REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Meet the new boss ...

POSTED BY: SERGEANTX
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 7, 2009 15:10
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1282
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 8:15 AM

SERGEANTX



http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html
Quote:

posted at Salon:Glenn Greenwald
MONDAY APRIL 6, 2009 14:33 EDT
New and worse secrecy and immunity claims from the Obama DOJ
When Congress immunized telecoms last August for their illegal participation in Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program, Senate Democratic apologists for telecom immunity repeatedly justified that action by pointing out that Bush officials who broke the law were not immunized -- only the telecoms. Here, for instance, is how Sen. Jay Rockefeller justified telecom immunity in a Washington Post Op-Ed:
Second, lawsuits against the government can go forward. There is little doubt that the government was operating in, at best, a legal gray area. If administration officials abused their power or improperly violated the privacy of innocent people, they must be held accountable. That is exactly why we rejected the White House's year-long push for blanket immunity covering government officials.
Taking them at their word, EFF -- which was the lead counsel in the lawsuits against the telecoms -- thereafter filed suit, in October, 2008, against the Bush administration and various Bush officials for illegally spying on the communications of Americans. They were seeking to make good on the promise made by Congressional Democrats: namely, that even though lawsuits against telecoms for illegal spying will not be allowed any longer, government officials who broke the law can still be held accountable.
But late Friday afternoon, the Obama DOJ filed the government's first response to EFF's lawsuit (.pdf), the first of its kind to seek damages against government officials under FISA, the Wiretap Act and other statutes, arising out of Bush's NSA program. But the Obama DOJ demanded dismissal of the entire lawsuit based on (1) its Bush-mimicking claim that the "state secrets" privilege bars any lawsuits against the Bush administration for illegal spying, and (2) a brand new "sovereign immunity" claim of breathtaking scope -- never before advanced even by the Bush administration -- that the Patriot Act bars any lawsuits of any kind for illegal government surveillance unless there is "willful disclosure" of the illegally intercepted communications.
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.
There are several notable aspects to what happened here with this new court filing from Obama:

(1) Unlike in the prior cases where the Obama DOJ embraced the Bush theory of state secrets -- in which the Obama DOJ was simply maintaining already-asserted arguments in those lawsuits by the Bush DOJ -- the motion filed on Friday was the first response of any kind to this lawsuit by the Government. Indeed, EFF filed the lawsuit in October but purposely agreed with Bush lawyers to an extension of the time to respond until April, in the hope that by making this Obama's case, and giving his DOJ officials months to consider what to do when first responding, they would receive a different response than the one they would have gotten from the Bush DOJ.
That didn't happen. This brief and this case are exclusively the Obama DOJ's, and the ample time that elapsed -- almost three full months -- makes clear that it was fully considered by Obama officials. Yet they responded exactly as the Bush DOJ would have. This demonstrates that the Obama DOJ plans to invoke the exact radical doctrines of executive secrecy which Bush used -- not only when the Obama DOJ is taking over a case from the Bush DOJ, but even when they are deciding what response should be made in the first instance. Everything for which Bush critics excoriated the Bush DOJ -- using an absurdly broad rendition of "state secrets" to block entire lawsuits from proceeding even where they allege radical lawbreaking by the President and inventing new claims of absolute legal immunity -- are now things the Obama DOJ has left no doubt it intends to embrace itself.

(2) It is hard to overstate how extremist is the "soverign immunity" argument which the Obama DOJ invented here in order to get rid of this lawsuit. I confirmed with both ACLU and EFF lawyers involved in numerous prior surveillance cases with the Bush administration that the Bush DOJ had never previously argued in any context that the Patriot Act bars all causes of action for any illegal surveillance in the absence of "willful disclosure." This is a brand new, extraordinarily broad claim of government immunity made for the first time ever by the Obama DOJ -- all in service of blocking EFF's lawsuit against Bush officials for illegal spying. As EFF's Kevin Bankston put it:
This is the first time [the DOJ] 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.
Since EFF's lawsuit is the first to sue for actual damages under FISA and the Wiretap Act, it's arguable whether this immunity argument applied to any of the previous lawsuits. What is clear, though, is that the Bush DOJ, in any context, never articulated this bizarre view that all claims of illegal government surveillance are immunized in the absence of "willful disclosure" to the public of the intercepted communications. This is a brand new Obama DOJ invention to blanket themselves (and Bush officials) with extraordinary immunity even when they knowingly break our country's surveillance laws.

(3) Equally difficult to overstate is how identical the Obama DOJ now is to the Bush DOJ when it comes to its claims of executive secrecy -- not merely in substance but also tone and rhetoric (at least in the area of secrecy; there are still important differences -- no sweeping Article II lawbreaking powers and the like -- which shouldn't be overlooked). I defy anyone to read the Obama DOJ's brief here and identify even a single difference between what it says and what the Bush DOJ routinely said in the era of Cheney/Addington (other than the fact that Bush used to rely on secret claims of national security harm from Michael McConnell whereas Obama relies on secret claims filed by Dennis Blair). Even for those most cynical about what Obama was likely to do or not do in the civil liberties realm, reading this brief from the Obama DOJ is so striking -- and more than a little depressing -- given how indistinguishable it is from everything that poured out of the Bush DOJ regarding secrecy powers in order to evade all legal accountability.
Don't take my word for that. I mean: really, don't. Instead, I'm going to excerpt just a few of the key passages from the Obama DOJ's brief to convey a sense of how absolute is the Obama administration's claims of executive power and secrecy rights -- remember: all advanced in order to demand that courts not consider any claims that the Bush administration broke the law in how it spied on Americans : [See pdfs at Salon]

Every defining attribute of Bush's radical secrecy powers -- every one -- is found here, and in exactly the same tone and with the exact same mindset. Thus: how the U.S. government eavesdrops on its citizens is too secret to allow a court to determine its legality. We must just blindly accept the claims from the President's DNI that we will all be endangered if we allow courts to determine the legality of the President's actions. Even confirming or denying already publicly known facts -- such as the involvement of the telecoms and the massive data-mining programs -- would be too damaging to national security. Why? Because the DNI says so. It is not merely specific documents, but entire lawsuits, that must be dismissed in advance as soon as the privilege is asserted because "its very subject matter would inherently risk or require the disclosure of state secrets."
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.



SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 8:20 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Sucks big-time. But, you'll notice its liberals- supposedly Obama's most ardent supporters- who're reporting this.

Time to get out the pitchforks and staves!!!

Time to start gearing up for better Democratic and third-party candidates!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 8:27 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
But, you'll notice its liberals- supposedly Obama's most ardent supporters- who're reporting this.



I'm counting on it. That's why I wanted Obama to win, even though I expected the kinds of policies decried in this article.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 8:47 AM

ERIC


To quote a show that promised much but ended crappy,
All of this has happened before. All of this will happen again.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 9:44 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Damn right, put him on the ropes and keep him there.

And if need be, on the mat.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 10:22 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Hmmmm... Now maybe a few of you will understand WHY we didn't want ANY President to be handed that kind of unchecked power - not just for what HE might do with it, but for what THE NEXT GUY OR GAL might do with it!



Mike

Just lying smiling in the dark,
Shooting stars around your heart,
Dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple every time.
Now you're crying in your sleep;
I wish you'd never learnt to weep.
Don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple every time.
"Pure"
, by Lightning Seeds


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 10:40 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


"Time to start gearing up for better Democratic and third-party candidates!"

Why not just 3rd party candidates?

Said it before, say it again...

Ron Paul.

Libertarians ROCK!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 11:24 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Libertarians may rock, but Democrats RULE!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 11:28 AM

BYTEMITE


Apparently, from what I understand, court litigation here is on going, so lets hope someone in the justice system sees the wiretapping as wasteful and pointless as it is.

Maybe we've thrown some people into Git-Mo on the basis of evidence they gathered off this program, but I wonder how many of those people are REALLY dangerous, compared to the people they've thrown in Git-Mo who they brought over from Iraq/Afghanistan.

Also, personal note: My brother competed in a moot court in Washington DC a couple weeks ago, and this was the topic of the case. I have no idea what that MEANS, but hey.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 12:43 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Libertarians may rock, but Democrats RULE!




That's the problem alright.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 1:31 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Hey Wulf, you're LUCKY I included third-party! But that DOESN'T include Ron Paul who is- if you recall- a Republican.

In any case, there are some Dems that I think are waaaay better than Ron Paul, who (IMHO) is an economic idiot. Good folks can be found in all parties. (Even the Republican Party )

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 1:52 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
In any case, there are some Dems that I think are waaaay better than Ron Paul, who (IMHO) is an economic idiot.



Yeah... he's a total idiot on the economy. Can you believe that two years ago he was saying that our economy was a house of cards due for collapse? What the hell was he thinking?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 3:03 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
In any case, there are some Dems that I think are waaaay better than Ron Paul, who (IMHO) is an economic idiot.



Yeah... he's a total idiot on the economy. Can you believe that two years ago he was saying that our economy was a house of cards due for collapse? What the hell was he thinking?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock



Can you believe that two years ago there were people who DIDN'T think our economy was a house of cards on the brink of collapse?

Hell, Signy called it longer ago than that. And I walked away from an easy home purchase four years ago because I knew somehow that it wasn't in my best interests, and was likely unsustainable.

That doesn't make either of us prescient about the economy; it just means we were paying attention and not liking what we saw...

Mike

Just lying smiling in the dark,
Shooting stars around your heart,
Dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple every time.
Now you're crying in your sleep;
I wish you'd never learnt to weep.
Don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple every time.
"Pure"
, by Lightning Seeds


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 3:10 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
That doesn't make either of us prescient about the economy; it just means we were paying attention and not liking what we saw...



Yes. But, at the risk of tossing the two of you a backhanded compliment, it does make you "not idiots".



(Which was the point I was making about RP)

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 21:07 - 2072 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 21:04 - 852 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Thu, March 28, 2024 21:02 - 54 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 20:53 - 446 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 16:32 - 9 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL