There is something seriously wrong going on here re: state secrets/warrantless wiretapping LINK

[Blackhatjack]

Taking these positions is diametrically opposed to the campaign positions Obama took.

What is going on here? What does Obama know that he is not telling to the public? What could have changed his mind?

This is not even a close question -- so why? why? why?

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/White_House_says_Obama_absolutely_stands_0410.html

[Windy]

1. Learn a bit about the legal system before posting inflammatory remarks.

I could take you more seriously if you understood precedent and the fact that legislated and passed law is to be followed until it is changed. I believe Holder has made a statement to that effect also.

[FiveGoodMen]

2. But does it look as though this admin is TRYING to change it?

Do you get the impression that that is their goal?

A lot of people here are starting to wonder about it.

[Windy]

5. Legislative law comes from the legislature, which means congress....

wow...

[FiveGoodMen]

7. Public statements of direction come from the White House quite often

Keep your wows to yourself.

[JDPriestly]

15. And the legislature has granted American citizens the right to sue for

violations of the Constitution. The allegations are that the government violated the Fourth Amendment and also FISA. The plaintiffs should be allowed to proceed. If states secrets are involved, the courts are a co-equal branch of government, and the judge can review the documents containing the secrets in camera. The executive branch cannot hold itself above the judicial branch by refusing to provide evidence based on states' secrets. If the day comes when the government can simply refuse to subordinate itself to the co-equal judicial branch, government pursuant to the U.S. Constitution is over. Finished. We are no longer the United States of America. We are no longer governed by the Constitution of the United States of America. On that day, our Constitution has been replaced by something, who knows what else.

[antimatter98]

4. You are accepting of this b.s. to your peril my friend. "they didn't come for me.." n/t

[ThomWV]

8. What precident do we have for the President's torture program?

Make your case rather than say that there is some precident to be followed. As it stands your statement is just idle bullshit. Give us some of that understanding that only you seem to enjoy.

[Blackhatjack]

9. I agree follow 'precedent' like the Constitution ....

The President is responsible for protecting and defending the Constitution.

I merely asked the question as to what is going on with the White House taking these positions --and you call that 'inflammatory'??

If you understood the concepts of stare decisis and precedent you would not put yourself in such a position of revealing your limited knowledge on these issues.

[JDPriestly]

11. What law are you talking about, Windy.

The Constitution supersedes other laws, and the Bush activities violated the Constitution. Congress cannot pass laws that excuse the government from granting us our rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution, Article VI

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article3

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article3

Title 42, section 1983 of the U.S. Code states:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1983.html

Satisfied?

Obama is simply wrong. He is invoking the States Secrets privilege after criticizing Bush for doing that very thing. I repeat, Obama is wrong. Our rights have apparently been violated, and we have the right to seek redress in the courts. Obama's stance on this is unconscionable. And we need to let the administration know how we feel.

The Bush administration violated the Constitution. And the fact that Obama is defending Bush's actions in this area suggests that Obama is continuing to violate our rights in this respect and is thereby also violating our constitutional rights.

My suspicion (founded on logic and my knowledge of human nature and not on any inside information or knowledge of facts not in the public domain) is that information gleaned from illegal wiretaps was used to convict people who had actually or arguably committed crimes and also to initiate investigations against completely innocent people. The embarrassment that the government would face were the extent of the abuses of the Bush administration fully aired could cause such public outrage that we would have serious problems. Also, some convictions might have to be revisited -- take the Stevens case as an example in which evidence was hidden from defendants.

My guess: the Attorney General's office used information from these wiretaps to identify illegal or allegedly illegal acts that had nothing to do with terrorism. Child pornography (despicable, certainly), prostitution, the investigation of Eliot Spitzer and a number of other prominent prosecutions or investigations that relied on transactions that might well have come to light through review of e-mail transmissions such as electronic payments come to mind.

[Blackhatjack]

16. Well said and to the point ... once Constitutional rights are violated, a remedy must be afforded...

There is not a doubt that the Bush Administration violated the Constitutional rights of the plaintiffs in this action, and yet the Obama Administration is proposing to the Court that there is no remedy available to the aggrieved parties for such violations.

Where there is no remedy for for a Constitutional violation, there is no Constitutional right.

Period.

[rucky]

12. Asking why is only inflammatory to people who don't feel the need

to explain their own positions.

If you know something we don't, please share.

[Realityhack]

23. This isn't a matter of following existing law vs. not following it.

The article is talking about using the 'state secrets' defense to dismiss the lawsuit which is entirely optional on the part of the government, and it mentions the white house staff saying Obama is completely behind this action which is a far cry from his critisizing the exact same action previously.

This lawsuit could be allowed to go forward under current law. It is not a position where there is only one legal choice the way you make it out to be.

[alarimer]

32. Bullshit.

Obama did a complete about face.

I don't give a flying fuck about precedent. What is wrong is wrong, no matter who does it.

Why is this all of a sudden so acceptably now that a Democrat is doing it?

[EFerrari]

3. Just about everyone I've read in the civil liberties business agrees with you. n/t

[ThomWV]

6. Haven't you heard - he's only been in office 70 days - why worry?

I said that Obama, if elected, would never let go of the powers Bush left for him. Now you see it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. "Transparent Government" was a nice campaign slogan. Easily trumped political expediency.

Obama is a politician. And, as politicians do, he is looking to the next election and the mythical "center" for votes.

[Duer 157099]

22. Perhaps when he said "transparent" he really meant "invisible" n/t

[seabeyond]

13. if i remember correctly, he has always stood with this position, and i strongly disagreed

during the election. was pretty sure after elected he would do this. no surprise to me. dont know why it is to anyone else.

pissed then, pissed now

[Blackhatjack]

14. This was the perfect opportunity for the Obama Admin to tell the court they believed in warrants....

... before wiretapping. There is no fencesitting on this one.

See the issue here is not a new one.... the Courts have consistently held that in order to protect the Constitutional rights of our citizens there needs to be a showing of evidence and a determination by a judicial authority before a warrant could be issued allowing wiretapping of American Citizens.

Standing behind the allegation that all laws must be followed because they were passed by a Congress is not sustainable.

The Nazis were able to point to laws passed by govt and legislative authorities, but that did not make those laws legitimate.

And even the US Supreme Court tried for years to uphold 'separate but equal' school education laws that certainly violated the Constitution, and eventually Brown v Board of Education resulted in the opportunity for the SCOTUS to reverse those unsustainable legislatively passed laws.

Sorry, but we don't follow laws in this country that violate the Constitution just because they were passed by a vote of the Congress. Where the Constitution and legislatively passed laws conflict, the legislatively passed laws must yield --unless and until the Constitution is amended according to the procedure contained within itself.

[L. Coyote]

17. Making this about Obama is separate from what is really going on.

Is Obama now directing every lawsuit USG is involved in? NO!

There is a lawsuit, and motions are being filed.
There is a context to what is news, the motion to dismiss.
Every lawyer tries to get his case dismissed if being sued like this. D'oh!

Will this establish a precedent? What will be the impact?
Can a ruling in this case overthrow "Bush Doctrine"?

[Blackhatjack]

18. It absolutely is about Obama and the positions his Admin has taken on these issues...

Invoking the 'state secret' defense is an affirmative defense, meaning it must be raised by the defendant in the suit in order to be subject to relief from the Court on that basis. On the other hand, 'sovereign immunity' is considered an absolute bar to recovery unless and until the US Government waives that it.

So raising the 'state secret' defense was elective on behalf of the Obama Administration, and was raised to support the relief requested --that the lawsuits be dismissed.

As Constitutional Law scholar Jonathan Turley has pointed out, if Obama does not act to oppose these constitution violations initiated by the Bush Administration then 'he will own them.'

As quoted from the article

"In their filing Friday, the Justice Department argued that the case should be dismissed because information surrounding the program was a “state secret” and therefore couldn’t be litigated or discussed. It also proposed that the government was protected by “sovereign immunity” under federal wiretapping statutes and the Patriot Act, arguing that the United States could only face lawsuits if they willfully elected to disclose intelligence obtained by wiretapping."

MORE

[bvar22]

20. That makes sense.

I'm sure Obama knows nothing about this, and hasn't expressed any directions or outlined any policies or personal preferences to any of the Executive Branch lawyers.
They are clearly acting totally on their own.
Somebody better call Obama and let him know what these guys are doing.

[noise]

21. President Obama supports the DOJ position

...

Q. Last Friday, the Justice Department invoked the state secrets privilege in asking a judge to dismiss a civil suit filed against the National Security Administration regarding its domestic surveillance program. And in its brief, the Justice Department argued that Americans have no right to sue the government for alleged illegal surveillance.

Does the President support the Justice Department's positions in that case?

MR. GIBBS: Yes, absolutely. It's the -- absolutely does. Obviously, these are programs that have been debated and discussed, but the President does support that viewpoint.

...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Briefing-by-White-House-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-4/9/09/">White House Press Briefing

AFAICT, the argument being made is that US citizens should simply accept that they may be spied upon by their government. We shouldn't worry about this though because:

1) The government needs these powers for counterterrorism purposes.

2) Anyone who thinks that such spying would be used for ulterior purposes (i.e. to track protest groups) is failing to give their government the benefit of the doubt. After all, have we any reason to distrust government officials? Have we seen any conduct in the past few years that is remotely indicative of bad faith?

[Realityhack]

25. Noise... I think the post you responded too was sarcastic. n/t

[Realityhack]

24. You didn't read the OP much less the article did you?

"President Barack Obama endorsed a Justice Department move to dismiss a case in which the National Security Agency is being sued over its warrantless wiretapping program, because he believes the case presents a risk to national security, the White House told Raw Story Thursday."

How is that not a reflection of Obama's position on this exact case?

The government could chose not to invoke the state secrets defense. Obama called out Bush on using it. He could choose not to. He hasn't. I am saddened.

[nichomachus]

19. Apparently, someone from the CIA

showed him the videos of what really happened in Dallas in '63, LA in '68, and Memphis in '68.

You don't fuck with the CIA or you end up like JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcom X, Richard Nixon (who was taken down by the CIA), and a host of other people.

[Realityhack]

26. All abord the woo woo express n/t

[nichomachus]

29. You're late. I was expecting the asshole reponse much quicker than than n/t

[Realityhack]

31. Sorry I was attending to things that actually exist/happened n/t

[KoKo]

27. Saw Pelosi on Olberman and she was nervous as hell when he brought up

"warrentless wiretapping." Pelosi isn't the best in an interview, as we all know, but she had nevous tics and stumbled in her reply. I do believe that she and the rest of the Senators on Intelligence Committee didn't really pay attention to what was going on and believed it was okay. They are complicit and they do not want it known they were for legal reasons???? Perhaps Obama is covering their butts. Why he still supports the program or parts of it is beyond me. Maybe to track down some of the Offshore Accounts? Financial Criminals? But, that would be just speculation and it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do just because it's a Democrat doing it.

[Hawkowl]

28. Maybe

The administrations actions may make a Machiavellian bit of sense here. If Obama can cover for Pelosi and congressional democrats, he can trade this political favor for some legislation he really wants.

Politics at its worst form.

[notadmblnd]

30. Didn't she say in tht interview also, that parts of the Patriot Act would be allowed to expire?

Is warrantless wiretapping a part of the patriot Act?

[KoKo]

33. I think it might be seperate...but...if it's combined...it's still sad that Dems are

not acting but "waiting" until what Bush Administration put into law with their help ...just expires rather than being Pro-Active.

But, sad to say, it seems our new Dem Congress looks to the Repugs to tell them what to be "FOR or AGAINST" and none of us worked butts off to get them elected to see them act as if they are still in the "Bunker" fighting off Repugs when THEY have the MAJORITY. Makes no sense unless they are in bed with them all...or clueless or corrupted by the lobbyists.

:shrug:

[latebloomer]

34. He's either bought and sold

or scared for his life.

Or both.

[Blackhatjack]

35. The imput a President receives from advisors always comes with an agenda attached...

... but the bottom line is the buck stops here with Obama.

I have no doubt some White House advisors and members of his Administration have their special interests and friends they would like to protect from embarrassment and/or prosecution, but Obama must see through those intentions and get this one right.

Before he took the job of President he saw the issues clearly, that the 'state secrets' use was improper, and I believe he came out against warrantless wiretapping.

Now that he has the job, we can expect him to follow through ...