Casper Posted April 9, 2009 Author 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.It amazes me how the Obama supporters, the biggest bashers of Bush and his administration, are okay with this. Are you all brainwashed? WTF? You're basically saying it's okay to agree with Bush and his policies when it benefits you, IE: well we don't want sued so we'll just stick to the original plan, but we don't really agree with it, but we don't want sued. Again, hypocrisy. You can't say one thing then do another. That's not change. That's typical government destroying our country. 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 didjust kidding....before it gets to It amazes me how the Obama supporters, the biggest bashers of Bush and his administration, are okay with this. Are you all brainwashed? WTF? You're basically saying it's okay to agree with Bush and his policies when it benefits you, IE: well we don't want sued so we'll just stick to the original plan, but we don't really agree with it, but we don't want sued. Again, hypocrisy. You can't say one thing then do another. That's not change. That's typical government destroying our country. quoted for truth... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DollFace Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 sofa king we tar didyur a dork:thefinger: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DollFace Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 just kidding....before it gets to woops too late. i reacted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC51 John Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 I am in no way a supporter of this.I hope it's not true, but If it is true. The plaintiffs neet to enjoin the new administration and DOJ in this case.Has anybody read 'The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America' by James Bamford.Excellent yet scary book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DollFace 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?No that's okay. But after punch you in the lip and then in the nuts you will be talking a lot slower and using smaller words because you brains will be out your ass. Have a nice day...biach! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 It amazes me how the Obama supporters, the biggest bashers of Bush and his administration, are okay with this. Are you all brainwashed? WTF? You're basically saying it's okay to agree with Bush and his policies when it benefits you, IE: well we don't want sued so we'll just stick to the original plan, but we don't really agree with it, but we don't want sued. Again, hypocrisy. You can't say one thing then do another. That's not change. That's typical government destroying our country.So you're saying this is stating that the Obama Administration is conducting warrantless wiretapping along with supporting warrantless wiretapping and it's not just the Asst AG doing his job as the lawyer for the defense on a case that was started before Obama was elected?I'm okay with this lawyer doing his job and defending a lawsuit.I'm not okay with a policy of warrantless wiretapping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 No that's okay. But after punch you in the lip and then in the nuts you will be talking a lot slower and using smaller words because you brains will be out your ass. Have a nice day...biach! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speed Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted April 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 So you're saying this is stating that the Obama Administration is conducting warrantless wiretapping along with supporting warrantless wiretapping and it's not just the Asst AG doing his job as the lawyer for the defense on a case that was started before Obama was elected?I'm okay with this lawyer doing his job and defending a lawsuit.I'm not okay with a policy of warrantless wiretapping.By doing his job, the lawyer (and the Department of Justice as a whole) is defending the NSA's right to domestic wiretapping without warrants, thus defending the Bush administration's policy. And you're okay with this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAMBUSA Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 "more lies and fear" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC51 John Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 A lawyer MUST defend the client to the best of thier ability, but the administration and DOJ doesn't have to go along with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted April 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kawi kid Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 oh snap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 By doing his job, the lawyer (and the Department of Justice as a whole) is defending the NSA's right to domestic wiretapping without warrants, thus defending the Bush administration's policy. And you're okay with this? Defense lawyers defend a rapist's right to rape, a murderer's right to murder,...? No they use what ever argument necessary to win a case when acting as a lawyer for the defense. I'm not OK with murder or rape, but I'm OK with a defense lawyer doing his job in defending such cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted April 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Defense lawyers defend a rapist's right to rape, a murderer's right to murder,...? No they use what ever argument necessary to win a case when acting as a lawyer for the defense. I'm not OK with murder or rape, but I'm OK with a defense lawyer doing his job in defending such cases.And thus destroying America. Ethics is a weird thing.Let's say you murder someone and get caught. You go to jail, and hire council. If you admit to your lawyer you did it, the lawyer must disclose this. Such is the case here. This lawsuit will set precedence for future cases, thus making domestic wiretapping without a warrant perfectly legal if the Department of Justice wins.You're saying the Department of Justice and the lawyer know it was illegal and unconstitutional, however they must defend it? Now, I may not be a smart man, but I think someone might have crossed a few wires upstairs. Defending those you know are guilty only adds to the problem. Maybe as part of this "change" I've been hearing about they should actually change. Maybe they should step up, accept responsibility, and finally as a government do the right thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin0469 Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 The promise of transparency and openness... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 The promise of transparency and openness... and going "line by line" through the budget, removing the bullsh*t...FAIL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin0469 Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 and going "line by line" through the budget, removing the bullsh*t...FAIL!:grin: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 And thus destroying America. Ethics is a weird thing.Let's say you murder someone and get caught. You go to jail, and hire council. If you admit to your lawyer you did it, the lawyer must disclose this. Such is the case here. This lawsuit will set precedence for future cases, thus making domestic wiretapping without a warrant perfectly legal if the Department of Justice wins.You're saying the Department of Justice and the lawyer know it was illegal and unconstitutional, however they must defend it? Now, I may not be a smart man, but I think someone might have crossed a few wires upstairs. Defending those you know are guilty only adds to the problem. Maybe as part of this "change" I've been hearing about they should actually change. Maybe they should step up, accept responsibility, and finally as a government do the right thing.Precedent isn't set in stone. Even if this is dismissed based on this filing. It can be over turned by a higher court. Also, similar cases can be distinguished from this one to support different findings through a number of means.The question of defending a knowingly guilty client (beyond all reasonable doubt) is probably the oldest and most debated ethical question in law. Of course this is from the single law class I took ages ago, but I'm pretty sure it's near the top. Definitely not going to be solved here.In this case though the Asst AG isn't taking on a new case, he's arguing legality based upon an argument already set in motion by the prior administration. On top of that he's defending a new administration that inherited the suit against an old administration.So the new set of people should accept responsibility for what the old set of people did? I think change comes in actual policy in action not in the defense of an old suit you got handed when the last people left.Frankly I won't be surprised if this administration ends up as big a pile of shit as the last. They both are different odors wafting from the same pile of crap. 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.