Obama Will Fight For Wiretap Immunity, Bush Lawyer Tells Judge

[sabra]

Source: WIRED News

Justice Department attorney Carl Nichols didn't get through his first full sentence defending the constitutionality of retroactive immunity for spying telecom carriers before U.S. district judge Vaughn Walker interrupted to ask about President-elect Barack Obama.

"We are going to have new attorney general," Walker interjected in Tuesday morning's hearing in a San Francisco courthouse. "Why shouldn't the court wait to see what the new attorney general will do?"

At issue in the latest hearing in the EFF's lawsuit against AT&T for alleged complicity in illegal wiretapping is whether Congress has the right to free the nation's telecoms from the lawsuits pending against them.

Nichols is arguing that Obama's Justice Department will continue to defend the immunity statute. (Obama voted for the bill but held his nose on the immunity provisions.)

"The Department of Justice rarely, if ever, declines to defend the constitutionality of a statute," Nichols said. "It's very, very unlikely for a future DOJ to decline to defend the constitutionality of this statute."

Read more: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/12/what-will-obama.html

[arcadian]

1. Still waitin' on that change.

n/t

[Enrique]

5. you realize this is speculation don't you

speculation by a Bush DOJ stooge. Not a good basis to judge Obama, imo.

[arcadian]

8. It's pretty evident that Obama intends to give Bushco a full pass.

I don't see any reason to think otherwise. Please, I beg you, give me a reason.

[glinda]

18. What if they are holding information against the Republicans for

leverage further on down the line if they need it? I just wondered if this could be why nothing has happened. Could be a powerful tool.

[PassingFair]

32. Bull.

We have enough "dry powder" to set the world on fire.

[The Doctor.]

38. I'll wait until he has the POWER to do something,

and then declines to use it before I start judging him based on what a * attorney has to say.

[LanternWaste]

42. I don't see any reason

I don't see any reason (other than simple prognostication and speculation by mere bit-players-- the Guildenstern's and Rosencrantz's of D.C.) that Obama will allow the retro-immunity to stand (the actual topic of the post).

However, I'd entertain valid evidence that illustrates a "full pass to Bush"... it's just I haven't seen any one way or the other.

[Pastiche423]

11. Obama already voted FOR it the last time

A group of about 23,0000 organized almost overnight to persuade him to vote against the immunity. He ignored us and voted FOR it.

Why would he change his mind on the issue now?

[high density]

13. It wasn't just telecom immunity, and you know that

The entire FISA bill was set up so that the Repukes could call Obama soft on terrorism. Obama won that game and the only people that are holding grudges about it are on this board.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/21/politics/horserace/entry4200105.shtml

Obama said there is "little doubt" that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, "has abused authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders."

"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program.

"(The bill) does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."

Let him get sworn in already! jeeze.

[Pastiche423]

17. You can forego your duty as an American citizen

but I won't. Why not hold him responsibility for the appointments/decisions he's already made? He, himself, asked us to.

[robinlynne]

39. BUllshit. Coiuld have easily voted against it. Plenty of good people did.

It was the smae kind of lie as the mushroom clouds. And it was obviosly so.

[karynnj]

33. He voted for the Dodd amendment that would have eliminated the immunity

He voted for cloture (against the Republican filibuster), but then voted for the bill - still saying he did not support the immunity, but supported the need for the bill. (I would have preferred he vote against the final bill, but there is no ambiguity on his thoughts of immunity.)

[Pastiche423]

44. Quit making excuses

Obama voted FOR the bill w/immunity in it.

I remember quite well as well as 23,000 other people that formed a group overnight to try and persuade him not to vote for it.

He totally ignored us, would not even respond to one of us. It's kind of like how he's treating the left now.

[roguevalley]

43. Obama better step on this fast or it will stick.

[proud progressive]

16. DITTO THAT!

STILL WAITIN ON THAT CHANGE!!!

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[crikkett]

2. Yawn. * admin DOJ lawyers lie for a living.

That's what the last 2.5 years of news has revealed to us.

So I think this is just wishful thinking.

[Phred42]

14. Problem is that Obama already voted FOR immunity

[karynnj]

34. He voted for a bill containing it and many other things

He voted for the Dodd amendment that stripped out the immunity provision - but voted for the bill when the Dodd amendment failed.

[Phred42]

40. parsing nonsense. The main element of that bill was Immunity

and the Progressives voted against it.

[karynnj]

41. The main element of the bill was FISA

Not to mention, he voted for the Dodd amendment. Webb, always praised as a progressive here voted against that!

You can find votes in any Senator you disagree with - I think you were an Edwards supporter (my apologies if wrong), and you likely had to ignore his bankruptcy bill vote and his co-sponsorship of the IWR. No Senator will have a record you think 100% perfect.

Here, Obama voted for the whole thing - voted against the provision (by voting for the Dodd amendment) - and spoke of working to undo it.

[lurky]

3. Is he speaking for Obama now?

I would like to hear it from the man himself, thanks.

[gcomeau]

4. More appropriate thread title...

"Bush administration officials talking out of their asses again" perhaps?

[ben_meyers]

6. How likely is it that given the events in India last week

Obama is going to get up and address the nation telling us that he is going to shut down surveillance of over seas call to and from American citizens?

Somehow I don't see that happening.

[villager]

7. I think it's not the overseas calls, but the domestic ones, that are the issue --

--and the lack of a FISA warrant.

No one, of course, is suggesting that legitimate intelligence activities be stopped.

[JDPriestly]

9. This is not about shutting down the surveillance that is now being.

legally performed. This is about getting damages for illegal surveillance that happened in the past.

The FISA law has been revised to permit certain surveillance now. Personally, I think the law now provides too little protection for ordinary people and businesses and allows the government to snoop in ways that could facilitate corruption even theft of intellectual property among other things. But, the wiretapping and surveillance that are needed to prevent terrorism is legal and assuredly being performed as we speak.

The problem is that the Bush administration simply violated the old FISA law that did not permit the surveillance that is now legal. And a lot of telecoms helped them violate that law. The violations were unnecessary since the Bush administration could have gone to Congress and revised the FISA law long before it did. It's the illegal invasions of privacy and associated wrongs that are addressed in the lawsuit that is the topic of the OP.

Obama would risk nothing by allowing the wrongs of the past to be pursued in the Court. The Court should decide whether it has the jurisdiction to allow the evidence at issue to be presented. I don't think the Congress can retroactively remove jurisdiction over certain matters from the courts especially when rights guaranteed by the Constitution are at issue.

[rosesaylavee]

10. I won't miss the lies.

The judge is right to wait. Too bad the judge didn't ask the dipshit that if Obama's team is going to do just what the Bush team is doing, what's the rush? Hmmmmm?

Ha. Liars.

[Pastiche423]

12. Obama has already done what * wanted -

he voted FOR the immunity in July, 2008.

[ooglymoogly]

15. O has given us no reason to believe that he will not

continue to support lawlessness in government at the expense of we the folks.

[jody]

19. Looks like the first crisis Obama faces is leaving Bush's policies intact. n/t

[BlueJessamine]

20. Feds to Judge: Don't 'Second Guess' Bush Domestic Spy Program

Source: WIRED

SAN FRANCISCO -– The Bush administration on Tuesday urged a federal judge to dismiss lawsuits against the nation's telecommunications companies accused of complying with the government's once-secret spy program adopted in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks on the United States.

"That was designed to protect from a terrorist attack," Deputy Assistant Attorney General Carl Nichols told U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker.

Walker was hearing oral arguments on whether to uphold legislation barring lawsuits against the telecoms for violating Americans' privacy if they forwarded electronic communications to the government. "I don't think it would be appropriate for this court to look back and second-guess the administration," Nichols added.

In July, Congress passed legislation immunizing the telecoms from lawsuits brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union and others accusing the companies of funneling electronic communications to the National Security Agency without warrants. The government has neither directly confirmed nor denied the allegations, but Bush in late 2005 acknowledged a limited warrantless spy program of eavesdropping on Americans' international phone calls and e-mails.

Still, Walker was concerned that the immunity law, which also authorized continuing the admitted eavesdropping, gives the attorney general too much power.



Read more: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/12/feds-to-judge-d.html

---

WIRED is also reporting that Judge Walker wondered aloud several times during the hearing today:

First, whether he should decide the case before the Obama administration takes office in January.

And later, what would be wrong with the litigation being solely directed at the government:

"Let's assume that's exactly what happened. Then why shouldn't the government just be on the hook for any harm or damage?" Walker asked.

[UpInArms]

21. more from your link:

"It would be very, very unlikely for any future Department of Justice to decline to defend the constitutionality of the statute," replied Nichols, who conceded the law was unprecedented.

Congress passed the immunity measure after Walker dismissed the government's claim that the lawsuits against AT&T, Sprint and others filed in 2006 should be dismissed because they threatened to expose state secrets. Walker's decision was on appeal to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals when lawmakers passed the immunity measure. The appeals court, noting the legislation, dismissed the appeal as moot.

[gratuitous]

22. Saying something doesn't make it so

Just because these fuckers invoke "national security" doesn't excuse their wanton lawbreaking. I hope the courts remember that part of their purview is to "second guess" bad lawmaking.

[JDPriestly]

23. Why not wait? Good idea.

What's wrong with directing the litigation solely at the government?

Because the government will claim it was just doing its job. The FISA law is also aimed at private companies. The private companies are the protectors of their customers' information, and should not have allowed their customers' Fourth Amendment rights to privacy to be violated without a warrant. The law was quite clear and the companies violated it.

Would the judge be asking that question if he were asked to decide a case that showed that both an insurer and a doctor had violated a patient's right to privacy under federal law? I think not.

[eridani]

24. The program was NOT adopted "in the wake" of 9/11

It was adopted well before 9/11, at the beginning of the Bush administration.

[KakistocracyHater]

25. he also locked papers back to 1980

Reagan's Library was about to begin releasing his presidential papers-which was normal; Bush triggered my alarm bells when he did the "unprecedented" & forbid Reagan's papers to be released. I think it was because 1980-onward contained the roots of what those 80s men were about to do, he did this in Feb 2001, I think, perhaps it was March. He also illegally hid his Texas gov pgs in poppies pres. library.

[hootinholler]

26. DING DING DING...

WINNER!!

-Hoot

[tanyev]

27. Feds to judge: "You do what we tells ya to do, or else. Got it?"

[kpete]

28. Judge Questions Telecom Immunity

Source: Wired

Judge Questions Telecom Immunity
By Ryan Singel EmailDecember 02, 2008 | 4:39:38 PMCategories: NSA

SAN FRANCISCO -- The constitutionality of retroactive immunity for telecoms that helped Bush spy on Americans got its day in court Tuesday, a little less than a year after senator Christopher Dodd all but shuttered Congress with an ultimately futile one-man stand against the idea.

Tuesday's courtroom showdown in San Francisco lacked the fireworks of Dodd's fiery oration, but the judge handling the case gave some indication that he may take over as the one-man anti-immunity crusader.

"In essence that gives the attorney general carte blanche to immunize anyone." Walker said, wondering what odd creature Congress had fashioned. "What other statute is like this statute?"

Lawyers for the Electronic Frontier Foundation told Walker that Congress had no right to give the attorney general a magic wand to make cases against the telecoms go away just by telling the judge a little bit about what happened. The group is suing AT&T for helping the government spy on Americans' internet and phone usage.

"We have a right to an injunction against the telecoms," EFF's legal director Cindy Cohn said. "They are the gatekeepers ... They have an independent duty to protect Americans' privacy."

Read more: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/12/analysis-judge.html

[Pavulon]

29. I am sure the NSA will dump a multi billion

operational structure into open court. If they do, you know who pays for its replacement?

Will NEVER happen, even in SF.

[JDPriestly]

30. If the Court orders it, NSA will jump. The Court rules.

Everybody obeys. No exceptions. Courts are not reluctant to place those under their jurisdiction in contempt. The courts are not Congress. Courts place lawyers in contempt. It has been known to happen.

[Pavulon]

46. NSA is a military

run institution. It can and will claim national security. However if they are forced to disclose an operation they will have to replace the capability.

[madfloridian]

31. What a tragic thing that bill was.

I really did not think so many would support it.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/2276

And what Hoyer did was inexcusable.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/2271

[No Elephants]

35. Good for Dodd. The rest of Congress sold us out, though.

[CoffeeCat]

36. Ok, for what it's worth...

...I thought I'd pass along what Obama told me during a phone conversation.

I know it probably doesn't mean anything, but I had a chance to speak with him during
the primary. Because I was identified as an "undecided voter" by an Obama canvasser,
Obama called me and I asked him about several things.

I discussed how the Constitution was being disgraced. He agreed. He said he was totally against
"a unitary executive mindset" and he pledged to uphold the Constitution. I told him that his
status as "a Constitutional scholar" was very promising--as my main issues were not healthcare
or education--but the basic framework of our democracy being restored. If the house if falling
down all around us--it's kind of useless to talk about decorating, right?

He assured me that this was of deep concern to him as well.

I brought up torture and Gitmo. He said he would close Gitmo. I also said, "You and I both know that
they altered the legal definition of torture--so they can claim that they don't torture...what are you
going to do about that?" Obama said he would adhere to the Geneva Conventions and that he "wouldn't
play games with definitions and that America should not torture."

I also asked him about immunity for the telecommunications companies. I asked him if he was for this.

He said, "No." He was clear.

When he voted "Yes" I was surprised. However, that vote seemed like a set up--to possibly paint him
as soft on terror--or even as a terrorist sympathizer. With many in the primary confusing people
and spreading rumors about him being a Muslim--I can see where Obama may have thought that a 'no vote'
could have further entrenched those rumors--and made them worse.

I truly believe that Obama is a good man. You don't teach Constitutional Law unless you respect the
Constitution. You don't enlighten young people about the intricacies of the Constitution, unless
you care about the Constitution being revered by future generations.

I can only tell you what he said, but I am reserving judgment until I see what he actually does
when he has the power in his hands---and no primary or GE to win.

[librechik]

45. yes, he did say he was against immunity, Then he votes yes on FISA

so I am confused. I hope he clarifies on this soon, because as it stands his actions are less than honorable. There was only one reason to vote yes on FISA--to appear more mainstream. I don't begrudge him that. But the law needs to be revisited soon, or I will be very disappointed.

[MadMaddie]

47. So this dipshit Nichols is speaking on behalf of the Democratic

DOJ and Obama?

These bastards have no boundries. I call bullshit on this. I hope Obama and his team respond to this.