Casper Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ's New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush's Commentary by Tim Jones We had hoped this would go differently. Friday evening, in a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA, EFF's litigation against the National Security Agency for the warrantless wiretapping of countless Americans, the Obama Administration's made two deeply troubling arguments. First, they argued, exactly as the Bush Administration did on countless occasions, that the state secrets privilege requires the court to dismiss the issue out of hand. They argue that simply allowing the case to continue "would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security." As in the past, this is a blatant ploy to dismiss the litigation without allowing the courts to consider the evidence. 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. Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes. This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one — not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration — has ever interpreted the law this way. Previously, the Bush Administration has argued that the U.S. possesses "sovereign immunity" from suit for conducting electronic surveillance that violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). However, FISA is only one of several laws that restrict the government's ability to wiretap. The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and claims that the US PATRIOT Act also renders the U.S. immune from suit under the two remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. Essentially, the Obama Adminstration has claimed that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes. Again, the gulf between Candidate Obama and President Obama is striking. As a candidate, Obama ran promising a new era of government transparency and accountability, an end to the Bush DOJ's radical theories of executive power, and reform of the PATRIOT Act. But, this week, Obama's own Department Of Justice has argued that, under the PATRIOT Act, the government shall be entirely unaccountable for surveilling Americans in violation of its own laws. This isn't change we can believe in. This is change for the worse.I'm really disappointed by this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speed Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Not good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DollFace Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Whoa whoa pit pass...I am not suprised honestly. I didn't think it would get any better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin0469 Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 (edited) It's been amazing to hear more and more from the Obama administration that is "worse than the Bush administration". Everyone believed his promises of lowering the national deficit and pulling the troops out right away and now homeland security.Not quite the "savior" everyone was expecting Edited April 9, 2009 by justin0469 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 DOJ fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrillo Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 errr not quite there's a difference between a policy decision and legal defense. Obama's policy hasn't changed at all, but it's still the AGs job to defend against suits the way any other lawyer would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin0469 Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 errr not quite there's a difference between a policy decision and legal defense. Obama's policy hasn't changed at all, but it's still the AGs job to defend against suits the way any other lawyer would.The point is that they are using the same (or worse) argument they were complaining the Bush administration was. Regardless of the outcome, they are being very hypocritical. That's what makes people go All these promises that aren't worth anything... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 wow!No one — not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration — has ever interpreted the law this way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 The point is that they are using the same (or worse) argument they were complaining the Bush administration was. Regardless of the outcome, they are being very hypocritical. That's what makes people go Only if you ignore the difference between policy and legal defense. Bush used it as a policy, here they are using the argument only as a legal defense to a suit that was filed while Bush was still in office. They are using Bush's own policies as a legal defense to a suit that was brought against that administration. Apples and oranges...http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/jewel/jewel.complaint.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted April 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Only if you ignore the difference between policy and legal defense. Bush used it as a policy, here they are using the argument only as a legal defense to a suit that was filed while Bush was still in office. They are using Bush's own policies as a legal defense to a suit that was brought against that administration. Apples and oranges...http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/jewel/jewel.complaint.pdfhttp://www.google.com/search?q=definition+hypocrisy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 http://www.google.com/search?q=definition+hypocrisylol...link=win:flag: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 That would only be true if it came out that Obama's administration was supporting active warrantless wiretapping. Not the continuation of an already existing lawsuit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin0469 Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Making a blanket claim like The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and claims that the US PATRIOT Act also renders the U.S. immune from suit under the two remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. Essentially, the Obama Adminstration has claimed that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes.sounds more like a policy than legal defense. That's not specific to the suit brought against them and is broad enough to provide an escape from any similar future events. Claiming immunity from laws gives you much more than legal defense for 1 suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 +1, fusion. Still, DoJ fails for letting it get there in the first place while the redneck was in office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Making a blanket claim like sounds more like a policy than legal defense. That's not specific to the suit brought against them and is broad enough to provide an escape from any similar future events. Claiming immunity from laws gives you much more than legal defense for 1 suit.Only if you didn't follow the link and see it's what was in the Motion to Dismiss and it was not the Obama Administration its self saying that. All that says is the new Asst AG is smarter than the one Bush's Admin appointed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin0469 Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Ya, I didn't read all of it but where in the 36 pages does it give that impression? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DollFace Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 wa wa wa wa wa - yes maam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin0469 Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 wa wa wa wa wa - yes maam :???: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 :???:now we're both confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DollFace Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 ugh....hello, when charlie brown is talking to his teacher... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DollFace Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 You guys are really making me work hard to find pictures.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Oh you don't understand what is being said? Need us to use smaller words and talk slower? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin0469 Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 sofa king we tar did Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.