Obama Follows a Proud GWB Jr. Tradition With Warrantless NSA Wiretapping

[Jeffersons Ghost]

In an earlier post, involving Obamas' position on NSA wiretapping, my source was considered weak and impeachable. (two traits reminiscent of the Bush Administration)

Here are a couple of respected sources that report the same sorry news. I regret finding this crap and wish Obama could save America. I voted and campaigned for him.

CBS News

Obama Administration Will Toss Wiretap Lawsuits

National Security Cited In Obama Administration Bid To Stop Warrantless Wiretap Lawsuit

WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General Eric Holder says a lawsuit in San Francisco over warrantless wiretapping threatens to expose ongoing intelligence work and must be thrown out.

In making the argument, the Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration's position on the case but insists it came to the decision differently. A civil liberties group criticized the move Friday as a retreat from promises President Barack Obama made as a candidate.

Holder's effort to stop the lawsuit marks the first time the administration has tried to invoke the state secrets privilege under a new policy it launched last month designed to make such a legal argument more difficult.

http://209.85.135.132/search?q=cache:Xcv9K2TDyL8J:www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/30/ap/cabstatepent/main5466861.shtml+Justice+Department+,warrantless+wiretapping+lawsuits&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk

CNN Politics

Obama administration moves to stop release of classified information

By Jeanne Meserve, CNN Homeland Security Correspondent
October 31, 2009

Washington (CNN) -- The Obama administration invoked the state secrets privilege on Friday in a lawsuit pertaining to government eavesdropping intended to intercept terrorist communications, and one privacy advocacy group called the decision "incredibly disappointing."

Attorney General Eric Holder issued a statement saying the government was making the move "to protect against a disclosure of highly sensitive, classified information that would irrevocably harm the national security of this country."

The California lawsuit challenges the warrantless wiretapping program begun by the Bush administration after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The current administration is asking the court to dismiss the case.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/31/state.secrets/

[villager]

1. But this time it's the *hopeful* kind of wiretapping...

n/t

[ixion]

2. yeah, that "hopeful", "changeful" wiretapping

spot on.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

13. when it was done during the Bush Administration...

Wasn't it a "kinder, gentler" type of wiretapping?

[boppers]

25. How about under the Clinton administration? Carter?

Depending on which program they're talking about, all US communications with foreign agents have been monitored since the 50's. First it was mail/telegrams, later email/web/VOIP.

[Mari333]

3. cannot hold your hands over your ears and sing Kumbaya

with this.

will be interesting to read any apologists, tho.

[pleah]

4. K&R

[Jeffersons Ghost]

8. special thanks...

thanks for not only the K&R but also to Solly Mack for posting the original links to these valid news sources on my previous (locked) OP.

[pleah]

9. Sorry I missed the original. n/t

[Jeffersons Ghost]

14. here's a link to it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7280887

[Dragonfli]

23. Why was that one locked?

I remember reading it and the whole pom pom pounce down pile on, but I did not know it was locked.
What rule was broken? (I have to ask because I still can't figure out what rule I broke on one of mine and I re-read the rules like three times)

I am trying to figure out what is a legal post now as I am confused presently as to how to follow the "not so formal" rules. I just want to post an OP without a lock.

I have no quarrel with management as it is a private site and rules can be as arbitrary as the owner sees fit, I don't have a problem with that at all, I am a web-master to 12 sites and like to play God myself (being the guy that pays the bills and all).

I just want to learn to navigate in a way that does not piss off the landlord so I am asking questions.

On Edit: I read the original and found that the source you used is not allowed here, now I am getting somewhere! Where is the list of disallowed sources? I read a great many newspapers, magazines, reporters and other liberal sources of information, I need to know which of them are illegal, if you don't know I will try another email to Skinner but would rather not bother him if I can find the Info via fellow DUers.

[Canuckistanian]

5. The FISA Court judges must feel like Maytag repairmen

Sitting around all day playing Scrabble, waiting for the phone to ring.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

17. in memory of REAL judges and constitutions

[FLAprogressive]

22. LOL now there's an image

[Dragonfli]

6. HE CAN'T JUST WAVE A MAJICK WAND AND STOP LAWSUITS AGAINST WIRETAPPING - ER I MEAN

He knows what is best for us that is good enough for me.
Those old documents are the real enemy, we should just tear up that dumb old charter so daddy can take care of us better.

Hater!

[FLAprogressive]

19. The DOJ has to enforce the law!!!!!!1111one!!!11one!!11 ...err...oops

[boppers]

27. DOJ is enforcing the law.

Most people don't know about the laws involved, however... there seems to be a very confused mix of interpretation involved in what is a "legal", and "illegal", "wiretap".

For example, this internet post is legally tap-able, without a warrant, because it is not a private communication between two people who reside in, and are communicating in, the United States.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

20. NSA Top-Secret intelligence gathering methods revealed:

[boppers]

26. LOL, if only you knew how close that is to some of the technical issues.

Assume the land is the US, the fish are phone calls and emails, and the kite is a listening station outside the US.

Since the kite is outside the US, no warrant is needed.

[opihimoimoi]

7. He is tapping those evil Republicans who plot nasty Evil shit

There is need to know when they gonna do their evil shit,

[Vidar]

10. K&R.

[Wardoc]

11. Oh well fuck damn fuck it. I'd complain but be dubbed as "disloyal" by the pompom brigades that...

criticise those of us that aren't happy with this type of crap. Are we having win yet? :wtf:

[boppers]

28. Get involved. Teach people.

This kind of interception is a huge secret because, well, people have kept it that way.

Easy solution: Educate people as to what is, and isn't, legal right now.

[TexasObserver]

12. Recommend

[leftstreet]

15. K&R

[QC]

16. How very, very hopeful and changealicious! n/t

[noise]

18. A key point

about the warrantless surveillance is that it allegedly started BEFORE 9/11. That discredits the very premise of the program and it raises further questions as to why the NSA failed to detect the plot.

One should note that there are credible reports that indicate both the warrantless surveillance and torture programs did not work as advertised:

FOR seven years I have remained silent about the false claims magnifying the effectiveness of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding. I have spoken only in closed government hearings, as these matters were classified. But the release last week of four Justice Department memos on interrogations allows me to shed light on the story, and on some of the lessons to be learned.

My Tortured Decision

WASHINGTON – A report released today by several government agencies’ Inspectors General concludes that little, if any, useful information was collected by the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program and the National Intelligence Agency (NSA). The report also indicates that the Bush White House politicized the “threat assessments” that it then relied upon as a foundation for the illegal program. Detailed findings of the report are listed below.

Wiretap Report Questions Effectiveness Of Illegal NSA Spying

Apologists for these programs like to say the ends justify the means. We don't really know what the ends are. For sure we have been told that the government simply has to have police state powers to prevent terrorist attacks. Is this true? Well in the case of these two programs it does not appear to be true. The irony is that critics of these programs are often accused of being un-American or not sufficiently patriotic. Yet the critics' views reflect belief in American values, the rule of law, the US Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.

[FLAprogressive]

21. THESE IS NOT RELIABLE SOURCES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:sarcasm:

[Jeffersons Ghost]

30. I appologize...

But I couldn't find anything on this topic on FOX News.

[Wilms]

24. k&r n/t

[boppers]

29. Some background for the "OUTRAGED!!!" crowd:

This goes back over 50 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTLINGUAL

There was an attempt at reform in the 70's, as folks got upset:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_jewels_(Central_Intelligence_Agency)

That didn't stop it, the legal and procedural framework simply changed.

Latest innovations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

Blaming Bush, or Barack, totally misses out on understanding the bigger context. It's not like the secret being protected is something that Bush did, it's about *every* president, and *every* major communication system developed in the last 50 years.