Countdown: Fineman on Admin's Rationalization for Warrantless Wiretapping Defense

[Hissyspit]

Run time: 10:57 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jSUHVUgJFc   Posted on YouTube: April 08, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: April 08, 2009 By DU Member: Hissyspit Views on DU: 1917

 
MSNBC Countdown w/ KEITH OLBERMANN - 7 April 2009.

[Voice for Peace]

1. yeah. k/r

[trthnd4jstc]

2. We should be on the side of NO Warrantless Wiretapping. Bottom Line. It is unconstitutional. n/t

[elleng]

12. I think that's a given; they've stated that.

.

[populistdriven]

24. Obama is doing exactly the correct thing. If he stops it the next Republican will just start it up

The only way this will ever get fixed if 1) the courts and congress enforce the laws (and laws to make them more enforceable)
or 2) makes it legal with appropriate oversight (I don't think this is possible)

He is forcing the county to either accept and manage it or make it impossible to happen again.

[EFerrari]

3. How can any argument based on sovereignty be used against the PEOPLE?

Something sure is piling up here.

And, how do we know "the dark side" has been shut down? This is a very dangerous moment with respect to torture and other forms of abuse like universal communications monitoring. We need transparency right now MORE than ever, not less.

Too bad Nancy Pelosi is complicit and unresponsive because I could use a representative in Congress right now.

[elleng]

13. The sovereign immunity argument

concerns SUING the government; without its waiver of the principle, the government can't be sued.

[GeorgeGist]

22. Sovereign immunity is nonsense.

Case dismissed without prejudice.

[elleng]

23. An Introduction

'Sovereign immunity from suit is an inherent right of all governments, including the federal, state and tribal governments, for reasons of sound public policy. The purpose served by this policy is to provide special protection against loss of assets held in common for many people, now and in the future, for the performance of vital government functions.

Since 1946, the federal government and most states have provided limited waivers of sovereign immunity that allow these governments to be sued when the government functions in the same manner as a private individual, such as when a government employee gets in a car accident. However, the federal government and states have retained sovereign immunity in broad areas in order to protect governmental functions from lawsuits and limit the size of damages claims.'

http://www.ncai.org/ncai/resource/documents/governance/sovimintro.htm

[EFerrari]

27. Yes, it is. Because it cannot be shown that spying on the populace

is a beneficial policy for that populace or its assets held in common.. It's nonsense and unfortunately, no one that matters has any interest in doing anything about it.

[biopowertoday]

4. saying the Obama admin is seeking to EXPAND its sovernity. Change

that is UNBELIEVABLE!!

[silverojo]

5. Change that is unconscionable. - n/t

[biopowertoday]

7. both fit. All three, Olbermann, Turley and Fineman were highly critical

of the Obama administration tonight.

[elleng]

15. Fineman understood and explained

the reasons for this admin to take this approach; doing otherwise might hinder its legitimate actions in the future. This is one of the things that makes 'politics' so difficult to understand and accept.

[elleng]

14. I disagree with this assertion;

they're not seeking to EXPAND anything, but asking the court to maintain this VERY OLD principle, the government can't be sued without its permission.

[Kaleko]

6. Stunning. The Obama Justice Dept. is claiming "sovereign immunity"...

that means, whatever this or any other administration before and after this one is King. It is royalty immune from prosecution.

[biopowertoday]

8. Exactly, that is what they all pointed out tonight.

[elleng]

16. And has been so for hundreds of years.

'Sovereign immunity from suit is an inherent right of all governments, including the federal, state and tribal governments, for reasons of sound public policy. The purpose served by this policy is to provide special protection against loss of assets held in common for many people, now and in the future, for the performance of vital government functions.

Since 1946, the federal government and most states have provided limited waivers of sovereign immunity that allow these governments to be sued when the government functions in the same manner as a private individual, such as when a government employee gets in a car accident. However, the federal government and states have retained sovereign immunity in broad areas in order to protect governmental functions from lawsuits and limit the size of damages claims.'

http://www.ncai.org/ncai/resource/documents/governance/sovimintro.htm

[Krashkopf]

18. You are Comparing Apples to Oranges

The sovereign immunity you are talking about has to do with suing the Federal Government for money damages when Federal employees NEGLIGENTLY cause an injury. The "limited waiver" that you are talking about is the 1946 law known as "The Federal Torts Claims Act." I know this because when I was a young Army lawyer, my job was to defend the Army against FTCA claims.

That is NOT what we are talking about here. The NSA did NOT negligently wiretap people without getting a warrant.

The Bush administration, and now, sadly, the Obama administration, have claimed, on the record, in court, that the U.S. Government cannot be sued for INTENTIONALLY violating the CONSTITUTION.

It was WRONG and UNAMERICAN, when Bush said it. It is JUST AS WRONG and JUST AS UNAMERICAN when Obama says it.

Restoring the CONSTITUTION was my #1 issue before the election, and it is STILL my #1 issue. My support for Obama is DIRECTLY related to his support for the CONSTITUTION. I have already called the White House to express my outrage. I hope you, all, will too.

[sabrina 1]

26. Is the government protected from

violating the Constitution? What about criminal prosecutions? We should nto even be talking about 'lawsuits', we should have been talking about impeachment as soon as this crime was uncovered, several years ago. And the speed with which they moved to protect themselves demonstrated that all those who were aware of or supported this crime, Rockefeller et al, was proof that they all knew how serious a crime against the people had been committed.

Also, as far as I know, the lawsuits relate to the telecoms who aided and abetted the government (except airc, for Qwest) in this violation of the constitution.

The controversial FISA bill that Obama voted for, was to 'retroactively' (since when did that become acceptable btw) protect these corporations from the lawsuits that were piling up against them at the time, so the government protected its partners in crime and intends to keep protecting them.

Iow, even if you are right, how does this immunity apply to people who are NOT a part of the government?

Remember that even Ashcroft, bad as he was, refused on his hospital bed, to go along with this most serious crime. And how sad that all those who at the time, put their careers and maybe even their safety on the line, (many DOJ employees quit over this or were forced out James Comey comes to mind along with many others,) they did the right thing, even going against their party, now they are being betrayed by their government for the second time. So why should anyone take those oaths of office seriously, they must be wondering, or the Constitution itself?

[EFerrari]

28. With respect to surveillance? Not even BushCo argued that. n/t

[bbgrunt]

9. .....but, but, but.....the left has no where else to go. Time to build a new road.

[Grinchie]

10. One reason why I won't vote for Obama in 2012

Not that it matters.. The Mayans predict the end of this insanity on 12 21 2012 anyway, so I'll just sit back and watch the change happen without him.

This is truly the mose lilly livered weak kneeed thing Obama could have allowed to happen.

The only thing that would make me happy is to see the Bush family Bankrupted, Cheney and his relatives banished to the poorhouse and left to the mercy of county medical care.

Other than that, I wish Obama the best, it's just that he just violated my core principles by discarding the Constitution I fought during in the Cold War. One can only take so many betrayels before one gives up.

[ima_sinnic]

11. exactly. I now consider him a con artist

as this comes on top of dismissively, rudely, IGNORANTLY laughing off legalization of marijuana as "not helping the economy," dismissing single-payer, universal health care because "it would raise taxes," ensuring our pockets were picked for the sake of the billionaires' yachts, jets, and bonuses, retaining all BushCo lawyers who wanted to stay in the DOJ, ramping up the occupation of Afghanistan--now this, which shows he is simply a fraud as he claims to be a "constitutional scholar."

I voted for a president, not a king, but that will be the last time for him.

I wish I could recommend your post as it sums up my thoughts exactly.

[florida08]

17. I have a harsh view too

republicans are still running the country and this administration is not holding itself accountable as it promised and now has decided to protect the rogue one. Very sad time.

[indimuse]

19. knr!!

This is NOT good! I'm very disappointed..and ALARMED!

[ima_sinnic]

20. k&r

[chill_wind]

21. There are names for governments of other countries

that use these kinds of tools and rationales to maintain their concentrated power.

[Enthusiast]

25. So this is implying that the intelligence

agencies of the U.S.A. are forcing President Obama to do as THEY wish. Or they are blackmailing the POTUS into allowing warrantless wiretaps? I have long suspected the C.I.A. has grown too powerful but this is ridiculous.