Obama Pushes To Continue Warrantless Wiretapping - Olbermann

[slipslidingaway]

Run time: 04:56 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_V8i3A-zaw   Posted on YouTube: April 09, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: April 09, 2009 By DU Member: slipslidingaway Views on DU: 2148

 
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/08/criticism/index.html

"UPDATE: Even better, Olbermann tonight will have on as a guest Kevin Bankston of EFF, the lead counsel for the plaintiffs suing Bush officials for illegal spying, which means Olbermann intends to cover this issue again tonight. Along with the ACLU and others, EFF has been truly heroic in defending the core constitutional liberties of Americans and serving as a key check on executive abuses. As I noted in Monday's post, this is what Bankston said on Monday after reading the Obama DOJ brief:

President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties. But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a "secret" that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again.

Serious credit to Olbermann for putting on Bankston tonight and thus continuing his coverage of this story, despite knowing that hordes of truly creepy Obama worshipers (see here -- post and comments) who spent the last several years venerating Olbermann (and people like Jonathan Turley) will now suddenly declare that they are untrustworthy, unreliable, hysterical hacks, etc. etc. -- all for saying exactly what they were saying in 2006 and 2007, but this time applying it to Obama rather than Bush..."

[Mari333]

1. outraged indeed! k nr

[slipslidingaway]

2. Yes, I would love to know what Senator Feingold is thinking...

From July 9, 2008...

"....But now, in a Democratic-controlled Congress not only did we pass the Protect
America Act, but we are now about to extend for more than 4 years these
expansive surveillance powers, and we are about to grant immunity to
companies that are alleged to have participated in the administration's
lawlessness.

I sit on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. I am one of the
few Members of this body who has been fully briefed on the warrantless
wiretapping program. Based on what I know, I can promise that if more
information is declassified about the program in the future, as is
likely to happen either due to the inspectors general report, the
election of a new President, or simply the passage of time, Members of
this body will regret that we passed this legislation. I am also
familiar with the collection activities that have been conducted under
the Protect America Act and will continue under this bill. I invite any
of my colleagues who wish to know more about these activities to come
speak to me in a classified setting. Publicly, all I can say is that I
have serious concerns about how those activities may have impacted the
civil liberties of all Americans. If we grant these new powers to the
Government and the effects become known to the American people, we will
realize what a mistake it was. Of that, I am sure.

So I hope my colleagues will think long and hard about their votes on
this bill and consider how they and their constituents will feel about
this vote 5, 10, or 20 years from now. I am confident that history will
not judge this Senate kindly if it endorses this tragic retreat from
the principles that have governed government conduct in this sensitive
area for 30 years. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rule of law
and defeat this bill.

I reserve the remainder of my time."


Edited to add link
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2008_cr/fisa070908.html

[Divine Discontent]

5. I'd like to hear some current stuff from Sen. Feingold

I think the President has done fantastic things that B*sh never cared about doing, and he deserves kudos for that, but this is really unfortunate to see - I want to believe the adm. is doing this for some top secret reason, but I can't go out on that limb that far, sorry. They are wrong here. I would love to hear Sen. Feingold about this subject, in its current form.


http://www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

[slipslidingaway]

12. Me too, although I doubt we will...

and I cannot go that far out on a limb either.

:)

[slipslidingaway]

19. Statement of Senator Feingold....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5427102&mesg_id=5427102

"I am troubled that once again the Obama administration has decided to invoke the state secrets privilege in a case challenging the previous administration’s alleged misconduct. The Obama administration’s action, on top of Congress’s mistaken decision last year to give immunity to the telecommunications companies that allegedly participated in the warrantless wiretapping program, will make it even harder for courts to rule on the legality of that program. In February, I asked for a classified briefing so that I can understand the reasons for the Department’s decision to invoke the privilege in another case, and I intend to seek information on this new case as well. I also encourage the greatest possible public accounting of the use of the state secrets privilege and welcome the Attorney General’s statement that he hopes to share his review with the American people.

Beyond the particular case at issue here, it is clear that there is an urgent need for legislation to give better guidance to the courts on how to handle assertions of the state secrets privilege. The American people must be able to have confidence that the privilege is not being used to shield government misconduct. That is why I am working with Senators Leahy, Specter, and others to pass the State Secrets Protection Act as soon as possible."

[JMDEM]

3. Gee, Deafening silence while our civil liberties are stripped?

Because the administration stripping them is Democratic?

What is wrong with you people?

[Mari333]

7. thumbs up

[slipslidingaway]

11. Yes, I remember the discussions on DU when the FISA bill

was voted on last year giving immunity to the telecom companies and continuing some of the surveillance programs.

:(


This will be interesting as well...

FBI Director Pushes to Renew PATRIOT Act Surveillance Powers

Posted by Liliana Segura, AlterNet at 11:00 AM on March 26, 2009.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/rights/133592/fbi_director_pushes_to_renew_patriot_act_surveillance_powers

"Robert Mueller told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that key provisions set to expire this year are 'exceptionally helpful.'

Earlier this month, the ACLU released a report taking stock of the USA PATRIOT Act, almost eight years after its passage. The study, titled "Reclaiming Patriotism," identifies key sections of the law that codified the most radical abuses of power under the Bush administration, interweaving stories of people who were unlawfully spied on, coerced, and intimidated through the PATRIOT Act's sweeping powers.

"More than seven years after its implementation, there is little evidence to demonstrate that the Patriot Act has made America more secure from terrorists," the report's authors write. "But there are many unfortunate examples that the government abused these authorities in ways that both violated the rights of innocent people and squandered precious security resources."

The ACLU report highlights three specific provisions of the PATRIOT Act that have led to unprecedented surveillance against Americans:....."

[slipslidingaway]

4. Three Interlocking Cases

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/07/the-latest-state-secrets-claim/


"...To sum up, Walker is deciding these four interlocking issues about the warrantless wiretapping cases all at the same time:

Whether the Bush Administration violated FISA when wiretapping al-Haramain (and by association, with the wiretap program in general)

Whether he can or should make materials submitted in the al-Haramain case public or available to al-Haramain's lawyers so that case can move forward

Whether the same Congress that said "lawsuits against the government can go forward" provided specific enough instructions ot to the Attorney General to support immunity for telecoms

Whether, in spite of what Jello Jay said, the Administration is still somehow immune from suit for illegally wiretapping


....After all, while Walker may never be able to release descriptions of the program publicly in the al-Haramain suit (frankly, I think he won't really try), he may well rule that the wiretapping was illegal. And that may well change the calculus of the other two suits--one that is assessing whether or not Congress was specific enough in its immunity amendments, and the other based on the premise that if the government broke the law, Jello Jay said, then people should be allowed to sue. If, in a set of cases consolidated under Walker, he rules that the wiretap program was illegal even when used against a suspected terrorist organization, then can he rule out suits for citizens about whom there was absolutely zero probable cause? (And note, by this time, Walker will already know what information was collected on average citizens.) In other words, if and when Walker finds the program illegal in one case--regardless of whether he can share those details with the plaintiffs--then it presents problems for the government with the other two suits presented together.

Absolute Immunity

Which is why, I think, the government has now pulled absolute immunity out of its arse..."

[Norrin Radd]

6. kr

[slipslidingaway]

14. Thanks :) n/t

[eomer]

8. Your characterization of Obama's position is wrong.

To be clear, like you I'm opposed to the position taken by the Obama administration. In fact, I'm terribly disappointed and strongly opposed.

But let's state it correctly.

Obama has not said that he is continuing or wants to continue the warrantless wiretapping in violation of FISA.

What he has said is that disclosure of information about those violations during the Bush administration would harm national security.

I disagree with Obama's position -- there are procedures in place that would allow the information to be used in the case but in a way that keeps from disclosing them publicly. Hopefully the judge will rule against this motion and allow the case to go forward.

But please let me know where Obama or someone in his administration has said they want to continue warrantless wiretapping. In their motion they say the opposite (emphasis is mine):

The DNI explains that, as the Government has previously indicated, the NSA’s collection of the content¹² of communications under the now inoperative Terrorist Surveillance Program (“TSP”) ...

http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/jewel/jewelmtdobama.pdf

[slipslidingaway]

13. That is the tilte of the youtube video....

as for what spying is currently taking place???


This is what Feingold said of the bill passed last year.

http://feingold.senate.gov/statements/08/06/20080625f.htm

"...This part of the bill has been sold to us as necessary to ensure that the government can collect communications between persons overseas without a warrant, and to ensure that the government can collect the communications of terrorists, including their communications with people in the United States. No one disagrees that the government should have this authority. But this bill goes much further, authorizing widespread surveillance involving innocent Americans – at home and abroad.

First, the FISA Amendments Act, like the Protect America Act, would authorize the government to collect all communications between the U.S. and the rest of the world. That could mean millions upon millions of communications between innocent Americans and their friends, families, or business associates overseas could legally be collected. Parents calling their kids studying abroad, emails to friends serving in Iraq – all of these communications could be collected, with absolutely no suspicion of any wrongdoing, under this legislation. In fact, the DNI even testified that this type of ‘bulk collection’ would be ‘desirable.’

The bill’s supporters like to say that the government needs additional powers to target terrorists overseas. But under this bill, the government is not limited to targeting foreigners outside the U.S. who are terrorists, or who are suspected of some wrongdoing, or who are members or agents of some foreign government or organization. In fact, the government does not even need a specific purpose for wiretapping anyone overseas. All it needs to have is a general “foreign intelligence” purpose, which is a standard so broad that it covers all international communications. That’s not just my opinion -- the DNI has testified that, under the PAA, and presumably this bill, the government could legally collect all communications between the United States and overseas. Let me repeat that: under this bill, the government can legally collect all communications – every last one – between Americans here at home and the rest of the world..."

[eomer]

16. My apologies, I mistook the headline to be your words.

I agree with Feingold's concerns about this bill, but I believe that Obama also agrees with those concerns. Feingold says he had the support of most of the Democratic caucus for the amendments he proposed (but that failed) and I believe that Obama was among those supporters. So I don't think it is accurate to say that Obama is pushing for warrantless wiretaps. But my apologies, again, for attributing the headline to you.

[slipslidingaway]

17. No problem and thank you...

I guess the bottom line was the final vote for HR 6304 which is the bill Feingold spoke against numerous times, this from the day it passed.

Thanks again :)


http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6304

"...But now, in a Democratic-controlled Congress not only did we pass the Protect America Act, but we are now about to extend for more than 4 years these expansive surveillance powers, and we are about to grant immunity to companies that are alleged to have participated in the administration's lawlessness...

...I invite any of my colleagues who wish to know more about these activities to come speak to me in a classified setting. Publicly, all I can say is that I have serious concerns about how those activities may have impacted the civil liberties of all Americans. If we grant these new powers to the Government and the effects become known to the American people, we will realize what a mistake it was. Of that, I am sure.

So I hope my colleagues will think long and hard about their votes on this bill and consider how they and their constituents will feel about
this vote 5, 10, or 20 years from now. I am confident that history will not judge this Senate kindly if it endorses this tragic retreat from
the principles that have governed government conduct in this sensitive area for 30 years. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rule of law
and defeat this bill..."

[Hydra]

9. Wow- state secrets AND Gov't immunity from lawsuit

So much for concept of a turnaround...I wonder what he's using this program for? Someone else argued he could use it to gather evidence against corps breaking the law...but when has the Gov't ever really cared about that?

[vanbean]

10. Sorry, I can't believe in this kind of change, Obama.

We need to let him know of our outrage. Good for the goose is good for the gander.

[slipslidingaway]

15. Yes, so many reasons given :( n/t

[Mari333]

18. k

[slipslidingaway]

20. Thanks Mari, I just added the link to Senator Feingold's

statement in a post above, here is the link to the GD thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5427102&mesg_id=5427102