Obama = Change?

[quidmonkey]

We had hoped this would go differently.

Friday evening, in a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA, EFF's litigation against the National Security Agency for the warrantless wiretapping of countless Americans, the Obama Administration's made two deeply troubling arguments.

First, they argued, exactly as the Bush Administration did on countless occasions, that the state secrets privilege requires the court to dismiss the issue out of hand. They argue that simply allowing the case to continue "would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security." As in the past, this is a blatant ploy to dismiss the litigation without allowing the courts to consider the evidence.

It's an especially disappointing argument to hear from the Obama Administration. As a candidate, Senator Obama lamented that the Bush Administration "invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court." He was right then, and we're dismayed that he and his team seem to have forgotten.

Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes.

This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one — not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration — has ever interpreted the law this way.

Previously, the Bush Administration has argued that the U.S. possesses "sovereign immunity" from suit for conducting electronic surveillance that violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). However, FISA is only one of several laws that restrict the government's ability to wiretap. The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and claims that the US PATRIOT Act also renders the U.S. immune from suit under the two remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. Essentially, the Obama Adminstration has claimed that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes.

Again, the gulf between Candidate Obama and President Obama is striking. As a candidate, Obama ran promising a new era of government transparency and accountability, an end to the Bush DOJ's radical theories of executive power, and reform of the PATRIOT Act. But, this week, Obama's own Department Of Justice has argued that, under the PATRIOT Act, the government shall be entirely unaccountable for surveilling Americans in violation of its own laws.

This isn't change we can believe in. This is change for the worse.

Couple of links after the jump (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush).

[Siraris]

You do realize that all the cases in regards to these instances now have Obama and his administration on them, right? Which means that all the mistakes that Bush made, Obama would have to pay for.

[BlackScarab]

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m7/irishkorean/ike_where_this_thread_is_going-vi.jpg?t=1239297952

[quidmonkey]

You do realize that all the cases in regards to these instances now have Obama and his administration on them, right? Which means that all the mistakes that Bush made, Obama would have to pay for.

That explains the first argument, not the second.

[TheFlyingOrc]

The only candidate I believe when he said he'd give up power was Ron Paul, and he was also kinda crazy.

[Krispy]

This is not good. Also, I am going to hear about this endlessly from my father who hates Obama. Which is extra not good.

[Inspector Fowler]

I have some news for you:

Anybody - anybody - who can play the political game in the US long enough and well enough to reach the office of the presidency isn't going to be some kind of world-changing harbinger of hope. Personal standards and beliefs mean nothing when it comes to getting the money and attention needed to run for that office.

So anybody who really thought that Obama was going to be some kind of awesome, honest, really neat guy who "gets it", sorry. And I voted for him, so don't bash me as a hater.

I'm just a realist.

[DoctorFinger]

Gee, you mean Obama made a promise to get elected, then did the opposite once in power? Guess he really is a politician after all.

[total]

Umm yeah I've said it before and I will say it again. The PATRIOT act needs to go. It simply does not belong in a democracy. The same thing goes for sovereign immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity). There simply should be oversight in situations like this. It is just silly. It's a good argument from a legal stand point, but pretty infuriating as a citizen.

[OldeWolf]

Obama = http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v606/WeirdPoe/two-face.jpg

And people are acting surprised.

[Generation ABXY]

This...this is...crysterical. I'm not sure whether to burst into tears or fits of laughter.

[johnperkins21]

I don't really pay attention to the mainstream news, but it doesn't seem to me like anyone is really picking up on these stories. This is not the first time the Obama Administration has come out using the state secrets defense, something he chastised the Bush Administration for doing.

However, this should not come as a surprise to anyone, as he did sign that abysmal FISA Bill while running for President. I think he somehow confused the definition of transparency with opaque.

[Jackel]

A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf.

Politicians..they're all the same.

Hope no one here expected him to save you from all your problems.

[Johan]

I'm sorry, but "change we can believe in" was always a bullshit marketing ploy that millions fell for, many of them because they were rightfully disgusted with the political party in the White House and the leadership we had at the time. Since he's been in office, Obama has, in no particular order, and not including the above:

* Declared his support for RIAA fines of up to $150,000 per copyright infringement (song). (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/03/obama-sides-wit.html)
* Redefined "The Global War on Terror" to be an "Overseas Contingency Operation" while increasing troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan above where they were when Bush left office.
* Requested 80+ billion more for funding the Iraq misadventure.
* Redefined "toxic assets" to be "legacy assets."
* Refused to accept TARP money back from banks desperate to get the controlling hand of government out of their business.
* Fired a CEO of a corporation, and declared more may follow.
* Decided that the term "terrorism" should actually be "man-caused disasters."
* Declared he will halve the federal deficit by the end of his term, when he has currently quadrupled it from Bush's worst year, in effect meaning his best year, on rosy projections the CBO doesn't believe, will be double the worst of Bush's presidency and the most federal debt any president has ever added to our nation.
* Raised taxes regressively/substantially on the poor, betraying his campaign pledge for no new taxes on the middle and lower classes. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&show_article=1)
* Taken the UAW to the brink of union busting with the threat of bankruptcy for GM.
* Printed a trillion dollars out of nothing, which Nouriel Roubini, one of the few to predict this entire mess, predicts will lead to inflation. (http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini/)

There's plenty more, but the reality is that, regardless of which party is in power, very little changes in our "ship of state." The desks get rearranged, some seats get swapped, but not much else changes. He's a politician, and he has said what he needed to in order to get elected.

By the way: If you think that the Obama administration's legal reasoning seems to violate the Constitution on the issues in the OP above, wait until Harold Koh (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/42725037.html) is approved by the Democratic senate to be the State Department's top lawyer.

He has openly stated that international law supersedes our own Constitution. Now, you may like some of his positions, but if we allow international law to supersede the Constitution, you won't like everything that results from that, and where will you turn then? :shakes head:

[OldeWolf]

I'm sorry, but "change we can believe in" was always a bullshit marketing ploy that millions fell for, many of them because they were rightfully disgusted with the political party in the White House and the leadership we had at the time. Since he's been in office, Obama has, in no particular order, and not including the above:

* Declared his support for RIAA fines of up to $150,000 per copyright infringement (song). (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/03/obama-sides-wit.html)
* Redefined "The Global War on Terror" to be an "Overseas Contingency Operation" while increasing troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan above where they were when Bush left office.
* Requested 80+ billion more for funding the Iraq misadventure.
* Redefined "toxic assets" to be "legacy assets."
* Refused to accept TARP money back from banks desperate to get the controlling hand of government out of their business.
* Fired a CEO of a corporation, and declared more may follow.
* Decided that the term "terrorism" should actually be "man-caused disasters."
* Declared he will halve the federal deficit by the end of his term, when he has currently quadrupled it from Bush's worst year, in effect meaning his best year, on rosy projections the CBO doesn't believe, will be double the worst of Bush's presidency and the most federal debt any president has ever added to our nation.
* Raised taxes regressively/substantially on the poor, betraying his campaign pledge for no new taxes on the middle and lower classes. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&show_article=1)
* Taken the UAW to the brink of union busting with the threat of bankruptcy for GM.
* Printed a trillion dollars out of nothing, which Nouriel Roubini, one of the few to predict this entire mess, predicts will lead to inflation. (http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini/)

There's plenty more, but the reality is that, regardless of which party is in power, very little changes in our "ship of state." The desks get rearranged, some seats get swapped, but not much else changes. He's a politician, and he has said what he needed to in order to get elected.

Hear! Hear!

[Johan]

Hear! Hear!

Nobody hears.
Nobody cares.
The "American Dream" is on life support.

I have little hope for a future that is better than our past. Very little. I do have faith, however, and take solace in that.

[ShivaX]

I don't really pay attention to the mainstream news, but it doesn't seem to me like anyone is really picking up on these stories. This is not the first time the Obama Administration has come out using the state secrets defense, something he chastised the Bush Administration for doing.


You'd think Fox News would be all over it, but they're too busy complaining hes a socialist and a Muslim (seriously, can't they come up with something new?) to bother reporting on actual news. Of course if they admit that the Patriot Act is in anyway bad that would mean critizing Bush and Republicans, so they can't do that.

I'm somewhat suprised that CNN hasn't reported more about it, but I haven't exactly been watching much news lately, so maybe they've said something.

[OldeWolf]

Nobody hears.
Nobody cares.
The "American Dream" is on life support.

I have little hope for a future that is better than our past. Very little. I do have faith, however, and take solace in that.

Now you know why I have hearing aides.
Even if our American Dream is on life support, I like you still have faith. Why? Because people like you, my dad, my girlfriend, myself, and many others points out those kind of things to the public.

So, again: Hear! Hear!

[Ox]

How on Earth are the PATRIOT Act or sovereign immunity antidemocratic? Both were approved by large margins multiple times by the people's duly elected representatives. There are very few laws that are more democratic than these two. They may be illiberal; they may be unwise; they may even be offensive. But they are most assuredly democratic.