The actual Motion filed by the justdice department. Read it for yourselves so you are fully informed

[Windy]

here is the link:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/jewel/jewelmtdobama.pdf

[napi21]

1. I read it and still don't know what it means. Can you help? n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. What little I understood...

Seems to me the WH is asking the case to be dismissed because the same complaints have been brought before and dismissed, the court doesn't have the jurisdiction, and the case would reveal state secrets.

Not because Obama supports warrantless wiretapping as a certain troll in GDP is suggesting.

[Windy]

4. I've been a paralegal for 25 yrs. I have background. I did note that Congress

through the provisions of the USA Patriot Act, has Not Waived Sovereign Immunity for the Equitable Relief the Plaintiffs in the case are seeking under FISA, the Wiretap Act, and ECPA. Until congress legislates to waive these provisions, immunity stands.

You people do realize that the Justice Department has a duty to defend its client, the US government don't you? What we need to do is pressure Obama to issue an executive order regarding wiretapping or to pressure congress to change the patriot act provisions. I also noted that it was stated in the motion that the Terrorist Surveillance Program is "now inoperative".

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. That's exactly what I was suspecting.

It's like arguing Obama is pro-Ted Stevens because the DOJ dismissed the case.

If I wanted knee jerk anti-Obama hysteria, I'd hang out at stormfront.

[Luminous Animal]

35. Unfuckingbelievable...

You are proposing that those who criticize Obama's stance on "states secrets' are now allied with one of the most despicable hate organizations in the country?

[elleng]

38. Not at all,

but if you want to frame the issue that way, well, then, go right ahead . . .

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. Pretty much.

[Gregorian]

11. Thank you for that explanation. This is why I've been deferring judgment of Obama.

That, and it's quite obvious to me just what his character is. Anyone who doubts, doesn't know that he is solidly in favor of the rule of law. And then some. And that doesn't even mention Biden, who is on the record as having said he is in favor of prosecuting those who violated the law.

[alarimer]

44. I am not deferring judgement.

And this and in many other cases, he has sided with the Bush position. THAT is not change I can believe in. It is fucking criminal. I can only hope those cases lose and give Obama the bruising he so richly deserves. We do not need Vichy Dems in Congress or as President.

[Mithreal]

17. Was Terrorist Surveillance Program the only domestic spy program though? nt

[Elidor]

46. No, it wasn't

I don't have time to dig up the links at the moment, but there were two programs. The one we know the name of is the TSP, but there is another that has never been named. Media stories commonly conflate the two. Damn, I have to go to work or I'd dig through Greenwald's archives. I know he's covered this, but it's been a while back.

[EFerrari]

15. Between calling out DUers, you might see what Turley has to say on KO's show:

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

[Occulus]

2. This OP requires background information for it to make any sense at all n/t

[Windy]

5. Please see my post above and do yourself a favor, read the motion.

Don't rely on someone else's interpretation who may have an agenda.

[Peacetrain]

7. Excellent advice for everyone

[vaberella]

42. +1. n/t

[Jennicut]

8. Thanks.

This is making more sense now.

[Supersedeas]

9. Thanks for the link

[stillcool]

10. I tried to read it...

but it's futile. I will have to continue to base my opinions, and demands, on ignorance..but that's no big deal here.

[Beam Me Up]

12. To be fare ...

its no big deal much of anywhere so far as I can tell.

[ddeclue]

13. The "just dice" department?

:shrug:

I really hope that's not how it works...

:hide:

[vaberella]

14. You should post this in the GDPresidential section...clowns there thing O supports

and advocates wiretapping and Bush policies. This might be needed.

[EFerrari]

18. Right. Just because he voted for immunity and just because

his administration is now arguing now that not only ATT but the government can't be held accountable unless they USE what they cull from illegal surveillance, there's no reason at all to believe Obama supports this. :crazy:

[vaberella]

21. You didn't read the motion...so I won't waste my time on your allegations. Moving on...n/t

[EFerrari]

22. Wrong. I did read the motion. And don't waste you time

because there is no rationale that makes this right. Please do move on.

Obama is arguing that the invasion of our privacy is only wrong if the information gleaned is used.

Bullshit.

[Skittles]

23. CORRECT

NO ACCOUNTABILITY

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_Administration_quietly_expands_Bushs_legal_0407.html

[EFerrari]

25. I can't believe people are just going with this.

:wtf:

[EFerrari]

16. KO & Fineman discuss this motion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x293504

[Mithreal]

33. After listening to Turley all I can say is WOW. Thank you for the video link. nt

[Windy]

43. While I respect Turley, he does have an agenda. He is a libertarian, not a dem or liberal.

nt

[alarimer]

45. Libertarians maybe be kooky in some things but they are right in this case.

I can't believe anyone is bending over backwards to justify this just because it is THEIR guy that is doing it. It was wrong when Bush did it; it is wrong now.

Obama fans cannot handle that he is absolutely and incontovertibly WRONG here. And he is breaking yet more campaign promises. He promised to restore civil liberties. The guy is a fucking liar and you people just can't handle your idol being a liar.

[yy4me]

48. I feel Turley speaks as a professor of Constitutional law, not

as a member of any political party. If he was doing that, other law professors would be on his case. I don't think KO would allow JT to comment if he thought it was to put forth a political stance.

[EFerrari]

49. EFF, ACLU and Greenwald all agree with Turley. n/t

[Mithreal]

19. After reading this, saying the President was continuing

Bush's program seems like an outright lie.

I am looking forward to more info that exonerates the President. Thank you very much for posting this.

[vaberella]

20. I'm starting to wonder if many DUers would care. n/t

[EFerrari]

24. Obama is continuing Bush's claim that the the wiretapping is

his privilege and that the Feds can't be held accountable. But if you're only looking for exoneration, I'm sure you'll find plenty of spin to accommodate you.

[Mithreal]

26. There is still more I do not understand and will watch that Turley video next

I am not looking for exoneration only and I question there may be other spying programs going on as well. I just at the moment think there is more to this than I can understand in a couple days is all. I do put principles before politician. This is just too devastating if it were true President Obama was continuing to illegally spy on Americans.

[EFerrari]

29. Imho, any president has to defend the powers of the Executive.

I am not, myself, attacking Obama as if he were or could be different than anyone taking that office.

But, we are still dealing with fallout from the Bush admin and their policies.

[elleng]

27. Do you understand 'sovereign immunity?'

Did you read about it, in the motion?

This is not spin; this is law. Unfortunately many don't or can't understand this.

[EFerrari]

30. Oh, please. Do YOU understand that they are using the Patriot Act

in a way no one has ever done to immunize themselves? Yes, it is spin. And they will probably get away with it because of people like yourself that are more strangely desperate to prop up an already popular president than to protect their civil rights. Good grief.

[elleng]

31. I'm an attorney;

I'm more interested in propping up the law than anything else. Good Grief.

[EFerrari]

34. Then you should be better able to read and understand

what this new claim means to American civil liberties.

[elleng]

36. As YOU said,

"any president has to defend the powers of the Executive."

[EFerrari]

47. Right. And that doesn't preclude the citizenry from defending its own rights.

[Mithreal]

32. I don't fully understand its use but I am familiar with the concept.

I saw it used in the motion and wiki'd after you asked, interesting.

[elleng]

37. A little more than Wiki:

'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

I wrote more, but it DISAPPEARED!

[elleng]

28. Thanks for this.

As a retired attorney, its great to get 'back into the saliva!'

[vaberella]

40. Thanks elleng....the link helped me undesrtand it more than I thought I did. n/t

[Political Heretic]

39. I don't have an opinion yet because I haven't had time to read.

.....

[vaberella]

41. I've noticed something about this thread...DUers who want to push an agenda

mainly anti-O agenda without gathering the info first will do that and this thread and many others like it won't give it the consideration it needs. Their like net bullys. While another group who claims to have read it and are still angry...they quote the mouthpieces and get more of a kick at calling people names or implying their stupid. It's just amazing to read because most don't care about the details they just want to shout.

One was screaming no accountability when another kept saying warrantless wiretapping when the wiretapping as been struck so you're left wondering about the outrage.

[EFerrari]

50. Outraged anti-Obama net bully Glenn Greenwald explains it this way:

"In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad 'state secrets' privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they 'willfully disclose' to the public what they have learned," Greenwald wrote Monday.


Summaries of mouthpieces Greenwald, ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation are in the Raw Story article.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_Administration_quietly_expands_Bushs_legal_0407.html

[Mithreal]

52. Thom Hartmann talks about this during the first hour.

He puts Constitution and principle first.

He makes some pretty strong statements.

[Born_A_Truman]

53. I read it yesterday on Kos

If people want the law changed they need to pressure congress to change it. DOJ is defending the laws that congress passed. The brief quotes the passages and it seems pretty clear to me that this is the way the law was written. Of course, I am not a lawyer and I don't try and play one on the internets.