Wahhh! :eyes:

I've yet to see very many substantive criticisms. I've dealt w/ people on the level they deal w/ me.

When their posts consist of stupid, contentless Obama slams and insinuations that I'm a freeper troll etc., they deserve to be mocked.

[defendandprotect]

342. You're ignoring "substantive criticisms" in favor of personal attack . . .

Try Olberman -- try Howard Fine -- try Turley --

Try Daily Kos . . .

Try moving away from bullying and personal attack --

Here's Glenn Greenwald recapping Olberman -- and the Olbermann videos --
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

[Beetwasher]

345. I've Already Dealt W/ That

See my response to you below. I disagree w/ their OPINIONS on the matter.

That's not to say I don't think Bush's policies were right. They were abhorrible, however, there's no evidence they are being continued or adopted by Obama. This motion to dismiss a lawsuit is NOTHING unexpected and is NOT POLICY. These types of motions to dismiss are quite common.

[defendandprotect]

347. YOU disagree with Olbermann, Howard Fine and Turley . . . .

That's not to say I don't think Bush's policies were right.

Do you realize your Freudian double negative here makes it a positive statement?

And how do YOU or any other average citizen know if the TORTURE has been stopped or not?

What proof is there of that claim?

Thanks for your assurances, but I prefer law over trust in politicians --


Take another look at the Olbermann video --

[Beetwasher]

348. LOL! How Droll, Nitpick My Grammar, That Certainly Makes Your Point!

"And how do YOU or any other average citizen know if the TORTURE has been stopped or not?

What proof is there of that claim?

Thanks for your assurances, but I prefer law over trust in politicians --"

I don't know, but Obama has emphatically stated it has. You don't trust him, that's obvious. After a mere three months, I'm willing to still give him the benefit of the doubt until I see CONVINCING evidence of something. Frankly, there's always been law against torture, and it STILL happened. So, how did your trust in "law" work out for you? :shrug:

We can talk in circles all day if you want, but it's obvious to me that you and others on this thread have an intractable anti-Obama bias and nothing but nothing is going to stop you from slamming him any chance you get. So what else is there to say? I won't convince you, you won't convince me. I'll continue if you'd like, but since you've proven yourself intractable, be prepared for mocking to commence.

[defendandprotect]

350. The point was in the subject title . . .

and the oddity wasn't your "grammar" -- it was your Freudian slip --

Are we hearing again about "a mere three months" . . . ?

Again -- decisions are decisions -- it doesn't matter when they are made -- what
matters is whether they are positive or negative for the nation.
Torture and Wiretapping are negatives.

Obama has also told us that Summers is fixing the economy . . . for whom?

I'll also remind you that the Founders made clear that despite law . . . what we
have always to deal with is "dishonest men."

Dishonest men created this economic disaster by DE-REGULATION and overturning New Deal.
Dishonest men have TORTURED despite law --
Dishonest men have WIRETAPPED despite law --

After you make just law, beware of dishonest men . . .

We can talk in circles all day if you want, but it's obvious to me that you and others on this thread have an intractable anti-Obama bias and nothing but nothing is going to stop you from slamming him any chance you get. So what else is there to say? I won't convince you, you won't convince me. I'll continue if you'd like, but since you've proven yourself intractable, be prepared for mocking to commence.

Again, we have this reversion to the idea that DU'ers are bashing Obama for the fun of it!
Again, deal with the issue, deal with the observations -- and when there is final disagreement
agree to disagree -- don't revert back to puerile comments.

And, I presume you are saying that Olbermann is "intractable," and has an "anti-Obama bias" . .
same for Glenn Greenwald - same for Howard Fine -- same for DAILY KOS -- same for Jonathan Turley -- ?????????????

Back later -- I have other things to do . . .

[Beetwasher]

351. "we have this reversion to the idea that DU'ers are bashing Obama for the fun of it!"

Many are. Is that surprising???

I've always stated, from the beginning I could be wrong in my assessment of the situation(s), but it's NOT as cut and dry as many of the "critics" are making it. It (The EFF suit, my OP if you bothered to read it actually addresses these cases IN GENERAL) is FAR from being the incredible outrage that some, including Turley, are making it out to be, IMO. The motion is in fact QUITE an expected development in a lawsuit of this nature.

I'm quite willing to admit I could be wrong. Are YOU willing to admit YOU could be wrong? I don't see that willingness in many of the so called "critics" in this thread that merely post contentless, derisive crap. They are CERTAIN Obama is essentially "Bought and paid for" and base it on the flimsiest of evidence after three months in office. They see merely what they WANT to see and refuse to consider anything contrary. I've read Turley, I've listened to Olberman, I respect their opinions and disagree. However, I also contend THEY COULD BE RIGHT AND I COULD BE WRONG. I also will STRONGLY defend their right to keep shouting loudly about what they think are grave injustices. More power to them, especially if they turn out to be right.

"and the oddity wasn't your "grammar" -- it was your Freudian slip --"

:rofl: Well, thank you Dr. Freud for your insight! :eyes:

[defendandprotect]

356. Why don't you e-mail Olbermann and Turley and set them straight . . . ???

I'm sure we'd all be thrilled to be wrong in this case -- we'd rejoice!
Because I don't see anyone posting criticism here who is celebrating torture
or wiretapping -- or letting Bush/Cheney off the hook for torture or wiretapping.
What I regularly see is people calling for them to be held accountable . . . for
ALL of it.

I've read Turley, I've listened to Olberman, I respect their opinions and disagree.
However, I also contend THEY COULD BE RIGHT AND I COULD BE WRONG.
I also will STRONGLY defend their right to keep shouting loudly about what they think are grave injustices. More power to them, especially if they turn out to be right.

Then why not also "respect the opinions" of those here at DU - and disagree" . . . . ?

Rather, this OP is an attempt to do the opposite.

Meanwhile, I never imagined there was anyone who hadn't heard of a "Freudian slip" . . .
however . . . no, I didn't invent it!

[Beetwasher]

359. I Do Respect THem, When They Have Content Instead Of Empty Idiocy

n/t

[OnyxCollie]

236. Cool. Thank you.

Now, WTF? With the eight (or nine) US Attorneys being fired, the Shields/Cragan study of Dem prosecutions, and the voter fraud prosecutions, why would they retain those US Attorneys?

Something is very, very wrong here.

[defendandprotect]

271. Absolutely . . .

It would seem to be an area where quick action was required --

Especially if you heard any of the testimony at the hearings --

and unfortunately, I can't think of the name of the young woman who

headed up the AG selections-! Worrisome . . . !

But I'd happily take back the AGs Bush fired -- especially Carol Lam!

And there was a Hispanic young man -- also very impressive!

[OnyxCollie]

276. Monica Goodling.

Yes, she was truly a useful idiot. Kyle Sampson, Bradley Schlozman, and Sara Taylor, all despicable.

Carol Lam was definitely a "problem" for bushco, having nabbed Cunningham, and indicted (the now convicted) Foggo, with Brent Wilkes being convicted in the meantime.

David Iglesias is now a Guantanamo prosecutor.

Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias selected as Gitmo prosecutor.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/21/david-iglesias-new-job/

[defendandprotect]

333. Ah, yes . . . Monica Goodling -- thank you--!!!

Chilling testimony --

I saw only a bit of Carol Lam -- and quite a bit more of David Iglesias --
but that they tried to stand against the Bush corruption was clear.

[JDPriestly]

176. I believe that the Bush administration settled some of the cases

on which they differed in terms of ideology with Clinton. Here is an article published on September 6, 2001 in the N.Y. Times describing the deal between Ashcroft's DOJ and the tobacco companies. It looks like Ashcroft's decision to settle was a strictly ideological and political decision. Republicans love big tobacco. Clinton did not. I'm a Democrat. I agree with Clinton. People should be able to choose to smoke, but the tobacco industry should pay for the externalities associated with their products.


. . . .
Democrats attacked Mr. Ashcroft's decision as an indication that the Bush administration was retreating on the suit as a favor to the tobacco industry, which had contributed heavily to Republicans in last year's elections. In direct contributions to presidential candidates, donors identified in campaign finance reports as connected to tobacco interests favored George W. Bush over Vice President Al Gore by nine to one.

Mr. Ashcroft's decision was a stark shift from the policy of the Clinton administration, which vigorously supported the suit. President Bill Clinton announced the legal action against the tobacco industry in his 1999 State of the Union address, and it had ranked among the Justice Department's top civil litigation priorities.

Filed in September 1999, the lawsuit seeks to recover more than $20 billion in federal health care costs of Medicare patients, veterans and federal employees along with an undetermined amount for what the Justice Department said were fraudulently obtained profits from the sale of tobacco products.

. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/06/us/justice-official-denies-pressure-to-settle-tobacco-suit.html

[Beetwasher]

218. So You Think Obama's DOJ Should Be Like Bush's DOJ?

Got it. What does that say about you?

[defendandprotect]

272. That was a sad ending to the battle with tobacco . . .

And, yes, certainly political ---

Yet, upholding the Constitution would simply be justice --- the right thing to do!

What a disgrace that Ashcroft was ever appointed -- and still in the end they were

even too corrupt for him, it seems!

Glad you mentioned that the money was to go to reimburse Medicare, etc.

[Marie26]

332. That's wrong

It's been pointed out numerous times that Obama has the right (IMO the duty!) to clean house at the DOJ & bring in his own attorneys when his Administration began. Clinton did that. And especially given how corrupt & polticized Bush's DOJ was, that should've been done at once. The fact that Obama asked Bush's attorneys to remain at the DOJ is worrisome. You can't turn around & say, oh, it's just Bush appointees & pretend Obama's not responsible for their actions. If Bush appointees in the DOJ are persuing cases & policies Obama doesn't agree with, he should replace them with his own policy. The fact is, this IS Obama's policy, for better or worse.

[Windy]

19. the government, which includes the administration, has sovereign immunity

UNLESS it can be waived!!! Under the Patriot Act provisions, it cannot be waived.

Oh Jesus, I give up!!!!

Keep on jerkin' that knee if it makes you happy!

[Marie26]

331. Wait a minute

You're seriously backing up the DOJ's asinine argument here? You're saying that there's no way a citizen can sue the government for Constitional violations? That the Executive branch can just decide to violate the First or Fourth Amend. & are immune from suit because they say so? That's a very dangerous precedent to set. Besides which, the U.S. statutory law specifically allows citizens to sue the U.S. gov. for FISA violations. The DOJ is just using some convuluted back-flips to argue that it doesn't apply; which they can do. And liberals can get upset about it if they want to. IMO it's a mistake to act like it's just so obvious that the DOJ is totally right & anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron. I don't think Turley, Greenwald, or the EFF are morons. When Congress passed the telecom immunity, we were assured by many legal experts that suits could still be filed against the U.S. gov. I don't think those people were morons either. The DOJ is wrong from a policy standpoint & IMO from a legal standpoint as well.


§ 2712. Civil actions against the United States

(a) In General.— Any person who is aggrieved by any willful violation of this chapter or of chapter 119 of this title or of sections 106(a), 305(a), or 405(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) may commence an action in United States District Court against the United States to recover money damages. In any such action, if a person who is aggrieved successfully establishes such a violation of this chapter or of chapter 119 of this title or of the above specific provisions of title 50, the Court may assess as damages—
(1) actual damages, but not less than $10,000, whichever amount is greater; and
(2) litigation costs, reasonably incurred.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002712----000-.html

[chimpymustgo]

34. So Jonathan Turley has it ALL WRONG. And you've got it right. Pulleeze.

[Beetwasher]

36. Where Did I Say That?

I said no such thing. In fact, I said I could be wrong. I'm merely discussing OTHER possibilities that some haven't considered.

Did you read the fucking OP??? Yeesh.

[chimpymustgo]

43. Unfortunately, I did waste my time reading your ridiculous rationales. Enough with the 11 dimension

chess.

Constitutional professor Jonathan Turley is upset. And everybody should be. (Thanks to DU'er Hissyspit for the thread below)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x293427

Countdown: Prof. Turley on Obama & Wiretapping - 'Dead Wrong on Unlawful Surveillance' Updated at 12:17 AM

Edited on Tue Apr-07-09 08:55 PM by Hissyspit
Run time: 04:15
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7uomucNU8E

Posted on YouTube: April 07, 2009
By YouTube Member: firedoglake
Views on YouTube: 440

Posted on DU: April 07, 2009
By DU Member: Hissyspit
Views on DU: 1432

MSNBC Countdown w/ KEITH OLBERMANN - 7 April 2009:

KO: The Obama Administration is just wrong on this, right?

TURLEY: I think they are. I think that right now the Bush people are bringing out their 'Mission Accomplished' sign.

- snip -

TURLEY: It is impossible to have a Constitutional right that can never be enforced. And that's what we have here - and it's a terrible moment, I think for many people, but, you can not any longer suggest President Obama is advancing the civil liberties and privacy interests that he promised to advance. This is a terrible roll-back. It's a terrible decision. And the Obama people seem to be arguing that the Bush people were bad people doing bad things, but you know what? It doesn't matter if you say you are a good person doing bad things, you're doing bad things and that what this is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x293427

[Beetwasher]

47. I'm Glad Turley Is Speaking Out About This

And I agree, that the defense motion is wrong-footed. But it ain't policy.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/8/717799/-DOJ-and-the-FISA-Lawsuit:-The-Lawyers-are-Doing-Their-Job

[Marie26]

323. Sure it is

It's perfectly in line w/the DOJ policy of refusing to prosecute Bush & co. for the illegal wiretapping, protecting Rove from prosecution, & generally aiding in the coverup of any Bush Ad. crimes.

“Declining Justice: DOJ Lets Statute Run On Bush Criminality” -

On March 10, 2009 Emptywheel noted that the five year statute of limitation on the initial criminal wiretapping acts by the Bush/Cheney Administration were expiring.....So, the day after the DOJ has let the five year statute for the known underlying criminal acts expire without any action, all the while fighting like rabid dogs to conceal the criminality, the Washington Post and the rest of the media are as silent as a vacuum about the government shirking its duty to the Constitution and citizenry.

Lovely. The national media is asleep at its insipid wheel and there is effectively no Justice Department, only the department of just us.

- http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/03/25/declining-justice-doj-lets-statute-run-on-bush-criminality/


Obama, not Bush, now seeking delay of Rove deposition -
"Former Bush Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove has a new president urging Congress not to force him to testify next week.

President Barack Obama.

In a court brief quietly filed Monday, Michael Hertz, Obama’s acting assistant attorney general, said it was necessary to delay an effort to force Rove to be deposed in a congressional investigation into the firing of nine US Attorneys and the alleged political prosecution of a former Alabama governor.

Hertz said an effort was underway to find a “compromise” for Rove, and requested two weeks to broker a deal before proceeding in court.

mintdollar.com/tag/michael-hertz/


Hertz is the same attorney who wrote the brief in the wiretapping case. So, they're willing to "negotiate" a compromise to protect Rove from congressional investigation, but not willing to "compromise" on the wiretapping case. The common thread here is that the DOJ is acting as a stonewall to prevent *any* investigation of the Executive Branch by Congress or the American people.

[abunlifemin]

180. Noticed your name

What does chimpymustgo mean?

[pnwmom]

58. It certainly can be, when something is taken out of context. n/t

[phleshdef]

2. Oh stop it. You are ruining all the fun for the knee jerk reactors around here.

[ClarkUSA]

353. Never fear... the shit-stirrers will continue their poutrage for the next eight years..

[Windy]

5. Thank you!!!!!!!!!! A bit of SANITY!!!! K&R

There is a fundamental lack of understanding of the legal process in DU.

I also noted in the motion that it was specifically stated that the Terrorist Surveillance Program is no longer in effect...

[annabanana]

7. Thank you.

There seems to be a lot of confusion and this helps clear things up.

[elleng]

8. Thank you Thank you Thank you!!!

Are the beets washed?

Is the borscht ready?

:fistbump:

[bigmonkey]

10. I hope you're right about laying the groundwork.

I've had thoughts along these lines, but I have no specific training in the law, and hence was reluctant to make any statement like yours. I'm looking forward to the slapdown.

[firedupdem]

11. Thank you for this explanation. Another DU'er has been great

in explaining what these motions mean as well. I appreciate your input.

[TBF]

13. Thanks, but all the same I'll stick with Turley since he's the con law expert,

and you are not.

[Phx_Dem]

129. Well, President Obama is a con law expert as well.

He taught Con Law at Harvard.

It sounds like Turley think people should be allowed to sue the government. Why? The illegal practice of wiretapping happened under the previous administration/DOJ and the current administration has discontinued that practice. What do these people want to get from their lawsuit, exactly? I'm guessing money.

[namahage]

131. Actually, he taught at the University of Chicago. He got his JD from Harvard Law.

But as to what they want, they want equitable relief (in this case, to stop using the program and to make a list of and destroy the information collected through the wiretaps) and damages (money).

[Phx_Dem]

139. I stand corrected on a minor point, but the main point is that he taught con law.

They have stopped using the program, as indicated in the legal doc. And, of course, they want money. But they won't be getting any.

[defendandprotect]

146. Wiretapping is Unconstitutional .....and all the FISA laws do violence to Constitution . . .

the on-going arguments are merely about right-wing violence to Constitution --

in our era, i.e., Nixon's wiretapping of everyone in Washington, DC, which is what

brought about the FISA law. In other words, they were too cowardly to say "NO!"

to fake "national security" alibis -- and thus created FISA.

[TBF]

150. This is not about money, but good try. n/t

[TBF]

149. No, people want to find out what the hell Bush/Cheney were up to.

Obama is not just giving the telecoms immunity with his lawsuit (and, yes, that includes monetary damages), he is also granting himself unprecedented power. I'm not comfortable with any president doing that.

[JTFrog]

14. Why do you hate ponies?

Look how sad Pony is that he hasn't been delivered yet.

[LynneSin]

16. If anyone else posted this (like me) I would say "Oh you're just sucking up to Obama"

but Beet, I've known you for years and for you to post this means alot to me because you are not one to support anyone blindly even if they are with the party you align with.

Thank you for posting this!

[Beetwasher]

22. Thanks Lynne!

:hi:

[Sparkly]

17. I don't think the question is whether warrantless wiretaps are illegal.

Seems to me the issue at hand is whether or not citizens can hold the government accountable when such illegal acts occur.

[derby378]

18. Moment of clarity here...

If Obama gets rid of Bush's DoJ appointments, he is in fact de-politicizing the DoJ, which is a thoroughly appropriate thing to do.

[Beetwasher]

20. That's How We May See It

And I expect that over time most if not all of the Bush holdovers will be replaced.

[defendandprotect]

148. Obama had the right as a every new president does to appoint his own AGs . . .

to overturn all the AGs - to accept their resignations.

Obama, however, invited all Bush's AGs to stay -- and 51 of them did!!!

[JJ]

185. invited them to stay "until further notice"

ie until replacements could be chosen.

at least that is what I seem to have read up-thread a bit.

[defendandprotect]

273. Again, given the toxic nature of Bush's DOJ . . ..

I would have hoped that Obama would have overturned them immediately.

Recommendations come to them thru Congress -- this isn't that complicated.



"until replacements could be found."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-md.attorneys09mar09,0,6248126.story

[atreides1]

23. I think you may be wrong

"JUST BECAUSE A DEFENSE ATTORNEY FILES A MOTION IN A LAWSUIT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS THE OFFICIAL POLICY POSITION OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. The attorney is merely conducting a DEFENSE OF HIS CLIENT and TRYING TO WIN HIS CASE. This is what attorneys do."

Now correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't it usually a standard that the defense attorney work with their client when filing a motion in a lawsuit? And doesn't that attorney/client agreement make it "official policy"?


One other thing, how do you know what is or isn't the "OFFICIAL POLICY POSITION OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION"?

If it isn't the official policy then why use a piece of drivel like the "States Secrecy Act", to defend the companies that participated in the "illegal" wiretapping

I believe that the current administration will hide behind most of the drivel you stated, in the hopes that the congress will actually do soemthing about it. But it seems that the members of congress lack the courage to confront this and are taking their cues from the administration which is waiting for congress to make the first move.

In other words, nothing will be done by either the administration or the congress, and we all get to wonder what will happen when someone worse then Bush gets into the White House.

Have a nice day.:)

[Sparkly]

26. Yes, I think it's interesting that people are using this argument at all.

This makes it a question of Obama's personal input vs. the Obama administration. The only difference has to do with Obama the person, which seems to be what a lot of people are concerned about.

The important thing to me is that Obama's administration (whatever his role in the thing is) has argued that citizens may not sue the government for breaches of Constitutional rights. That's nothing personal. Arguments about how personal it is or isn't, concerning Obama himself, are off-track as I see it.

[Beetwasher]

27. Uhh, What?

"Now correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't it usually a standard that the defense attorney work with their client when filing a motion in a lawsuit? And doesn't that attorney/client agreement make it "official policy"?'

You're mistaken. How does a filing in a lawsuit become official policy? :shrug:

The court can dismiss the filing and rule against it.

Look, if you want to use this to club Obama be my guest, it doesn't make what you say true or accurate. You're intepretation of his motives are just as much pure conjecture as anyone elses. You prefer to assign malignant interpretations. I prefer to consider all possibilities.

[Aloha Spirit]

28. I wonder if Katie Couric will dig this deep tonight in the Eric Holder interview

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/07/couricandco/entry4926406.shtml

edit to change Eric holder to Eric Holder.

[rug]

33. I see. They're filing legally untenable arguments for the purpose of losing their case.

Sheer genius. Sheer bullshit.

[Beetwasher]

35. Uhh, No

They want to win their case, so they file whatever motions they think are necessary to do so. They are defending their client.

[rug]

37. Uhh, let me quote an eminent legal scholar.

"The case needs to work its way through court and their legal arguments NEED TO GET SLAPPED THE FUCK DOWN by the courts. That is HOW you determine that this shit IS ABSOLUTELY illegal and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The court HAS to rule on this."

[Beetwasher]

39. That Doesn't Mean The Attorney's WANT TO LOSE

How do you get that?

That is MY opinion. The attorney's are filing their idiotic motions to win their case. I think the courts need to rule on it so there is no question the shit is wrong. I think it's possible that Obama too would like the courts to rule on this so it's VERY FUCKING CLEAR what the law is. That does not mean that the attorneys are TRYING to lose.

[rug]

41. So the Justice Department is filing idiotic motions that are wrong?

Welcome aboard.

[Beetwasher]

44. They Do That All The Time

Especially Bushco. appointed attorneys.

[rug]

46. Someone should tell the President about this.

[Beetwasher]

49. And?

What should he do?

[rug]

51. Yank the motion. Comply with the law.

[Beetwasher]

53. So Obama Should Insert Himself And OBSTRUCT An ONGOING Case?

IOW, he should be like Bush/Gonzalez and politicize the DOJ? Got it. :eyes:

[rug]

55. Considering the DOJ is promoting an unconstitutional position, it's his duty.

That is the difference between an Obama and Bush administration.

[Beetwasher]

59. Obstruction Is Obstruction

It's the COURTS duty to rule on whether it's unconstitutional. Not Obama. Obama is not a Federal Judge.

[rug]

61. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional.

You don't need a judge to rule if you don't do it.

[Beetwasher]

63. Thank You Lionel Hutz!

Obama did nothing unconstitutional, not did the attorney's. Filing a motion is not unconstitutional, it is merely filing a motion. :eyes:

[rug]

67. You're welcome Chief Wiggums.

[Beetwasher]

72. No, I'm Ralph

Back to shoe repair for you!

[phleshdef]

70. Actually, not allowing a client's attorney to file a motion might be closer to unconstitutional.

[Sparkly]

65. Isn't it "politicizing the DOJ" to protect Bush/Gonzo et al?

:shrug:

[Beetwasher]

71. No

Who's "protecting" them? DOJ has to defend the gov't and federal employees. It's their job.

[Sparkly]

73. They do not HAVE to extend sovereign immunity further

Sorry, this is not a case of "We just can't help it."

[Beetwasher]

77. What???

Obama has NO say in what motions the attorney's file. And he SHOULDN'T. The DOJ is supposed to INDEPENDENT from EOP and for good reason. The attorney files motions he thinks will help his client win his case. Period.

[Sparkly]

79. WHAT??

Obama has no say in what motions the attorneys file on HIS BEHALF?!?

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[Beetwasher]

80. Not Just On HIS BEHALF

What part of the fact that this is a case brought agains BUSH's admin. do you not understand? He can't act unilaterally.

WTF are you talking about? Obama is not PERSONALLY being sued here.

[Sparkly]

88. The Bush administration did not file this motion.

BushCo is not named here. Obama and Holder, among others, are named as "government defendants" and this is their motion to dismiss.

[Beetwasher]

91. You Just Proved You Don't Know What You're Talking About

http://www.eff.org/cases/jewel

In Jewel v. NSA, EFF is suing the National Security Agency (NSA) and other government agencies on behalf of AT&T customers to stop the illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records.

Jewel v. NSA is aimed at ending the NSA’s dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans and holding accountable the government officials who illegally authorized it. Evidence in the case includes undisputed documents provided by former AT&T telecommunications technician Mark Klein showing AT&T has routed copies of Internet traffic to a secret room in San Francisco controlled by the NSA.

That same evidence is central to Hepting v. AT&T, a class-action lawsuit filed by EFF in 2006 to stop the telecom giant’s participation in the illegal surveillance program. Earlier this year, Congress passed a law attempting to derail that case by unconstitutionally granting immunity to AT&T and other companies that took part in the dragnet. Hepting v. AT&T is now stalled in federal court while EFF argues with the government over whether the immunity is constitutional and applies in that case — litigation that is likely to continue well into 2009.

In addition to suing the government agencies involved in the domestic dragnet, the lawsuit also targets the individuals responsible for creating, authorizing, and implementing the illegal program, including President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and other individuals who ordered or participated in the warrantless domestic surveillance.

[Sparkly]

93. Sorry, I'm trying to be nice here, but this is the Obama Administration's response.

They are sued in their "official capacity."

[Beetwasher]

95. So What/????

So??? :shrug:

If Obama inserts himself, he would be obstructing EVERYONE's Defense.

In Jewel v. NSA, EFF is suing the National Security Agency (NSA) and other government agencies on behalf of AT&T customers to stop the illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records.

Jewel v. NSA is aimed at ending the NSA’s dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans and holding accountable the government officials who illegally authorized it. Evidence in the case includes undisputed documents provided by former AT&T telecommunications technician Mark Klein showing AT&T has routed copies of Internet traffic to a secret room in San Francisco controlled by the NSA.

That same evidence is central to Hepting v. AT&T, a class-action lawsuit filed by EFF in 2006 to stop the telecom giant’s participation in the illegal surveillance program. Earlier this year, Congress passed a law attempting to derail that case by unconstitutionally granting immunity to AT&T and other companies that took part in the dragnet. Hepting v. AT&T is now stalled in federal court while EFF argues with the government over whether the immunity is constitutional and applies in that case — litigation that is likely to continue well into 2009.

In addition to suing the government agencies involved in the domestic dragnet, the lawsuit also targets the individuals responsible for creating, authorizing, and implementing the illegal program, including President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and other individuals who ordered or participated in the warrantless domestic surveillance.

[Sparkly]

96. This is a suit against the government.

THE GOVERNMENT.

You know, the government of the United States.

[Beetwasher]

97. There Are NUMEROUS Lawsuits

From my op:

"There have been numerous threads lately regarding various ongoing lawsuits in federal courts in which it APPEARS that Obama is backing Bush era thinking on various horrendous policies."

[Sparkly]

100. We are speaking of one motion in one case... Sheesh.

Try something else.

[Beetwasher]

102. Who's "We"?

Read my OP. Carefully.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[Sparkly]

107. I'm going to end this here.

Have fun.

[Beetwasher]

108. Yes, You Should Quit While You're Behind

:hi:

[HughMoran]

309. Good - I'm tired or reading your posts

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[JDPriestly]

197. Why is the DOJ defending Bush, Cheney, et al if they violated the law?

If the chief of police in your town should decide to order his officers to hang a suspect without a trial, do you think that your town should provide the defense for the chief of police and his officers in their trial for murder?

I don't think so. That is because the chief of police abused his authority. He may have believed that he had the authority to order the hanging, but under the law, he did not.

The chief of police is the defender of the law. He is an executive. He does not decide the law. He carries out the law.

Similarly, Bush and Cheney, et al throughout their terms acted as though they were legislators and executives all in one -- as if they could decide the law that they would enforce. In so doing, they abused their authority.

Normally, when a chief of police or officer abuses his authority, the government does not owe him a defense. The defense is only ordered when the employee is acting in accordance with official policy. Here, Bush might argue that he set the policy and followed it although it violated the law. In that case, the government should settle and accept an order requiring it to obey the law.

Obama has stated that no one is above the law. Those of us who disagree with the way that the defense of the wiretapping is being handled want Obama to clarify what he meant by that. I have stated how I think he should handle this case. Holder should settle the case. Settlement is not up to the attorneys. Deciding to settle is the client's prerogative. Here the actual client it the U.S. government, and not Bush or Cheney. So, the U.S. government should settle this by disclosing what happened, making a deal for damages and entering into an agreement prohibiting it from violating FISA in the future. That is my opinion.

This is no different from a case in which local police abuse wiretapping laws in handling a case.

[Beetwasher]

220. Umm, This Is Not A Criminal Trial

It is civil. Violation of LAW are criminal violations. You do know the difference, don't you?

This is about lawsuits, not criminal violations.

[JDPriestly]

263. I believe the plaintiffs are alleging a violation of their constitutional right

to privacy. The government is arguing that, under the theory of sovereign immunity the plaintiffs have no cause of action for violation of their constitutional rights because the government can only be sued by people if it has agreed that it can be sued for the conduct that is alleged. I argued in some of my responses that I do not think that the government should be able to invoke a defense of sovereign immunity in this case because the sovereign powers of the United States are derived from the power of the people and the government's sovereign powers are limited by the Constitution. The Bill of Rights states that the U.S. government does not have the right to search and seize the papers and effects of Americans without a warrant issued upon probable cause. The government cannot claim sovereign immunity to protect conduct that has been specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. Violations of the Constitution are by definition not part of the sovereign power of the U.S. -- at least that is what I would argue.

[Beetwasher]

294. And The Courts Will Decide If Their Argument Is Valid

Obama is not a judge.

Bush thought HE could decide what was constitutional. Look where that lead us. I guess you want Obama to be like Bush?

[phleshdef]

106. Its a financial lawsuit. Do you think Obama shouldn't defend himself from paying for what Bush did?

[JDPriestly]

200. Obama is now defending abuses of power by a former government.

This is inexcusable. Bush, Cheney and the rest acted beyond the scope of their authority in conducting the wiretapping. The wiretapping was illegal and should still be illegal because it is not permitted by the Constitution. The government needs to settle this case and admit the wrongdoing. Of course, as I pointed out above, if the chief of police in your town takes the law into his own hands and orders his deputies and some ordinary citizens to hang a suspect without a trial, there is no defense. The government needs to enter into a settlement agreement and admit what happened. The conduct of the Bush administration in this situation was indefensible. So why waste attorney time on these arguments and motions? There should be a settlement by the current Obama government including an admission of wrongdoing.

[phleshdef]

89. No, Obama, Holder and Dennis Blair ARE NAMED AS THE DEFENDENTS ON THE OFFIAL SUIT DOCUMENTS

CAROLYN JEWEL, TASH HEPTING,
GREGORY HICKS, ERIK KNUTZEN, and
JOICE WALTON,
Plaintiffs,

v.

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY (“NSA”);
KEITH B. ALEXANDER, Director of the NSA;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
BARACK OBAMA, President of the United
States; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE; ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General
of the United States; DENNIS C. BLAIR,
Director of National Intelligence.

http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/jewel/jewelmtdobama.pdf

[Beetwasher]

92. So Are Many Others

In Jewel v. NSA, EFF is suing the National Security Agency (NSA) and other government agencies on behalf of AT&T customers to stop the illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records.

Jewel v. NSA is aimed at ending the NSA’s dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans and holding accountable the government officials who illegally authorized it. Evidence in the case includes undisputed documents provided by former AT&T telecommunications technician Mark Klein showing AT&T has routed copies of Internet traffic to a secret room in San Francisco controlled by the NSA.

That same evidence is central to Hepting v. AT&T, a class-action lawsuit filed by EFF in 2006 to stop the telecom giant’s participation in the illegal surveillance program. Earlier this year, Congress passed a law attempting to derail that case by unconstitutionally granting immunity to AT&T and other companies that took part in the dragnet. Hepting v. AT&T is now stalled in federal court while EFF argues with the government over whether the immunity is constitutional and applies in that case — litigation that is likely to continue well into 2009.

In addition to suing the government agencies involved in the domestic dragnet, the lawsuit also targets the individuals responsible for creating, authorizing, and implementing the illegal program, including President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and other individuals who ordered or participated in the warrantless domestic surveillance.

--file--

Obama can't unilaterally decide for everyone what motions to file.

[phleshdef]

101. The motion is to dismiss charges against the named defendents in their official capacity.

This is a financial lawsuit. Do you seriously think Obama should not defend himself against a lawsuit that would actually make him have to pay money for a spying program he had nothing to do with?

[Beetwasher]

104. No, How Do You Get That?

The problem is there are numerous cases, so I'm not sure which case some people are referring to.

I think there is a lot of confusion that has entered this thread.

I suggest you re-read my OP.

[Autumn]

158. Just a question here. The money

doesn't come out of President Obamas pocket does it? It seems to me he would not have been in office yet when they were spied on.

[JDPriestly]

201. He should admit liability and settle.

[Beetwasher]

221. Who is "he"?

Obama is not PERSONALLY being sued.

[JDPriestly]

261. He is the executive. His appointee decides on this. Obama is in charge

of the eavesdropping program now and can decide what happens in this case. It is up to Obama, not up to Bush and Cheney anymore. This case is Obama's responsibility. The government is being sued. The stance of the government in this lawsuit needs to be consistent with regard to eavesdropping with the stance of the Obama administration.

This is not a case in which Obama has to step aside. This case involves liability that is a potential verdict against the U.S. and the policy of the Obama administration.

[Beetwasher]

293. This Case Is A Lawsuit For Monetary Redress For Actions Taken

During the Bush admin. Unless you claim Obama is currently spying illegally. If you make that claim, prove it.

[Beetwasher]

296. Who's He? Obama? So Obama Should Decide How EVERYONE Named Should Plea?

Really? You think everyone else named will just go along w/ that? :rofl:

Obama can't tell the DOJ what to do in this case as he would be obstructing the defense and politicizing DOJ. That's the point.

[phleshdef]

98. And seriously, do me a favor, calm down and learn something about what is actually happening here...

This motion asks that the president, Holder and Blair (the defendents named) not be charged with anything relating to the suit in their OFFICIAL CAPACITY. In other words, the motion's goal is to legally protect the current administration officials from things they didn't do anyways. It does NOT seek to protect government employees who did things illegal from personal repercussions. If there is solid proof that Bush admin people engaged in something illegal, they can still be personally charged regardless of the outcome of this motion.

The case the DOJ defenders are filing a motion for is a financial lawsuit anyways. It is policy to defend the government from being sued for money. Christ, if every person in the country could sue the government for every wrong its ever done, then the government would go bankrupt in a matter of weeks. That doesn't mean that the people suing for the money in this suit might still not get something out of it.

Read this, its written by an actual government attorney...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/8/717799/-DOJ-and-the-FISA-Lawsuit:-The-Lawyers-are-Doing-Their-Job

[Beetwasher]

99. Uhh, Are You Sure You're Responding To The Right Person??

You're making my point? :shrug:

WM Trials diary is much like my OP.

[phleshdef]

103. I don't even know anymore.

[Beetwasher]

105. Re-Read The OP

People are confusing several cases.

[phleshdef]

109. I think I got you and Sparkly mixed up for a minute. I think we are on the same page now.

[Beetwasher]

110. No Worries!!

It is confusing because there are numerous ongoing lawsuits and numerous filings.

[Beetwasher]

87. From EFF:

http://www.eff.org/cases/jewel

In Jewel v. NSA, EFF is suing the National Security Agency (NSA) and other government agencies on behalf of AT&T customers to stop the illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records.

Jewel v. NSA is aimed at ending the NSA’s dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans and holding accountable the government officials who illegally authorized it. Evidence in the case includes undisputed documents provided by former AT&T telecommunications technician Mark Klein showing AT&T has routed copies of Internet traffic to a secret room in San Francisco controlled by the NSA.

That same evidence is central to Hepting v. AT&T, a class-action lawsuit filed by EFF in 2006 to stop the telecom giant’s participation in the illegal surveillance program. Earlier this year, Congress passed a law attempting to derail that case by unconstitutionally granting immunity to AT&T and other companies that took part in the dragnet. Hepting v. AT&T is now stalled in federal court while EFF argues with the government over whether the immunity is constitutional and applies in that case — litigation that is likely to continue well into 2009.

In addition to suing the government agencies involved in the domestic dragnet, the lawsuit also targets the individuals responsible for creating, authorizing, and implementing the illegal program, including President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and other individuals who ordered or participated in the warrantless domestic surveillance.

Obama cannot unilaterrally speak for all these defendents. They would scream bloody murder that he is obstructing their defense. And, they would be right.

[defendandprotect]

154. Upholding the Constitution is "politicizing the DOJ" . . . ????

[Beetwasher]

222. What Is Unconstitutional About Filing A Motion?

Please explain how filing a motion is unconstitutional.

[defendandprotect]

268. The question is what's Unconstitutional about wiretapping . . .

especially Bush's wiretapping which began SEVEN MONTHS BEFORE 9/11 -- !!

Obama should not in any way be involved in protecting the Bush administration

or preventing damages being claimed by those wiretapped.

[Beetwasher]

311. That's Not The Question In This Trial Though

This is a lawsuit for monetary redress. Attorney's file motions to have them dismissed as a matter of course. This is not a policy decision. It is not defending past abuses. It is merely an attorney filing a motion. One that will almost certainly be denied.

[defendandprotect]

341. The core of the lawsuit is wiretapping ---

Again -- refer to the Olbermann comments - along with Howard Fine and Turley --

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

[Beetwasher]

343. I've Seen That And I Disagree

Yes, that lawsuit relates the wiretapping (re-read my OP, I'm discussing the NUMEROUS lawsuits BTW, not just the EFF suit), but it seeks financial redress and the attorney's are merely doing what any attorney would do. Filing motions to dismiss. It is not as big a deal as some are making it. It is in fact quite an expected development and has NOTHING to do w/ any policy being initiated by Obama. A motion is NOT POLICY.

[defendandprotect]

358. And, here's Sen. Russ Feingold on Obama's DOJ brief . . .

I Am Troubled" Statement of Sen. Russ Feingold on the Obama DOJ's brief

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5427102&mesg_id=5427102

Constitution, freedom and democracy are being suffocated and diminished by
concept of "national security" which is too often hiding illegal and criminal
activity -- and paving the way for more perpetual wars.

[Beetwasher]

360. Good

I'm glad people are watching to make sure Obama doesn't continue POLICY.

A motion to dismiss a lawsuit is NOT POLICY.

[defendandprotect]

361. "assertions of the state secrets privilege" is policy . . .

Posting this for the record, mainly ---

UPDATE: In addition to Roth's TPM article, also very worth reading is this analysis from The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin, who says there "there is something utterly un-American" about Obama's position. As Roth concludes: "That looks like a pretty broad consensus in opposition to the Obama administration's position. And it's the opposite of change we can believe in."


and a lot of interesting material in both of these links . . .

Glenn Greenwald
Thursday April 9, 2009 19:32 EDT
TPM: "Obama Mimics Bush on State Secrets"

Not having Greenwald's training in constitutional law (and perhaps lacking Olbermann's all-conquering self-confidence), we wanted to get a sense from a few independent experts as to how to assess the administration's position on the case. Does it represent a continuation of the Bushies' obsession with putting secrecy and executive power above basic constitutional rights? Is it a sweeping power grab by the executive branch, that sets set a broad and dangerous precedent for future cases by asserting that the government has the right to get lawsuits dismissed merely by claiming that state secrets are at stake, without giving judges any discretion whatsoever?

In a word, yes.

This controversy is clearly growing, as well it should. These radical theories were not ancillary to the liberal critique of Bush/Cheney lawlessness but central to it. Last night on CBS News, Katie Couric repeatedly asked Eric Holder about this issue, and -- as The Washington Independent's Daphne Evitar noted --

Holder was forced to say that he has reviewed the cases where the Obama administration invoked "state secrets" and agreed with virtually everything the Bush administration did in those cases with regard to that doctrine, making clear (as Evitar put it) "that the Obama administration is unlikely to depart dramatically from the Bush administration’s position on the use of the state secrets privilege."

The Bush administration's use of the "state secrets" privilege was the linchpin of its efforts to shield its criminality from judicial review and -- as Democrats, progressives and other Bush critics repeatedly argued -- was one of the principal prongs of its lawlessness and radicalism. Yet here is the Obama administration doing exactly the same thing and now admitting that they intend to continue to do so. Relatedly, Jim White digs up some election year Obama quotes to underscore what a betrayal of Obama's constant commitments these actions are.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/09/tpm/index.html


AND . . .
Glenn Greenwald
Saturday April 11, 2009 08:41 EDT
Obama and habeas corpus -- then and now

“Though he has made many promises regarding the need for our country to rejoin the world community of nations, by filing this appeal, President Obama has taken on the defense of one of the Bush administration’s unlawful policies founded on nothing more than the idea that might makes right,” she said.

Back in February, the Obama administration shocked many civil libertarians by filing a brief in federal court that, in two sentences, declared that it embraced the most extremist Bush theory on this issue -- the Obama DOJ argued, as The New York Times's Charlie Savage put it, "that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team." Remember: these are not prisoners captured in Afghanistan on a battlefield. Many of them have nothing to do with Afghanistan and were captured far, far away from that country -- abducted from their homes and workplaces -- and then flown to Bagram to be imprisoned. Indeed, the Bagram detainees in the particular case in which the Obama DOJ filed its brief were Yemenis and Tunisians captured outside of Afghanistan (in Thailand or the UAE, for instance) and then flown to Bagram and locked away there as much as six years without any charges. That is what the Obama DOJ defended, and they argued that those individuals can be imprisoned indefinitely with no rights of any kind -- as long as they are kept in Bagram rather than Guantanamo.

Last month, a federal judge emphatically rejected the Bush/Obama position and held that the rationale of Boudemiene applies every bit as much to Bagram as it does to Guantanamo. Notably, the district judge who so ruled -- John Bates -- is an appointee of George W. Bush, a former Whitewater prosecutor, and a very pro-executive-power judge. In his decision (.pdf), Judge Bates made clear how identical are the constitutional rights of detainees flown to Guantanamo and Bagram and underscored how dangerous is the Bush/Obama claim that the President has the right to abduct people from around the world and imprison them at Bagram with no due process of any kind

more . .
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/11/bagram/index.html

[Qutzupalotl]

64. It might be the case that Obama believes

that meritorious arguments will win out in court and spurious ones will lose, and therefore he has no cause to insert himself in ongoing cases.

[Sparkly]

68. "No cause to insert himself" -- he is NAMED in this.

This is his administration.

[Qutzupalotl]

90. Which case are you referring to?

[Sparkly]

94. .

http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/jewel/jewelmtdobama.pdf

[defendandprotect]

155. Obama should want to be on record arguing for Constitutional protectios . . .

why not?

[RaleighNCDUer]

116. The point is, the filings are perfectly legitimate in accordance with

the statutory basis they are predicated on. That makes them the best possible defense for the defense lawyers. The courts, however, could NULLIFY that statutory basis, finding it unconstitutional, and thus also negate the defense arguments.

The courts NEED to rule on this.

[Sparkly]

48. So they don't want to lose, but they don't want to win?

They're arguing that citizens can't sue the government for warrantless wiretapping, because they want citizens to be able to sue the government for it, so they don't really want to win, but yet they don't want to lose?

I'm confused. :crazy:

[Beetwasher]

50. The Attorney's Are Not Obama

Unless you think Obama is directing them.

[Sparkly]

54. I don't care about that separation -- whether it's Obama, the Obama Administration

How they relate is not the issue. I'm not concerned about whether or not this is about Obama the person. I don't know why that is so important to some.

I'm talking about the actual motion, filed by defendants' attorneys. How's that?

[Beetwasher]

57. Yeah, And?

What about it? They filed a motion to have the case dismissed. So? Attorney's do that all the time. If the motion is denied (as it most likely will be) then the case continues. :shrug:

What's your point? That is what attorney's do. That's their job.

[Sparkly]

62. And do they want their motion to succeed or fail?

You wrote:
That is MY opinion. The attorney's are filing their idiotic motions to win their case. I think the courts need to rule on it so there is no question the shit is wrong. I think it's possible that Obama too would like the courts to rule on this so it's VERY FUCKING CLEAR what the law is. That does not mean that the attorneys are TRYING to lose.

They would like the courts to rule on this -- but they filed a motion to have it dismissed. "The shit is wrong," but it'd be clearer if the case were dismissed? Or do they want their own motion to fail? In that case, why did they file it?

[Beetwasher]

69. I Can't Be Sure Of Their Motives, I Can Only Speculate

I suspect that THEY want to win their case. They filed their motion and would like it to suceed, but know that it will most likely fail, but they do it anyway to lay groundwork for possible appeals later one etc. Attorney's do this all the time. They file these motions for many reasons and don't necessarily expect they'll be granted.

[Sparkly]

74. But you wrote...

The case needs to work its way through court and their legal arguments NEED TO GET SLAPPED THE FUCK DOWN by the courts. That is HOW you determine that this shit IS ABSOLUTELY illegal and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The court HAS to rule on this.

:shrug:

[Beetwasher]

78. Yeah, So? That's My Opinion

:shrug:

[Sparkly]

82. You opinion makes no sense to me.

They do and don't want the case to go forward, they do and don't want their motion to succeed, they do and don't want a ruling...

Ooookey dokey then.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JDPriestly]

211. The Court does not have to rule on this. The Obama government

can settle this case and agree that this is unconstitutional. Face it, Obama is wrongly defending unconstitutional conduct. The indiscriminate wiretapping is so obviously unconstitutional that it is a waste of judicial resources to continue this case.

[Beetwasher]

224. Wrong. Obama Cannot Unilaterally Decide How To Defend This Case

What is unconstitutional about filing a motion? This is a LAWSUIT for MONETARY redress. This is NOT about the wiretapping and whether it was right or wrong or unconstitutional. This is a civil suit.

[JDPriestly]

257. Filing the motion is not unconstitutional. The eavesdropping was unconstitutional.

And, as I pointed out in another response to this post, Obama should settle this case and admit that the government was at fault and provide the information that is being requested. After all, he promised transparency. This case represents precisely what Americans want transparency about.

[Beetwasher]

297. Obama CAN'T UNILATERALLY SETTLE FOR EVERYONE

Holy crap. Obama is not the only person/entity named in the case.

[JDPriestly]

209. The government sets the policy on wiretapping and it is important

that the government be consistent in that policy.

This is not a matter of persecuting individuals or using the authority of the Attorney General's office to make political points or harm political opponents. In this case, the Obama administration is defending illegal, unconstitutional policies.

That is because the massive and indiscriminate wiretapping is illegal and unconstitutional. It is. It always was. There is no defense.

While a lawyer has the ethical duty to present as strong a defense for his or her client as possible, the lawyer also has the ethical duty to refrain from making frivolous arguments in court. I think the Obama administration's argument here is frivolous.

A government that can claim sovereign immunity as a defense to an accusation that it exceeded the scope of its powers and thereby violated the rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution is no longer Constitutional. That government has cast aside the Constitution. Our government only has the authority to make laws and to act in accordance with the limitations of the Constitution.

The argument that we cannot sue the government for violation of our constitutional rights eviscerates, i.e. nullifies the Constitution. That is why the Obama Justice Department's argument that it is protected in this suit by sovereign immunity is absurd. Our government's sovereign immunity is limited by the U.S. Constitution. That is Con Law 101. To argue otherwise is frivolous. Obama, yes, I said Obama, should not permit the Justice Department to bring this argument. It is not a political issue. It is an issue of obeying the Constitution.

[Beetwasher]

226. Too Bad This Case Is A CIVIL Case For Monetary Redress

Obama cannot involve himself because he would be making decisions for ALL the defendents, who might not agree w/ his decisions and claim he is obstructing their defense.

The constitutionality is for the court to decide. That's what COURTS do, not Presidents. Bush thought it was perfectly constitutional for him to wiretap anyone he felt like in the first place. Was he right? Was that HIS decision to make?

[JDPriestly]

259. Obama can make a deal that requires the government to tell the truth

about this for a change. The other defendants cannot bind Obama. To the contrary.

[Beetwasher]

298. Really? This Is A LAWSUIT

A deal means you pay money. Obama doesn't unilaterally decide the defense for every defendent in the suit. That would be OBSTRUCTION of their defense and politicization.

[ClarkUSA]

357. I've gotta hand it to you: You've got the patience of a saint.

Thanks for the public service.

[debbierlus]

308. Amen

[Spazito]

38. Well said!

I agree with your OP. I, too, think Obama knows what he is doing in letting the process work it's way through the courts.

[AndyA]

56. Aren't US Attorneys normally replaced when a new administration comes in?

Isn't this part of the big flap regarding Bushco's firing of attorneys? It was done mid-term instead of just at the beginning? Are these different attorneys? Seems to me they still work for the Justice Department, which is under the responsibility of Holder and the Obama Administration.

Why are Bushco attorneys still around? Are these lower level attorneys that aren't normally replaced? :shrug:

[Beetwasher]

60. Yes, Over Time

Not immediately. It is not unusual for them to be replaced over the span of months if not a couple of years. Especially if they are involved in ongoing cases.

[AndyA]

81. Thanks, that makes sense.

So it really is possible that the opinions expressed by these attorneys may not have the support of the Obama Administration.

That makes me feel a little better, although I'd sure like to hear that special attention is being given into looking into the crimes of Bushco...maybe in time...

[phleshdef]

75. Finding and replacing that many attorneys at once in this short of a time span isn't very realistic.

There is suppose to be a responsible vetting process and with everything else going on in this country right now, its unthinkable that many could have been responsibly replaced at this point. That stuff has to be done right. Even with all the work the Obama team put into vetting his cabinet, there will still some resulting mini-scandals with taxes and such.

[defendandprotect]

151. Yes -- all new presidents have that option, however Obama asked all Bush AGs to stay -- !!!

51 of them did!!

Obama Administration Poised To Pick U.S. Attorneys : NPRJan 27, 2009 ... Each new president traditionally replaces his predecessor's U.S. ... Each U.S. attorney is like a local attorney general, ... It's traditional for each president to replace all of the former president's U.S. attorneys. ...
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99881017 -

[Beetwasher]

237. No He Didn't

Not immediately asking for their resignation is not the same thing as asking them to stay permanently. They were told to remain "until further notice".

Please point to a SINGLE instance of a new President replacing every USA within three months. I'll wait.

[quiller4]

274. It is rare to replace an attorney who has cases in process n/t

[quiller4]

275. It is rare to replace an attorney who has cases in process n/t

[mopinko]

66. thank you np

[backscatter712]

76. DAMN YOU AND YOUR REASON AND LOGIC!!!

;)

Good point - firing the douchebag attorneys in this case would be essentially the same crime that Gonzo and other Bushies committed that led to 80+ straight "I don't recalls" to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Not happy with this, but I understand it.

[ProSense]

84. This sums it up nicely:

So while it's nice and inflammatory to write "OBAMA's DOJ DEFENDS BUSH POLICY ON TORTURE/WIRETAPPING ETC." and technically accurate, it doesn't give the whole picture and is in fact somewhat misleading. The issue is not as cut and dry as some make it out to be. Reality is rarely black and white, especially when it comes to the workings of the legal system. I think Obama knows what he's doing. Could I be wrong? Sure I can, but so can you.

There is definitely more to the story, and that's clear from this paragraph in the EFF statement:

It's an especially disappointing argument to hear from the Obama Administration. As a candidate, Senator Obama lamented that the Bush Administration "invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court." He was right then, and we're dismayed that he and his team seem to have forgotten.

I sincerely doubt Obama has forgotten this. Until the full story is known, I expect that people will continue expressing outrage and pressuring the administration for clarity.

[Qutzupalotl]

85. Thanks for posting this.

A few weeks ago, I pointed out that there were legacy attorneys on a couple of odious cases. I didn't have time to research them all, so I'm glad someone took the ball and ran with it.

The question we should ask when we hear any similar "WTF" arguments from Justice is
WHO IS DOING THE ARGUING?

In every case, it is the attorneys. Some of the attorneys will be pre-Bush, but if they survived the Gonzalez purge, their motives are suspect, IMO.

We don't know how much input, IF ANY, is coming from Obama or Holder. I suspect their involvement is minimal. As legal scholars, they know about separation of powers, and probably noticed the dustup over politicizing the Justice Department from the previous administration. ;)

Several attorneys refused to leave citing ongoing cases. As the cases wind down, the attorneys will be replaced with Obama appointees. That's an efficient, if apolitical, way to handle these cases.

[wiggs]

118. OK. So let's hear where the administration DOES stand on illegal spying and what

they are going to do about crimes already committed.

[mvd]

130. Yes, I still won't be happy until there is clarification

But at least there's no evidence Obama, Holder, or Obama attorneys are encouraging this.

[Marie26]

329. There's an eerie silence on that point, isn't there?

What IS the Obama Ad.'s policy on surveillance, exactly? Also, IMO it is very naive to believe that Obama & Holder are not aware of or encouraging this. All DOJ att. are subject to Holder & Holder determines DOJ policy on this issue. Also, on an issue this important to national security, IMO Holder would definitely brief Obama.

[silverweb]

119. Exactly. Thank you.

And that gives me an excuse to post this:



GObama! GObama!

[gkhouston]

120. Telling people to chill out in capital letters and boldface...

:rofl:

[Beetwasher]

121. What Next? Spelling Flames?

Ahh, yes. How about some more content-free criticism? :rofl:

Why not attack my sans-seraph font?

[defendandprotect]

142. and then adding . .. "I'm not telling anyone to shut up!!" . . .

:eyes:

[jus_the_facts]

122. Don't be such an ASSHOLE....

....just couldn't resist!! :D

:hi: :loveya:

[Beetwasher]

123. It's What I Do Best!

:loveya:

[mvd]

124. Interesting analysis

The Raw Story article said "Following Bush lead, Obama moves to block challenge to wiretapping program." No wonder that got me and others mad. It sounded like President Obama personally made the motion. If the Justice Dept. doesn't defend them, then who will? Now I would hope that Obama does not support the defense's case. The fact that Obama voted for the revised bill makes me wonder if he is really opposed to the Justice Department's action. It's a wait and see.

Your post makes me understand things more clearly.

[JDPriestly]

212. Some conduct is indefensible. And some arguments are so without

merit that they should not be brought. The sovereign immunity of the U.S. government is defined by the Constitution. That is why sovereign immunity is a frivolous, inappropriate argument in this case. It is wrong to waste the court's time with this ridiculous argument that would eviscerate the limits the Constitution places on the government.

[JDPriestly]

229. Some conduct is indefensible. And some arguments are so without

merit that they should not be brought. The sovereign immunity of the U.S. government is defined by the Constitution. That is why sovereign immunity is a frivolous, inappropriate argument in this case. It is wrong to waste the court's time with this ridiculous argument that would eviscerate the limits the Constitution places on the government.

[Lilith Velkor]

125. ...

[Beetwasher]

126. Ahh, I See, Contentless Criticism, How Droll

IOW, you got nuthin'. Got it.

[Better Believe It]

127. Dill you also ask us to "chill out" during Bush's attacks on the Constitution?

[Beetwasher]

128. Dill Is For Pickles

Did you read the OP or are you just spewing, for a change?

[Better Believe It]

132. What do you know about pickles when you clearly prefer washing beets?

Well, I suppose it's better to have a really clean beet rather than a dirty pickle.

:)

[HughMoran]

318. It's funny

The people I see posting on anti-DU, anti-Democratic websites are the first to summarily dismiss your claims, yet they who claim to be gods gift to argumentative technique are left "but, but, but.." -ing you to death. This is hilarious and I'm so glad you posted this thread AND have backed up your arguments. Kudos!

[vaberella]

133. Thanks Beetwasher and Windy for providing clarity on this non-sense.

But it seems once a reactionists always a reactionist.

[defendandprotect]

152. Is this the "clarity" you're referring to . . . ???

Beetwater: "I think Obama knows what he's doing. Could I be wrong? Sure I can, but so can you."

[vaberella]

157. Nice way of you to pick and choose when there are countless posts above where Beetwasher

clearly describes the problem and who's currently working to dismiss the issues. You can say what you want, but in any event your position is groundless like so many others while his/hers has more logical reasoning than yours.

[defendandprotect]

171. I've given you the bottom line of the OP . . .

Beetwater: "I think Obama knows what he's doing. Could I be wrong? Sure I can, but so can you."

As far as I can see, Beetwater is telling us how much he doesn't like criticism of Obama,
what pretending not to --

Granted I haven't read every Beetwater post above ... but the problem is clear.
Either Obama is going to stand by Constitutional rights - protect and defend the Constitution --
or not.

And, for the best of "groundless" points, I'd recommend you to Turley.

See front page.

[vaberella]

202. That's the problem...

I'm reading all of his posts on this thread and he definitely clears up a lot of misinformation. Lastly his/her name is beetwasher...by the fact you even get the name wrong several times gives me the impression that you don't even care too much about his posts in the first place.

In regards to Turley who've I've been watching on both KO and RM I can say this man has NEVER given President Obama ANY credo on anything unless it was in a sarcastic way. The man definitely doesn't like O too much because everything who has done and he's been asked about he has criticized. I don't give too much patience to someone who spends majority of their time only giving me one side of a story and pushing a set agenda. Basically he is pushing an agenda from his statements.

Believe what you want but I read the motion and understand bits and pieces and where I needed help I got clarification by a few of the lawyers/paralegals on this board and I've taken everything into perspective. Turley is definitely a one sided idiot who has had it in for O.

[defendandprotect]

267. Unfortunately, Constitutional rights are kinda "a set agenda" . . .!!!

and that's what Turley is arguing for -- and what we have to expect Obama to
argue for.

Turley is definitely a one sided idiot who has had it in for O.

Obviously, you and the "Beetwasher" have the same dislike for criticism of Obama --
though disclaimed in the OP.

Thanks for your permission to believe what I want ....
however, the original FISA laws are a violation of our Constitution and certainly
backing Bush's further violations based on wiretapping which began SEVEN MONTHS BEFORE
9/11 is not fitting for a Democratic president.

Lastly his/her name is beetwasher

I don't pay any attention to posters' names . . . I do pay attention to what they have
to say!

And you'll notice that I quoted what he said correctly -- !!!

[Beetwasher]

232. As far as I can see, Beetwater is telling us how much he doesn't like criticism of Obama,

:rofl:

Oh, yeah, that's the bottom line!

I guess you missed THIS part of the OP:

"First of all, I am not telling you to shut up. Please, by all means, yell loudly, let Obama and Holder know you disagree w/ the positions and motions that these attorney's are filing in these cases. Let him know those policies are unnacceptable. Anyone telling you not to is a douche and you can tell them I said so."

Sort of makes you look like an idiot now, doesn't it?

[Sparkly]

159. I think this part would make a great script for "Tom Tomorrow."

"I would suggest Obama knows what he is doing here. I could be wrong, perhaps he fully intends to keep some of these malignant Bush era policies. I can't be sure. But I do think there is certainly a good case to be made that in fact he is LAYING THE GROUNDWORK FOR COURT RULINGS TO FIND THAT THOSE POLICIES ARE ACTUALLY ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. By having the courts rule against these obnoxious motions by Bush DOJ holdovers, it makes it EASIER to eliminate them AND in addition it can SUPPORT any FUTURE CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS of those involved."

Yeah! That's IT!! :eyes:

[Beetwasher]

234. No, What's A Better Script Is "Obama's Really A Rightwing Stooge!!!"

He's fooling us all!! He hates us for our freedoms!! He's no different from Bush!!!"

The point is MY idiotic ramblings about his possible motives are just as valid as YOUR idiotic ramblings about his possible motives. Only I at least accept the notion I could be wrong about my idiotic ramblings. You don't. You know Obama's really a Bush stooge and anyone who disagrees is a Koolaid drinking Obamabot.

[Sparkly]

285. Please don't put words in my mouth

I said no such thing. I'm not even talking about his "motives."

[Beetwasher]

299. Yes You Are Talking About His Motives

You are assuming you know them.

[Sparkly]

301. No I Am Not And Using Caps Doesn't Make It So.

I'm saying nothing about "motives."

Your arguments here are getting more and more hilarious, by the way.

[Beetwasher]

315. What's Hilarious Is You Content Free Posting

Thanks for keeping my highly rated thread kicked! :hi:

[Sparkly]

326. You're welcome!

It's most entertaining! (Love the one about civil cases not involving any questions of illegality, by the way!)

Can't wait to see what you come up with next! :hi:

[Name removed]

328. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beetwasher]

235. Umm, Jeenyus, Any Rational Person Will Admit They Can Be Wrong About Something

Especially when it involves trying to interpret another persons motives.

I allow for the possibility of error in my opinions about things. That's called enlightenment. Do you allow for that?

[treestar]

135. K&R. It is not good when people run off reacting about these suits based

on very superficial knowledge. Some things take time to understand. The DOJ has to represent the government side of any question. The Deranged Previous President has thousands of these things going on. The Obama Administration has to deal with them.

[Cha]

143. But where would they get off on their

hateful agenda?

[JDPriestly]

233. "The DOJ has to represent the government side of the question."

Obama said that his government would stand for the principle that no man is above the law. As I stated above, if your local chief of police orders his officers to lynch a suspect without a trial, the government would not defend that act. Bush violated the Constitution. The Obama government should not defend that violation. It is indefensible. And since the sovereignty of the government is defined and limited by our Constitution (which makes us different from some other governments), the government cannot claim sovereign immunity in defending a violation of the Constitution.

That illegal wiretapping is a violation of the Constitution is not really questioned. That was pretty well established during the Nixon era.

[treestar]

291. I started reading the motion

the first two pages alone go on about "sovereign immunity," citing about ten cases from the 90s or earlier.

"The law" is not as simple as people want it to be. Entire tomes have been written about "sovereign immunity." And that was just the first issue.

You'd have to read that motion, and the complaint, and most of the cases cited by both parties before deciding what "the law" is.

Which is what the judges will do.

[LittleBlue]

136. You've got to be joking. You're saying his lawyers are at fault? I guess it was just Bush's lawyers.

What a crock. If anyone is fooled by this, shame on you.

And shame on the OP for posting this tripe.

[Beetwasher]

137. Ahh Yes, Another Contentless Critical Post

Thanks for playing!

[LittleBlue]

354. Bollocks. You're wrong and here's why.

The employees are not being sued individually, it's the government and corporations. People cannot be sued for performing their function, only the government and businesses can. If they exceed their function, or are performing criminal acts, that is a separate criminal trial, this is civil. Suing an individual who works for the government is pointless because they cannot pay the damages required anyway.

They are not "protecting their clients", they are protecting their own asses from wrongdoing.

The employees are not being sued here, thus invalidating your OP.

On top of this, it is a President's prerogative to settle court cases against his ministries as he sees fit. If he wishes to settle (which would be the moral, upstanding thing to do) out of court, then again that's not wrongful interference. It's simply his policy, and he may do so at his pleasure.

[shagsak]

138. um...

I hate to be a newb but you should really read the entire page before you spout off. Lots of good information - all you have to do is READ.

[defendandprotect]

141. Did you ever see Bush's DOJ get it wrong, i.e., argue contrary to Bushco wishes?

Obama asked ALL the Bush AGs to stay -- 51 of them did!!

[defendandprotect]

140. Technically, this is still Bush's DOJ . . . Obama invited ALL the AGs to stay . . .

tho he had the option as every incoming president does to accept their resignations.

Meanwhile, 51 AGs did stay--!!!

[defendandprotect]

144. Every incoming president has the right to fire all the AGs . . . .

and they usually do . . .

But here's the thing. While US Attorney's serve at the pleasure of the President, they cannot be fired for political purposes OR to INTERFERE OR OBSTRUCT ongoing cases. Get that?

Obama, however, did NOT accept the resignations -- rather he asked ALL of Bush's AGs to stay on . . .

and 51 did!

Yes, you are correct that AFTER the fact -- after the initial new President's turning over the

AGs and replacing them with his own . . . THEN ... firings would be looked at with suspicion IF

there seemed to be political purposes -- or if the firing lacked specific, believable cause.


Obama Administration Poised To Pick U.S. Attorneys : NPRJan 27, 2009 ... Each new president traditionally replaces his predecessor's U.S. ... Each U.S. attorney is like a local attorney general, ... It's traditional for each president to replace all of the former president's U.S. attorneys. ...
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99881017 -

[mvd]

162. I don't get this

Why would Obama keep them, even those corrupted by Rove? One source I read said Obama still hasn't decided whether he WILL get rid of them? :shrug:

[defendandprotect]

174. I don't get it either, because I'd want to get rid of them all in a hurry . . .!!!

In fact, I'd invite back those who Bush fired -- Carol Lam . . . . ?
Great! Can't remember all their names.

However, if the incoming team didn't move on this very quickly -- and, again, I'd much
prefer that they had done so because of all the corruption in Bush administration --
then Obama still has the option of filling these positions in time. AND, I HOPE THAT
WILL HAPPEN -- AND PROMPTLY!!!

Especially, if you recall the hiring practices described by the young lady who was doing
the hiring? Forget her name, as well. But she was another of those under the opinion
that it was her and their duty to be loyal to Bush -- not "the people" and not the nation --
and not the Constitution!!!

Which reminds me how way behind I am in watching Senate/House -- they'll probably be on
Easter recess shortly . . . and I don't see anyone here reporting on hearings or what's
going on.

[mvd]

178. It's common practice to clean house

If in bipartisanship, this was one of his gestures that goes too far. He's trying to get a few moderates to vote with him - the rest have no conscience and will try to sabotage him anyway. If he really wanted to, he could have kept those on certain cases. I'm not sure if he could fire those involved in cases like the FISA one or not. Do you know?

[defendandprotect]

190. Agree with you -- I'd rather see an immediate house cleaning . . . fumigating!!!

I'm not sure if he could fire those involved in cases like the FISA one or not. Do you know?

Don't know. But someone here probably knows ---

and there may be some info on the internet --

why don't we both try to find out and if I get any info I'll let you know --

[mvd]

198. Sounds good - and I'll let you know if I find something

:hi:

[Beetwasher]

241. He COULD Fire Them, But Then They Would Almost CERTAINLY Turn Around

And scream bloody murder about it and claim he's obstructing their cases and politicizing DOJ. They ARE Bushies after all. That is what they would do. Without a doubt.

As far as I know, there is not a single instance of any president replacing the entire staff of USA's within three months. It's probably a logisitic impossibility. It is not surprising that they were told they would keep their positions "until further notice". That's not necessarily the same as inviting them to stay on. It's merely recognizing the practicality and logistics of the situation.

[mvd]

242. I'd ignore what the Bushies say, personally

I don't see the actions as the same.

I thought Clinton fired all of them, didn't he?

[Beetwasher]

243. Not In Three Months Time, Clinton Took Longer

You can ignore what they say, but they would file suits and demand investigations. Guaranteed. And frankly speaking, they'd have a case, just as there's a case against Bush's DOJ for similar conduct. It's inappropriate and arguably obstruction where there are cases ongoing. Obama and Holder know better.

[mvd]

244. I think they could come up with good counterarguments

Obama himself has a good legal mind. Look into the program being unconstitutional. And I think Obama will keep everyone much longer than Clinton.

Here it says Clinton fired them after taking office:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703150001

[Beetwasher]

245. Obama Has A Good Legal Mind, Which Is WHY He's Probably NOT

Doing it as quickly. It would undercut the ongoing investigations into Bush's DOJ abuses if it appeared Obama was behaving in a similar manner.

[mvd]

246. I respect your view, but my view is different

I will give Obama a little time to explain, though.

[Beetwasher]

247. Fair Enough

He deserves some time. He's inherited quite the shit pile. DOJ is a bloody fucking mess. I do not envy Holder in the least.

[mvd]

248. Agreed 100%

Again, thanks for the topic. It needed to be clear that this is not official policy.

[Beetwasher]

250. Thanks MVD!!

I appreciate the civil discussion!! :thumbsup:

[Pacifist Patriot]

279. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Not to mention that...

Obama is under tremendous fire from the marginalized but incredibly outspoken right. He's already being credited with single-handedly ruining St. Patrick's Day for one idiot pundit's little girl. Can we imagine the hue and cry if he sacked the entire staff at the DOJ?

The man's brain doesn't stop at checkers, he's a master at chess. Thank you for your post.

[stillcool]

170. Some have gone...

others he has asked to stay on. I don't think you let go of all of the Attorney Generals at the same time, especially if they are in the middle of on-going cases, do you? Or do you not care about that?

[defendandprotect]

179. Bush's DOJ was toxic . . . except those he fired --- !!!

Therefore I'd hope obama would be very anxious to replace them ---
and ESPECIALLY if you recall the Senate hearings where we learned how
biased the selections were -- a young woman was heading up this but
don't recall her name -- but she was looking for rabid Repugs who would
be "loyal to Bush" ---

and believe she was one of the ones Leahy had to correct in her assumptions
about loyalty -- that rather, loyalty by those in public service is not to
an individual but to the people, to the nation --- and most of all to the
Constitution!

So they are TWO excellent reasons why I would want to see this whole DOJ and
AGs overturned as quickly as possible ....

FURTHER, I would particularly want the cases they are already working on to
be looked at by Obama AGs . . . remember Carol Lam? She was one of the AGs
Bush fired who had been working on a very important case -- which wasn't
much investigated, as I recall, after she left!

So, yes, indeed -- I'd remove the Bush AGs in the middle of cases --- BECAUSE
I DO CARE ABOUT THE CASES . . . AND THE POSITION THE GOVERNMENT IS TAKING ON
THEM -- and whether they were just investigations or not ---
This has been a very biased DOJ.

Remember Don Siegelman? Another bit of Bush/Rove work!!!

[stillcool]

182. You would remove attorneys from..

on-going trials without any cause? You would toss out cases because why? Because you say so? Why not just make Obama king and get it over with?

There are links on the page to email various editors and the Attorney General.

http://markcrispinmiller.com/2009/04/a-call-to-arms-from-don-siegelman.html
A call-to-arms from Don Siegelman
Posted by mcm
April 7, 2009
Dear Supporter,
I need your help on a critical issue. Time is of the essence. I’m asking that you email influential editors and Attorney General Eric Holder.

Attorney General Holder recently abandoned the conviction against former U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R). His decision had nothing to do with the merits of the Stevens case, but was based on misconduct on the part of the Department of Justice. Attorney General Holder did the right thing.

It’s been a long time since we have seen the DOJ act courageously. Attorney General Holder’s action gives me hope that justice can be restored and our democracy can be preserved.
-----------------------
fter reading the letter, please email the following editors commending Eric Holder for helping to restore justice by dropping the charges against Senator Stevens but suggesting that the gross prosecutorial misconduct in my case far exceeds the misconduct in the Stevens case. Tell them the Attorney General should investigate my case and that, when he does, he will find it cries out for justice and should also be dismissed.

[defendandprotect]

187. First, do you understand that every new president has the right to overturn all

the AGs . . . ???

And most presidents do just that ---

Evidently, Obama asked the Bush AGs to stay --- and 51 accepted -- !!!

Evidently, you've read none of my post ---

however . . . I've read no details on the Stevens case and would find it odd that rabid
Republican AGs would have been doing something illegal in trying to prosecute Stevens.

And I don't think there have been any DETAILS offered on what the prosecutors did wrong
in the Stevens case.

AGAIN ... BECAUSE YOU SEEM TO NOT BE HEARING OR READING . . .
OBAMA HAS THE RIGHT -- AS EVERY NEW PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT -- TO OVERTURN ALL THE AGs....

and given the influence of Rove and Bushco on the DOJ, I think Obama should have done that
immediately.

You would remove attorneys from on-going trials without any cause?
You would toss out cases because why? Because you say so?

Again -- you can replace lawyers on these cases and you can reinvestigate these cases.

Why not just make Obama king and get it over with?

AGAIN, ALL NEW PRESIDENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE ALL THE PRIOR AGs . . .

Got it now?

[stillcool]

204. Excuse me...No President..

relieves the entire Justice Department of all Attorney Generals at the same time. There is also that little matter of the current on-going investigation of the Attorney-General firings under the Bush Administration. If you want the details on the Stevens case there is an article today, about the Judge appointing a Special Prosecutor to investigate those prosecutors, with the possibility of criminal charges. Look around..you'll find it. You may wish to replace every attorney in the country, but pardon me for not finding your idea plausible, or legal. WHY ARE YOU YELLING AT ME?

[defendandprotect]

266. Excuse me . . . but that wasn't what I said . . .

I said that every new president has the RIGHT to replace all the AGs --
and that because of the high levels of corruption in the Bush administration --
and the politicalization of the DOJ by Bush that I would have hoped that Obama
would have done that as quickly as possible.

Yes . . . there was an investigation of the firings -- and I pointed to the fact
that is where we heard about "loyalty" to Bush -- and the very biased methods used
to select very rabid Republicans. It helps to read a post you're replying to!

Again, re Stevens, as I stated I have no knowledge that there has been any release
of information about the specific wrongdoing by the prosecutor/s --
however, yes, I do know about the intent to prosecute the prosecutors.

Again, generally all new presidents want to replace the AGs -- Clinton certainly did so.
And, again -- it's LEGAL.

Now . . . the internet has some funny myths -- first, that capitalization is "yelling" --
No, capitalization is -- as it's always been -- an effort to emphasize what is being
said. If you have any legal documents around, you'll notice underling and capitalization.
Yes ... the internet has a right to its own rules -- but not to distort original purpose.

[mvd]

189. At least in this case I would, if I had the power

The program was unconsitutional. Now I can think of several reasons why Obama might be doing what he is doing. It just takes a lot of faith, and this early it's hard to be trusting. Just hopeful.

[stillcool]

203. the program was unconstitutional..

but what does that have to do with the case, and the law that is being argued? I think that it is wonderful that Turley is drawing attention to this case, and I would hope all the other cases against the government that are piling up. I just can't subscribe to one opinion at the exclusion of all others.

[denem]

156. One of the most informtive posts I have ever read on DU.

Many thanks.

[Time for change]

160. I've been a civil servant for the U.S. government and the states of PA and FL for a total of 30 yrs.

I was always told that my right to have the government represent me in any lawsuit regarding my actions as a government official applied only so long as my actions were conducted in good faith. I always took that to mean that in the course of performing my government duties, if I ever knowingly disobeyed our laws or Constitution that that disqualified me for my right right to government representation.

[defendandprotect]

191. An interesting bit of information -- thank you ---!!! Sane and logical!!!

It's also ironic that the government has to AGREE to be sued for damages!!!

Turley represented someone in the Area 51 case where people were harmed by chemicals
being used there. That was Clinton administration.
As I recall, National Security blanketed the case and it was lost.
This is somewhat similar, IMO.

[Time for change]

223. And a couple of other things

"...MAY be provided representation in civil, criminal and Congressional proceedings... when the actions for which representation is requested reasonably appear to have been performed within the scope of the employee’s employment."

If the employee knowingly broke the law, then the actions cannot be contrued as "reasonably appear to have been performed within the scope of the empolyee's employment.

And furthermore, even if the government can legitimately offer counsel to an employee, it is certainly under no obligation to offer incredibly ridiculous legal theories in that employee's defense. A lawer, whether a government lawyer or any other kind of lawyer, has an obligation to the law as well as his client. Invoking "state secrets" that ought not to be state secrets is not a reasonable thing to do.

Our government owes it to the American people NOT to invoke theories that impair our democracy and violate our laws or Constitution in the cause of defending those accused of crimes.

[Beetwasher]

230. Yeah, And?

That's sort of the point isn't it? Patriot Act sort of blurred the line about disobeying the laws. That's what the whole "immunity" argument is about.

[defendandprotect]

264. Well, Patriot Act ... is simply more "national security" blanketing . . .

but FISA law was specific that anyone/corporation approached was to report that to the

FISA judges... and those contacts came seven months before 9/11 and Patriot Act.

[Time for change]

316. Maybe I didn't make my point clear

What I mean to say is that I don't believe that the high level Bush administration torturers deserve to be defended by the Obama administration, because they were not acting in good faith.
You note:

"...MAY be provided representation in civil, criminal and Congressional proceedings... when the actions for which representation is requested reasonably appear to have been performed within the scope of the employee’s employment."

If the employee knowingly broke the law, then the actions cannot be contrued as "reasonably appear to have been performed within the scope of the empolyee's employment.

And furthermore, even if the government can legitimately offer counsel to an employee, it is certainly under no obligation to offer incredibly ridiculous legal theories in that employee's defense. A lawer, whether a government lawyer or any other kind of lawyer, has an obligation to the law as well as his client. Invoking "state secrets" that ought not to be state secrets is not a reasonable thing to do.

Our government owes it to the American people NOT to invoke theories that impair our democracy and violate our laws or Constitution in the cause of defending those accused of crimes.

[biopowertoday]

161. silly. you make Democrats look stupid.

[pollo poco]

163. Thanks for the cuppa chill

Beetwasher, your op is right on. I really wonder why the story is being framed in such an inflammatory fashion. (network ratings? sell more papers?) And yes, I could be wrong about this, too. Only time will tell, but for now it is wise to take all such headlines and opinions with a big cuppa chill. I think after the last eight years, it is difficult to trust. :dilemma: Calm vigilance is called for.

[OwnedByFerrets]

164. All of this speculation could be cleared up with a statement from

Justice.

[bluesmail]

165. On May 26 Wiwa v Shell is finally going to trial.

Nearly 15 years later there may be justice for the Ogoni people. I know it takes time. It's a catch 22. But we do want an ironclad case, no ifs ands or buts for the scum that stole our democracy.

[defendandprotect]

193. "Justice delayed is justice denied" . . . I kinda agree with that--!!!

Especially when corporations -- and oil indstry are involved!!!

[Beetwasher]

240. Oh Man, I Cannot Imagine!!!

Indeed, the wheels of justice grind slowly at times. I'm W/ you and the Ogoni!! :thumbsup:

There are many here who could learn a bit about patience from you.

[Klukie]

166. So in other words....

The Obama admin. is letting them hang themselves via the rule of law? I can see that. We can only hope that the courts get it right.

[ms liberty]

167. Careful there...you seem to be making sense! K&R...n/t

[freemarketer6]

169. And if you are wrong and the Obama administration contacts

Verizon, AT&T and Sprint and says, "Okay we're on again: I want this one and this one, and for sure that one..." What then? Will you say then: "The attorneys are just establishing contingency plans for plausible deniability?" Turley, whom I respect very much says Obama's approach to FISA is much worse than Bush. So Obama in the middle of a mistaken bow toi an Islamic potentate, a Fed report that says the economy is getting worse, and the TS with apparent news the bank stress tests are so bad they are going to issue a summary opinion... In the middle of all this, Obama is purposely letting his lawyers play foo-lee? Puhleeze! I have my own opinion as to why Obama is following suit with Bush, but I'll keep it to myself until I see a few more pointers.

[stillcool]

173. And if you are wrong...

and this case works it's way through the legal process, and the ball gets thrown back to Congress to fix the law, what then? And if the economy improves, and the stress test results are released and the AP once again mis-reported the story, and Obama is 'letting' the Justice Department follow the law...what then? Your little 'bow toi and Islamic potentate' gives you away.

[freemarketer6]

188. Please, spare me the intrigue. I campaigned for Obama, sent

him a lot of money and voted for him. But I am an American first and a Democrat second. You play the ideologue with "if this" and "if that", and I "gotcha". I'll stay prudent, and I will bow to no man except Jesus Christ.

[stillcool]

205. Please...I responded to your "what if's"

and you campaigned for Obama? Please..at least have a little bit of integrity. Jesus Christ Almighty, you are a tool.

[freemarketer6]

207. Find someone who wants to argue with you. I do not. I will maintain

prudence. Tool? Yeah, right. Are you a hippy or something?

[stillcool]

208. I know you are but what am I..

run along now. I've had my fun.

[freemarketer6]

210. I don't know, but you are flailing horribly. Bye........nft

dd

[JDPriestly]

172. You are right about the attorney's duty. But Obama's duty is to

disclose to the American people what happened with regard to the wiretapping and also to clarify the current situation. The FISA amendment that Obama voted for pretty much permits the government to wiretap first and then answer questions quite some time later. That does not protect our constitutional right to privacy.

Further, I suspect that the wiretapping of American citizens is ongoing. It is possible that it is proceeding under the protection of secret international agreements that have nothing to do with terrorism but rather have to do with copyright infringement. We need complete clarity on this.

If all American citizens are breaking copyright laws (I don't think that is true) or even if so many of them are breaking the copyright laws that they need to wiretap us all (I question that also), then maybe we should change the laws. Majority is supposed to rule.

That someone in the DOJ is defending his client with this argument may be true, but that does not change the fact that the Obama administration is being far too silent about just what it is doing about the wiretapping. Obama has been clear on torture. Why can't he be just as clear about wiretapping?

[freemarketer6]

194. Exactly.......nft

dd

[defendandprotect]

195. Yep . . .

[vaberella]

196. Not the FISA ammendment I remember reading.

There are a lot of hoops and red tape that needs to be followed and there is a special FISA panel that has to give the President...and that's the President first to be get permission BEFORE he can give permission to go forward with such an investigation and there needs to be ample proof that suspect meets a certain level of threat BEFORE any wiretapping is permitted.

What it does give immunity too and the only thing was that past crimes basically couldn't be prosecuted by individuals. That was all. So I don't understand what you're saying that Obama gave permission for the government to run amok. I had the discussion on FISA on this board when it was a hot topic for weeks on end and what you're saying is misleading and basically wrong.

Actually the wiretapping is said to have forestalled and we have no evidence proving otherwise. O said his admin would not be built on such a method and so far as we know it's not. Plus that permission was struck from this particular court case meaning that it's actually no longer in use and what's up for discussion is that Bush cronies are advocating for immunity on this and that is not O that's Bush's people.

What do you want the Obama administration to do...? Would you believe him if he came out saying he wasn't involved in this? Most people here don't...without most of the facts and even when the facts presented already state that President Obama is NOT at fault people here are saying he is...and you're one of them. So what would his words mean to you since you already said you believe wiretapping is still going on. Wiretapping is out and O has said as much but to you he hasn't said anything so in the end nothing he can say would change your mind.

[Beetwasher]

228. You Presume Too Much

You suspect illegal wiretaping is ongoing? Based on what exactly?

Obama has emphatically stated this is not the case. Prove it is.

These are LAWSUITS. They are claims for MONETARY redress. Motions in these cases are NOT POLICY.

In your opinion Obama has been "too silent". Whatever. Let the court rule, then see what Obama does.

You seem quick to judge Obama based on very little evidence. You seem to somehow know his mind and know his intentions. I have no such presumptions based on so little information.

[Marie26]

327. That's exactly right.

First of all, the DOJ's motion IS a cause for concern, because they seem to be claiming that no one can ever sue the gov. for constitutional violations. That's deeply scary, even if it is ruled against by the court. Because it implies that the DOJ/Obama Ad. still wants to hide the full extent of the wiretapping program. Why? Where's that transparency we were promised? Second, Obama has been very very quiet about the wiretapping program since the primary; & actually voted for telecom immunity back in June. Since then, he just stopped talking about it & hoped no one noticed. Why? Didn't Obama intend to end this program? To me, all these actions indicate that Obama fully intends to continue the warrantless wiretapping program once in office & already has. That's why they're fighting this so hard - if the Bush Ad. is found liable, then the Obama Ad. will be as well. Just IMO, but I believe Obama is continuing the NSA "wiretaps" (blanket surveillance) in the U.S., & that's why the DOJ is fighting so hard to prevent any investigation or accountability for this program.

[JJ]

175. I was kinda wondering something along these lines

is this a strategy that isn't obvious on it's face?
The Obama admin making reaches like this could get repukes wanting to repeal PATRIOT.

Let's just hope so.

Or could this be from one of Cheney's "leave behinds" sabotaging the Obama admin?
The fact that this comes out when Obama was overseas makes me suspicious that something isn't right, either the admin did so on purpose to make it appear that Obama is distant from it, or a Cheney "embed" taking advantage of the boss being out of town.


on edit: Clarification, if either case is true, or neither, I don't agree that "chill the fuck out" is an appropriate response.

[Lena inRI]

186. I ALMOST went into a raging rant over this issue BUT. . .

After a count of ten, I had psychological musings that brought me down to these 3 coping thoughts:

1---President Obama is certain the legal briefs won't hold up before the judges, so he kept the 51 Bushco attorneys to be sure they get the public slap on the wrist as the symbolic striking down of the Bush infamous independent executive policy.

2---Suspecting that President Obama is defending, and even expanding Bush's independent executive power policy is so out of character for this Constitutional law scholar/teacher, unless he is schizoid---an infinitesimal chance that he is.

3---President Obama may very well be using a major psychological principle of martial arts---"the Law of Noninterference with Nature, which teaches a gung fu man to forget about himself and follow his opponent instead of himself; he does not move ahead but responds to the fitting influence. The basic idea is to defeat the opponent by yielding to him and using his own strength. That is why a gung fu man never asserts himself against his opponent, and never puts himself in frontal opposition to the direction of his opponents force. When being attacked, he will not resist, but will control the attack by swinging with it. This law illustrates the principles of nonresistance and nonviolence, which were founded on the idea that the branches of a fir tree snap under the weight of the snow, while the simple reeds, weaker but more supple, can overcome it. In the I'Ching, Confucius illustrated this: "To stand in the stream is a datum of nature; one must follow and flow with it." http://www.kungfuboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60890

Course, having a tall glass of wine helped me along with all these musings. .

Think . . . ROPE-A-DOPE. . .ROPE-A-DOPE. . .ROPE-A-DOPE !!!

:smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke:

[vaberella]

199. Most people think O is not a thinker and then they eat crow in the end...

at this point there's nothing to say to that.

[walldude]

192. Um... no thank you.

It was wrong when the republicans did it, it's wrong for Obama to continue it. It is a violation of the Constitution. Oh and by the way, your rant would make sense if the case at hand was not about illegal wiretapping. You claim that the court needs to determine whether this is unconstitutional, well they have, many times in the past. There is no need to continue the illegal policy to prove that it was illegal.

[Beetwasher]

239. What Exactly Is Obama Continuing????

:shrug:

Attorney's filed a motion in a LAWSUIT to have it dismissed. This is NOT POLICY. IT does NOT mean he is continuing to wiretap or approving of wiretapping.

[walldude]

286. Nothing

Obama has done nothing wrong! He's perfect! He makes no mistakes, he has nothing but perfect policies and I love him. I apologize for ever having an individual thought and I apologize for criticizing him for continuing illegal policies under the guise of state secrets. I beg your forgiveness..

[Beetwasher]

300. You Should Beg My Forgiveness, And Thanks For Proving My Point

Obama is not and did not do anything in any way related to the lawsuits pending against Bushco. He just happens to be the current President. He did not wiretap illegally, or torture and he certainly did not file any motions related to the cases or direct the attorney's to do so.

So IOW, you go nuthin'. That's why you settled on a sarcastic rant instead of facts.

[Sugarcoated]

206. Unfortunately some here are not getting it

or don't want to try, or can't bring themselves to admit they're wrong.

Thanks for explaining pretty clearly, what is a very confusing issue.

[NanceGreggs]

213. K and R!!!

Thanks.

[defendandprotect]

238. This might also be the time to remind us all that there was ONE communications company . ..

that said NO to Bush . . . and, as I recall the report on them, they were

very quickly out of business -- and it looked like Bushco doing.

I think the name of the company began with a Q or a C ...???

No sure.

But, certainly no one gave that company any awards for standing up for what's

left of our Constitution!

[slipslidingaway]

249. Qwest....

FWIW some old links in the Congress forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=308&topic_id=613&mesg_id=613

[defendandprotect]

258. Thank you for the info on Qwest which said NO to doing illegal wiretapping . .. .

So far I've looked fairly thoroughly at the first link and extended pages . . .

Just scanned the second link -- but I will save both links.

SEVEN MONTHS BEFORE 9/11 . . . QWEST WAS APPROACHED --

and I would agree that the subsequent government actions look like
retaliation.

Bushco began approaching companies in February 2001 --

That's just weeks after they got into the White House --- !!???

The recently unsealed documents push that time frame back to February 2001 and indicate the NSA may have also sought to monitor customers' Internet traffic and fax transmissions.

"The Nacchio materials suggesting that the NSA had sought telco cooperation even before 9/11 undermines the primary argument for letting the phone companies off the hook, which is the claim that they were simply acting in good faith to help the president fight the terrorists after 9/11," said Kevin Bankston, a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil-liberties group.

"The fact that these materials suggest that cooperation with the program was tied to the award of certain government contracts also contradicts their (phone companies') claims that they were simply acting in good faith to help fight the terrorists when it appears that they may have been motivated by financial concerns instead," Bankston said.

Up to this point, discussions on Capitol Hill over telecom immunity have focused on government surveillance efforts spurred by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

And really sad to read this now . . .

"This is, sooner or later, going to be the stuff of congressional hearings because a new starting point has been established for this controversy. A new starting point seven months before 9/11," said Ron Suskind, author of "The One Percent Doctrine," which reported examples of how companies worked with the government in its fight against terrorism after Sept. 11.

"The idea that deals were getting cut between the government and telecom companies in secret in the early part of 2001 creates a whole new discussion as to intent, motivation and goals of the government," Suskind said.

Last week, Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, asked federal intelligence officials for more information about Nacchio's allegations.

"The extent to which this is true could shed light on the efficacy of this program and raise questions about the reasons behind its implementation," Conyers wrote on his blog.

I'm reading this pretty late at night but again the national security threat to
our freedom is clear ---

Nacchio's connections to top-secret agencies date back to late 1997, according to court documents filed in 2000 and early 2001 and unsealed this month.

The first meeting Nacchio had with officials from a clandestine agency - including a three-star lieutenant general - was at Qwest's offices in Denver. The officials sought to use Qwest's fiber-optic communications network for government purposes.

The agency issued a request for information after the meeting and "quickly concluded that only Qwest had the capability to fulfill the contract requirements."

It eventually wanted Qwest to extend its European network to the Middle East.

Qwest's work was "sufficiently important to (blacked out) that the agency would constantly monitor Qwest's financial health, particularly after the dot-com bubble burst." The agency would call Qwest whenever its stock fluctuated, and even voiced concerns to the company about a potential takeover bid by Deutsche Telekom, Nacchio alleges in the court documents.

During 2000 and early 2001, Nacchio routinely met with clandestine agencies to discuss how to protect the U.S. government's systems from cyber-warfare.

In September 2000, an "Army customer" wanted help from Qwest.

On Feb. 27, 2001, Nacchio met with NSA officials in Fort Meade, Md., to discuss a contract called "Groundbreaker."

That contract wasn't classified, but Nacchio contends NSA officials wanted Qwest to participate in another program. Nacchio said "it was a legal issue and that they could not do something their general counsel told them not to do. ... Nacchio projected that he might do it if they could find a way to do it legally," according to a recounting of the meeting by James Payne, former head of Qwest's government division.

[slipslidingaway]

330. You're welcome, it is interesting that the only CEO who refused

to go along with the program was later brought up on charges, valid or not it makes one wonder.

:shrug:

[defendandprotect]

344. Good to have this info on this thread --

and, yes, it kinda runs parallel to the Bush AG situation -- good get blasted out --
bad get to stay!

[slipslidingaway]

352. Yes and that seems to be the way all too often, the good get

pushed to the side and the not so good move ahead.

:crazy:

[EFerrari]

251. What the administration argues in court and what its policy is

are not separable. That whole argument is just nonsense.

Thank you for believing you can second guess Obama and for coming to the conclusion that he means no harm. Myself, I'll stick with the Constitution and due process of law.

[Beetwasher]

252. Umm, You're The One Presuming To "Second Guess" Obama

Not me. Apparently YOU and ONLY YOU know his motives, based on the actions of an attorney defending a client in a civil lawsuit.

Obama is not the attorney filing the motions on behalf of the defendents. In fact, it would be highly inappropriate for him to have any involvement at all.

[EFerrari]

253. Nope. Not at all. And yes, this is now his mess. His DoJ

extending the claims beyond what BushCo did. Maybe that just means he has smarter lawyers. But, that still doesn't make those smarter lawyers right.

[Beetwasher]

303. No One Is Saying The Lawyers Are "Right", They're Merely Doing Their Job

And there's nothing illegal or unconstitutional about that. Filing a motion to dismiss is not policy. It's not wrong. And it's certainly not unconstitutional.

[bertman]

254. Great post, beetmaster! I was on the other side on this one last night--especially so

after hearing what Turley had to say. But, after hearing your argument, I think you're on the right track. 'Preciate your posting this.

Word o' advice: get your legal secretary to type this stuff for you. You're misusing "your" and "you're" and "know" and 'no".

Ha ha. Just had to do a little grammatical policework.

This gives me a tad more faith in our new Constitutional Lawyer-in-Chief.

Recommend.

On edit: yes, great suggestion to complain loudly and frequently to the White House about this regardless of whether it's a smooth move legalwise, or not.

[Richd506]

255. I Totally agree

[northofdenali]

256. Didn't read some of the thread but -

Obama's DOJ folks did the right thing re: Ted Stevens.

I'm not going to defend the guy - he's guilty as hell, and should be in a cage; but they didn't play by the rules, so he walks.

[Vattel]

260. How do you know that

"the attorneys involved are all Bush appointees?"

[Pacifist Patriot]

281. Good question. I don't know the answer, but I can respond to probabilities.

It is highly likely that after eight years of a Bush presidency the attorneys would have been Bush appointees. While presidents haven't gotten around to replacing all of their attorneys in the first three months of their administrations, a two-term president would likely have had plenty of time to do it. The odds are quite high that the attorneys involved in the case are Bush appointees, but there is of course a possibility a Clinton appointee could be in there somewhere I suppose.

[Vattel]

321. Well,

new presidents don't replace all of the attorneys in the DOJ. They often replace the AGs of the various states, but in the cases in question, I doubt that any of those AGs are even involved. There are many career people in the DOJ although some (e.g., a friend of mine) fled the civil rights division because of Bush appointees.

[Marie26]

265. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Sorry, but this just reads like a pack of rationalizations to me.

[Truth2Tell]

270. I'll give Obama the benefit of the doubt

regarding his motivations on this issue AFTER I hear that a criminal probe has been launched by Holder/DOJ on warrant-less wiretapping. We don't even need to waste our time tea-leaf reading these civil case motions. The lack of an ongoing criminal investigation tells us everything we need to know.

The OP gets my "rationalization of the week" award though. The logic is so circular it makes my head spin.

[watrwefitinfor]

278. The ignorance on DU around these basic legal principles

has been nearly impossible to comprehend. From the beginning of this whole mess, I've been wanting to scream: But it's a CIVIL case, not CRIMINAL. But it seems hopeless - people here are too caught up now in seeking any excuse to excoriate Obama to make any effort to understand Basic Civil Procedure 101.

Thank you, Beetwasher for your incredible efforts in this post. You have done a terrific job.

Wat

[Pacifist Patriot]

282. I know I'm not the brightest bulb in the pack, but...

I'm surprised by the beating he's taking on this. I thought it was only common sense. Then again, perhaps it's because I've seen lawyers throw everything they've got at a case. And boy can that get wild, weird and downright ugly.

I can think of another argument for keeping the Bush appointees in their places. Obama appointees tasked with defending these clients would also have to use every legal weapon in their arsenal to provide for a vigorous defense or they wouldn't be seen as doing their job. Yes, including filing for a dismissal. Can you imagine the degree of Democratic outrage if it were Obama appointees doing that rather than Bush appointees. At least this way we can sputter on about how those damned Bush appointees are covering for their own.

You can also give these men and women enough rope to hang themselves. Turnover for failure to perform is always easier to palate than turnover for political preference, even if the president has the right to do so.

[katandmoon]

287. So Glenn Greenwald and Jonathan Turley are just being dumb?

[watrwefitinfor]

304. Or deliberately misleading. n/t

[katandmoon]

Please elaborate on exactlyy what you mean by that statement..

[watrwefitinfor]

317. Why should I?

Are you as incapable of using a dictionary as you are of comprehending a simple statement? or grasping a simple legal principle?

Wat

[katandmoon]

319. Your snotty answer speaks for itself.

[Marie26]

324. How's that?

Can you explain to me why civil vs. criminal makes a difference?

[watrwefitinfor]

349. Marie26, in reply to your question:

As a layman I can’t begin to lay out all the differences between Civil and Criminal procedure in any but the broadest terms. The laws regarding each are totally and completely different, from who the parties might be, to who has standing, to what sort of pleadings can be made and much much more, and people are conflating the two types of cases. One of the largest differences is that in a civil procedure, no charge is made that the defendant has committed a crime. No charge is being made in this case that Bush (or Obama) committed a crime.

All the rules that apply when actions are brought in Court by one party against another are called Rules of Procedure. There are separate rules in the Statutes for Civil Rules of Procedure that are quite different from Criminal Rules of Procedure. There is a vast body of Federal Statutes in the United States Code that lay out exactly what the law is regarding each type of Rules of Procedure. They cover every aspect leading up to and trying a civil or criminal case.

There is also constantly changing detail in court rulings that result in changes to Common Law (that is, when an appellate court makes a ruling that establishes a precedent and changes the law, as in Bush v. Gore). (Yeah, I know, no precedent there...)

The Cornell University Law School has a very easy to search and use, and authoritative site. There are also easy to read sections that discuss these rules. I suggest anyone interested try reading through some of the information there to determine some of the differences between Civil and Criminal Procedure. If someone is going to talk about it and make any sense at all, it is necessary to know the difference.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp

This is one of the sections that seems pertinent to this discussion:

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Section IV. Parties
Rule 25. Substitution of Parties
(d) Public Officers; Death or Separation from Office.

An action does not abate when a public officer who is a party in an official capacity dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office while the action is pending. The officer's successor is automatically substituted as a party. Later proceedings should be in the substituted party's name, but any misnomer not affecting the parties' substantial rights must be disregarded. The court may order substitution at any time, but the absence of such an order does not affect the substitution.

Federal Criminal Procedure seems to have a much more extensive set of rules and they are quite different. You might want to begin here: http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Criminal_procedure

There are many other online sites that should be helpful, such as FindLaw, Lexis, and even perhaps Wiki-pedia.

My main point, though, was to indicate my frustration, in that many people on DU have been writing extensively and emotionally about these lawsuits as if they were criminal cases. I have seen people repeatedly say things as if Bush was on trial for criminal offenses, and Obama was trying to get him “off” and keep the offensive laws on the books, when in reality none of that is happening here. I thought that Beetwasher did a fine job of pointing out the differences in the OP and in some of his/her replies in this thread.

It is similar to the difference between the O.J. Simpson criminal trial, when he was found Not Guilty, and his trial in Civil Court, when he was found responsible for the deaths and liable for damages. The civil court could not find him guilty of murder. Neither can Bush be found guilty of anything in this case. Obama is now the one being sued and potentially held liable for the actions of Bush, because Obama is now the president, and Bush no longer is.

The wiretapping cases are often discussed on DU in terms of Bush being found “guilty” which is just not going to happen in Civil Court. President Obama may be found liable for damages incurred by the Bush presidency, but NO ONE is going to be found guilty of anything. Obama is being sued in a civil court in lieu of Bush, and the government lawyers whose job it is to defend him in this lawsuit are doing what they are required by law to do. The ongoing battles right now are merely to determine whether the lawsuit is going to go forward at all. And the so-called “experts” are not helping to clarify these matters.

When I made the reply that “constitutional experts” on tv may be deliberately misleading, I was quite serious. If they were interested in having people understand what is happening, they would be laying it out in terms of Civil Procedures, and what the issues actually are, in ways people can understand. Instead they try to make people believe that Obama is selling the country out. They constantly harp on things that may or may not be so regarding Obama’s position, but I have not seen or read them actually laying out the case as well as Beetwasher did, as in wanting to help people understand it. That, to me, is deliberately misleading.

Wat

[barbtries]

284. thank you for writing this

i kept feeling this discomfort, well yeah it's Obama, but it's not Obama. you laid it out for me. and this: Please, by all means, yell loudly, let Obama and Holder know you disagree w/ the positions and motions that these attorney's are filing in these cases. Let him know those policies are unnacceptable. Anyone telling you not to is a douche and you can tell them I said so.

we the people really do need to be active else no change will come about. it's tiring. i'm tired. but it's necessary, and worthwhile, to restore democracy and the rule of law to these united states.

[TwilightGardener]

288. Had to recommend. Thanks for making some very good points.

[katandmoon]

289. I do not buy your argument for an instant.

[tandot]

290. K & R. Thanks, Beetwasher

:hi:

[HughMoran]

302. This is a perspective I haven't seen before

I appreciate the effort you put into posting this - I hope this explanation ends up being accurate as these cases, at first glance, seem like an extension of Bush policy on illegal wire tapping. As with other issues where I am not expert enough to know which side is right (economic theory being the other), I will reserve judgment for now and wait to see how this plays out. Those above who seem 100% sure on this and the economic issues and who won't give an inch or use common sense in their arguments have exposed themselves as knowing what can't be known (IOW, they automatically assume the worst).

[debbierlus]

307. Ah...the old Obama has a secret plan....just wait...Sorry, don't buy it

Obama has completely sold out.

I wonder how many times he has to betray the base before people open their eyes and judge him by his policies and actions and not their secret hopes and rescue fantasies.

Yeah, chill out everyone.

:sarcasm:

[Raine1967]

310. Did you read the OP?

This isn't about selling out, it is about a motion that was dismissed in a lawsuit.

[katandmoon]

312. No, it's about portraying Obama as having a secret plan he clearly doesn't have.

[Cha]

346. Like you know jack shit about what

Prez Obama is doing..all you can do is sit there and criticize.

[ClarkUSA]

355. Ain't that the truth?

I've didn't know there were so many Oval Office "insiders" at DU. :eyes:

[Sparkly]

338. lol

Not "a motion that was dismissed in a lawsuit," a motion to dismiss the lawsuit!

This thread has muddied up the waters even worse than they already were.

[HughMoran]

314. I'd fall out of my chair if you took Obama's side on anything. Ever.

You passionately HATE Barack Obama as you have proved in your dozens of threads ripping at him from every possible angle. I'm not sure why you even bother to post here. What exactly is your argument? "He has completely sold out"? You say that in every thread - I'm impressed! :eyes:

[goclark]

313. Thank you for your post

One think I've noticed about Obama is he handles issues like a Master Chess player.

It is not possible for him to move all the pieces at the same time.

Sometimes I think that some at DU think they are BOB and President Obama is their personal Howdy Doody!

He can not handle every single issue the way that I want him to -- that doesn't mean that he needs to be bashed each and everyday by his own "team."

Discussion is fine but the "anger" for Obama reaches a level that I thought was reserved for Republicans.

Again,thank you for your input and something tells me that it will all work out as you have stated so beautifully.

[nolabels]

322. This whole point and tread is FUCKING BULLSHIT............

Along with what ever other legal crap is be debated here. And surprise, surprise this is what lawyers do. Obama is a lawyer by trade and all of the rest of folks including the judges. You can bet there are also all kind of other motions that will be filed and the case might be settled a couple of decades later by the SCOTUS. So why and how can anybody have a logical point of concern here :shrug:

Wake up, they are ALL lawyers




P.S. After being a mechanic for 35 years it's quite easy to see when parties are maneuvering and have no real plans for ending anything. They are plying their trade, just punching the time card and history will show Richard Nixon died of natural causes that are part of old age.

[leftofthedial]

325. what a load of nonsense.

This is pure Obama Administration. Trashing the COnstitution in pursuit of winning a lawsuit is still trashing the Constitution.

[defendandprotect]

337. And, here's Olbermann's comments on this ---

and his conversation with Howard Fine on this

in this brief MSNBC video at
Glenn Greenwald --
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Note that Turley also follows Howard Fine, just below the first video

----------

As I recall it --

Summing up . . . Olberman/Howard Fine --

"No court has the right to limit President in this regard?"

"Spying without using the info ... like stealing from you w/o spending the money"

"Further, the relationships with private companies are not to be disclosed due to
national security"

"Seems to be politics for CIA and Obama needs intelligence community --"

"Obama stopped torture, but they don't want to shine a flashlight into all of this
And, that Obama wants to leave this to Congress . . . torture, as well.

Leahy wants to do something -- but won't do anything unless Repugs support it --
so far Repugs say "No" . . . "

"Ironies are piling up . . .
immune from any legal challenge re wiretapping -- EVER"

"Self-justification for Executive Authority"

"State's Secrets privilege"

-------------

Turley . . .

Dead wrong --

Bush protected from any criminal investigation re Torture --
but now on surveillance --

Bush extremist arguments have now been EXCEEDED --

Breathtaking claims

NO ONE CAN SUE THE KING --

means government has to waive law suits

Shields government itself -- not only private companies

Leaves citizens without any protection - i.e.,

Constitutional rights which cannot be enforced --

He also comments that he is aware of relativist/fluid view of Constitution
which is opposite of Turley's belief in Constitution as "core principles" ---

Turley thinks that Obama is more interested in programs vs principles

So popular he can do anything? Turley thinks the answer will be NO.