Obama Defending Bush On Illegal Wiretapping

PPVRA · Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:27 pm

Quote:
Government opts for secrecy in wiretap suit

(04-06) 15:26 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The Obama administration is again invoking government secrecy in defending the Bush administration's wiretapping program, this time against a lawsuit by AT&T customers who claim federal agents illegally intercepted their phone calls and gained access to their records.

Disclosure of the information sought by the customers, "which concerns how the United States seeks to detect and prevent terrorist attacks, would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security," Justice Department lawyers said in papers filed Friday in San Francisco.

Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a lawyer for the customers, said Monday the filing was disappointing in light of the Obama presidential campaign's "unceasing criticism of Bush-era secrecy and promise for more transparency."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...9%2F04%2F06%2FBARP16TJOQ.DTL&tsp=1

All that criticism and now this. This in one of the major areas where "change" instead of "more of the same" should have come.

seb146 · Thu Apr 09, 2009 2:12 am

Quoting PPVRA (Thread starter):
All that criticism and now this. This in one of the major areas where "change" instead of "more of the same" should have come.

Well, now the conservatives can stop complaining about what a horrible liberal he is! I was absolutly shocked when I heard this on Thom Hartmann this morning.

However, I guess we have to look at it this way: Not enough time has passed between administrations and possibly some "good" and/or "useful" surveylance is going on right now. God, I hope that is the case!

PPVRA · Thu Apr 09, 2009 2:59 am

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 2):

Well, now the conservatives can stop complaining about what a horrible liberal he is! I was absolutly shocked when I heard this on Thom Hartmann this morning.

Considering his legal background, I was expecting him to get rid of this, just as he did with Guantanamo. Sadly that is not the case, and all we can do is hopelessly hope he'll end it later rather than not at all. .

[Edited 2009-04-08 20:00:33]

PhilGil · Thu Apr 09, 2009 4:04 am

I agree with the prior posters.

Quoting PPVRA (Thread starter):
This in one of the major areas where "change" instead of "more of the same" should have come.

Agreed. I'm very disappointed that the Obama administration hasn't moved agressively to eliminate illegal surveillance and daylight the excesses of the prior administration.

lowrider · Thu Apr 09, 2009 4:12 am

Quoting PhilGil (Reply 4):
eliminate illegal surveillance and daylight the excesses

Apparently Obama doesn't think they are that illegal or excessive now. I don't expect him to admit that he was wrong, but it does make one wonder what else he might change his mind on after having access to more information.

baroque · Thu Apr 09, 2009 4:23 am

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 1):
Eek, can someone edit the typo in the title?

You mean it should read "Ill Eagle"? angel

seb146 · Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:31 pm

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 4):
Apparently Obama doesn't think they are that illegal or excessive now.

I heard that one reason for not allowing the lawsuit was because of jeopardizing ongoing surveylence.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 4):
I don't expect him to admit that he was wrong, but it does make one wonder what else he might change his mind on after having access to more information.

I think he will say it is wrong, but, maybe he will quietly phase it out. Also, the way some programs were set up under the Bush administration, the Obama administration has said are very difficult to reverse. This is probably one of them, unfortunatly.

767Lover · Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:12 pm

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 6):
I think he will say it is wrong, but, maybe he will quietly phase it out. Also, the way some programs were set up under the Bush administration, the Obama administration has said are very difficult to reverse. This is probably one of them, unfortunatly.

Why would he when he supported the very legislation that gives telecoms immunity against these kinds of lawsuits.

July 2008: Senate Dems not backing Obama on wiretapping bill

Obama, who has been eager to counter GOP claims that he's weak on national security, infuriated many of his own supporters last week by saying he now supports the FISA measure passed by the House, even though it includes legal immunity for the companies.

"This was not an easy call for me," he wrote on his Web site Monday. "And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal-breaker. That's OK. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have."

Full article: http://www.newsday.com/services/news...fisa095757226jul09,0,1949736.story

seb146 · Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:01 am

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 7):
Why would he when he supported the very legislation that gives telecoms immunity against these kinds of lawsuits.

This is why we have co-equal branches of government. The comittee that oversees FISA can (and should, IMO) meet behind closed doors and discuss how they can over rule Obama on this, if it is that important. Closed door comittee meetings have happened before.

dxing · Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:36 am

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 1):
Well, now the conservatives can stop complaining about what a horrible liberal he is!

Or perhaps the liberals can stop pining for...

Quoting PhilGil (Reply 3):
and daylight the excesses of the prior administration.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 2):
Considering his legal background, I was expecting him to get rid of this, just as he did with Guantanamo.

But he hasn't gotten rid of Gitmo has he? All he is doing is shifting the prisoners from one location to another. Gitmo by any other name.....

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 4):
Apparently Obama doesn't think they are that illegal or excessive now. I don't expect him to admit that he was wrong, but it does make one wonder what else he might change his mind on after having access to more information.

Not much guessing needed there....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090402/wl_nm/us_usa_security_bagram_2

The Obama administration, following in the footsteps of the previous Bush administration, has argued that the detainees at the Bagram base have no right to have their lawsuit heard in federal court in Washington.

How bout them apples?

baroque · Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:35 am

Well the black CIA sites have gone, so we are told so get back to me in a coupla years about Gitmo.

Interesting that the FBI and not CIA was sent to the hijacking.

PPVRA · Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:25 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 5):
You mean it should read "Ill Eagle"?

It was more of a substitution problem than an addition one Wink

Quoting DXing (Reply 9):
But he hasn't gotten rid of Gitmo has he? All he is doing is shifting the prisoners from one location to another. Gitmo by any other name.....

Well yeah, but its in the works. Surely things could progress faster in that area too.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 10):
Well the black CIA sites have gone, so we are told so get back to me in a coupla years about Gitmo.

To Obama's credit, they apparently have dropped "Secret CIA Prisons" too:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2009/04/09/AR2009040902497.html

dxing · Fri Apr 10, 2009 4:28 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 10):
Interesting that the FBI and not CIA was sent to the hijacking.

The FBI investigates crimes so I don't see what is so interesting about that. I'd be surprised if the CIA had even one hostage negotiator on the payroll.

[Edited 2009-04-10 09:28:54]

dallasnewark · Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:56 am

So, Comrade Obama did a 180 on this as well.

How about all of those campaign promises? He conveniently forgot about them once elected.

I don't blame him though, it's the fools that listened , believed and voted for him should take the blame

seb146 · Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:44 pm

Quoting DXing (Reply 9):
How bout them apples?

Don't forget these quotes from the article:

"Bagram detainees who are not Afghan citizens, who were not captured in Afghanistan and who have been held for an unreasonable amount of time -- here over six years -- without adequate process" have the legal right to sue in U.S. court, the judge ruled in a 53-page opinion.

U.S. officials have ruled out transferring any Guantanamo prisoners to Bagram.

So, first off, those that were detained because someone else said they are "enemy combatants" to satisfy vendetta or for people to simply get money (already admitted to under Bush Administration) can sue. Also, Guantanimo will be closed and those prisoners WILL NOT be transferred, to answer:

Quoting DXing (Reply 9):
But he hasn't gotten rid of Gitmo has he? All he is doing is shifting the prisoners from one location to another.

dxing · Sun Apr 12, 2009 1:01 am

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 14):
Also, Guantanimo will be closed and those prisoners WILL NOT be transferred, to answer:

That is incorrect. There are a number of prisoners that will be transferred to prisons here on the U.S. mainland.