Following Bush lead, Obama moves to block challenge to wiretapping program

[MiaCulpa]

Source: Raw Story - John Byrne

President Barack Obama has invoked "state secrets" to prevent a court from reviewing the legality of the National Security Agency's warantless wiretapping program and moved late Friday to have a lawsuit challenging the program dismissed.

The move -- which holds that information surrounding the massive eavesdropping program should be kept from the public because of its sensitivity -- follows an earlier decision in March to block handover of documents relating to the Bush Administration's decision to spy on a charity. The arguments also mirror the Bush Administration's efforts to dismiss an earlier suit against AT&T.

The decision Friday involves a lawsuit filed by the civil liberties group Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is suing the NSA for the wiretapping program. The agency monitored the telephone calls and emails of thousands of people within the United States without a court's approval in an effort to thwart terrorist attacks.

In attempting to block a San Fransisco court from reviewing documents relating to the NSA program, the Obama Administration is also protecting other individuals named as defendants in the suit: Vice President Dick Cheney, former Cheney chief of staff David Addington and former Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Read more: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_follows_Bush_policy_on_wiretapping_0406.html

---

Full story at the link...


-Diane

[msongs]

1. change you can believe in. shhh, don't ask, don't tell nt

[salguine]

13. Don't you know?

If you question anything Obma does, you're spewing hate. At least that's what TLM says.

[MNDemNY]

313. Get back in line! O can do no wrong.

[aggiesal]

250. This is another reason, why I ...

won't be voting for Obama in the 2010 primaries.

Should he win the nomination, I'll hold my nose
and vote him again, but I refuse to help him get rel-ected.

[AZ Criminal JD]

257. No one will be voting for Obama in the 2010 primaries.

He is not up until 2012.

[aggiesal]

301. Oooops, my bad. ...

I meant 2012.

Thanks for catching that.

[defendandprotect]

312. Ironically, Elliot Spitzer might have been a Dem contender in 2012 -- !!!

[Seldona]

324. OMG, but he likes teh sex!

:sarcasm:

[whistler162]

430. No Spitzer LIKED the STUPID.....

which is what finally destroyed him!

[defendandprotect]

443. Spitzer was working with Governors to STOP the reckless mortgage lending . . .

was that "stupid" . . . ?

W stopped this effort to head off this mortgage catastrophe.

The stupidity that has done this nation harm hasn't come from "sex" it's come from
embracing concepts of exploitation - and that includes capitalism, now commonly
known as criminal capitalism.

[totodeinhere]

367. I think you are a bit premature to say that.

His poll ratings are very good right now. Remember that DU is not America and I think that most Americans are so focused on the economy that the issue brought up in this thread is not a major concern to most people right now.

[Name removed]

410. Deleted message

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

[serbbral]

423. totodeinhere, I agree .....

I don't give a flying flip about putting Bush, Cheney, or whomever in jail. I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT KEEPING MY D!MN JOB!

[defendandprotect]

444. In other words, the public is distracted by "disaster capitalism" . . . ??

[caseymoz]

291. I am just hoping he's doing this to have the court strike this use of secrecy

Because I'd say there's a good chance the court will. 70-30 percent I'd say. I don't see the courts ceding their own power to the president like that. If it goes to the SCOTUS, and they strike it down, it's a totally settled issue, and no other president can try it successfully. (I could see a few Conservatives on the SCOTUS actually voting against this secrecy just because it would give Obama that power.) Otherwise, I can't figure out what the hell he's doing. If he's defending this secrecy just to have it struck down, he couldn't announce that.

Nothing we can about it. If the court rules in favor of expanded secrecy, let's watch what Obama does next.

[MNDemNY]

316. Oh, yes, the "he knows best" excuse.

Can you not smell the toast? A corporate whore is a corporate whore.

[defendandprotect]

326. Until we move them to actually addressing the issues and not "excuses" . . .

I'm going to suggest -- with absolutely NO right whatsoever to do so --

to ask you to leave the language we all understand on the sidelines

because it does open the "you hate Obama" door for them!!!


And, well said in your "subject" line -- !!!

[jhrobbins]

346. I guess after all is said and done that Obama is a politician and not the savior we thought.

[Enthusiast]

411. I never thought of

Obama as a savior.

[caseymoz]

392. Excuse? I said hope. Otherwise, what the hell can we do?

I guess we could march on Washington with whatever we have that are like pitchforks, but we're not angry enough for that . . . yet. Short of that we could write Obama, and I think he's more responsive than Bush was. But I'm thinking that this is going to get knocked down by the court.

It really is inconsistent with other things Obama is doing. Calling for a nuclear-free world and offering to reduce nuclear weapons? Cutting out massive Pentagon programs? Releasing the torture memos?

I'm beginning to worry that the Military-Industrial-Intelligence-Corporate complex is going to dispatch a lone gunman for Obama. Every day, I'm a little more happy that he isn't dead yet.

[MNDemNY]

456. Could be he shares your worry.

:scared:

[bjobotts]

393. Besides "state secrets" excuse from Bush, Obama added another new claim

from Glenn Greenwald at salon.com :
"...In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad "state secrets" privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they "willfully disclose" to the public what they have learned..."

[bjobotts]

394. It's called "sovereign immunity" which expands beyond states secrets to say never

can anyone press any kind of charges or even investigate the government even if they know and the government knows that they are acting illegally.

"...This is the first time claimed sovereign immunity against Wiretap Act and Stored Communications Act claims. In other words, the administration is arguing that the U.S. can never be sued for spying that violates federal surveillance statutes, whether FISA, the Wiretap Act or the SCA...."

[bjobotts]

395. Obama's DoJ has expanded this power so no one can ever challenge them

[bjobotts]

396. even if they are acting illegally.They have set themselves up beyond the rule of law

[bjobotts]

397. I feel betrayed.I have been betrayed.They are above the law now.

[bjobotts]

398. and this is all Obama's new stuff not related to Bush. See Glenn Greenwald at salon .com

[JeanGrey]

327. What the fuck is going on here? And there are still

people who are waiting for Bush and Cheney to be jailed?

[dflprincess]

365. Yes, some of us are waiting for Bush & Cheney to be jailed

granted, we may wait forever - though we can hope that Spain will at least indict them. :shrug:

[JeanGrey]

407. I have given up on that fantasy.

[ChiciB1]

439. THIS Was One Of My GREAT Hopes! Had NOT Used The Word HOPE

for many many years,not until we elected a Democratic POTUS, now.... BACK TO NO HOPE being used!

I will reserve judgment on other issues "Obama" but am VERY upset about this turn of events! I think I'm going to have to STOP "doing politics" for a while, I'm getting "toxic ACID reflux!" Keeping our head above water is my main objective for now!!

We are but "small fish" even today!

[bluestateguy]

2. Obama needs to be able to tap the phones of right wing conspiracy nutjobs

The Birthers, the anti-abortion militants, the "Tea Party" crowds and nutjobs who propound nonsense like that cop killer in Pittsburgh and last year's Knoxville church shooter. These people have shown themselves to be dangerous and unhinged.

I just want to thank President Bush for giving all these new powers to President Obama. ;)

[salguine]

14. Any reason he shouldn't/can't get a warrant for that?

[DissedByBush]

53. Abiding by the Constitution is just SO last century n/t

[rhett o rick]

89. LOL (oops lol is so last year) nm

[Doctor_J]

288. Um. The term is "so September 10th"

[DissedByBush]

371. Oh, I forgot, you're right, 9/11 changed everything

It erased our Constitution and gave our president dictatorial powers.

Bush tried to destroy us with far better efficiency than the terrorists could have hoped to do themselves.

Unfortunately I see several of Obama's footsteps landing on that path.

[Name removed]

295. Deleted message

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

[leveymg]

86. Hard to do when you're tapping 120 million domestic phone calls, e-mails, and Internet surfs at any

one moment.

Certainly, every international communication gets intercepted and stored. It all gets vacuumed up and fed through NSA computers that rank-order it for a number of criteria.

If there are any red-flags, the "hit" goes to secondary analysis, where somebody may actually read or listen to bits and pieces, and then move it along to another analyst. This is supposed to be done anonymously. If the NSA analyst (or contractor) determines the communication is among "persons of interest", then it will be forwarded to another agency, likely FBI or CIA, depending upon whether it's domestic or foreign. If a warrant is required, this only happens after three-four-five intermediate levels of review. Any intercepted data of any potential interest or value gets warehoused.

That's what they don't want you to know.

They're unlikely to close this thing down. Ever.

[Baby Snooks]

153. The way it's always been except for one little thing...

They used to have to get a court order allowing the wiretap - now they just "wiretap at will" and if anyone protests they are obviously "traitors" since the wiretap was the result of a "potential threat" to "national security" which translates to the subject of the wiretap having been considered a "potential terrorist" which translates, with regard to American citizens, to "traitors among us."

It is doubtful any federal judge or magistrate would refuse a legitimate request for a wiretap. It is also doubtful a federal judge or magistrate would have allowed the wiretaps under this new policy which the Obama Administration, aka the Clinton Admninstration, has embraced.

We have returned to the days of McCarthyism. Thank you, Barack Obama.

[leveymg]

166. There are a couple things that have changed

Minimization meant pre-9/11 that US person data vacuumed up was segregated and eventually destroyed after "of interest" data had been separated out. Now, it's warehoused and data-mined by multiple intel and law enforcement agencies.

Second, no warrant needed since the 2008 FISA Amendment for full-cycle (non-anonymous) analysis and sharing with law enforcement of communications to and from the US, regardless of the nationality of either party. Previously, if there wasn't probable cause to believe the US person was involved in espionage, the Agency had to get a FISA warrant to do targeted surveillance. But, that's been "liberalized". Let's say you're a lawyer in NY talking to a client in London - that information is Uncle Sam's to do with what he wants - all of it.

What hasn't changed is intercepts can form the basis for a criminal investigation against the lawyer along with the client. There was always an exception to minimization requirements for any intelligence data collected that indicated criminal activities by either party, regardless of whether they are US persons.

[indepat]

276. What hasn't changed is the Constitution, but we all know how the "felonious five" would probably

rule with respect to any constitutional freedoms not involving the sacrosanct Second Amendment. :P

[defendandprotect]

314. Presumably the problem for Bush was that a RECORD would be kept . . .

under the original FISA law.

And we'll now find out if Obama also thinks he doesn't like records of taps, either.

[TBF]

170. That's a lot of review - I wonder how much they are spending to spy on us. n/t

[leveymg]

195. NSA budget has more than doubled since 2000

Precise figure is classified. " Conservative estimates before 9/11 put the agency's budget at $3 billion to $4 billion. ..."
www.slate.com/id/2132810/sidebar/2132901/

Personally, I think those figures are too low, even though the system is highly automated and outsourced. While the intake of data is vast, the number of FISA warrants generated is low, and may have actually declined since the mid-2000s. Less than 1500 warrant requests per year. At any given time, the number of persons inside the US who are the target of active individual surveillance may also be a relatively small number. The amount of individualized human analysis performed by NSA, itself, is minimal compared to the vast scale of automated data-mining operations. NSA has about 20,000 workers at its Ft. Meade HQ. Personnel attached to NSA contractors now outnumber NSA employees by some multiple. Most of the time-intensive human analysis goes on in the federal agencies that issue tasking orders and by their private sector contractors.

Here's a January 2006 article from Gov't Exec: http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=33212

Tellingly, Moschella wrote that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows the government to obtain warrants to conduct domestic eavesdropping or wiretapping, "could not have provided the speed and agility required for the early-warning detection system."

The administration hasn't elaborated on why the system needs to operate independently of FISA, but officials may believe that it cannot meet the law's minimum threshold for surveillance, which requires a probable cause that the target is a terrorist, said Steven Aftergood, an expert on intelligence and government secrecy with the Federation of American Scientists.

"Logistically speaking, the early-warning approach may involve a significant increase in the number of surveillance actions," Aftergood said. "It may be that neither the Justice Department nor the is prepared to prepare and process several thousand additional FISA applications per year, beyond the 1,700 or so approved in 2004."

If the NSA is monitoring large numbers of communications -- The Times has reported that the agency has monitored as many as 500 Americans and other residents of the United States at one time -- then it stands to reason that applications for warrants could take time to process.

[Uncle Joe]

231. One positive aspect of all this spying on the American People.

If Al Qaueda hated us for our freedoms, they probably hate us a little less now.

If the government would just embed GPS chips in all the American People and place cameras in every room of every house, Al Qaueda might even grow to love us.

[leveymg]

255. Reminds me of the lyrics to a Simon & Garfunkel tune

Laughing on the bus
Playing games with the faces
She said the man in the gabardine suit was a spy
I said be careful his bowtie is really a camera

Simon & Gardunkel, "America" (1966)

[No Elephants]

104. None, whatever. Especially since they can get the warrants virtually automatically, even after the

fact.

[sattahipdeep]

26. Respect for civil liberties? President Obama promised

The Electronic Frontier Foundation fired off a scathing press release Monday.

"President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston in the release. "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."

[pattmarty]

160. I am having my doubts already about Obama. His policy on...........

...............Afghanistan, (mis)handling of the financial mess, and now this. I know "we" keep telling the right wing crazies that he's only been on the job 70 days give or take, but I sure as shit know that these MAJOR things ain't the change I believe in.

[StarryNite]

274. Yup...

I'm already becoming disillusioned with him. The tinfoil hatters who were saying all along that they are all in this together are looking a whole lot smarter to me these days.

[Sheila Casey]

372. You know what else they're in on together? Covering up the truth about 9/11.

A startling new video of Pentagon police officers saying they are "100 percent positive" that the plane did not take the path the govt/media said it did, prior to the explosion at the Pentagon. They were on duty that morning at the Pentagon and one of them saw the plane fly away after the fireball.

There is also something very peculiar about the story of Lloyde England, the cabdriver who claims a lightpole, that had been hit by the plane, came flying through his windshield. His story is not possible. He also said (on tape): “You gotta understand something. When people do things and get away with it, you…eventually it’s gonna come to me, and when it comes to me, it’s gonna be so big, I can’t do nothing about it.”

Read this and you will know that no plane hit the Pentagon.

We were lied to, to create a pretext for a war of aggression to control resources and to create a police state. You know Keith Olbermann stating that the Bush admin told 953 lies? There's one he's leaving out.

And Obummer shows no sign of wanting to get to the bottom of it.

[ChiciB1]

441. I Saw A Much Earlier Version Of This Fact!!! What Democracy??? What America???

Waiting, waiting, waitng... it's ALL I can do!!!!

[defendandprotect]

449. I agree -- "You know what else they're in on together? Covering up the truth about 9/11". . .

but, it's still shocking to me -- even at this stage in America's history --
to see that written out in the air!

Thank you for this reminder -- I had seen a lot of the video on this before --
but I think we all need to be regularly reminded of the facts which refute the
official 9/11 myth.

Also agree re Olbermann --

Thanks also to Ranke and Marquis, who saw the coverup and took it on.


PS: Trust you'll post this as a separate thread at some point . . .

[defendandprotect]

445. Why you see a significance in 60 days or 10 days or 1000 days . . .

simply boggles my mind. These are DECISIONS -- it doesn't matter how many days

into the administration they are made.

And unless they are promptly reversed -- THEY COUNT!!

Further, Republicans have very little argument with what Obama has been doing --

it is progressives and liberals here and beyond DU who rightly object!

[bluesmail]

32. agree. n/t

[No Elephants]

109. I hope you read other replies to Post #2.

[Dreamer Tatum]

50. While burnishing those"rights" for the next Repub in the White House

Maybe you should look past your own nose once in a while.

[scubadude]

65. Typical Dem-Freep position eh?

Now first of all you must realize I am not calling you a Dem-Freep. What I am saying is that what you have just said is a position a Dem-Freep would use.

The argument would be: It is ok to do this because we are Democrats, and Democrats are good. But if the Repubs do it it is bad...

We must stick to what is right for all. We must avoid the "It is ok because we are doing it." traps. If you agree with this then you must admit that you would have allowed the Repubs to do it too... Might does not make right!


Scuba

[polmaven]

68. I think I'm going to give

a benefit of the doubt here, and HOPE that the poster was being sarcastic. Some dod not like to use the sarcasm tag...for reasons I don't really understand...but this kind of statement is so far off the wall as to almost SCREAM sarcasm...at least I HOPE that's the case.

[scubadude]

84. Sarcastic? Me?

Of course there was sarcasm involved in the post, especially the "Might makes Right" part, Freep logic for sure. Mixed in amongst the post is the truth however.

We must avoid the traps that make us become a Democratic version of the Freeps.

So many posts saying that if you disagree with Obama in any way you are hurting the cause. Using the Freep argument "Either you are with us or you are against us.".

We must avoid at all costs using their tactics. We must let Obama know when he is blowing it. Didn't he send you emails asking you what you thought about different subjects? He wants guidance.

The wiretapping program is wrong, no matter who runs the show. Right?

Maybe the poster I was answereing to was using sarcasm that I just missed. Sometimes it is easy to miss... Yeah, the post was probably complete sarcasm.

Scuba

[polmaven]

99. Actually,

I was referring to the poster to whom you were replying when i stated that I hope there was sarcasm involved. I really, really hope that poster,( post #2), doesn't actually think that the warrantless wire taps are necessary and permitted.

OF COURSE the warrantless part is completely wrong,illegal, and unconstitutional. I am disappointed that the administration is trying to block this ACLU suit.

[TheEuclideanOne]

95. He was just using the invisible "obvious sarcasm" tag. It is reserved for very obvious sarcasm

It is just not visible in the post. If you select the text in the post, you will see it there, but it does not show up normally. Try it and you will see.

[AlbertCat]

105. I think I'm going to give

a benefit of the doubt here, and HOPE that the poster was being sarcastic.


DUH!





well he should be!

[No Elephants]

112. I do see a winking smiley in the post.

[No Elephants]

102. Yeah, because ignoring the Constitution is so great. [sarcasm]. Sorry, but I cannot

wink or smile about this. I miss the Constitution too much.

[Dinger]

118. In The Meantime, History WILL Repeat Itself

Are you cool with that?

[liberalmike27]

127. I said that before he got into office

He should use the wiretapping to investigate right-wing hate groups, skin-heads, and KKK folks. It would help his own safety.

But then, that is exactly what is wrong with these rights given willy-nilly. Why not use them to investigate republicans, or spy on campaign and media plans. I think that's what Bush did.

This is why things should go through courts, as the potential for abuse is massive.

[crankmob]

141. disgusting

:puke:

[varkam]

158. So when Bush doesn't follow the Constitution, that's bad. What when Obama doesn't follow it...

that's good? What in the fuck?

[grahamhgreen]

181. Are you a right wing fascist?

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

220. My first thought, too ...

...use their "own" tools against them. The rolling snowball hasn't reached the avalanche stage needed to take down the real culprits on this issue.

[reggie the dog]

413. unconstitutional tools should be thrown away.

[JackRiddler]

226. Thanks for defining moral bankruptcy.

Your statement is worthy of Free Republic - just switch left and right.

In a constitutional republic, wiretaps are allowed whenever a judge signs a warrant specifying probable cause.

One can hardly say, looking on US history, that the police were restrained from going after criminals by that.

NEXT: Why Democratric bombings kill the right civilians democratically, so it's okay.

[Zhade]

281. Is everyone on this board sarcasm-impaired? It was obviously not serious.

NT!

[kaygore]

256. Good point

I wondered about the ramifications when Bush-Cheney rewrote the Constitution on this issue!

[Timefortruth]

3. This is bad

Really bad.

[atreides1]

4. The More Things Change

The more they stay the same.

Go figure!

[eyeontheprize]

5. Where is the outrage?

Can someone please defend this?

[Fumesucker]

12. See post #2....

Although I'm not entirely sure it's not satirical..

Separating satire and reality has become exceedingly difficult..

[Timefortruth]

21. So why don't the Republicans at least

scream bloody murder about this? It's as if Obama's election served to silence the opposition (limited as it was) to some of Bush's worst policies. If these abuses were wrong under Bush, they are still wrong.

It is interesting that there isn't really a defense of Obama. This will continue without a whimper because there is absolutely no one with the voice to challenge it.

[Fumesucker]

24. I don't even understand myself...

I don't pretend to understand Republicans.

I agree, these things are still wrong, no matter who does it.

[Chulanowa]

62. Why would they?

They'd rather let it fester under our watch to use as a campaigning tool in 10 and 12. Why try to get rid of it now, when they can PRETEND to want to get rid of it in an election year?

[defendandprotect]

321. I think cause that would be kinda an anti-Bush thing and reversal for them . ..

PLUS they probably know that most of these intelligence agencies are loaded

with right-wingers -- DOJ . . . AG's were never turned over by Obama --

he invited ALL of them to stay -- 51 did!

[GoCubsGo]

427. When did he do that?

I don't recall such an invitation. I only remember that there were a number who refused to resign at the start of the new administration.

[Zhade]

282. It was clearly sarcasm.

NT!

[grahamhgreen]

182. I am outraged! I'm outraged, I'm freaking outraged! Have we been had?

[TechBear_Seattle]

245. What is the point of getting outraged?

Bush did this for eight years. It is becoming apparent that Obama will continue to do it. Outrage did no good against Bush, why do you believe it will be any different with Obama?

It gets to a point where it ceases to be outrage and becomes a sigh of "Why the fuck should I even bother any more?"

[bvar22]

251. OK.

Its only been 30 60 70 80 days.

You are an Obama Hater.

You haven't posted enough praise of Obama to earn the right to criticize.

Obama is way smarter than you, and he is playing chess.

OMG, another Purist.

What? You prefer McCain/Palin.

You don't understand Politics. Those who live in the REAL World understand that Obama must give the Republicans everything they want.

We don't have 60 votes in The Senate.

You should be grateful for the Stem Cell thing, and STFU.

[defendandprotect]

325. One more and you have a fine set of 10 Commandments there for DU to rethink . . .!!!

:) :)

Nice post -- !!!

[MauriceCobert]

6. investigating a previous administration is not the classy thing to do

Its just not cool. What Bush did is now up to the historians and how they write the books but Obama is not going to do much more than investigate the little people of the Bush Admin because he wants a working relationship with the repubs still in power and he would harm that relationship if he started turning over rocks like the left would like.

[Timefortruth]

9. He has no working relationship with Republicans

and that is a separate issue.

[MauriceCobert]

18. Sure he does

Just because congress is not visably buying into his plans yet does not mean many other, behind the scenes repubs such as the bank CEOs on Wallstreet arent making deals with Obama.

Obama's forte' is finding a common ground with EVERYBODY. That is the horse he rode in on and he is going to continue trying to reach the rupbs in congress. If he starts investigating Bush he has no no chance.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. If he rejects justice for Bushco

there is no justice at all. No rule of law. The whole thing becomes an obvious sham unworthy of the people's respect.

[Timefortruth]

23. Where is the common ground with this

policy and the ground those who support civil liberties stand on? You suggest that he can secretly get people who agree to continue to agree.

[Selatius]

90. I think you're forgetting the whole Bill of Rights thing, specifically the 4th and 5th Amendments.

Those are things you do not compromise away. I shouldn't even need to remind you of that, yet here I am.

[No Elephants]

106. There is a whale of a difference between investigating Bush and imitating Bush.

[Zhade]

284. FINDING COMMON GROUND WITH CRIMINALS IS CALLED COMPLICITY.

NT!

[Skittles]

382. if Bush Inc. is not investigated, America has no chance

[Somawas]

16. Bullcrap!

[acmavm]

20. 'Classy'? What the hell ridiculous kind of crap is that? The most

disastrous criminal cabal to ever run (and ruin) this country and you give it a pass because its not 'classy' to investigate a previous administration?

Un-freaking-believable!

[Tempest]

42. Have you noticed all the recent low number posters

Who are calling for Obama to not investigate the Bush administration?

I just ignore them since it's obvious where they're coming from.

[Runcible Spoon]

131. I don't think they're freepers...

I think some cancerous DINOs are afraid to use their "real" names to post their true feelings. Disgusting.

[closeupready]

96. Who gives a FUCK about class given the issues at stake?

??

[pattmarty]

163. You can't use the word "class" and Bush in the same sentence..............

..........unless you put "no" in front of it.

[Raineyb]

63. Allowing high level crimes to go unpunished is not acceptable

If we allow this to go unpunished we well certainly end up sliding into dictatorship when some other President goes even further to trash the Constitution than Bush did.

I see no reason why covering up for the Republicans should even be a consideration. There is no relationship to harm and if there was that's no excuse for not doing anything. If this country doesn't do something surely one of several European countries will.

There is no excuse for continuing with the Bush argument for warrantless wiretaps.

Regards

[AlbertCat]

107. investigating a previous administration is not the classy thing to do

Maybe that's the 1st thing we should change.


Taking a dump on the White House lawn would be "classier" than anything the Bush Administration did.

[No Elephants]

121. You know what's REALLY classy, though? The rule of law. But you get it only if you enforce it.

[pmorlan1]

143. Classy?

MauriceCobert (5 posts)
6. investigating a previous administration is not the classy thing to do

Its just not cool. What Bush did is now up to the historians and how they write the books but Obama is not going to do much more than investigate the little people of the Bush Admin because he wants a working relationship with the repubs still in power and he would harm that relationship if he started turning over rocks like the left would like.

Definitions of classy on the Web (revised):

elegant and fashionable; "classy clothes"; "a classy dame"; "a posh restaurant"; "a swish pastry shop on the Rue du Bac"- Julia Child; ignoring crimes of a previous administration is the classy thing to do if it furthers your political ambitions by enabling you to have a better working relationship with Republicans

Yeah, selling out the people for your own political needs is REAL classy, REAL elegant and oh so fashionable.

[grahamhgreen]

183. Classy? NO IT'S HIS F*CKING JOB! If he fails to investigate, then he is implicated in the criminal

ity

[Dinger]

190. You're New, Aren't You?

Welcome to DU:hi:

[MissDeeds]

209. This is perhaps the most egregious post ever

Tell the grieving families of those killed for Bush's lies all about your "classy" pass on war crimes.

[Zhade]

283. Are you fucking kidding me? Not holding criminals accountable is how we got b*s*!

First we didn't hold them accountable during Iran-Contra - then. when we failed to hold the crooks responsible for stealing the 2000 election, he got in and put MANY OF THE SAME PEOPLE FROM IRAN-CONTRA INTO OFFICE!

Guess you believe in letting criminals walk, like most cowards.

[Doctor_J]

289. Working relationship with Repukes?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

The ones in DC are trying to sink the country to get him out of office. The ones in the media are encouraging their followers to kill him. Have a nice brief stay

[Political Heretic]

458. Delete - I'm sorry I bumped this.

I came from another forum and thought at first this was related to the new motion stuff.

[CoffeeCat]

7. I have been giving Obama the benefit of the doubt...

...when it comes to the economy. I am withholding judgement and giving him some time--even though
some of his economic appointees greatly disappoint.

With that said--there's no rationalizing this bullshit.

"Warantless wiretapping"...and circumventing the FISA courts---that's illegal. It's unconstitutional
and violates our right to privacy.

There's just no excuse.

One of the main reasons I voted for Obama--was because he is a Constitutional scholar. I felt that he would
at least follow the Constitution and get our democracy back on track. If we don't have a democracy and if
the Constitution is enforced--then the entire foundation is sitting on quicksand.

I'm very upset about this.

[defendandprotect]

328. True . . . Obama is a Constitutional scholar . . . .

who saw "no basis upon which to impeach Bush" . . . !!!

If there's any silver lining to this cloud, I hope we find it soon . . . !!!

[bjobotts]

399. Exactly. See Glenn Greewald's post at salon.com for today. Has all the facts

[bjobotts]

400. This is a massive betrayal of everything Obama claimed about justice and civil rights

[bjobotts]

401. His "new rule" puts the executive branch above the courts and the law and can't be questioned

[bjobotts]

402. Read this quote which shows the president can break the law at will without consequence

"...What's being asserted here by the Obama DOJ is the virtually absolute power of presidential secrecy, the right to break the law with no consequences, and immunity from surveillance lawsuits so sweeping that one can hardly believe that it's being claimed with a straight face. It is simply inexcusable for those who spent the last several years screaming when the Bush administration did exactly this to remain silent now or, worse, to search for excuses to justify this behavior. As EFF's Bankston put it:

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.

This is the Obama DOJ's work and only its work, and it is equal to, and in some senses surpasses, the radical secrecy and immunity claims of the Bush administration...."

From Glenn Greenwald's sight at salon.com

[sattahipdeep]

8. How do we restore our nation's honor, as well as our own?

Restoring Our Nation's Honor
Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:17 AM | By Dawn Johnsen

Here is a partial answer to my own question of how should we behave, directed especially to the next president and members of his or her administration but also to all of use who will be relieved by the change: We must avoid any temptation simply to move on. We must instead be honest with ourselves and the world as we condemn our nation's past transgressions and reject Bush's corruption of our American ideals. Our constitutional democracy cannot survive with a government shrouded in secrecy, nor can our nation's honor be restored without full disclosure.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/03/18/restoring-our-nation-s-honor.aspx

Glenn Greenwald
I first read these posts of Johnsen's a few weeks ago when a reporter asked me about my reaction to the possibility that she might be appointed to head the OLC. Beyond these articles, I don't know all that much about her, but anyone who can write this, in this unapologetic, euphemism-free and even impolitic tone, warning that the problem isn't merely John Yoo but Bush himself, repeatedly demanding "outrage," criticizing the Democratic Congress for legalizing Bush's surveillance program, arguing that we cannot merely "move on" if we are to restore our national honor, stating the OLC's "core job description" is to "say 'no' to the President," all while emphasizing that the danger is unchecked power not just for the Bush administration but "for years and administrations to come" -- and to do so in the middle of an election year when she knows she has a good chance to be appointed to a high-level position if the Democratic candidate won and yet nonetheless eschewed standard, obfuscating Beltway politesse about these matters -- is someone whose appointment to such an important post is almost certainly a positive sign. No praise is due Obama until he actually does things that merit praise, but it's hard not to consider this encouraging.

Dawn Johnsen on the role of the Office of Legal Counsel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8-FrzhHT_w

[Hydra]

10. Error: You've already recommended that thread.

Heh- I've taken a posting vacation, and now I'm afraid to post my thoughts on this, knowing that we are still being watched and presumably, still being hauled off for "subversive activities."

Tell me again how America was supposed to change...

[AlphaCentauri]

17. new sheriff, same rules n/t

[HughMoran]

11. This really sucks

Why the fuck is the Administration taking this stance?

They better have a good explanation for this shit - this is way beyond the pale.

[greguganus]

75. Maybe to guarantee that the Obama administration won't be investigated by the next presidency?

Just in case there's something in the future to hide? "We didn't investigate Bush's (fill in the blanks), so we feel that our (fill in the blanks) shouldn't be investigated either". ????

[pattmarty]

167. "Good explanation"???? You're kidding, right???

[HughMoran]

217. I have more than one corpuscle

They may even have a reason for this shit - I dunno.

[Zhade]

285. There is no good explanation for this. It's illegal and unconstitutional.

This is not the change I voted for - because it's not change at all.

[Sheila Casey]

377. yeah they've got a good explanation.

If they don't do as the banksters say, he winds up like JFK.

[tritsofme]

15. Imagine! The Justice Department defending a federal law, nonetheless,

for a President who voted for it as a senator.

The case should be dismissed, as the DoJ is in the right legally, and the matter should be completely reexamined by Congress

[polmaven]

74. Please give us your opinion

as to why you think warrantless wiretapping is legal. I do NOT believe it is anywhere near legal. To which federal law are you referring?

[JDPriestly]

98. What are you talking about?

The new FISA amendment let the telecommunications companies off the hook -- but not the administration. It left open the possibility of actions against the Bush administration. What other law are you talking about?

[Zhade]

286. Since when was violating the Fourth Amendment acceptable?

NT!

[stillcool]

19. The PDF if anyone is interested...

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

[Festivito]

405. "sovereign immunity" Our Republic is likened to a second country.

"They" have sovereign immunity from US, we the people, because they so deigned -- without our permission I will add.

Our ideology of people, unity, humility, and justice is replaced by some people, division, arrogance and plain injustice.

[Tim01]

25. "Yes we can" do the same thing as republicans. nt

[closeupready]

27. Dick Cheney was correct about Obama.

n/t

[polmaven]

76. Ohhh...

Now THAT went a little too far, doncha think?

[closeupready]

94. I suppose.

n/t

[RedCloud]

193. Looks like Cheney is still running critical things.

Don't do things that make that nut case happy.

Find all the left behinds and jail them for treason! That is just for starters.

[yy4me]

28. WHAT?

[Sultana]

29. BUSH-LITE

Change you can believe in

[HughMoran]

80. That's not helpful

Is that all you can come up with?

[No Elephants]

123. I get the Bush part, but not the lite part. On this issue, how is Obama different from Bush?

[Sultana]

130. In general he is Bush-lite

[No Elephants]

139. And no different at all on this issue.

[bjobotts]

403. Not on this issue. Here he is Bush dark...surpasses Bush secrecy with new claims

[harmonicon]

30. boo!

[feslen]

31. RE; BOO we must stop this injustice by Obama

It's time we the people write to him and show him how angered we are! Protest this atrocity! So much for the promises of change, I guess Obama is just another politician in sheep's clothing.

[harmonicon]

448. I'm not surprised

Sure, I voted for the guy, but he's done just about what I had expected. Oh well. The US will still be a 2nd world country for at least another 8 years. I just hope I don't have to move back in that time.

[FudaFuda]

33. Well, at least we can believe in change

might not be any, but we can believe in it

[troubleinwinter]

56. Like the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

[Mr. Hyde]

67. LOL. nt

[roberto]

34. OBAMA is it becoming slowly and slowly the great political swindle ?

It looks we'll never know about 9/11 ... and america has so many "nondemocratic" secrets ...

[Tim01]

41. Nothing slow about it.

[EnviroBat]

35. Do you ever get the feeling you've been had?

I'm beginning to feel like a sucker...

[Iowa]

210. Hell no! I don't feel like a sucker...

I knew Obama was a sell-out when I voted for him. Remember... among many other things, this is the guy who back in 2007 opposed the impeachment of a president who lied this country into a war and tortured prisoners. Here are Obama's words about the impeachment of Bush:

"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority"

In other words, he did not believe that Bush's offenses were grave, and he did not believe that his offenses were intentional. He deliberately minimized Bush's crimes and provided cover for him. He felt no outrage about those crimes. Is there anyone here who didn't know this? Yet most of us voted for Obama anyway because:

1) we have a two-party system that is corrupt to the core, and
2) the alternative (McCain/Palin) was even worse, and
3) there is no viable third party - yet.

This is how the plutocracy controls the country - we get to choose between two corrupt corporate parties.

It's long past time to realize that Obama does not work for us. He pretends to work on our behalf while actually serving the plutocracy. He'll throw us a bone once in awhile to prop up the illusion that he's on our side, but on most of the stuff that really matters, he'll serve the plutocracy. And congress is no better. We knew that (or should have known that) before we voted for Obama. The fact that so many seem surprised by this, and that so many actually swallowed Obama's smarmy sales pitch means that we have a very, very long way to go before the people rise up and take this country back.

[balantz]

36. It seems clear to me that Obama and Bush have the same "Boss". And it ain't us! n/t

[Tim01]

47. United States Corporation of America. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

422. BINGO! Some 'change' eh?

Well at least he's not McCain. :evilgrin:

[FudaFuda]

48. I heard during the election that Bush was unconcerned about who won

because no matter who won, the new Pres wouldn't be able to change how the machine worked even if they wanted to.

take that with as many grains of salt as you like, but it's pretty much consistent with your idea of the 'same Boss'

[defendandprotect]

329. Very possibly right . . . . but where Obama could make change . . . DOJ, for instance . . .

he didn't. Obama never overturned the AG's in DOJ which is his right --

In fact, he invited the Repug AGs to stay on -- ALL of them!!!

51 stayed!!!

We're all Shakesperean "Hamlets"* here talking about this as if Obama doesn't know that

this is dead wrong. Of course he knows this is against the Constitution/Bill of Rights.

The question is WHY is he doing all this crap?

And how do we gain leverage over our own government -- ???



* Just want to give credit for that concept to Jim Garrison who used it so appropriately

re Americans questioning the JFK assassination. Never have I heard our doubts explained

so well -- and never have I heard a Shakespearean character explained so well!!

We know we know . . . but --

[Autumn]

37. Not a good thing

I really expected this shit to be stopped. This I expect from the other side but not ours.

[balantz]

39. Must be time to have a good hard look at who's on our side or not. And quick! n/t

[Autumn]

52. Last two years I have been looking,and there

are damn few on our side.

[defendandprotect]

332. The question is how to gain leverage over this administration . . .

corporates/elites have been doing it for decades with money buying power --

money buying government and elected officials.

In fact, the CIA was funneling money to right-wing Senators and Representatives --

like Sen. Strom Thurmond and Rep. Gerald Ford -- !!!

Lobbying is simply BRIBERY . . . and we had best get something done about it soon!!!

[defendandprotect]

331. And btw, I'll use your post to say how GREAT it is to see DU'ers against this ---

against the very idea that we could do what Bush did -- but we KNOW IT'S WRONG --

AND WE WANT IT STOPPED!!!

Thank you DU'ers!!!

[Old Codger]

38. Proven correct

No politician is going to relinquish power, never gonna happen, * got these powers illegally and Obama will do his best to keep them, anyone who thought differently is deluded. In the end he is a pol no doubt at all.

[polmaven]

78. The problem with what you say is

that * did not "get" these powers, he stole them.....and he did not "get" them because they are illegal. There is no "power" for President Obama to relinquish, because illegal actions are not "powers".

[Old Codger]

100. You are right

Which in fact makes obama no better than bush, irrespective of how these powers came about , they exist, legal or not they are real and obama perpetuating this illegality puts him on the same plain as bush and his other cohorts.. I do not expect much out of any pol but I actually started to believe that he might be different, but this is not the first time I have been wrong about an elected official and probably won't be the last either, had high hopes of being pleasantly surprised this time around.


Change we can believe in....? fooled a lot of us again.

[Vidar]

40. Looking & acting more & more like Bush Lite.

[No Elephants]

129. Please see post # 123.

[Vidar]

315. He's likable, intelligent & eloquent vs. Bush: belligerent, dumber

than a post, and English-challenged. Unfortunately, much as I like him & want him to succeed, Obama's adopting the same abominable policy as Bush in this case.

[defendandprotect]

333. We vote for positions, issues and policies -- not for personalities --- !!!

[paparush]

43. Is it - Obama doesn't want to prosecute, or Obama doesn't want to prosecute Right Now?

I really do hope its the latter.

[Dinger]

120. "Keeping The Powder Dry"

Yeah, we're fucked.

[No Elephants]

140. Did you read the OP? He's made a claim of state secrets. I don't think he's

planning, at some later date, to say he was only kidding about that.

[L. Coyote]

44. OBAMA: "harm to national security would result from the disclosure of whether the NSA has worked..."

Obama's argument is "harm to national security would result from the disclosure of whether the NSA has worked with any telecommunications carrier."

Yeah, good luck with that in a court of law. The ruling will do us all good.

[acmavm]

45. Okay, where are all the DUers that wants anyone who doesn't drool

at everything this guy does banned? Are we not supposed to be upset by this? Or by Microsoft sending how many more jobs overseas? Or by the 'surge' in Afganistan that will never work?

Where is that line in the sand?

[Mithreal]

125. Good rationalizations are a lil slower than outrage.

More war and the jobs are not coming back, great plan. We are screwed. Things are gonna have to get a lot worse. Thank god for people like Thom Hartmann, he is helping me stay more positive than I am inclined at the moment.

[Common Sense Party]

46. MEET THE NEW BOSS. SAME AS THE OLD BOSS.

The change we had no right to believe in.

[feslen]

51. re: ....

sorry about that, I was just very perturbed at the news didn't mean to sound too nasty...

I guess it's time for me to plunk my head into the ground like an ostrich for the next 40 years!!

[Common Sense Party]

64. Huh?

[cottonseed]

136. You come up with that all by yourself?

[Common Sense Party]

149. No, Obama's sales and marketing team helped.

[Sheila Casey]

384. Those clips of people sobbing the night he won the election...

Everyone who was in tears that night was a fool.

Ever look into how Obama got into the Senate in the first place? Who he ran against?

His opponent, Jack Ryan, was destroyed so utterly by the Obama campaign (in cahoots with the Chicago media) that he had to end his campaign, leave politics, and drop out of public life entirely. With just 86 days before the election, the Repubs found someone new to replace him (who had never lived in Illinois) and he got only 27% of the vote.

Look at what Obama did to Jack Ryan you will know he is not a good man.

Obama's opponent, Jack Ryan, was forced to withdraw from the Senate race three months after winning the Republican primary, after The Chicago Tribune sued to have sealed custody documents released. Against the wishes of both Ryan and his ex-wife Jeri, the legal files pertaining to Jack and Jeri's custody battle over their young child were made public on June 22, 2004.

In the documents, Jeri alleged that Jack took her to sex clubs in numerous cities so they could have sex in public, and that the marriage ended when she refused to cooperate. These allegations ended his Senate campaign and his political ambitions.

The New York Times stated: "The decision to release these files generated much controversy because it went against both parents' direct request, and because it reversed the earlier decision to seal the papers in the best interest of the child."

Jim Oberweis, Ryan's defeated GOP opponent, commented that "these are allegations made in a divorce hearing, and we all know people tend to say things that aren't necessarily true in divorce proceedings when there is money involved and custody of children involved."

Jack Ryan's campaign ended a week after the custody documents were released, and he formally withdrew from the Senate campaign on July 29, 2004.

With just 86 days to go before the election, Alan Keyes, who had never lived in Illinois, was drafted to replace Ryan in the contest against Obama. Keyes stated that he felt a moral obligation to run after being asked to by the state GOP, saying:

"You are doing what you believe to be required by your respect for God's will, and I think that that's what I'm doing in Illinois."

Obama easily defeated Keyes, winning 70% of the vote vs. Keyes 27%.

Read it and weep.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

49. ENOUGH!

:nuke:



Too bad there's not some rat ready to spill the beans about their "secret programs" and what they might be.

Imagine though if they could monitor us through the TeeVee machine. That would be the end of sex as we know it. :wink:

Could be what ARi meant, you better watch what you do, you better watch what you say.

Alberto Gonzales digitalized.

[L. Coyote]

54. EFF is the litigant. Here is their PRESS RELEASE:

April 6th, 2009
Obama Administration Embraces Bush Position on Warrantless Wiretapping and Secrecy
Says Court Must Dismiss Jewel v. NSA to Protect 'State Secrets'

San Francisco - The Obama administration formally adopted the Bush administration's position that the courts cannot judge the legality of the National Security Agency's (NSA's) warrantless wiretapping program, filing a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA late Friday.

In Jewel v. NSA, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is challenging the agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans. The Obama Justice Department claims in its motion that litigation over the wiretapping program would require the government to disclose privileged "state secrets." These are essentially the same arguments made by the Bush administration three years ago in Hepting v. AT&T, EFF's lawsuit against one of the telecom giants complicit in the NSA spying.

"President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "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."

For the full motion to dismiss:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/jewel/jewelmtdobama.pdf

For more on Jewel v. NSA:
http://www.eff.org/cases/jewel

http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/04/05

============================
Are ALL COMMUNICATIONS routed overseas to circumvent US law and the Constitution?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2245762

Judge Rejects Bush’s View on Wiretaps
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3380151

=======================
Judge Orders Telecommunications Companies to Preserve Evidence in Government Surveillance Cases
Ruling Advances EFF's Class-action Lawsuit Against AT&T
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2007/11/06

San Francisco - A federal judge today ruled on a preservation motion filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), ordering that telecommunications companies must preserve any evidence of collaborating with the government in illegal spying on ordinary Americans.

In his ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ordered the telecommunications companies to halt any routine destruction of documents or to arrange for the preservation of accurate copies. On December 14, each party must provide the court with confirmation that the court's order has been carried out. The court order did not require the government or the carriers to reveal whether or not they had any relevant evidence.

The government and the carriers had opposed the preservation motion, claiming that the government's invocation of the state secrets privilege made it impossible to proceed with a preservation order. In litigation, parties are typically required to preserve all relevant evidence.

[Dukkha]

55. This is why it's so dangerous for presidents to give themselves extra powers

The next president will be unwilling to relinquish that power, as in Obama's case. By doing so he has betrayed the citizens who elected him.

[Barack_America]

57. I wonder if having this program declared illegal would jeopardize prosecutions in the works.

That's the only (justifiable?) reason I can find for Obama doing this.

It just doesn't seem in keeping with what he has done thus far wrt ending torture, closing Gitmo, etc.

[LittleGirl]

60. We really may never know will we?

I just think I will let the President make some decisions without asking us first. I think he has his reasons and you make a point that some of us "non-lawyers" may not be aware of or even considered. I don't want to say I trust him completely, but I certainly trust him 90% more than the last administration.

[Runcible Spoon]

133. Fuck with all these fantastic new powers ya think it would be easy to go after Bush

But no, I guess it's still impossible :wtf:

Or maybe it's Obama's way of saying "thanks for the unprecedented executive powers, little buddy! I won't be going after ya"

[walldude]

191. Would you have considered that justifiable if Bush had done it for that reason?

There is no justifying violations of the constitution. As much as I like Obama he's making some big mistakes.

[sabrina 1]

223. I don't think it's surprising that he would take this stand.

My disappointment in what Obama says as opposed to what he does began with his votes for the war supplemenatals and his FISA vote. That caused justifiable outrage among his supporters, especially considering the excellent and moving speeches he had given in defense of the rule of law, only to turn around and vote FOR the Telecom Corps.

I'm still glad that he, rather than McCain, is president, but I don't think he lied to anyone about his positions on many things during the campaign. His stated admiration for Reagan, eg (I know, he 'explained' it later) as if there were no Democratic presidents he could have used as examples. And his insistence on bringing religion into the political debate which began early on in the campaign, was also disturbing. 'Separation of Church and State' is such a good idea, while still guaranteeing everyone the right to practice their faiths as they see fit, it ensures that no one religion will ever dominate the government. I don't understand why anyone, let alone a Dem, even, or maybe especially a religious one, would not fully support that concept.

His votes for every war supplemental also were not encouraging.

His choice of economic advisors during the campaign, and his acceptance of so much money from Wall St. all were signs that while he would be better than McCain, there wasn't going to be much 'change' with an Obama (or Hillary either btw) presidency as far as the status quo goes.

So, I am not as disappointed as those who didn't notice all those signs. I never felt the focus should be on the presidency to begin with. He is good on many other issues, and it is a pleasure not to feel like damaging the TV every time he speaks.

But in reality, the only way to ensure real 'change' is to focus on Congressional races and target those who have voted against the people over and over again, for primary challenges. Congress has relinquished its power because so many of them are bought and paid for. When that changes, it won't matter so much what the president wants.

Bush/Cheney could never have gotten away with much of what they did, had Congress not been so complicit.

[TBF]

252. Well, that's not really true either - he did say they would end torture, but

as they closed Guantanamo they were already building the new prison in Bagram, Afghanistan - cite: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1869519,00.html

[Zhade]

293. How is that justifiable? The program violates the Constitution.

Any prosecutions based on it are in violation of the law, due to the fact that this illegal program erases Fourth Amendment protections.

[defendandprotect]

335. What would the difference be? We held something like 140,000 prisoners .....

and I don't think we've prosecuted but one or two -- and one of those was

Saddam Hussein!


PS: Actually, more of our own service people have been prosecuted for TORTURE
than "terrorists" have been prosecuted for 9/11!!!

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

58. - heard again at the G20

Words must mean something



"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

[natrat]

59. yes we can-what a bunch of dicks

[iandhr]

61. The Court .....

..... has held there are cretin exceptions where a warrant is not needed as I learned in Con law.

The standard that used used to define a search as a physical penetration into a persons personal space, which meant that phone tapping did not require a warrant. It was not until the case of Katz v. United States in 1965 (think) which said you needed a warrant to tap a phone.



I am not saying that I agree with the decision just that the legal arguments that both Bush and now Obama are using are not completely out of left field

I always new I would disagree with the President around 10% of the time. I guess this is one on those times

[Zhade]

294. "cretin exceptions" - what a fitting slip.

NT!

[Mr. Hyde]

66. It isn't fascism when Obama does it.

We over invested in this guy.

[iandhr]

69. See these cases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmstead_v._United_States from 1928

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), is a 1928 opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the Court reviewed whether the use of wiretapped private telephone conversations, obtained by federal agents without judicial approval and subsequently used as evidence, constituted a violation of the defendant’s rights provided by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that neither the Fourth Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment rights of the defendant were violated. This decision was reversed by Katz v. United States


I saying that the argument is not out of left field. I am not saying I agree with the argument

[Mr. Hyde]

157. I'm just saying that the only change I have seen is in the cast of characters but the play itself

seems to be more of the same.

[No Elephants]

151. What do you mean "we?" You said you had not invested in him at all, that you are posting here to

tear him down.

[OhioChick]

70. All of this "Change" is killing me. n/t

[L. Coyote]

116. And it was such fun pretending 2008 was not another "Lessor of Two Evils" year!

Those who were alive when they still shot real liberal candidates may not be as surprised by this!

[SammyWinstonJack]

424. That is exactly what 2008 was for a lot of us and for Corporate America it was which corporate tool

was more palatable for the masses. Corporate America chose Obama for us.

[L. Coyote]

451. The dominant powers in the economic realm are not so immune to

shift in societal demographics. Just like everyone else, their people don't change much,
but the old ones still die off, and the younger, more liberal ones take their places.

People don't change, but thankfully the old ones die :rofl:

[The Backlash Cometh]

71. They're afraid we're going to find out that one of the Dem politicians

were involved in more of the same kind of shakedowns that Blago was. That's my best guess.

[bvar22]

254. "One" Dem Politician involved in the shakedowns?

Now we got Your Children's Money too !
And there is not a fucking thing you can do about it !
Now THATS Bi-Partisanship".
Better get used to it !
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

[The Backlash Cometh]

264. How do we clean up the party?

I'm convinced we have to work from the top down.

[defendandprotect]

337. Get the DLC/Emmanuel out of the White House . . . get rid of Summers . . .

Replace all Repugs in government with at least Democrats!!

Especially DOJ where Obama didn't turn over the AG's which is his right --

In fact he asked them ALL to stay on!! 51 did!

NSA has doubled under Bush ---!!!

Get control over corporations and lobbying -- which is merely bribery.

STOP the buying of government and elected officials.

In fact, the CIA was funneling money to right wing Senators/Reps --

two I recall were Strom Thurmond and Gerald Ford!

The question is how to gain leverage over this administration . . . !!!

[The Backlash Cometh]

436. The CIA was funneling money to right-wing reps?

Do you have a cite for that?

Leverage? Maybe we should start our own astroturf campaign. Find the truth that the newspapers won't print, and canvas all the main papers with articles that include citations If we can't read the truth on the front page, maybe we can get it in the opinion pages?

[snappyturtle]

72. So disheartening. nt

[derby378]

73. And this is why...

...you may still get this message if you call my phone: "Please be advised that this conversation may be monitored by the NSA."

[EFerrari]

77. When I call friends and family, we always shout out to NSA.

It seems like the polite thing to do!

[derby378]

79. "Hi, Agent Mike!"

Just laughing through the tears, y'know...

[Pastiche423]

194. My email sig line states...

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight.

I've had for that sig line for a number of years. It 1st pertained to the previous administration. I have found no reason to change it for the present administration.

[greguganus]

81. Loose lips sink ships? n/t

[EFerrari]

229. Yeah! They never should have leaked the fact that this program started BEFORE 9/11.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

425. Ain't that one inconvenient truth?

:hi:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

446. .......

[omega minimo]

82. This is why you IMPEACH, not STRATEGERIZE

:thumbsdown:

[mikehiggins]

83. Okay this sucks

but...

as we learned over the last two decades it takes a huge amount of effort to make the slightest change in the way things are done in the US, and things may never approach the kind of fair play that the left (including semi-quasi-Alinskyites like me) would want.

That being said, we should continue to protest and make our disapproval known BUT do not turn on Obama just yet. It took twenty years to overturn King Bush I's decree regarding photographing our dead soldiers--including eight years of the Big Dog--twenty years and three months.

Those are the same three months Obama has been in office, by the way.

Let's see how things play out--we don't have a hell of a lot of choice, after all--and continue to harbor hopes that we are watching a play being run out that may end up in a TD.

Patience.

[Dinger]

110. We've Been Had

Patience my ass. Fuck that. repukes knew knew no puke would win in this election, so, . . . .


Nevermind. I don't want to be banned.

[jmowreader]

85. To a certain extent I wanted him to do this

Or more precisely, I wanted him to go over the top on this, so long as he concentrated on Republicans. Wiretap the living SHIT out of Republicans until they decided maybe giving a president unlimited power to invade the privacy of Americans maybe wasn't the finest idea they ever had. At that point we revert to the necessity for FISA warrants.

[Selatius]

87. This is not good news at all. I disapprove of Obama's position on this.

Very bad news for civil libertarians.

[mvd]

88. Bush probably got a lot of info on Dems and ordinary people in general

Perhaps he thinks letting it out at this time would not be helpful? I'm not saying I agree with this - I'm just thinking it through. One problem is, after this ruling, I can not know that Obama has stopped the spying.

[No Elephants]

137. You're reaching.

[mvd]

147. I agree - it is a stretch

I'd like to see Obama asked about the decision. Not that a reporter would ask such a responsible question.

[Hippo_Tron]

216. I agree, I want an explanation before I jump to conclusions

Hopefully somebody will at least ask Gibbs about it. Perhaps Obama and the Democrats in Congress plan to let these wiretapping powers sunset and just don't want it going through the court system. But if Obama really does plan to keep these warantless wiretapping powers then that's a serious problem and a serious violation of a campaign promise.

[mvd]

247. Good points all around

Hi, Hippo_Tron! I think I'll be posting most in the Lounge as I'm disappointed right now. :hi:

[duhblond1]

91. "Rules must be binding....

"Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something,"

[gulfcoastliberal]

92. K&R This is outrageous. Bush lite indeed. nt

[keepCAblue]

93. S.O.S.

Same old shit.

[JDPriestly]

97. So, send your money to the civil liberties groups instead of to the

Democratic Party.

This is the end of my support for any Democrat who does not speak out strongly for the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution which states:

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/xconst_Am4.html

Thomas Jefferson himself sent personal letters that he did not intend for anyone to read. This was not an uncommon practice at that time.

In addition, there is no free speech without the right to privacy. The government's ability to wiretap or read personal communications should be extremely limited.

The Obama administration's stance on wiretapping makes it all too easy to place the communications of certain journalists under surveillance.

First Obama hires agents of Goldman Sachs to run the Treasury department, and now he defends and most likely continues the unconstitutional wiretapping of the Bush administration. What are we to do?

The wiretapping within the U.S. -- that was at issue in the case discussed in the O.P.-- was never legal. It was not legal under the old FISA, and I question whether it is legal under the new FISA.

The Obama administration is way out of line on this one. I feel betrayed -- again.

[Zhade]

296. Done. I haven't given money to pols in YEARS.

I figure Wall Street has that covered - and they don't listen to you and I anyway, no matter how much they swear they do.

[AlbertCat]

101. The agency monitored the telephone calls

and emails of thousands of people within the United States without a court's approval in an effort to thwart terrorist attacks.


No it didn't!!!

How about:

"The agency monitored the telephone calls and emails of thousands of people within the United States without a court's approval....PERIOD"

Y'know....Obama....THIS STINKS.

[HughBeaumont]

103. I wonder when we're going to elect a Democrat that . . . you know . . ACTS like a Democrat?

Could we please stop pandering to the PNAC and DLC nutjobs and concentrate on righting this ship, please?

[soulcore]

108. Where's my change?

Oh yeah, meet the new boss ... same as the old boss.

Nothing to see here folks, move along. Otherwise you are questioning the great saviour...

[cottonseed]

135. You come up with that all by yourself?

[Divine Discontent]

219. great defense of this horrible anti-civil liberties action.

I know the argument that others have made, "oh, calm down, this is attorneys trying to win their case and Obama getting involved would be political", sorry, that don't fly - he's the president - and he should yank out the asses who push the bush spying agenda. This is not change... Remember, you're talking to hard core Democrats like yourself, don't forget that. Most of us are pissed about this, and we love Obama.

[SammyWinstonJack]

426. Did you?

:eyes:

[Dinger]

111. C'mon, Defend This Somebody

I dare you. Wait, I mean how dare you!

[ShareTheWoods]

146. There is no right to privacy on a public line

You can still have secret private communication with others in private.

Them's the facts.

[sui generis]

155. yeah when I pay for it, it's private.

period.

If the gummint wants to pay for my phone line, then they can tap my ass.

[Dinger]

164. Touché sui generis

:hi:

[EFerrari]

227. Wrong. I don't pay for a public line. n/t

[Zhade]

297. Complete fucking HORSESHIT, of course. The Fourth Amendment isn't dependent on such distinctions.

NT!

[earcandle]

336. Blogovich thought he was having private conversations with his wife in his own home....

They can's use it in court, so what is the point?
Just to threaten and make people retract from imagining
anything out loud.
That is really harsh.

[defendandprotect]

339. They had Blogovich's HOME tapped ---- ??????

I didn't know that --- !!!

[earcandle]

352. Blago is something to watch if you want to take notes on a big frame job.

like where in the language is there anything more than hearsay
and threats?  Where is the beef?  In the end, indictment means
nothing, it is the conviction that matters.  That has not
happened.  

I guess they need to shut him up.  Some (rove) prosecutors are
on a rampage to fraudulently arrest Democratic Governors all
over the land (seigleman, richardson, etc)

[defendandprotect]

370. What has been happening with Richardson . . . ???

I keep asking where in the hell is the Democratic Party/Congress on this -

given Siegelman they should feel very threatened -- all of them!!

Unless they're ready to follow orders?

Granted Blogo seems nuts --- but there seems to be a lot to question in what

Fitzpatrick has done. And btw, he also seems a false hero!

Obviously I'm not very up to date on this ---

somewhere along the line you might think of a thread update us all on this?

[earcandle]

348. Further more, I think because of my websites, which are educational or entertaining,

I am concerned I cannot get work because I might be among
those smeared who don't know it or I am among those in
computers in that little room at AT&T in SF, and now at
Comcast, that employers discover during their
"investigation" of potential employees who end up,
unknowingly, on some kind of a list. 

Am I disqualified to get work, on a blacklist so they can hire
people from other countries at cheaper rates?  I have no
prejudice against qualified international people spending time
here to take it back for development, and I provided housing
to international students for twenty years in my last home.
But when green card or HB visa folks are hired to run our
government and regulatory bodies, we have to remember, these
third world people are not trained to be Americans. They do
not have the courage to stand up against the abuses of power. 
No, these are people grateful to be here and will do anything
they are told to keep their jobs. 

How do I proceed to allay my worry?  Who do I ask in the law
force, citizen protectors to unravel that one so innocent me,
and others can get back to work?  

It must be against the law to ruin my right livelihood. The
news is reaching the peaks of ambiguity I describe on my front
page at noodlebrain.com.  I hope Obama is doing trickery to
bust up the ring, but whoah, I hate being duped. 

I won't go numb.  And neither will you.

Here, here! 
Lets rock instead.
Here is a kick ass female rocker (home grown in San Francisco)
with America drive!  
She'll make you smile.  Heard of her yet? 

http://www.earcandleproductions.com/VonIva.mov

[guyton]

113. I was about to contribute again to Obama's campaign when he voted for FISA

so the check went to EFF instead.

I'm still glad he got elected, but EFF needs your support!

[Dinger]

114. Anybody See Bill Moyers This Weekend?

Just asking.

[waiting for hope]

115. Poor Russell Tice - I wonder how many

whistle blowers will come forward now knowing that their actions and sacrifice means nothing?

[chimpymustgo]

171. Oh, what a good point. The people lose again.

[defendandprotect]

340. Sad . . . betrayal of us all -- not to mention the Bill of Rights--!!!

[ShareTheWoods]

117. It's a dangerous world out there

It's only wrong if the innocent get harmed in the process. As long as the water cooler is not tapped,
we should all just sit back and leave the driving to our leaders. There's a new world order that needs
test driven, so keep your seat belts on and enjoy the ride.

[EFerrari]

132. Where have you been? Innocent people have ALREADY been harmed,

rounded up, beaten, tortured and killed. The greatest threats to the American people are domestic and from their own government.

[ShareTheWoods]

142. Obama has not beaten, tortured or killed anyone with wiretapping

The greatest threats are real but Obama wiretapping should not be a problem.

[EFerrari]

150. Why do you think that mistreatment of prisoners has stopped?

What evidence do you have?

And the same people are running FBI and DoD today that were running those agencies on January 19. Panetta at CIA is "new" but he backtracked both on torture and on rendition at his hearing.

Secrecy breeds abuse and in a democratic society, it can't be tolerated.

[rpannier]

259. So...them coming into your house and rifling thru your personal effects should not be a problem

After all, you're not being beaten, tortured or killed by it

[defendandprotect]

342. Are you vouching for that...? Obama in keeping these wars going . . .

is now responsible for deaths -- including of civilians.

And any future use of the wiretaps he's now failing to STOP--!!!

[Autumn]

347. I'm sorry. So Obama's wiretapping is okay?

NO it's not fucking okay . It wasn't okay when bush did it and it isn't okay for Obama to do it.

[razors edge]

145. "enjoy the ride"

On the road to hell paved with bad intentions.

[AlbertCat]

184. It's only wrong if the innocent get harmed in the process.

In which case we'll only know it was wrong after the fact.

That has got to be the lamest excuse for this I've heard. I mean, even the Bush administration didn't use that one.

How about it's only wrong because it's ILLEGAL!and UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Now get back in that kitchen and make me some pie!


Jesus!

[TBF]

290. "Now get back in that kitchen and make me some pie!"

Yes, the comment you were replying to was stupid, but this comment is just as bad.

[Raineyb]

196. What the fuck are you smoking?

The harm is in the illegal act. It's a violation of the constitution and is leading us on the road to fascism.

You can sit back and enjoy the ride if you wish, I'll be doing all I can to pull on the brakes. That's the kind of thinking that allowed Bush to get away with this bullshit in the first place.

[Zhade]

298. How very Nazi Party of you.

NT!

[MNDemNY]

320. Are you insane? Really, are you?

[abq e streeter]

119. A Bill Hicks quote I've posted before, but once again relevant:

" No matter what promises you make on the campaign trail, blah, blah, blah,when you win, you go into this smoky room with the twelve industrialist, capitalist scumfucks that got you in there, and this little screen comes down...and its a shot of the JFK assassination from an angle you've never seen before, which looks suspiciously like the grassy knoll, and then the screen comes up and the lights go on, and they ask the new president "any questions?" I had hopes for Obama, , and still do I suppose, but knew in my gut ( and saw for myself) during the campaign, that this stinking corrupt system would not allow anyone anywhere near a real position of power who was willing to fundamentally challenge the aforementioned stinking corrupt system, partially because these people know damn well what happens to those who do challenge or pose any kind of threat to it, from Paul Wellstone, to Mike Connell, to the DC madam and on and on....

[loudsue]

189. That's it in a nutshell. Obama has no choice in any of this.

His first term is going to go nowhere, when all is said and done. They won't let him, even if he was 100% inclined to change things.

[Pastiche423]

207. His first term?

He's only going to have one term.

[defendandprotect]

343. THIS is all based on Democrats having no options/no Plan B/NO PLACE TO GO ---

That's what elected Democrats count on --- !!!

[latebloomer]

345. Bill (and you) have got it right!

Good post.

[OwnedByFerrets]

122. Amazing the silence of the worst of the apologists.

[Dinger]

203. A Deafening Silence Indeed (nt)

[Zhade]

299. I see it as a good sign. Even they can't excuse this - idiot trolls have to do it for them!

NT!

[defendandprotect]

344. From now on make them argue ISSUES, POLICIES, DECISIONS . .. .

and for our part, let's try to influence any here using language which opens

the door to claims of "Obama-hating" to stick to issues . . . !!!

[Skittles]

383. the worshipers will just plug their ears and go LA LA LA LA LA

fucking idiots

[Laurab]

419. Although I'm not the "worst of the apologists"

I did post a thread about the nitpicking bashing of Obama the other day. I got called a LOT of names, but my post was not about things of substance like this one. It was about the stupid shit, sometimes even just rumors, that people would post on here day after day - the same people and bullshit bashing. It got where I couldn't stand DU anymore. In that thread, I was told he was my "messiah", my "beloved", and many other things, none of which were true.

Now THIS - this there is NO excuse for. I am as disgusted by it as anyone. Obama promised transparency and honesty. This is substantial and real and deserves every bit of criticism it gets. It would be a deal-breaker for me when deciding who to vote for in the next primary. THIS has nothing to do with 2+ months in office, or the fact that Obama inherited a huge mess and couldn't fix it all in such a short time. There's no justification for this, and the "justification" that Obama used is bullshit.

It was illegal when bush did it, and it's still just as illegal. I agree with some of the other posters, that if this is how Obama governs, he WILL be a one-term President. I had great hopes for him, I am happy with much of what he's done, but I can't see how anyone could defend him on this one.

[SammyWinstonJack]

429. Not really.

:evilgrin:

[fascisthunter]

124. covering the asses for Corporate America and throwing our rights down the drain

to do it... fuck that!

[Pepe Ronny]

126. Give Obama a break

Just because he is wrong in one issue doesn't mean he is equal to Bush.

W. Banned funding for embryonic stem cell research,, advocated torture, took us to unjust wars, disrespected women's right to choose, etc.

Obama is an improvement in allmost 100% of the issues.

[No Elephants]

134. What is different about wars, rendition, protecting Bushco re: torture or the right to choose?

[EFerrari]

138. Obama is reserving rendition, escalating Afghanistan and bombing Pakistan,

pandering to right wing religious and political fascists. I don't intend to give any of that a break.

[Dinger]

168. Me Either (nt)

[varkam]

172. But it does not give him an excuse to goose-step around the Constitution.

[Zhade]

303. Fuck off, freeper. You're transparent as glass.

Idiot.

[Autumn]

349. You give him a break on this , I won't. n/t

[defendandprotect]

350. You mean, OVERLOOK injustice --- ??? OK, let us know when we can stop . . . !!!

Why complain about two wars when we could have had three?

Why complain about no universal health care system in America when 40+ million are

uninsured -- after all it could be 60 million uninsured!

Why complain about our tax dollars going into "faith-based" religious programs --

when Obama could actually establish religion!

Why complain about 31 out of every 100 Americans in our prison industry right now --

it could be 50 out of 100!!

[Runcible Spoon]

128. Inexcusable.

I have no words for this.

[Downtown Hound]

144. Not okay.

I'll cut Obama slack in other areas, but not this one. This pisses me off.

[villager]

148. Every time I idly think there *might* be some reason to register as a Democrat again,

the Democrats make another policy move, or craven compromise, etc., to show that no, there really isn't.

Nor will there ever be.

[antimatter98]

152. Notice how slick this happened---simple 'state secrets' claim..no Congressional review. n/t

[EFerrari]

154. Would it even matter? Our Congress is completely dysfunctional.

There's a thread in this forum about a proposed Senate CIA inquiry. Secret deliberations and secret results. That'll work!

[McCamy Taylor]

156. The Obama administration is protecting AT&T

I have tried to remain positive, but this is the last straw. Obama is a corporate Democrat, no doubt about that. And Big Business is what is wrong with this country.

[mvd]

161. I've been trying to remain positive about Obama

Maybe even deluding myself a little. But unless my idea above is correct (and that's not even just an excuse, just a more understandable reason,) there's a lot to be worried about in our system. Bush had such unlimited power because he did what the establishment wants and more.

[No Elephants]

159. This is why Republican judges and "moderate" judges are NOT acceptable. NOT.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

162. ugh

[adamuu]

165. This is disappointing. Is there any reasonable excuse?

What should I write in my letter to Obama?

[Dinger]

169. Good Luck

in 2012.

[adamuu]

270. I was hoping for something more constructive? n/t

[TBF]

180. A reasonable excuse for a law professor to seek to destroy the 4th

amendment - no I cannot think of one.

[mwb970]

173. I'm not seeing anything about *why* the administration is doing this.

The story at the link has no "why" and the legal document itself is too long and dense for me to follow. I notice that none of the comments so far say why they are doing it, and nobody seems to have asked. Or did I miss it?

Shouldn't we know the reasoning behind the decision before we attack Obama over this? Or is it no longer necessary to know what we are talking about before we speak?

[EFerrari]

174. To say the obvious, there is no rationale that could make this right.

And, speak for yourself, thanks.

[TBF]

177. This one isn't difficult. The 4th amendment has been around awhile.

What is the excuse for continued wiretapping of the populace at large? It had better be good.

[Dinger]

178. No Excuses, Period

Does the "why" even matter? What's done is done. I don't have to like it.

[Bjorn Against]

185. A violation of the Constitution is a violation of the Constitution. Period.

It doesn't matter why it is being violated, it is wrong to violate it.

[No Elephants]

206. Let me explain why I robbed the bank, just so no one criticizes me without knonwing what

he or she is talking about.

It's the Constituttion. You don't break it. You don't even bend it. Rationalizations are irrelevant.

[Reform]

175. I give up

First i over looked Mr.Obama voting for the patriot act 2, then i overlooked him supporting the fisa act.
I even over looked the fact he signed on to support funding bushes Iraq war over and over.
I was extremely upset with the new 30k troops to Afghan, but gave him the benefit of the doubt.
Mr.Obama said when campaigning, once in office he would look at all civil liberties that were being threaten and would eliminate them with an executive order or as he put it "A stroke of the pen".
Now this
Im sick and tired of being played with.
And i didn't even mention the bankers!!!!!
im not trying to h8 on Mr.Obama and trying to bash him, i'm just simply fed up.
INVESTIGATE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
Maybe i need to be talked down here as maddow puts it.

[sellitman]

176. This is not the fucking change I voted for.

I am madder than a hornet!

WTF?????

[Dinger]

179. All; I Can Say Is

vote your conscience. Think about this for the next election, and all the politicians who supported it. Then vote. Never give up, never.

[sellitman]

265. My original choice DK wouldn't be doing this.

Darn it all!

[Dinger]

279. You're Right, He Wouldn't

There were others that wouldn't have did this either, sadly.

[SammyWinstonJack]

431. We got the corporate candidate THEY wanted us to vote for.

Wrapped up in a slick campaign slogan bow. Nice, eh? x(

[grahamhgreen]

201. But it is the change you can believe in!

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

186. New boss, old boss.

Welcome to the desert of the Real.

That oath you took, Mr. Obama- you know, the one you put your hand on the Holy Bible and swore to in front of the Nation- what was it again? An oath to protect what? THE CONSTITUTION???

:mad:

[grahamhgreen]

187. We should be reading the opposite headline and cheering...!

[Solly Mack]

188. I'm all tapped out

Anybody got anything that hasn't been said already I can borrow?

[EFerrari]

198. Obama is working behind the scenes to recount Ohio?!

[Solly Mack]

204. LOL! OK!

There we go!!!

Thank you!!!

[grahamhgreen]

208. All tapped out - Oh I get it - HA

[Solly Mack]

433. I pun therefore I am

;)

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

428. lol! I have the same problem!

[Solly Mack]

432. It's a poser

:)

[walldude]

192. So is this enough?

Am I allowed to criticize Obama now?

[kestrel91316]

197. I have one question re warrantless wiretaps: whose job is it to REPEAL

the law(s) that permit this? AFAIK the President does not repeal laws - that is for Congress to do, and then for him to sign.

So we need to be pressuring Congress to act before anything else.

[EFerrari]

200. After sitting for several sessions with Pelosi's top guy in San Francisco

with a group of SF progressives and being LIED TO right in the face over that whole Petraeus report scam, when people say to pressure Congress I just feel sort of tired. I wish I'd never been at those meetings, seriously.

[dana_b]

263. I can only imagine..

they just don't seem to give a dman what we think/say. I've never been involved with a group (as you have) but even just calling/writing/bitching over and over again to our legislators is tiresome. There's rarely a response and if there is, it's some sort of form or rehearsed answer.

[EFerrari]

268. We met with Dan Bernal. And it was very disheartening.

The appearance of civility during the forwarding of bullsh!t. I notice that General Petraeus still hasn't hung Bush on his own bench marks. It was bs from start to finish.

I don't like knowing that at all. But to deny knowing that would require a disconnect from objective reality that even I can't lay claim to. :(

[defendandprotect]

356. Okay . . . but one of the aims of this game is also to create frustration --

to make you think it's hopeless --

[defendandprotect]

355. We are trying to influence, pressure and gain leverage over elected officials who are . . .

essentially bought out by campaign funds -- and over the years, those selected were

the least likely to act for the people, at any rate!

Lobbying and campaign funds are merely

BRIBERY --

It's the way for corporates/elites to turn money into political power --

Should have been stopped 100 years ago as Teddy Roosevelt pointed out --!!!

[librechik]

199. State secrets will eventually not work as a defense

If Obama fails to fight it out sincerely, as if he were the clueless thugs of the Bush administration, the issue will linger on and on.

Let's get a decision now, and not have any arguments about how Obama ignored the problem because he's a liberal. He's arguing the exact case that needs to be pulverized.

(that's my comforting theory of why Obama is acting such a douche--if he didn't, the issues would never be resolved fully, just kicked down the field. Either that or he's grievously misinformed, just like he is about Geithner and Summers. Nobody can know everything, after all)

HOPE!

[ProudDad]

202. Obama or No Obama

It's still the corporate capitalist national security state based on perpetual war!


I'm not surprised when the other right-wing of the Big Business Party does the same as the other right-wing of the Big Business Party.

I fully expected Obama's DOJ to take this position. Gotta' protect the royal prerogatives.

[williesgirl]

205. I was heartsick over earlier shit, now I'm pissed. We need a massive protest march on DC quickly to

try to stop this shit. Flood Obama's website, any site you can find and assure them we won't let this stand without a tough fight. Every call you get for Dem money, tell them no fucking way til this is changed. Change your voter registration from Dem to Independent and do it NOW. Maybe when they see the numbers going down before the next state and local elections, it'll get their attention. They can only get the gravy bribes from corporations if they can hold their seats.

Is there a way to get a national referendum on the next national ballot to stop this shit? Don't laugh at me - it's a real question. While we're at it, how about one that forbids any corporation, organization, PAC, company of any type from giving one fucking penny to any local, state or national candidate for election? Maybe if they could only get donations from the public, they'd finally listen to us.

[grahamhgreen]

212. Senator gravel is trying to start a national initiative process - LINK

http://ni4d.us/

[williesgirl]

224. Thanks - just signed up and voted. We need to be able to do this when our government won't listen

to us.

[defendandprotect]

359. Did Prop 8 really win? We've had computer steals since the 1960's . . .!!!

[EFerrari]

214. Campaign finance reform WILL NEVER COME FROM DC.

We have to do it locally -- district level. We can't get our campaigns federally funded but we can cut off the money flow FROM HOME if we work it.

How much is the legal max for an individual to give to a federal candidate?

[williesgirl]

218. I think it's $2,300 but not sure

[EFerrari]

222. Well, if by law, Goodyear Tire in Santa Clara County could only donate that much

and no more in any other venue, for example, that would be a start. :shrug:

[defendandprotect]

362. We have to bar any corporate participation in elections whatsoevere . . .

including in debates which they now have control over -- !!!

[defendandprotect]

360. You know, Obama raised 800 million, wasn't it/? on the internet . . .

from average folk . . . who have NO LEVERAGE OVER HIM!!!

[esfergus]

211. Who is in charge?

This brings up a question that I've asked a couple of times on a couple of sites. Who is in charge? There is a formal power structure and the President sits at the pinnacle of that in the Executive branch.

Who is actually in charge? Who made this decision? Was it the President?

If not, why not?

[earcandle]

213. numb me out

[grahamhgreen]

215. No you didn't....

[katty]

221. Obama...i see the 'style' change-now i want more substance change

that was promised

[Divine Discontent]

225. exactly - he's night and day compared to the arrogant mean attitude of Bush that showed NO

interest in intellectual curiosity, but we SHOULD expect a wholesale change of the Bush BS anti-rights programs. How ANYONE can defend this, and not understand that the president is the PRESIDENT and can change the course and give a clear reason why he's not going to permit this anti-civil rights shit to continue! (of course, in his eloquent way of doing so)

[defendandprotect]

364. We should also expect Democratic Congress to stand against this ---

where the hell are they?

[juajen]

389. Where they always are. Shittin' in a bucket and declaring they don't stink. NT

[craigmatic]

228. Obama is bogus for this

If this program really produced results they could bring evidence to the public instead of claiming secrecy.

[defendandprotect]

230. THIS is why there should never have been the FISA law to begin with . . .

FISA was already in violation of our Constitution . . . before Bush.

I think we're officially and openly now in the "national security state" --

BECAUSE, evidently everyone is our enemy --

Russians, Chinese, Panama, Iraq-twice, Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti,
Venezuela, Pakistan ... Mexico and Canada next?

[Divine Discontent]

232. putting your comment in my thread, such great words D&P! you nailed it.

my thread is the one that says, "Et tu, Brute?", and people are turning a blind eye like, "oh leave Obama alone", or "he's not going to make the justice dept political"... sigh.

[defendandprotect]

241. Thank you - I'd rather trust LAW than politicians --- !!!

[Divine Discontent]

244. there you go again - making another great comment!~ lol eom

[EFerrari]

235. It's worse than that. We are ALL being treated as if we are enemies of the state.

:shrug:

[defendandprotect]

242. You're absolutely right --- they've seen the enemy and it's all of us -- !!!

[mistertrickster]

233. I say with all due respect to the President I admire, this sucks.

The one funny thing though is that now all the CONs who had no problem with Bush spying on them get to enjoy the thought of Obama spying on them.

Karma, dudes and dudettes.

[D23MIURG23]

234. How utterly depressing.

Canada is looking better and better all the time.

[POR]

236. I knew it!

That's It!!! I knew it!!!

Obama was a secret covert operative by Bush and Cheney, and Halliburton to keep control of the government by pretending to lose control the Democratic party!!!

Obama was a sleeper cell after all!!!!! /sarcasm

Get a grip people.

If the last 4 years I have spent on this site have taught me nothing, it is that headlines like the one on this article are usually a lot more sensational than the news they describe.

If there have infact been state's secrets discovered by the warrantless wiretapping program, is the current president not still obligated to protect them?

The more suspicious individuals on this site, will argue that the information now being withheld by the President somehow implicates Congressional Democrats involved in the initial roll-out of the Warrantless Wiretapping program, and I can't with any amount of certainty dispute that.

But if I may apply a long view to this situation, at just about every turn President Obama has spoke out against; and sought to turn the government away from the policies of the cabal that enacted these programs.

I seriously doubt that he would have a sudden change of heart about what he knows as a constitutional scholar to be the rights of the American People, just to protect congress members who were most likely coerced into supporting a program that was Constituionally dubious at best and criminal a worst.

I know everyone is ready for everything to be corrected right away, but some of these things take time. What seems mysterious and nefarious from a distance, might be the percise thing to halt these kinds of programs from springing up in the future.

All I am trying to say is find out the whole story before you fly off the handle.

[EFerrari]

237. Fail. His administration has been protecting the power grabbed by Bush

very consistently. And watch who you accuse of flying off the handle -- those people may be paying better attention than you seem to be.

[TBF]

253. Did you read the legal brief? Becool posted it in pdf above. n/t

[Zhade]

304. WARRANTLESS. WIRETAPPING. IS. ILLEGAL. PERIOD.

There is no excuse for violating the Constitution.

[Name removed]

238. Deleted message

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

[EFerrari]

239. You couldn't rack up more than 15 posts before exposing yourself?

What a waste of time.

[SlingBlade]

249. God Damned Freeper Bastards Go Home !

[Zhade]

305. Fuck off, racist filth.

Go die somewhere.

[tomm2thumbs]

240. if Democrats/Americans in general want to screw this up, we should all call numbers in Iraq and....

and talk in nonsense, making it appear as though we are talking in code - and it will bring the system down to its knees as they chase endless leads on such cryptic leads as 'the rooster crows at midnight' and 'transfer the package at the crack of sparrow-fart' etc.

it'll be swell and quite fun actually

[EFerrari]

243. That would be sabotage and a very serious crime. n/t

[Myrina]

246. WTF?

:spank: Apparently the man I voted for was not the one that moved into 1600 that cold day in January. :(

[TBF]

248. Well, to be fair, he did vote for FISA and that's when some of us

really questioned who we were campaigning for. Many held the faith that it was a political move on his part. And I can remember some long-standing DU'ers who wrote excellent OPs and were vilified for expressing their opinions. Now we can see the truth.

[nashville_brook]

258. it's not fascism when we do it.

if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

[budkin]

260. WTF is going on with this??

How can this still be going on?

[ryanmuegge]

261. Continuing their effort to destroy any freedom or privacy...

Stripping away civil liberties is the second of two things that the government can do well (the first is lowering wages).

[Kermitt Gribble]

262. YAY!

Another headline that further confirms the Democratic Party, which once worked to better the lives of average Americans, no longer exists. One Corporate Party. Fascism in the USA!

[diamidue]

357. Ain't that the sorry truth.

I'm not even sure Obama has had a choice in who he picked for his cabinet or on what positions he can take on issues. I no longer believe that presidents actually shape policies. They are just figureheads. Maybe they had greater power at one time, but not these days. Bush was told what to do. Probably Clinton before him. Now Obama.

[lamp_shade]

266. Will ya just look at all this hate.

[EFerrari]

272. Yeah, right. Is that you, Hannity?

[dana_b]

278. Will ya just look at all this "hope" and "change"

:eyes:

[TBF]

292. Yeah, I noticed that too.

And I've alerted appropriately. But it's hard to defend Obama when he has his DOJ file briefs like this. Unfortunately this is not good for anyone's 4th amendment rights, and there are folks out there who are going to fan the flames.

[EFerrari]

308. FAN THE FLAMES? What would you like people to do, light candles?

Good grief.

[TBF]

363. Forget it - not worth it. n/t

[Zhade]

306. Yes, we DO hate illegal violations of Constitutional law.

We also hate asshole coward fucks who excuse law-breaking by their own by pointing out others' "hate".

[Skittles]

319. what's not to hate?

this shit stank it up when bush was is office - now we're supposed to think it smells like roses because Obama does? Fuck that.

[lamp_shade]

414. Repeat of Post #266 - "Will ya just look at all this hate".

[haydukelives]

267. Real Change

You can believe in
GOBAMA!

[RetroLounge]

269. Well, isn't that Hopeful

:puke:

RL

[Goony 2009]

271. Great stuff!

Gotta give Obama props for this one!

[Zhade]

307. Why? Because you're a fucking idiot?

NT!

[IndianaGreen]

273. Following Bush's lead will lead Obama to The Hague

By protecting the Bush regime criminals, Obama becomes a party to the cover up of law breaking.

[pansypoo53219]

275. if nothing else.

it should scare the shit out of reaganuts.

[MasonJar]

277. Nance may have to revise her recent post in which she cited numerous

Bush offenses that we no longer have. This is major, and, as the original post mentions, it is not the first example of Obama covering Bush or copying him, whichever the truth may be. Looks like the Bushista got some hot info on Obama with the wiretapping.

[Zhade]

280. Completely unfuckingacceptable.

I voted for CHANGE, not the same old bullshit.

[Doctor_J]

287. Hopefully he's using it for good - like getting dirt on Inhofe and Boner

:thumbsup:

[Zhade]

309. It was wrong when b*s* did it, and it's wrong now.

NT!

[and-justice-for-all]

300. Bad Obama, very very bad...nt

[Towlie]

302. Have you seen this cartoon yet?

[Zhade]

310. AWESOME.

NT!

[Third Doctor]

311. i'm not pleased

This was one thing I thought Obama would stop.

[subsuelo]

317. Let's face it, folks

We always knew he wasn't ever on par with Kucinich.

Overall I still like Obama, but this is unacceptable.

[Number23]

318. If this is true, this is absolutely disheartening. But the almost glee from some posters

in this thread makes me wonder what in hell is going on. Is it just not possible for some to have questions or disagree with the man without howling at the moon over every perceived misstep and looking for any excuse to call him "Bush Lite?"

If Obama is even thinking about continuing the warrantless spying program or protecting Bush officials from investigation, that makes absolutely no sense. What in God's name would cause him to protect anyone who's done something illegal??

It's one thing to not start your own investigation into wrong doing, but it's another thing entirely to get in the way of OTHER people's investigation of wrong-doing.

I'm going to need a hell of alot more info than one story from a source I'm barely familiar with before I draw my own conclusions. But if this is true, this is VERY disappointing.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

338. Personally i think he wants to get it into the supreme court

The only way to permanently shut this down after all would be for them to rule against this. And in all seriousness, what do people think would happen if Obama announced that he would be 'protecting' warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of having the supreme court close the door on him?

[TBF]

373. With the current Supreme Court? Those are the Nazis that installed

Bush in the first place. I doubt they are going to do much to protect the privacy of citizens.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

391. true, they may not care much about the privacy of citizens

but would they want to grant that power to Obama, that is the question(and knowing that bunch, i don't see it as to likely they would want a Dem to have the said power)

[diamidue]

358. Methinks some Democrats are scared.

Could be they don't want any investigations as they are as guilty as the GOP.

[Number23]

361. That's the only explaination that could excuse this.

[Enthusiast]

415. Maybe even more so. nt

[defendandprotect]

366. Where is the "glee" in these posts?

[TBF]

369. Just read the brief - filed by the DOJ on behalf of Obama.

But yes some people will jump on it with other motives (noticed a lot of "visitors" in this thread)...

It is bad though. You need to read the brief for yourself. They're continuing the eavesdropping on US citizens.

[Number23]

374. You're right. Reading the filed brief would be a good first step.

[TBF]

376. Here's the pdf that stillcool linked to above -

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

It was filed Friday and hit the news today.

[mwb970]

447. Thank you! At least you want to find out more about it first.

I'm going to need a hell of alot more info than one story from a source I'm barely familiar with before I draw my own conclusions.

This is obviously a totally different take from the hundreds of posters here who are all able to draw the same negative conclusion with virtually no information. I really don't care for this side of DU - the lockstepping and enforced orthodoxy reminds me all too much of certain other discussion boards.

[Bluebear]

454. Could you point out the "glee"?

[chill_wind]

322. Free Dawn Johnsen (yes!) but who is tying Marty Lederman's hands?

Lederman has been at the Obama DOJ OLC since Day 1

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Marty Lederman joins the Office of Legal Counsel

JB

Some of you may have noticed that Marty Lederman has not been blogging recently at Balkinization. The reason is that he has been working on the Department of Justice Transition team. As of today, the commencement of the Obama Administration, he begins work as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel. There he will be joined by two of his former OLC colleagues, Dawn Johnsen, nominated to be head of the office; and David Barron, who will serve as the Principal Deputy (and as the Acting AAG while the Senate considers Dawn’s nomination).

more: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2009/01/marty-lederman-joins-office-of-legal.html

Biography

Professor Lederman was an Attorney Advisor in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel from 1994 to 2002, where he concentrated on questions involving freedom of speech, the Religion Clauses, congressional power and federalism, equal protection, separation of powers, copyright, and food and drug law. Before that, he was an attorney at Bredhoff & Kaiser, where his practice consisted principally of federal litigation, including appeals, on behalf of labor unions, employees and pension funds, with particular emphasis on constitutional law, labor law, civil rights, RICO and employment law. Most recently, he has been in private practice specializing in constitutional and appellate litigation. He regularly contributes to the weblogs "SCOTUSblog" and "Balkinization," including on matters relating to Executive power, detention, interrogation and torture. He served as law clerk to then-Chief Judge Jack B. Weinstein, on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and to Judge Frank M. Coffin, on the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/facinfo/tab_faculty.cfm?Status=Faculty&ID=2134

He replaces John Yoo.

He is no late-term Bush holdover. Does a Deputy Asst AG really have that little influence over the legal positioning still being taken by the underling leftovers continuing Bush court-case-business as usual-- without Dawn Johnsen in place? I don't claim to know, but I would like to think his presence is being felt elsewhere even as we wait for her arrival-- I'd have to believe, for example, that he's been a strong moral reinforcement for Mr Holder in Mr Holder's own laudatory decisions to release much of the recent OLC Torture Memo info that's been released under this new admin.

Is it really the case-- that we have to wait for one appointee being held hostage to save and depend on to houseclean the old DOJ and push back at guys like Brennan-- Is there really, really only one person in one key position (not yet appointed) with the sole power to begin restoring the Constitution and the rule of law BushCo perverted and trampled so aggressively?

If not, when DO we start?

Bush/Obama DOJ does it again.

President Barack Obama has invoked "state secrets" to prevent a court from reviewing the legality of the National Security Agency's warantless wiretapping program and moved late Friday to have a lawsuit challenging the program dismissed.

Monday, January 09, 2006

Analysis of the Legality of the Secret NSA Warrantless Electronic Surveillance Program

Marty Lederman

This letter was sent today to congressional leaders from 14 law professors and former federal government officials. In it, we critique the Department of Justice's legal argument in support of the lawfulness of the secret NSA surveillance program. Here's the Introduction:

We are scholars of constitutional law and former government officials. We write in our individual capacities as citizens concerned by the Bush Administration’s National Security Agency domestic spying program, as reported in the New York Times, and in particular to respond to the Justice Department’s December 22, 2005 letter to the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees setting forth the administration’s defense of the program. Although the program’s secrecy prevents us from being privy to all of its details, the Justice Department’s defense of what it concedes was secret and warrantless electronic surveillance of persons within the United States fails to identify any plausible legal authority for such surveillance. Accordingly the program appears on its face to violate existing law.

more: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/01/analysis-of-legality-of-secret-nsa.html

The Fisa-Fix claims to extend retroactive immunity to telcos. But this isn't a case against the telcos. The suit is against the NSA, the DOJ and a government of these men:

25. Defendant National Security Agency (NSA) is an agency under the direction and control of the Department of Defense that collects, processes and disseminates foreign signals intelligence. It is responsible for carrying out the Program challenged herein.

26. Defendant Lieutenant General Keith B. Alexander is the current Director of the NSA, in office since April 2005. As NSA Director, defendant Alexander has ultimate authority for supervising and implementing all operations and functions of the NSA, including the Program.

27. Defendant Lieutenant General (Ret.) Michael V. Hayden is the former Director of the NSA, in office from March 1999 to April 2005. While Director, Defendant Hayden had ultimate authority for supervising and implementing all operations and functions of the NSA, including the
Program.

28. Defendant United States is the United States of America, its departments, agencies, and entities.

29. Defendant George W. Bush is the current President of the United States, in office since January 2001. Mr. Bush authorized and continues to authorize the Program.

30. Defendant Richard B. Cheney is the current Vice President of the United States, in office since January 2001. Defendant Cheney was personally involved in the creation, development and implementation of the Program.

31. Defendant David S. Addington is currently the chief of staff to Defendant Cheney, in office since October 2005. Previously, Defendant Addington served as legal counsel to the Office of the Vice President. Defendant Addington was personally involved in the creation, development
and implementation of the Program. On information and belief, Defendant Addington drafted the documents that purportedly authorized the Program.

32. Defendant Department of Justice is a Cabinet-level executive department in the United States government charged with law enforcement, defending the interests of the United States according to the law, and ensuring fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.

33. Defendant Michael B. Mukasey is the current Attorney General of the United States, in office since November 2007. As Attorney General, Defendant Mukasey approves and authorizes the Program on behalf of the Department of Justice.

34. Defendant Alberto R. Gonzales is the former Attorney General of the United States, in office from February 2005 to September 2007, and also served as White House Counsel to President George W. Bush from January 2001 to February 2005. Defendant Gonzales was personally involved in the creation, development and implementation of the Program. As Attorney

General, Defendant Gonzales authorized and approved the Program on behalf of the Department of Justice.

35. Defendant John D. Ashcroft is the former Attorney General of the United States, in office from January 2001 to February 2005. As Attorney General, Defendant Ashcroft authorized and approved the Program on behalf of the Department of Justice.

36. Defendant Vice Admiral (Ret.) John M. McConnell is the Director of National Intelligence (“DNI”), in office since February 2007. Defendant McConnell has authority over the activities of the U.S. intelligence community, including the Program.

37. Defendant John D. Negroponte was the first Director of National Intelligence, in office from April 2005 to February 2007. As DNI, Defendant Negroponte had authority over the activities of the U.S. intelligence community, including the Program.

Why are positions attempting to block court abilities to test and judge legality of past Bush officials' actions (under the guise of states secrets) still being taken under the new admin authorities? I stare at this list of conspirators, and only today do I finally sadly fully absorb the idea that prosecutions of this scope and a DOJ prosecuting itself and its former friends and heldover allies may.never.happen.


Despite rhetoric:

"When providing legal advice to guide contemplated executive branch action, OLC should provide an accurate and honest appraisal of applicable law, even if that advice will constrain the administration’s pursuit of desired policies. The advocacy model of lawyering, in which lawyers craft merely plausible legal arguments to support their clients’ desired actions, inadequately promotes the President’s constitutional obligation to ensure the legality of executive action."

We do not want to be misunderstood. Although we do not believe that OLC should act as an advocate as described above, we do believe that OLC can and should play the role of honest adjudicator of legal questions even while serving as close legal advisor to the Attorney General and the President. It is OLC’s duty to give the President its best appraisal of what the law allows and forbids, even if this means informing the President that some proposed course of action would be illegal. In order for OLC to play this role effectively, however, the President must have confidence that OLC is willing to assist the President in advancing his or her policy objectives in a legally permissible manner. If this confidence is lacking, there is a real risk that on important matters the President will go elsewhere for legal counsel. The roles of presidential advisor and honest, neutral arbiter of legal questions, then, are not mutually exclusive, but mutually reinforcing.

-First Monday: Marty Lederman On The Restoration Of The Rule Of Law
By: Marty Lederman Monday September 15, 2008 12:00

Firedoglake: http://firedoglake.com/2008/09/15/first-monday-marty-lederman-on-the-restoration-of-the-rule-of-law/


MARTY LEDERMAN articles at Balkinization


almost 250 opinions on the Bush admin and the rule of law.


http://balkin.blogspot.com/search?q=marty+lederman

One thing we've sure had a lot of along the way is ..rhetoric.

[freemarketer6]

323. He'll not get my vote again. This will cost him many liberal and

even centrist voters. He already has lost the union vote, imo. The FISA thing was very important to me.

[bkkyosemite]

330. We need to contact the White House and tell President Obama that we voted for change!!!

And that change includes not taking this stance on wiretapping but following the Constitution!

202) 456-1414 [phone]

www.whitehouse.gov

[defendandprotect]

368. I agree . . . telephone calls, e-mail -- and protests --- !!!

[lonestarnot]

334. WTF!

:wtf: Unbelievable. I guess we are not mistaken here. What in the hell is the deal? And he is a Constitutional lawyer.

[Mari333]

341. maybe THIS will finally wake some people up

I am not surprised at this point. and yes, I am so not voting for him again unless he does a 180.

[MauriceCobert]

353. Obama is moving on

He used us lefties to get elected (Yes I voted for Obama and am a former member of Earth First no Freeper here as someone mentioned earlier).

Obama doesnt need us anymore he is moving in to bigger and better things with the real movers and shakers. The people of power in the US live on Wallstreet, Virginia and in DC not in moms basement glued to DU with a Penthouse in their lap. Im just sayin...

Oh nice to see you again mari its been years!

[Skittles]

385. no suprise here either

but I will be surprised if it wakes people up

[dana_b]

386. I'd be surprised if most people even knew about it

if it's not in the "big" news, a lot of people won't hear about it

[Mari333]

420. I sort of meant the people on DU LOL nt

[L. Coyote]

388. Contributions won't be needed for another three years!

[EFerrari]

408. Midterms are coming right up!

[Benfea]

351. I would say this is bad....

...but this is hardly the first time Obama has moved to protect Bush Republicans from possible prosecution, and this is hardly the worst such incident of this.

Obama has shown himself to be a true Democrat: never pass up an opportunity to bend down and kiss the collective asses of Republicans. Who cares about that rule of law crap when you can concentrate on appeasing conservatives instead?

[bkkyosemite]

354. Wonder if the Bush Cabal is holding a gun to his head figuratively

[Ken Burch]

378. ...are you sure it's just FIGURATIVELY?...

[abq e streeter]

380. I really do wonder sometimes--see the Bill Hicks quote I posted about1/2 way up the page

[truthisfreedom]

375. Maybe he's doing this to secure cooperation from someone (or several people) but expects to fail

in court.

[nolabels]

379. It's not the man, it's the damn machine they put the POTUS into

I expected no less than a National Security State and that's what we still got. To all the rest who couldn't understand why this is, wake up already


A little more keen observation and a lot less excited reaction is the only way this thing gets put to rest. The only thing that has changed since the election is we now have a POTUS that can think and read. That by the way didn't help JFK all that much, if didn't notice :shrug:

[thread-bear]

381. wiretaps

I'm convinced that most of our senators and representatives are dirty. Look at how many of Obama's picks have tax problems. I supported Obama because I thought he had the best chance of bringing about change. I still believe that that at least is true. However;he doesn't even seem to have even tried. Who knows,maybe he doesn't have a choice. Maybe the crazy birthers are right and someone has proof. It's way too early to tell if he will have a change of heart or even if he is doing the best he can under the circumstances. Meanwhile we need to find a way to put the fear of prosecution into the hearts of these crooked politicians that have betrayed American laws and values. I believe the courts are the best way to go. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been at the front of defending our constitutional rights.

[empyreanisles]

417. 416 replies in such a short peroid of time. All piling on Obama.

Is this *Democratic* Underground? Welcome to my ignore, thread!

[Dinger]

418. LOL

You're funny.:eyes:

[SammyWinstonJack]

435. AWWW!

:eyes:

[Bluebear]

457. lol

[Norrin Radd]

387. FFS

[Imagevision]

390. Cheney will be switching cell phones daily - hahahahahahahaha!!

[bjobotts]

404. I saya to myselfa "For Justice, we must go to Don Corlione".

[EFerrari]

409. A really big magnet dragged over Virginia should do the job.

:)

[sarcasmo]

406. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[ima_sinnic]

412. one of the main reasons Obama no longer has my support

--as mentioned a few posts upthread, "he hasn't even tried" on this issue. He is as complicit in war crimes and cover-up as any repuke.
I will be voting for his challenger in the 2012 primaries, although I have my doubts that our current system is capable of providing governance by the truly dedicated and uncorrupt.

[Djinn]

416. this is why I sign off every phone call

with "Seeya and screw you Mr President"

[TBF]

437. Can they tape calls coming into the country as well?

Or are you just speaking about when you are in the US? I read yesterday that in the UK they are collecting every email sent for the next year. Are they doing any similar things in Australia?

[Djinn]

459. I speak to lots of Americans so that's what I was referring to

but given my occupation and political activism I would be floored if the Australian powers didn't have a nice regularly updated file on me - I also don't care too much, I'm white and female and relatively well connected so am unlikely to find it harms me much, if I were an activist Muslims without political connections I'd be much more circumspect.

[Dinger]

421. And There's This Too, Sorry But

I'm keeping track.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8308693&mesg_id=8308693

[brindis_desala]

434. The problem with most Americans, DU and the "left" in general

is that we do not pay sufficient attention to history. Oh many here know it- far better than me- but reading threads such as these feels like having stumbled upon babes-in-the-woods. So lets review how we got to this sorry state and where Obama considers himself in the equation. When Jimmy Carter was elected, despite having campaigned to reform the "renegade" CIA, George Bush I still expected to be retained as the agency director. I will not go into why he made that assumption -- those with any passing knowledge of the CIA will know why he felt so privileged. Carter, to his credit demurred and instead nominated Sorenson, an authentic liberal. As a result the nomination went nowhere and Carter was forced to replaced Sorenson with Stanislav Turner. Deeply resented, Turner did carry through and purged the rogues but in so doing earned the CIA's wrath. The rogues did no go away, they simply went underground, reorganized, set up their own shadow operation that would blossom into Iran/Contra and finally the coup of 2000. Obama is no babe in the woods... he is not Jimmy Carter. Patience grasshoppers... things are really as bad as you think.

[TBF]

438. Let's assume all this is correct. How does Obama's continued

wire tapping get us any closer to overthrowing the fascists?

[SlingBlade]

440. "Following Bush lead" Love the intro

[L. Coyote]

450. The lead is deceptive and simplistic, but

a good journalism hook, I admit.

Obama may be hoping the court rules against the US, establishing a precedent against Bush's defense claims. That is likely with this judge and case.

[defendandprotect]

442. k i c k

[leftofthedial]

452. What exactly was supposed to "change"?

I forget...

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

453. A quarter instead of two dimes and a nickel?

[Echo In Light]

455. Bull. Shit. Institutional Collusion, all the way