Obama Adminstration Sides With Bush Administration In Opposing Warrantless Wiretap Lawsuit
from the too-bad dept
Earlier this month, we noted that a court was allowing an important lawsuit over warrantless wiretapping by the last administration to move forward in the courts. The case was an odd one, involving the accidental leak of a classified document that effectively admits that the law was broken. However, since the document is classified, the court system and everyone involved in the case has to perform one of the stupidest legal dances ever in order to pretend that no one has seen a document that they've all seen. The whole thing is a bit farcical. Not surprisingly, the Bush administration vehemently opposed letting this case move forward -- but many weren't sure how the Obama administration would deal with it. Well, now we know. They've put forth a filing in the case effectively agreeing with the Bush administration that the case should not move forward. There may be political reasons for doing so, but it's unfortunate that it looks like the new administration is playing the same game as the last administration when it comes to burying the details on the almost certainly illegal warrantless wiretapping program.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: al-harmain, obama, warrantless wiretap
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
hope in one had shit in the other and see witch one fills up first..
guss we know witch one fills up first...
as soon as i git approved for soc sec ( enlarged heart and pace maker )
im saveing up and im abndoning this country..
im tired of the bull shit that comes out of it..
south east asian arcapellago here i come..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We have a virtual democracy where we trust our elected officials to decide things for us. Sad but true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The US is a representative democracy that is also a republic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We have a virtual democracy where we trust our elected officials to decide things for us. Sad but true.
In business, "insider information" (i.e., classified information) is no longer considered classified once it's been leaked and people know about it. I don't see why that shouldn't apply here as well.
Yes, there is a reason things are classified -- but once that info is leaked, and in this case shows illegal activity by the gov't, then it's no longer classified, and should be perfectly usable in a court case to show the illegal behavior occurred.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
the government is not a business, no matter how profitable it may be. this is a law enforcement and potentially an intelligence issue, where the rules of business do not apply.
the american intelligence community (military, national, even law enforcement) has long maintained "secrets" that have become common knowledge.
jimmy carter admitted that the US uses spy satellites like 30 years ago, yet the intelligence community continues to states that they can "neither confirm or deny the use of satellites". the term they prefer to use is "airborne reconnaissance" which implies planes, drones, and "perhaps" satellites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes... look at history and all those "classified" documents that eventually become unclassified and they show all that they did was classify it to cover up the embarrassment of higher ups.
Don't fall into the fallacy and false trust that what they say is true. When it comes to politicians and sales people you should always assume they are lying until it can be proved otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't get me wrong, I'm hoping he is better than Dubya was.., would be hard to be worse. But come on, he voted to give the telcos immunity. More and more this will come to light, and his so called open administration will fold up around him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
INteresting
You people keep singing songs about Obama and he hasn't done ANYTHING! There is no way he can measure up to your expectations! Get over yourselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all about to change...
As King Solomon said many thousands of years ago...
There is nothing new under the sun...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i have to admit i expected it to take longer than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So not everything changes...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So not everything changes...
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/01/on-day-one-obama-demands-open-government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So not everything changes...
No change so far, and it's not an order, but a memo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So not everything changes...
The one thing Obama has proven himself good at is PR, but as a PR guy I can say you can't trust most of what we say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
--Benjamin Franklin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't see what's wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't see what's wrong
there are two phases to every intelligence operation: collection and analysis. it's easy to collect intelligence (bugs, taps, cameras, radar, etc.) but analyzing it is far more involved. it takes trained personnel hours to go through relatively small amounts of intel.
if you want to monitor everything, it would take billions of man hours, which translates to tons of money.
Tap my phone for all I care, I'm not breaking the law and I'm not threatening the government.
how do you know that?
so you agree with every single person in every administration that comes into power?
at some point everyone disagrees with their government, or at the very least, disagrees with someone in their government. if the government is watching you, at some point you are going to do something they don't like and they will take action against it. that's the problem.
if you are tapping phones to stop terrorism, then the government needs to prove that the people being tapped are under reasonable suspicion of being involved with terrorism.
if what the government is doing is right, then they shouldn't have a problem explaining it to the people and there is no need for secrecy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't see what's wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't see what's wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't see what's wrong
I personally believe that there are reasons that the NSA would need to have immediate access to intelligence present in a phone conversation for someone of interest to them. Yet, I also believe that privacy is a constitutional right that should be sacred. The issue to me seems to lie in the border between protecting America and protecting its rights. When you break the law, are you not essentially forfeiting your right to privacy? Everyone deserves to be treated as innocent until there is some evidence to the contrary, yet how can authorities collect damning evidence if the accused and accomplices are made aware of the information gathering?
Imagine what might happen if you had a pretty good lead that someone was making bombs at a location and you were forced to go through very public channels to get legal grounds for searching the location. Now, I highly doubt you could be granted instantaneous access and the accused or accomplices could be tipped off through the public channel that you were about to search the location. The accused then removes all evidence from the location thus rendering your investigation sterile.
Whereas, if you were allowed to begin the search while simultaneously seeking legal grants, you would have a much higher probability of acquiring evidence and potentially saving lives.
I'm not saying it's perfect, but there should be some way for checks and balances to be effective while maintaining the rights of Americans and not impacting investigative work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't see what's wrong
That said, the courts will need to be smart enough to recognise when this law is being abused and when it's being properly used. As long as the national security of the country is the focus of investigation, it is being used appropriately.
And I just don't understand what the objection is. What are the chances that anyone here would actually be tapped? I don't know, maybe there are domestic terrorists here, but I'd say it's very unlikely that the people here are jeopardising national security. It is extremely unlikely that your right to privacy is going to be violated.
@Faceless Minion: It's "give me liberty or give me death" (as you have it written), not "give me liberty and give me death". I would rather a few people lose their right to privacy than an entire nation be at risk of attack. At some point, the right to life has to supersede all other rights, and the government is the only body with the power to protect that right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't see what's wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't see what's wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't see what's wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Psh change?
And the way Obama sided with the Bush administration on this exact issue before he even took office totally doesn't change the fact that I'm shocked and am going to treat it like actual news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Psh change?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Psh change?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please do your own research... PLEASE!
Obama did not want the free pass in there. He voted for the FISA bill so that ALL future taps would need to at least go through the FISA court and be on the record somewhere to be made public years later. Before this Bush was claming that taps like this were legal and he, as president, had the right to request them. As Obama said...
[the 2008 FISA bill] restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/obama-mccain-reluctantly-endorse-surveill ance-deal/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What we don't know can hurt someone
Outing an undercover agent could result in some very nasty events, for instance, and if they even divulge the nature of the classified documents, who knows how damaging it might be.
It would be irresponsible to jump to the conclusion that they are defending illegal action by the government until all the facts are available.
The fact that two opposed governments with differing attitudes about this have both thought it wise to suppress makes me think it is a lot less simple than the article implies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's still the bankers, high profile lawyers, and corporations that really push the agenda for the Government.
No 'change' will come about when the hands pulling the strings remain unchanged.
Neither of the parties are really very different; they are more or less just different wings or factions of the 'Big Government Controls You Party'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Change?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree that what the phone companies did was wrong, but the reasons behind what they did were not their fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get over yourselves
It is one of the few effective ways to protect our families and our cities in an asymmetrical war. It used because it works. If you have examples of the information being used for anything else other than actually protecting American citizens, let me know. Otherwise just shut up and let the commander in chief do his job.
ps: I'd like to have been a fly on the wall at Obama's first security briefing. It might explain some of the positions he is taking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government needs to be stripped down to the bare minimum needed to function, with the direct vote of the people able to veto any action, judgement, or legislation put in place by the government. And no spending should be able to be done by the government without a majority count in the direct vote of the people, as it would ultimately come from our pockets. The greater the power of a political office, the shorter the term should be, to minimize the potential damage that can be done. And consecutive terms should not be allowed. No income or educational requirements for office, but strict adherence to the original constitutional guidelines, that anyone of any economic level from any party or no party can have a realistic chance at being elected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I for one defend the rights of others, for reasons I might not be able to explain to your satisfaction. And what in the wide world makes you think that the authorities spy only on guilty people?
"I would rather a few people lose their right to privacy than an entire nation be at risk of attack."
1) If this precedent stands, ALL Americans lose their right to privacy. Get it?
2) Get used to the idea that you will not always be able to sacrifice OTHER PEOPLE'S rights to protect yourself, or to give up only the rights that you aren't using. (Incidentally, are you one of those people who always wants to raise other people's taxes?)
3) Your entire nation will be at risk of attack whether the government is allowed to violate the rights of the citizens or not. ALL nations are ALWAYS at risk of attack, you just have to be realistic about how big that risk is and what you're willing and able to do about it. (Hint: if "you're not likely to be spied on" is a sound argument, then so is "you're not likely to be bombed", even though that's scarier.) If you will not tolerate any risk at all then you will roll over for anyone who reminds you that the world is not perfectly safe.
4) Not everything that's billed as Making You Safer actually makes you safer. If you are not prepared to examine these "for your own good" initiatives with a critical eye, then I have a tiger-attack-preventing rock to sell you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get out of your bubble
If the Taliban or Al Queda or their ilk read these comments, they'd likely laugh their arses off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wake up
As far as the war on terror goes, it's a farce. Terrorists are like roaches, you can kill one, but there's a hundred more in hiding. For a president to claim war time powers now means that they will be claiming war time powers 30 years from now. It's like declaring war on murder, you'll catch a few, but you'll never catch them all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Similarly, our government is pouring money into this war on terror with the same result: SOMEONE is making a tidy profit, regardless of who wins or loses.
The blatant abuses of big business ( whose goal is to fatten the bottom line ) and their proven influence on government policy, should have us asking: Where is the money going? Who is making the profit from this? Do you think the telco companies did this for free? Was this used as a domestic spying program for a corporation(s) to gather info on competitors, at the expense of average American's privacy?
If the average American had the lobbying power (money) that BIG business has, he would also enjoy the same privacy (non-transparency) that the corporations do.
Remember that our government is only one of the players at the poker table, when it comes to running this country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
None Of Us Really Knows....
I'm sure that Obama, like every President before him, was shocked when secrets were revealed. Secrets that none of us peons will ever know. If he sides with Bush on the open wiretapping issue, there is probably a pretty good reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In 50 years when it's de-classified under Freedom of Information Act, won't it be great to have a conversation with your grandchildren explaining to them what "Bump and Grind" meant when you talked about it on the phone in your teen years? Yeah, by that time, your phone calls will be available as a leaf on Ancestry.com!
Ha ha ha! You dirty old man!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sensational headline, BUT...
When I first read the Wired article I shared Mike Masnick's reaction that "it's unfortunate that it looks like the new administration is playing the same game as the last administration when it comes to burying the details on the almost certainly illegal warrantless wiretapping program."
This morning I had the pleasure of reading a much more in-depth and subtle counter-analysis of where the lawsuit stands and what the Obama position means legally:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/24/4422/57021/124/688403
In short:
"The January 23rd memorandum to the court does not 'side with Bush,' except in the very narrow sense that the Obama Administration seems to agree that the appeal of the January 5th decision should happen before the case goes to trial.... regardless of whether and how the Obama Administration defend this one case, there are sound arguments for letting the appellate courts decide how to handle classified information in FISA-related cases."
"But Obama wants to ensure courts get procedures right doesn't make for a properly cynical headline."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/01/wired-misses-legal-niceties-of-administra tion-change.html
"Government trial lawyer Alexander Haas filed two case management statements on Thursday, but accidentally filed the first one citing George W. Bush as the president. Haas seemed to realize his error, filing the same document again but writing... 'President Obama is substituted in his official capacity as a defendant in this case' under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, section 25(d)..... So Obama's name has to be in there, whether he likes it or not."
"And second, as Al-Haramain attorney Jon Eisenberg pointed out at today's hearing, none of Obama's political appointees to the Department of Justice have assumed control yet, not even would-be Attorney General Eric Holder Jr."
The implication here is that Obama's administration hasn't taken over the case yet. In the meantime, the paperwork and previous legal motions continue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Observations
Spying on Americans who have committed no wrongdoing is also unconsitutional.
Who is going to fix this? If Barack says it's legal, I have a lot of problems with this, because the events as I recall were:
1) Obama is against FISA.
2) Madame Rothschild, a good friend of Hillary Clinton drops as Chair of DNC on thoughts that Barack would be too "Liberal", endorses McCain
3) Thousand-point drops in DOW.
4) Obama Meets with Nick Rockefeller, and changes view on FISA
5) As Senator from Illinois, Barack votes Pro-FISA as McCain abstains from vote
6) People become mad at Barack's inability to stand for principal
7) Barack sees drop in electability, McCain edges up
8) Some jackass sends emails offering ideas
9) Barack issues next-day press eats up soundbyte of you have to Get MAD and in their face
10) Barack regroups, pushes other ideas including economy
11) Barack speaks with Buffett
11) Barack meets in DC to understand Economic Crisis
12) Barack wins Electoral Vote
13) Article mentioning a need to embrace American idealism.
14) Barack Inaugurated
15) Russel Trice goes on Kieth Olbermann's "Countdown" to discuss, in a two-part series the depth of the Wiretap issue. Part One and Part Two
16) Sen. Nick Rockefeller, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee admits he wouldn't be surprised if others wiretapped him.
17) When it comes to the bailout....
People want to have a memorandum from the President that offers their jobs back, their credit accounts up to date, and allow them to contribute positively to society while not having to worry about external political things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Observations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
. .this . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: . .this . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepting_v._AT%26T
I sure bet it looks like a fun case to review, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh well
Same as the old boss!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The good old days, the honest man;
The restless heart, the Promised Land,
A subtle kiss that no one sees;
A broken wrist and a big trapeze.
I got a little fight.
I'm gonna turn this thing around.
Oh well, I don't mind, if you don't mind.
'Cause I don't shine if you don't shine
Before you go, can you read my mind?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NEW SECRET WEAPON FOR OUR TROOPS! IT'S PIXIE DUST -- AND IT DEFIES GRAVITY!
LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. -- For years, the United States military has been exploring various ways of improving its arsenal. Only recently, however, did Weekly World News learn exclusively of the existence of a top-secret branch called the Magic Militia.
"We seek out materials and weapons with supernatural properties that can give us an edge," said Sgt. Frank Wand.
In July, the Magic Militia managed to collect a potentially invaluable tool that would dramatically increase the military's offensive power. Weekly World News learned of it because, coincidentally, this newspaper happened to be tracking the discovery as well.
"We've obtained a small amount of pixie dust," confided Sergeant Wand. "I can't tell you the precise location from which it was recovered. Suffice to say we flew our choppers toward the second star on the right and then straight on till morning. We took some casualties from pirates, but the pixie herself was dispatched with a carefully hidden bomb."
The pixie dust was brought to Langley under heavy guard where top scientists began to examine its unique properties. Dr. Al Chemy first tested the dust on lab mice. After he sprinkled a small amount on the rodents they began to bounce all over their cages -- the sides and the top.
"They also sneezed a lot," he said. "The mice were able to defy gravity," Dr. Chemy went on. "If we can duplicate this powder we could overcome all kinds of limitations on the battlefield. Tanks could sail over obstacles too difficult to drive across. Jeeps wouldn't have to worry about getting sand in the engine when crossing desert terrain. Swampland and jungles would no longer be an impasse."
But the dust is considered to be most valuable to the infantry.
"Imagine thousands of troops soaring through the skies just by 'wishing it,' " said Sergeant Wand. "Flying soldiers would have an incredible tactical advantage before and during combat operations."
Unfortunately, scientists have not yet succeeded in replicating the small amount of pixie dust they've obtained.
"We made a prototype powder which permits flight but not control," said Dr. Chemy. "It seems there's a component to pixie dust which allows the flyer to will himself to move in one direction or another. In fact, just getting the volunteers down has proved to be quite a problem. We've had to use butterfly nets and bolos, which are very undignified."
While the pixie dust is being prepped, the Magic Militia is also searching for a crystal ball.
"It would save a lot of American lives if we could spot the enemy in their lair and take them out," said Ward. "While we've been over the rainbow and back, we've had no luck so far."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Catholics have dark humor dealed to them like two spades.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiots, surounded by idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama/Bush Administration
First of all is that there is no perfect government, something that ya can apply also to the field of relations or love. You just have to try to look for the one that matchs better with what ya are looking for, expect or desire.
Second, i believe we need a whole change in the politic system, begining specially with the 2 strong partys model. We need new ideas, a new way of working for the people of our countries, to promote, strengthen our education and scale of values, and of course new politics who really work to change the world and for the real issues that worry people worldwide (a fair and better distribution of the wealth, the hunger, the enviorement, cultural diversity, the wars, the employments, justice...) In my opinion people should have more power over their government big decissions, like a veto, and politicians shouldn't stay for money years in admnistration unless proved as a good, honest and hard ass worker one, supported by most of the people. The reason if ya stay for too long on the system, as fouled and viced as it is right now, you'll be corrupted. I also consider we need younger politicians, who haven't experienced that and who are idealistic and believe is still possible to change the world.
I have hope, as many others, in Barack, is not gonna be the Messiah and his fortune will depend on how good he'll do in solving the economic chaos, but he seems well intentioned and in his few days in the administration, making real what he promissed: Guantanamo, to bring back the troops as soon as possible, to change the energy model, to reduce contamination and bet on natural and renewables sources, more transparency in his administration (not whole, as we are discussing here), frezze the salary of the governments big positions (over 100.000 dollars)... For sure is gonna change the vission the rest of the world has lately from America and its leaders, and for sure is gonna be better president than Bush (which is not hard).
Thanx for your time and Attention
Javi Sanchez
PS= And for those who don't trust Obama and the rest, an advice or recommendation: As my best friend Schulzy says "Vote for Ron Paul" (i would have done it too, but i'm not a citizen)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bush Obama Administration
[ link to this | view in chronology ]