PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obummer Administration offering 'new and worse' secrecy & immunity claims re: DOJ


memyselfI
04-08-2009, 06:03 PM
Where are the lefties who were up in arms about this when it was W??? Well, Obummer's OWN SUPPORTERS ADMIT HIS POLICY IS WORSE THAN BUSH'S?????? Let's hear your Opology or defense of this reversal of campaign promise.

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

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#30096358

BucEyedPea
04-08-2009, 06:03 PM
Yup! Saw this on my libertarian site this AM.

memyselfI
04-08-2009, 06:06 PM
Yup! Saw this on my libertarian site this AM.

I saw this yesterday but waited to see if anyone else would post it lest I post it and Obots go off on my motives vs. the issue. The benefit of waiting is that there are outraged Obummer supporters and Obots beside themselves with apparent shock and dismay at the turn of events.

banyon
04-08-2009, 06:08 PM
"Obummer" WOW. Genius. Truly the wit will never cease.

WoodDraw
04-08-2009, 06:09 PM
You spelled apology wrong.

BigRedChief
04-08-2009, 06:19 PM
looks awful damn long. Can someone give me the cliff notes version?

SBK
04-08-2009, 06:20 PM
Denise will get attacked, nobody will comment on the content of the articles. LMAO

patteeu
04-08-2009, 06:35 PM
looks awful damn long. Can someone give me the cliff notes version?

Obama lied, hope & change died. ;)

memyselfI
04-09-2009, 07:07 AM
The silence from Obummer supporters is deafening.

memyselfI
04-09-2009, 07:08 AM
Denise will get attacked, nobody will comment on the content of the articles. LMAO

We have a winner. :thumb:

BigRedChief
04-09-2009, 07:26 AM
The silence from Obummer supporters is deafening.
Is this about citizens can't sue if they were wiretapped? If so I'm not commenting on the subject. Just letting you know I'm not ignoring it because I think Obama doesn't make mistakes.

T-post Tom
04-09-2009, 07:26 AM
looks awful damn long. Can someone give me the cliff notes version?

Current Dept. of Justice (under Obama) continues and expands on secrecy and immunity claims for warrantless eavesdropping program that originated under Bush's Dept. of Justice. Furthermore, Denise is an obsessed nut job parallel to John Hinckley Jr. That about sums it up.

mikey23545
04-09-2009, 07:37 AM
Just letting you know I'm not ignoring it because <b>I think Obama doesn't make mistakes.</b>

My God...I can't believe this is not a facetious statement...and I find it terrifying how many O-zombies there are out there who feel just like this.

memyselfI
04-09-2009, 07:40 AM
Current Dept. of Justice (under Obama) continues and expands on secrecy and immunity claims for warrantless eavesdropping program that originated under Bush's Dept. of Justice. Furthermore, Denise is an obsessed nut job parallel to John Hinckley Jr. That about sums it up.

Oh, so change now means continuing Bush policies that he once decried??? And his Bots opologizing for that 'change.' ROFLROFLROFLROFL

dirk digler
04-09-2009, 08:37 AM
I am actually on the side of Denise on this. I and a few others here were disappointed when Obama decided to flip and support FISA even though he tried to parse that by voting against the bill to support immunity for the telecoms.

It is disappointing that he would take the same approach as Bush especially since he said he would be different. It is very disappointing that he went back on his word.

Duck Dog
04-09-2009, 08:48 AM
looks awful damn long. Can someone give me the cliff notes version?

It talks about Obamadorks being blind and stupid. You wouldn't get the big picture anyway. Lot's of big words.

blaise
04-09-2009, 08:51 AM
I think Obama did the right thing. It's too bad for all the people that want to paint Bush as the Evil Big Brother and Obama as the opposite, but I think this is the right way to go.

blaise
04-09-2009, 08:56 AM
looks awful damn long. Can someone give me the cliff notes version?

If you click the MSNBC link you can get a short interview about it on Keith Olbermann's show.
Basically, people wanted to sue the government over wiretapping, saying it was illegal. Obama's saying they can't sue the government over it, even though some other Democrats had been hoping for the lawsuits, and people bringing the lawsuits had waited until Bush left office because they didn't expect Obama to do this.

dirk digler
04-09-2009, 08:59 AM
I think Obama did the right thing. It's too bad for all the people that want to paint Bush as the Evil Big Brother and Obama as the opposite, but I think this is the right way to go.

In fairness Obama painted himself that way and said he would be different and what Bush did in regards to this was wrong and illegal.

patteeu
04-09-2009, 09:02 AM
In fairness Obama painted himself that way and said he would be different and what Bush did in regards to this was wrong and illegal.

We don't even really know what Bush did. How can you unequivocally say that it was wrong and illegal?

dirk digler
04-09-2009, 09:06 AM
We don't even really know what Bush did. How can you unequivocally say that it was wrong and illegal?

I am saying Obama said that not me. Though I agree with it. The government shouldn't be spying on its citizens with the help of the telecom's.

blaise
04-09-2009, 09:07 AM
In fairness Obama painted himself that way and said he would be different and what Bush did in regards to this was wrong and illegal.

Oh, I know he said he'd be different. I'm just glad that when (I assume) he listened to DOJ officials, and they explained why they needed this to do their job, he came to his senses.
That or he was just saying whatever people wanted to hear in order to paint Bush as a villain and get people's votes, and now he's doing what he always planned on doing.
Either way.
The route he took to get there may have been flawed, but I'm still glad he decided the way he did.

RINGLEADER
04-09-2009, 09:36 AM
I am actually on the side of Denise on this. I and a few others here were disappointed when Obama decided to flip and support FISA even though he tried to parse that by voting against the bill to support immunity for the telecoms.

It is disappointing that he would take the same approach as Bush especially since he said he would be different. It is very disappointing that he went back on his word.

This is a dicey subject but is also a great example of why you don't open doors that can be abused or expanded upon by others in the future. The whittling away of freedom (be it freedom to privacy, investment, or whatever else is important to you) typically occurs in this fashion.

patteeu
04-09-2009, 09:46 AM
I am saying Obama said that not me. Though I agree with it. The government shouldn't be spying on its citizens with the help of the telecom's.

Oh, I see. How can you agree with it if you don't know what's really going on? Particularly after Obama, who had the same opinion before he had all the facts, has now changed his opinion.

dirk digler
04-09-2009, 09:55 AM
This is a dicey subject but is also a great example of why you don't open doors that can be abused or expanded upon by others in the future. The whittling away of freedom (be it freedom to privacy, investment, or whatever else is important to you) typically occurs in this fashion.

Totally agree Ringleader.

Oh, I see. How can you agree with it if you don't know what's really going on? Particularly after Obama, who had the same opinion before he had all the facts, has now changed his opinion.

As I posted in response to htismaqe in the TWC thread in the Media Lounge, Qwest's CEO was asked to spy on it's customers by the Bush administration. He told them no because he thought it was illegal, which it was. They went around FISA to spy on Americans.

You are a liberterian for the most part so I don't understand why you defend or support such a move.

patteeu
04-09-2009, 10:11 AM
Totally agree Ringleader.



As I posted in response to htismaqe in the TWC thread in the Media Lounge, Qwest's CEO was asked to spy on it's customers by the Bush administration. He told them no because he thought it was illegal, which it was. They went around FISA to spy on Americans.

You are a liberterian for the most part so I don't understand why you defend or support such a move.

One corporation gave the move a thumbs down while two others and two presidents from pretty different ideological perspectives gave it the thumbs up. I don't know how you can be so certain on the basis of a lone dissenting view.

dirk digler
04-09-2009, 10:21 AM
One corporation gave the move a thumbs down while two others and two presidents from pretty different ideological perspectives gave it the thumbs up. I don't know how you can be so certain on the basis of a lone dissenting view.

Because it is obvious to anyone that they went around FISA to spy on Americans.

Ringleader was right in what he said, once you go down this path it is hard to turn it around and go back.

patteeu
04-09-2009, 10:25 AM
Because it is obvious to anyone that they went around FISA to spy on Americans.

Ringleader was right in what he said, once you go down this path it is hard to turn it around and go back.

Obvious, huh?

dirk digler
04-09-2009, 10:31 AM
Obvious, huh?

Yes. Last time I checked the 4th amendment was still in the Constitution.

As part of the program approved by President Bush for domestic surveillance without warrants, the N.S.A. has gained the cooperation of American telecommunications companies to obtain backdoor access to streams of domestic and international communications, the officials said.

The government's collection and analysis of phone and Internet traffic have raised questions among some law enforcement and judicial officials familiar with the program. One issue of concern to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has reviewed some separate warrant applications growing out of the N.S.A.'s surveillance program, is whether the court has legal authority over calls outside the United States that happen to pass through American-based telephonic "switches," according to officials familiar with the matter.

patteeu
04-09-2009, 10:53 AM
Yes. Last time I checked the 4th amendment was still in the Constitution.

Again, you don't know what they're doing so how it can be obvious to you that the 4th amendment applies is what I'm questioning.

dirk digler
04-09-2009, 10:58 AM
Again, you don't know what they're doing so how it can be obvious to you that the 4th amendment applies is what I'm questioning.

That is why it is important to allow these lawsuits to continue because according to some in the Bush administration it was against the 4th amendment.

patteeu
04-09-2009, 11:15 AM
That is why it is important to allow these lawsuits to continue because according to some in the Bush administration it was against the 4th amendment.

If we have the people's legislature and the executive branch reviewing the constitutionality, why do we need the third branch doing it as well, in public no less?

Furthermore, if the court case establishes that it really is warrantless surveillance but the judiciary decides that it's OK, are you going to suddenly do a 180 and say "aw shucks, I guess everything's copacetic afterall"?

dirk digler
04-09-2009, 11:22 AM
If we have the people's legislature and the executive branch reviewing the constitutionality, why do we need the third branch doing it as well, in public no less?

Furthermore, if the court case establishes that it really is warrantless surveillance but the judiciary decides that it's OK, are you going to suddenly do a 180 and say "aw shucks, I guess everything's copacetic afterall"?

Isn't that what the judicial branch is for? Isn't there in part to determine constitutional questions? I mean for god's sake we had the Supreme Court weigh in on a presidential election but they can't or shouldn't weigh in on 4th amendment violations? That is absurd.

If that happens I will do what the right complains about and say it was judicial activism. :p

blaise
04-09-2009, 11:31 AM
Isn't that what the judicial branch is for? Isn't there in part to determine constitutional questions? I mean for god's sake we had the Supreme Court weigh in on a presidential election but they can't or shouldn't weigh in on 4th amendment violations? That is absurd.

If that happens I will do what the right complains about and say it was judicial activism. :p

That's why I'm glad Obama is taking the decision out of the court's hands. I think, when you look at the cost/benefits of it, it's a good idea.

dirk digler
04-09-2009, 11:34 AM
That's why I'm glad Obama is taking the decision out of the court's hands. I think, when you look at the cost/benefits of it, it's a good idea.

Constitutional questions shouldn't be taken out of the hands of the judicial branch that is their role.

blaise
04-09-2009, 11:46 AM
Constitutional questions shouldn't be taken out of the hands of the judicial branch that is their role.

And the courts have allowed official immunity in prior cases regarding the President and the Executive Branch, so in effect they've already said Obama is within his rights to do this.

dirk digler
04-09-2009, 11:51 AM
And the courts have allowed official immunity in prior cases regarding the President and the Executive Branch, so in effect they've already said Obama is within his rights to do this.

IMHO this isn't so much about immunity but whether the government violated US citizens 4th amendment rights.

patteeu
04-09-2009, 12:02 PM
Isn't that what the judicial branch is for? Isn't there in part to determine constitutional questions? I mean for god's sake we had the Supreme Court weigh in on a presidential election but they can't or shouldn't weigh in on 4th amendment violations? That is absurd.

If that happens I will do what the right complains about and say it was judicial activism. :p

That's what the judiciary says the judicial branch is for, but the constitution doesn't give us any reason to think that the other two branches are less capable of reading/interpreting the document than the court is. In fact, if the framers had wanted to the courts to be the top authority on the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches, you'd think they would have made it easier to challenge decisions of those branches.

blaise
04-09-2009, 12:05 PM
IMHO this isn't so much about immunity but whether the government violated US citizens 4th amendment rights.

I realize what you're saying, but I think the court has awarded immunity to cover events like this, so in that sense the courts already have their hands in it.
You could argue that this goes beyond the scope of what the courts intended, but they have allowed it in order for certain executive level officials to have a little leeway in certain situations so that the official can be protected from lawsuit. Obama (like Bush) obviously feels this is an important enough issue to prevent it from going to the courts.
I understand where you're coming from, and I can see your side of the argument. I think we just disagree in how dangerous the warrantless wiretaps are compared to the benefits gained by using them. I think it's worth it, obviously you're more concerned that it diminishes civil liberties.

dirk digler
04-09-2009, 12:15 PM
That's what the judiciary says the judicial branch is for, but the constitution doesn't give us any reason to think that the other two branches are less capable of reading/interpreting the document than the court is. In fact, if the framers had wanted to the courts to be the top authority on the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches, you'd think they would have made it easier to challenge decisions of those branches.

So because Obama is a constitutional lawyer you are ok with him making those distinctions?

This should be good...

dirk digler
04-09-2009, 12:18 PM
I realize what you're saying, but I think the court has awarded immunity to cover events like this, so in that sense the courts already have their hands in it.
You could argue that this goes beyond the scope of what the courts intended, but they have allowed it in order for certain executive level officials to have a little leeway in certain situations so that the official can be protected from lawsuit. Obama (like Bush) obviously feels this is an important enough issue to prevent it from going to the courts.
I understand where you're coming from, and I can see your side of the argument. I think we just disagree in how dangerous the warrantless wiretaps are compared to the benefits gained by using them. I think it's worth it, obviously you're more concerned that it diminishes civil liberties.

Fair enough. My point is like Ringleader said once you go down this road you can never go back IMO. It is a slippery slope and if we sacrifice our 4th amendment rights for our protection what is next?

I imagine if the police broke down your door one night without a warrant and searched and destroyed your house you would feel different about this.

blaise
04-09-2009, 12:21 PM
Fair enough. My point is like Ringleader said once you go down this road you can never go back IMO. It is a slippery slope and if we sacrifice our 4th amendment rights for our protection what is next?

I imagine if the police broke down your door one night without a warrant and searched and destroyed your house you would feel different about this.

I'm sure I would. Just like if a terrorist blew up your family you might too. I just don't think the slippery slope will prove out to be that extreme. I could be wrong. We'll see.

patteeu
04-09-2009, 02:23 PM
So because Obama is a constitutional lawyer you are ok with him making those distinctions?

This should be good...

As unfortunate as it may be, he's the president now so he's the guy who makes those judgments for the executive branch no matter how warped his view of the constitution may be. He doesn't do it in a vacuum though. The legislative and judicial branches have their roles to play and within those roles they each have an equal capacity to interpret the constitution.

dirk digler
04-09-2009, 03:06 PM
As unfortunate as it may be, he's the president now so he's the guy who makes those judgments for the executive branch no matter how warped his view of the constitution may be. He doesn't do it in a vacuum though. The legislative and judicial branches have their roles to play and within those roles they each have an equal capacity to interpret the constitution.

Sounds like you are backtracking now a little pat. So the judicial branch does have a role to play?

And if Obama has warped views then his warped views are the same as Bush's since they are practically the same on this issue.

patteeu
04-09-2009, 03:37 PM
Sounds like you are backtracking now a little pat. So the judicial branch does have a role to play?

And if Obama has warped views then his warped views are the same as Bush's since they are practically the same on this issue.

Not at all. Of course the judicial branch has a role. They resolve cases as specified in Article III of the constitution. And when a constitutional issue arises in the course of performing that role, they interpret the constitution. For example, if the government were to charge a person with a crime on the basis of this surveillance, the court would be justified in evaluating the constitutional validity of the government's actions as a part of that case. That's not what is going on here though.

I've never claimed that the judiciary is inferior to the executive and the legislative when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. I objected to your implication that they were the superior authority.

Obama may well have warped views of the constitution, even if in this one instance he agrees with Bush and even if in this one instance he gets it right. I have no way of knowing whether he's right or wrong though because I don't know how the program works.

dirk digler
04-09-2009, 03:49 PM
Not at all. Of course the judicial branch has a role. They resolve cases as specified in Article III of the constitution. And when a constitutional issue arises in the course of performing that role, they interpret the constitution. For example, if the government were to charge a person with a crime on the basis of this surveillance, the court would be justified in evaluating the constitutional validity of the government's actions as a part of that case. That's not what is going on here though.

I've never claimed that the judiciary is inferior to the executive and the legislative when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. I objected to your implication that they were the superior authority.

Obama may well have warped views of the constitution, even if in this one instance he agrees with Bush and even if in this one instance he gets it right. I have no way of knowing whether he's right or wrong though because I don't know how the program works.

Fair enough. My only problem is granting widespread immunity of the spying of Americans is that we will probably never know what the program is and how many Americans are affected by this illegal program.

From what Pelosi said today they are going to let this provision expire later this year in the Patriot Act so hopefully we will get some answers.

patteeu
04-09-2009, 05:17 PM
Fair enough. My only problem is granting widespread immunity of the spying of Americans is that we will probably never know what the program is and how many Americans are affected by this illegal program.

From what Pelosi said today they are going to let this provision expire later this year in the Patriot Act so hopefully we will get some answers.

You keep calling it an illegal program even though you don't know what it is.

We've had a Republican Congress allow a Republican President to have this program. We've had a democrat Congress allow a Republican President to have this program. And now we've had a democrat Congress allow a democrat President to have this program. It appears that despite all the demagogic anti-Bush rhetoric of the past few years, we have a pretty impressive, bipartisan consensus among our elected representatives that, after all the balancing of interests is done, the program is both permissible and a net positive for the country.

SBK
04-09-2009, 06:05 PM
Bush doing this put a lot of folks into full on meltdown mode. Not just here, but all over the place. Now, under Obama, utter silence. Again, I'm not just talking about the planet, but many other places as well.

memyselfI
04-10-2009, 10:00 AM
I see Jaz hasn't touched this one. ROFL IIRC, he was one of the most vocal opponents of the Bush policy when it was the same or considered even less ominous.

stevieray
04-10-2009, 10:12 AM
My God...I can't believe this is not a facetious statement...and I find it terrifying how many O-zombies there are out there who feel just like this.


dissent not allowed

blaise
04-10-2009, 03:41 PM
I see Jaz hasn't touched this one. ROFL IIRC, he was one of the most vocal opponents of the Bush policy when it was the same or considered even less ominous.

What's funnier is that there wasn't one word about it, that I could see, on the Huffington Post either. Just fluff pieces about Michelle Obama mostly.

patteeu
04-18-2009, 10:00 AM
Conspiracy theory: The Obama administration intentionally argues for a significantly more broad privilege than the Bush administration hoping that it will be rejected so that they get credit from those who support the NSA program for "trying" while at the same time intending to actually serve the interests of those who want to undermine the NSA program.