Obama Administration Uses 'State Secrets' Clause To Try To Block All Warrantless Wiretapping Cases

from the transparency-is-dead dept

Mon, Nov 2nd 2009 4:57pm — Mike Masnick

Despite new rules from the Obama administration that are supposed to reduce the use of "state secrets" claims to avoid revealing certain information, the first use of such a claim out of the administration since change the rules is to (once again) try to stop lawsuits involving warrantless wiretapping efforts by the federal government that began under the Bush administration. Again, this is disappointing. It remains difficult for me to see how anyone can justify a warrantless wiretapping program. I have no problem with a wiretapping program that has judicial oversight, but how can anyone defend a system that had no oversight at all?

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: obama, state secrets, warrantless wiretapping

25 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 2 Nov 2009 @ 5:11pm

Really?
Mike must have something to hide! Get him!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2009 @ 5:50pm

"I have no problem with a wiretapping program that has judicial oversight, but how can anyone defend a system that had no oversight at all?"

Easy, like this:

"If you don't support this wiretapping that means you support the terrorists!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert Ring (profile), 2 Nov 2009 @ 6:11pm

So much for change.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
just another PetaQpu human..., 2 Nov 2009 @ 6:41pm

gee how is that hope and change working for you? This is what happens when you take affirmative action a bit too far. personally my vote would have been for Michael Jordan.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2009 @ 6:43pm

Who is the party of "getting shit done"?
Has this administration been successful at ANYTHING since taking over the office? I'm thinking back and am having trouble...

I think his administration has pretty much re-nigged on every campaign promise given. Seriously. I don't think it's The President himself, hit rather his incompetent administration that can't keep their eye on completing one single thing. Sure, we'll get HealthCare, but damn, it's going to be costly.

I get the impression that if his admin went to a Baskin Robbins 31 Flavors, President Obama would walk right up, say "Double Neopolitan in a Waffle Cone" Ba-zam! done.

But Rham and the Staff would sit there with their finger up their ass and ask for samples of each flavor then go back and say they forgot what the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th... flavor was like.

By the time they figure it out, President Obama would have finished and been in the limo, with Hillary who walked to the next-door Deli. President Obama also takes out four pieces of Nicorette while Hillary finishes the last puff of a Cigar.

Eventually, Rham realizes how long they took because the smoke signals stop emanating from the Limo. Rham tells the lady thank you, pulls everyone away, decides not to order anything, and they collectively jump into their respective vehicles like a team of 7 yearolds going to a soccer match.

Insane.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Overcast (profile), 2 Nov 2009 @ 7:09pm

"transparency"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike, 2 Nov 2009 @ 7:11pm

Boy this is rich. Eight years of democrats saying they were appalled by the Patriot Act and just like that they turn around to use similar methods. Well, the only thing I can tell you is get ready for the back peddle.

Honestly though I think this Democrat winning streak is about to be over with come 2012. Me thinks Obama is going to get cornholed in the debates if he keeps on running things like he has this year.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2009 @ 7:25pm

I get the feeling that the wire tap issue is a "tip of the iceberg" issue and that investigation into it would start the reveal how large the iceberg actually is and might cause a great number of Americans to consider a move to the Libertarian party.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Paul (profile), 2 Nov 2009 @ 8:01pm

Re:
Lesson to Republicans: You thought you were going to keep the office forever? What where you Thinking!!! Now the Democrats have the powers you concentrated into the Presidency!

Lesson to Democrats: You are not going to be in office forever either! Do you really want the other guys to have this power!?!?!?

Where is George Washington among these folks? Can't any President walk away from the opportunity to use powers that are a threat to us all?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2009 @ 8:45pm

Now, as an expat, I have very little direct interest in the policies and politics of the US. I do still follow them, however. When Obama was elected, I briefly entertained the notion of dancing in the street, but expat or no, I'm still an American, and much too lazy for that sort of thing.

I must admit to being greatly disappointed by the Obama administrations handling of the whole wiretapping issue, along with a few other things.

Upon some sober reflection, I've decided that there are three possible conclusions I can draw from it.

First, Obama's a douche. (Actually much more complicated than that, but you get the idea.)

Second, Obama is being forced to trade political capital on this issue to get oomph elsewhere.

Third, there actually is some aspect of this whole operation which significantly affects National Security (Capitalization reflecting the "*BOOM* There's no more New York." variety of national security rather than the "You can't bring a bottle of water on an airplane." variety.). Now, I can't imagine what that aspect would be, and how it would be eliminated with judicial oversight, but then, I'm not briefed on the program, now am I?

Understand, I'm not arguing for or against any of these positions, I'm merely sharing the form which my thoughts will be taking as more information develops.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Doctor Strange, 2 Nov 2009 @ 9:16pm

Re: Who is the party of "getting shit done"?
has pretty much re-nigged on every campaign promise

What's the word I'm looking for here? Subtle? Classy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 2 Nov 2009 @ 9:53pm

The password is...
"has pretty much re-nigged on every campaign promise

What's the word I'm looking for here? Subtle? Classy?"

The word you are looking for is "barely contained bigot" and it manifests itself in every narrow-minded, racist, bigoted whiner about how "Obama didnt do this" or "Obama did that" that shows up on forums like this, and especially usatoday. They vibrate like a tuning fork at the prospect to take yet another shot at the president, armchair-quarterbacking a job that they themselves could never hope to do even half as good as the best they are complaining about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2009 @ 10:13pm

Re: Re: Who is the party of "getting shit done"?
Whoops. Good catch, and wrong word choice. Growing up, my grandfather used it all the time, bad habits are hard to break, and I wasn't even thinking the reader would think it had a "Subtle" or "Classy" connotation.

Perhaps Masnick will edit the post such that it says one of the following: "failed", "flunked", "botched", "blew", "screwed up", "flopped", "went belly-up", "fell through", "abandoned", or "betrayed". Any one of these words will fit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 2 Nov 2009 @ 10:22pm

The password is...part 2
Well, the word you are probably looking for is "reneged", which is a far less incendiary word. It only sounds like the other way you spelled it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2009 @ 10:27pm

Re: The password is...
Incorrect, sir. I am pointing out a severe problem in identifying, campaign promise that has been kept.

Perhaps you can point to some examples of campaign promises kept. At a basic level, I thought Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act would be shot down, and Glass-Steagall would be re-enacted within the first few months, instead it's this song and dance about Healthcare. Can they only do one thing at a time?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BackPackAdam (profile), 2 Nov 2009 @ 11:03pm

Re: Re: The password is...
Lucky for us you asked! Foxnews went ahead and did that exact thing for you:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/23/pub-obama-campaign-promises/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jaws4theRevenge, 2 Nov 2009 @ 11:20pm

Re: Re: Re: Who is the party of "getting shit done"?
Are you sure he wasn't using the word "reneged"?

re·nege (r-ng, -ng)
v. re·neged, re·neg·ing, re·neges
v.intr.
1. To fail to carry out a promise or commitment: reneged on the contract at the last minute.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sheinen, 3 Nov 2009 @ 3:22am

The guy explained his usage of the word, probably with the wrong spelling, and from the remainder of his post it was fairly obvious that he intended no racial hatred toward anyone. In fact he seemed to have Obama's back, which is probably the right stance.

I'm British so I have no clue what your problem is - Gordon Brown has the authority, wit, charm and managing power of a prune and we have to put up with the douche on a daily basis.

It's very easy to make campaign promises when your outside of the white-house. But the truth is, when you get there, your eyes must be opened to some pretty interesting facts. Facts which may render some of your previous idea's fairly stupid. If this point keeps coming back up there's probably a good reason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2009 @ 4:48am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is the party of "getting shit done"?
It's a Freudian slip misspelling. And it immediately undercuts any points he makes about ice cream.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2009 @ 4:54am

Re: Re: The password is...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Another good site for tracking Obama's successes and failures.

Of course, Obama will keep many promises, but he'll also break many. Just like George Bush, just like Clinton, etc.

The part that drives me crazy is that both major candidates lied like crazy in the debates. Their supporters here at work always justified their candidates lies while attacking the other candidate for the same thing.

In other words, the problem isn't the candidates. The problem is the people. People are content to vote for power hungry liars, so that's what we'll get.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rwahrens (profile), 3 Nov 2009 @ 5:03am

another possibility
Another possibility occurs to me.

Perhaps the Obama DOJ is taking this position in the hopes that the courts overturn the provisions of the Patriot Act that they object to.

If the DOJ just kills these cases, or lets them go through without testing this position, it will never get tested by the courts, and another Administration could continue to use it in the future.

If it gets tested NOW, and ruled unconstitutional by an appeals courts, then it is gone for good, and cannot be reused in the future.

This isn't the first time an Administration has done this by supporting a past Administration's policies in order to get them overturned in court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kevjohn, 3 Nov 2009 @ 5:52am

Re: Re:
The only thing harder than attaining Power is having to give it up. To do so willingly goes against human nature.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hegemon13, 3 Nov 2009 @ 8:16am

Re: Who is the party of "getting shit done"?
"I don't think it's The President himself, hit rather his incompetent administration that can't keep their eye on completing one single thing. Sure, we'll get HealthCare, but damn, it's going to be costly."

First of all, it is primarily Congress, not the Administration, that is working on the health care bill.

Second, saying "it's not the president, it's the Administration" is a bit disingenuous. After all, the president CHOOSES his administration. And, yes, I agree that he did a piss-poor job of it. And yes, he has reneged on nearly every campaign promise, especially those that mattered most (transparency and accountability).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TDR, 3 Nov 2009 @ 8:31am

Well, after all, his presidency was bought and paid for by the entertainment industry. This is what comes of it. Such an Obamination...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bulljustin (profile), 3 Nov 2009 @ 8:33am

Re:
Meet the new boss.
Same as the old boss.
[ link to this | view in thread ]