Mr President - Et tu, Brute?

[Divine Discontent]

I'm starting to feel like I've been had. There's absolutely no excuse for wiretapping millions of Americans data transmissions. And to defend Dick and Alberto makes me have a painful feeling in my stomach - this is very disheartening. Et tu, Brute, et tu?



From the rawstory article by John Byrne - "President Barack Obama has invoked "state secrets" to prevent a court from reviewing the legality of the National Security Agency's warantless wiretapping program and moved late Friday to have a lawsuit challenging the program dismissed.

The move -- which holds that information surrounding the massive eavesdropping program should be kept from the public because of its sensitivity -- follows an earlier decision in March to block handover of documents relating to the Bush Administration's decision to spy on a charity. The arguments also mirror the Bush Administration's efforts to dismiss an earlier suit against AT&T.

The decision Friday involves a lawsuit filed by the civil liberties group Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is suing the NSA for the wiretapping program. The agency monitored the telephone calls and emails of thousands of people within the United States without a court's approval in an effort to thwart terrorist attacks.

In attempting to block a San Fransisco court from reviewing documents relating to the NSA program, the Obama Administration is also protecting other individuals named as defendants in the suit: Vice President Dick Cheney, former Cheney chief of staff David Addington and former Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales." http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_follows_Bush_policy_on_wiretapping_0406.html


more at: www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

[uponit7771]

1. Says who? Everytime we see one of these headlines there's always a heavy caveat or some "source"...

...that "thinks" or "supposes".

[AtomicKitten]

2. Is it protectionism or is it forcing the issue to the Supreme Court?

[Divine Discontent]

6. that will be interesting to see AK. Thank you for the comment!

and for those that didn't go to the rawstory page, here's the PDF of the motion to dismiss http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/jewel/jewelmtdobama.pdf

[Barack_America]

8. Or protecting prosecutions in the works?

I mean, this is the same president who has ended torture and is closing Gitmo. This NSA move doesn't sound good, but I think Obama has earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to "rule of law". I'm eagerly waiting to learn more about his reasoning here.

[MADem]

11. I think Obama has earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to "rule of law"

I do, too.

I'm hoping he had a clue as to his subject matter during those years as a constitutional law lecturer. I'm kind of thinking he did!

[Runcible Spoon]

10. If that is TRULY his angle, it's his responsibility to come out and say it

It's not like it's a popular program; the vast majority of Americans are AGAINST gov't spying.

I don't buy any of it. If he wants to take it to the SC he should come out and say it, and get some popular support and momentum behind it.

My spidey sense tells me he likes his new powers just fine and some people are really getting creative with their defensive spinjobs.

[AtomicKitten]

16. I guess we should all defer to your "spidey sense," right?

This kneejerk jumping to an always negative conclusion is pandemic around this place.

One thing we know for sure: The Wingnuts are digging in for a fight. http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/04/nominees-held-up/

This mess will require some finesse to unravel, something Obama has in spades and something that clearly annoys the shit out of you and others here with the tunnel-vision childish cries of "do it my way!"

I'm all for slow and deliberate to nail these mo-fos. For that I can muster all the patience in the world.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. If you are making a move like that, you risk tipping off your opposition if you make it public

But even if Obama is making that move, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume in the meantime that he does indeed want these warrantless wiretapping powers and I don't think it's unreasonable to hold him accountable for his decisions. If he is really doing this so that he can secretly fast track it to the Supreme Court then he knows how it will appear in public and that means he knows there will be strong opposition from civil liberties advocates to what he is doing. I say hold him accountable, because it's our responsibility and because he can take it.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. That's a good point

Obama is often very skilled at getting others to do the dirty work for him. Send it straight to the Supreme Court so that there's no political battle.

[Divine Discontent]

28. I like that if that is the case. it needs to be reconciled quickly. any idea on a timeline guess?

[stillcool]

34. In the PDF....

GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS’
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Date: June 25, 2009
Time: 2:30 p.m.
Courtroom: 6, 17th Floor
Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker

[ShortnFiery]

3. I just heard on MSNBC that the Pentagon's budget will be RAISED from 512 to 585 BILLION.

585 Billion for FY 2010 does NOT include the costs for our two ongoing occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan. :wow: :nuke:

[Barack_America]

7. Is that due to Obama counting Iraq and Afghanistan expenditures in the budget?

:shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

9. I think much of the bloated Pentagon budget is just to keep the Military Industrial Complex FED.

That is, keeping existing projects/productions running.

Gates just announced LARGE INCREASES in funding for "predator drones."

Yes, those unmanned aircraft swooping in on villages in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan is "spot on" for killing innocents along with Taliban and Al Quaeda.

We're doing swimmingly in CREATING MORE terrorists every time that drone drops our LIBERTY BOMBS. :puke:

[Teaser]

24. you "think" that, eh?

Well, when we're done worrying about what you "think" is happening, since you're obviously upset, why not look at the actual outlays?

[MadHound]

4. More "change we can believe in"

Sadly, it looks like the more things change, the more they stay the same. Escalating war, shredding the Constitution, bowing to the corporate overlords on Wall St., destroying public education. Mmm-hmm, that's some real change:eyes:

[Dinger]

5. So, History Will repeat Itself. Big Deal

Everybody cool with that? Not me:grr: :nuke:


Yeah, et tu like a muthafucka:grr: :nuke:

[Fire1]

14. Oh, we got us a Johnny Cash fan!. Ya-hoo! lol!

I loved him, too.:hi:

[Dinger]

17. Cool : )

:hi: :thumbsup:

[Political Tiger]

12. I wonder how many people actually bothered to read the administration's brief

in addition to Raw Story's version of it in order to have ALL the facts at their disposal so as to be completely informed before making up their mind? I'm willing to say not many, if any. It is 36 pages after all and the Raw Story article is only a few paragraphs.

Why bother with ALL the facts before making up your mind when Raw Story conveniently tells you what to think?

[Solomon]

15. Because unlike Obama, people love to talk before they know

what they're talking about.

[Boomerang Diddle]

38. Used be that it was the other side

that skipped the details and let websites tell them how to think.

[scheming daemons]

13. "Meh" to this whole melodramatic thread....

"Et tu, Obama?", "painful feeling in my stomach", "feel like I've been had"......

Oh, please. Stop with the drama queen nonsense.




Obama's earned the benefit of the doubt.

[JuniperLea]

18. Yep

"We" are begining to sound like "Them."

[Divine Discontent]

20. Et tu, scheming daemons?

some will defend everything he allows and pushes for, sorry, I'm not gonna do that. President Obama has done many good things in just a couple months, but, he's also shown a far from progressive agenda when it comes to Afghanistan, letting the warfare in Iraq drag on for, at the minimum another year and a half, and his justice department has far too many bushies in it - you do realize he didn't get rid of many of them, I'm sure, but in the argued reasoning of "he doesn't want to look political", he leaves in power some really really shitty people. I'm very progressive minded, and when I voted for him, I didn't just vote for the guy who would push the Lilly Ledbetter act through, I voted for the guy who would end B*sh horrible direction. We're not getting that in all areas, and sadly, the two most dangerous areas are how they spy on America and the continuance of bombing and mass destruction abroad. I won't back down from saying we're being hoodwinked about the need for 'war' abroad. A new plan of going after the terrorists funds and strategic actions with the military needs done - not a nearly 100,000 personnel presence in the Afghan region - it's disgusting.

[Teaser]

22. oh god

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8324900&mesg_id=8325065

[scheming daemons]

30. There's a difference between simply disagreeing vs. using melodramatic hyperbole

Going over the top hurts your argument.

[mkultra]

40. Et tu, Divine

some people here pick up any RW maelstrom and bear it on their back immediately. In your op, you decided that you had "been had" by obama.

If you buy every BS MSM that comes out, maybe you should take a powder.

[Beetwasher]

19. OMG!!! GASP!!! Say It Ain't So!!!! Defense Attorneys Are TRYING TO WIN THEIR CASE!!! Oh, The HORROR!

This is An Ongoing Lawsuit From The Bush Admin. In Which DOJ Is Defending (Ex)Gov't Employees.

Everyone is entitled to a defense, and yes, that includes ex-Bushites as distasteful as that is. The defense attorney's, assigned by DOJ are defending their case. That's what they are supposed to do.

Obama interfering would be politicization of DOJ. This is what Bushies did. Obama does not and will not politicize DOJ. The case needs to work it's way through the court, and as much as it SOUNDS bad, the defense is doing what defense attorney's do. Filing motions to try to win their case.

The above applies across the board to numerous ongoing lawsuits against Bushco. which are being defended by DOJ.

Sometimes the law sucks when you want things and you want them NOW!!. But Obama is acting appropriately by NOT getting involved in this. The wheels of justice grind, albeit too slow for some.

[Teaser]

21. PLEASE STOP MAKING SENSE

your kind ain't welcome here.

[rug]

37. Calling the Justice Department Defense Attorneys is like calling John Yoo a Legal Scholar.

[Beetwasher]

41. Uh, What?

:shrug:

Are they defending the gov't (and gov't employees) against a lawsuit or not? If that's what they are doing, then they are doing their job and defending presumably as best as they can.

Personally, I don't agree w/ their position. But I didn't agree w/ OJ's either, but I recognized he had a right to defend himself in court, as does everyone, IMO. It is, unfortunately, the DOJ's job to defend these vile scumbags as they were government employees at the time the events in question took place. Alas.

[madohioan]

42. Good point

They are doing what they are paid to do.

[Teaser]

26. picture talk

[Divine Discontent]

27. as DUer defendandprotect says,

"THIS is why there should never have been the FISA law to begin with . . .

FISA was already in violation of our Constitution . . . before Bush.

I think we're officially and openly now in the "national security state" --

BECAUSE, evidently everyone is our enemy --

Russians, Chinese, Panama, Iraq-twice, Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti,
Venezuela, Pakistan ... Mexico and Canada next?"



So, you go ahead and make your silly reference to drama while our rights continue to be shat upon by the NEW administration. Thankfully, as I figured, most people in the news thread are disgusted by this course.

[stillcool]

33. Have you read the PDF?

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

[Divine Discontent]

29. $585,000,000,000.00 for the PENTAGON IN 2010 not including the 'wars' - a 10% INCREASE! eom

[masuki bance]

31. If Obama thinks it's cool, it's cool with me.

[ShortnFiery]

32. I enthusiastically voted for Obama, but I would NEVER go that far. Always follow the MONEY

and don't trust even the most magnanimous of leaders unconditionally.

[NoSheep]

35. Is it possible, just possible, that someone like Obama might see some value

in this that we can't see? Are you really worried he is like them and is operating under the same bullshit, self-interested motives? Trying to put anyone who might challenge the government in jail? I don't think so. I've had plenty of evidence that when he feels it is the right thing to do, he reverses what they did. Look at allowing the dead soldiers to be shown in the MSM...look at his resolve to get out of Iraq, close Guantanamo, spend tax dollars for the REST of us, trey to normalize relations with Iran and north Korea.. His motives aren't like theirs. It is plain as day. I say this not just to you but all the people who seem to think they've been HAD by this administration.

What do you think might happen if these robber baron businesses, ruined by NO FAULT of his own, were allowed to crash? The rich are going to protect themselves and people like me would be sunk. Too many of us already are.

There may be something he has learned that really would compromise our security and I'm MIHOP. I just don't think he is like them. He's proven it in his own life WAY before this by helping the disenfranchised instead of helping himself which he easily could have done.

And as far as getting the goods on those fuckers...I think he has a plan...but maybe he realizes, because he is most likely SMARTER than we are, that it will take time. We must have patience.

Thanks for taking the time to read this. It's not "personal"...just what I've been thinking.

[Vidar]

36. That was my reaction as well.

[mix]

39. there is a greater truism at work here, perhaps

Somewhere in my political philosophy books is the observation that the Prince will seldom give up the power he has acquired, either upon assuming the throne or upon subsequent additions to his authority.

In other words, it is not likely that Obama will surrender the power that Bush-Cheney grabbed for the executive branch over the last eight years.