Obama Administration Supports Telco Spy Immunity

[kpete]

Source: Wired

Obama Administration Supports Telco Spy Immunity
By David Kravets EmailFebruary 26, 2009 | 1:17:02 PMCategories: Surveillance

The Obama administration vigorously defended congressional legislation late Wednesday that immunizes U.S. telecommunication companies from lawsuits about their participation in the Bush administration's domestic spy program.

It was the first time the Obama administration weighed in on a federal court challenge questioning the legality of the legislation President Barack Obama voted for as an Illinois senator in July. "Accordingly, the court should now promptly dismiss these actions," the Justice Department wrote (.pdf) U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco late Wednesday.

Obama opposed immunity but voted for it because it was included in a new spy bill that gave the U.S. presidency broad, warrantless-surveillance powers.

Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said in a statement that the immunity bill "is the law of the land, and as such the Department of Justice defends it in court."

Read more: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/02/obama-adminis-1.html

[ixion]

1. so... that's change, eh?

We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're still wiretapping without warrants, the Constitution is still in shambles... but hey, the bankers got their bonuses this year, so all is right with the world.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Hold on to your panties.

As you will be proven incorrect in your underestimation of the change we are and we will get.

Talk to me next year about "what Change?"

[saracat]

4. What does that have to do with this being a betrayal of our constitutional rights?

[ixion]

6. yeah, I'll be looking for you in a year, so you can eat crow

because nothing will have changed.

[Frank Booth]

23. I see you haven't bothered reading about the budget.

[ixion]

51. I'm talking about restoring our republic

not the budget... without the republic, the budget can go to hell for all I care.

[movonne]

56. I always have to wonder when some on here jump right on the

bandwagon against something or another Obama does that day...

[midnight]

13. Dispite strong constitutional objections from Sen. Feingold,

President Obama said that he would be voting for this because there would be watchers watching the watchers. If you know what next year has to do with this immunity, I sure would appriciate your info.

[No Elephants]

49. Apparently, Senator Feingold belongs to the Democratic wing of the

Democratic Party. Given that, I'm surprised he's still in the Senate. And I sure do hope he keeps a very healthy distance from aircraft. But, I digress.

As to what next year has to do with this immunity, I;ll answer that with a question:


How would Obama ever get the telcos to spy for Obama now and in the future if Obama allows anyone to hold the telcos liable for spying for Bush in the past?

Besides, Obama voted for this less than a year ago. Sure, he said then that he would fix everything once he got into the Oval Office and, sure I believed him then, but that's my problem, not Obama's.

Next question?

Never thought I'd say this, but:


How I wish that Nader were a better candidate!

Say, any chance of Feingold's ever running for President?

[CountAllVotes]

3. he was against before he voted for it

Obama opposed immunity but voted for it because it was included in a new spy bill that gave the U.S. presidency broad, warrantless-surveillance powers.

Same old sh*t different day. :wtf:

:dem: :kick:

[Metta]

5. This is bad karma. He's getting bad advice from his intel people.

just shaking my head.

[chill_wind]

22. This is Eric Holder n/t

[No Elephants]

29. Yep. Eric Holder , Obama's AG, who works for and is answerable to, his boss, Obama. Wasn't

that the reason no one was supposed to be concerned with whether Obama appointed only conservatives, be they conservative Democrats or conservative Republicans--that Obama is the boss of all of them and they would have to his bidding or get fired?

And that is true. Obama's political appointees do indeed have to do Chief Executive Obama's bidding or get fired. So, unless and until Obama steps in, this is Obama's AG appointee, Eric Holder, acting and speaking for President Obama. Ditto all the other appointees, including Gates.

Hail to the Chief, with whom the buck stops.

[ooglymoogly]

7. The straw that broke the donkeys back nt

[Mr. Sparkle]

8. Unbelieveable !!

[Elidor]

9. Looking back to June of 2008...

Obama said there is "little doubt" that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, "has abused authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders."

"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program.

"{The bill} 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://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/21/politics/horserace/entry4200105.shtml

I wonder if Obama still feels that the Bush admin abused its authority and undermined the constitution?

One of Obama's biggest positives has been that he hadn't been in Washington long and that "they" - the great gray omnipotent They - hadn't gotten to him yet. It looks like some of them have now gotten to him.

[No Elephants]

18. I recall that statement. I defended Obama's FISA vote on the basis of that statement. I am done

defending Obama.

But, we do we do?

Somehow, the people have to find a way to come together against the huge country and take concerted and EFFECTIVE action.

[biopowertoday]

58. yes, I recall Obama saying he would fight the immunity clause.

[sniffa]

10. Where's the Obamarage!!?

[Old Codger]

11. Really

Anyone really think they are going to give up a power like that? They are pols, that is what pols do, Obama is a comparatively good guy for what I have seen so far but he is still a politician and politicians are in it for the power, no other reason to do it. So his admin. will keep as much of the illegal power as they can....

[keopeli]

12. I just wrote the WH to ask them to explain and clarify

I can imagine a couple of scenarios where these actions might still square with Obama's stated principles, but no explanation or policy revision has been forthcoming.

I think that a bold departure from Obama's stated intent is worthy of an explanation.

Peace

[bertman]

14. What's most galling about this is the warrantless spying STARTED BEFORE 9-11.

These Telcos/Telecoms rushed in to help BushCo keep tabs on EVERYONE even before there was a terrorist event that would supposedly justify such a sordid action.

NO FUCKING AMNESTY!! I find the "it's law so we have to back it" argument absolutely reprehensible.

Get out your pens and paper and start writing. Whitehouse.gov

This needs to be reversed or we will continue into an even more oppressive police state than we have now.

[No Elephants]

27. The Constitution is the issue, regardless of when the massive, unauthorized wiretaps began. The

timing is easily justifiable because the purpose of the wiretaps is supposedly to get info that may enable the feds to prevent a future attack, not simply to investigate attacks that have already occurred.

Moreover, terrorist events have been ongoing since at least the Munich Olympics, including attacks on U.S. ships and embassies abroad. Anyone should have realized that attacks on our own soil were coming.

The first terrorist attack on our soil (that the general public knows of), which was also the first attack on the WTC, was in 1993, not 911.


I do not fault government for not waiting until the horse was out of the barn before taking steps to protect us. To the contrary, I fault government for not taking better measures and sooner. However, none of that justifies violating the Constitution.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

52. A point that always needs to be made. April, 2001, iIrc.

[acmavm]

15. Bwahahahahahah!

[MasonJar]

16. That is absurd. Obama opposed the spying but supported the bill

because it gave the president more powers to spy without warrants????????????? And now he is going to court against those who want their Constitution back. And I say BULL to the Justice Dept.'s argument. If they think a bill is bad, they do not have to go to court and support it. Obama is digging himself deeper and deeper into a chasm, which is recognized by the marker, "NO CHANGE HERE."

[No Elephants]

28. He voted for the bill, saying he had no choice, but that he would work with Congress. once he was

President, to replace the bill with better, Constitutional legislation.

At the time, I believed him and used that promise to fight his detractors. I guess I owe some people some apologies.

[nc4bo]

54. I argued the same points that you did and actually

had hope that he would keep his word on this.

sigh.......very disappointing.

[No Elephants]

55. I had more than hope. I totally believed him in July when he said he would remedy his FISA

vote after he got into the White House. Instead, he's only re-affirmed it at every turn.

So far, I have very mixed feelings. I am very proud and pleased with some things and appalled by others.

[ananda]

17. Not good... v e r y bad actually.

I really hate the imperial presidency.

[Zhade]

19. This is some fucking BULLSHIT.

NT!

[Jefferson23]

20. What a huge mistake, OMG!

[chill_wind]

21. Eric Holder- January 15: Will vigorously defend immunity

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/01/obama-to-fight.html

[chill_wind]

24. Emptywheel (analysis)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x428755

[No Elephants]

47. The article linked in that thread is at

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/26/obamas-two-ifs-on-fisa-heads-i-win-tails-you-lose/

The last Democratic President before debating the meaning of "is." Now Obama debates the meaning of "if." I can hardly wait for the next Democratic admin to enlighten us on the meaning of "it."

[dmosh42]

25. This is why amendments to the US Constitution are added....

There needs to be a grass roots drive to have an amendment that outlines when and if the gov't is allowed to wiretap communications.

[Solly Mack]

26. I'm reminded of Frederick Douglass

Hmmm. Need more coffee.

[No Elephants]

30. So, what is the action item here? Contribute {more} to the ACLU?

[villager]

31. Obama Administration Supports Telco Spy Immunity

Source: Wired

Obama Administration Supports Telco Spy Immunity

By David Kravets

The Obama administration vigorously defended congressional legislation late Wednesday that immunizes U.S. telecommunication companies from lawsuits about their participation in the Bush administration's domestic spy program.

It was the first time the Obama administration weighed in on a federal court challenge questioning the legality of the legislation President Barack Obama voted for as an Illinois senator in July. "Accordingly, the court should now promptly dismiss these actions," the Justice Department wrote (.pdf) U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco late Wednesday.

Obama opposed immunity but voted for it because it was included in a new spy bill that gave the U.S. presidency broad, warrantless-surveillance powers.

Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said in a statement that the immunity bill "is the law of the land, and as such the Department of Justice defends it in court."

Walker is weighing a challenge to the immunity legislation in a lawsuit brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation of San Francisco. Congress crafted the bill after Walker refused to dismiss separate challenges brought by EFF accusing the nation's telecoms of violating the rights of millions of Americans for allegedly funneling electronic communications to the National Security Agency without warrants.

The EFF claims Congress was prohibited from legalizing what the EFF termed was unconstitutional activity by the telecommunication companies. The government claimed immunity was necessary because the spying allegations threatened to expose state secrets.

The administration's legal move should come as no surprise. During his January confirmation hearings, Attorney General Eric Holder told senators that the Obama administration would defend telco immunity. "Unless there are compelling reasons, I don't think we would reverse course," Holder said.

<snip>


Read more: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/02/obama-adminis-1.html

---

Alas...

[EraOfResponsibility]

32. opening the outraged floodgates in 4....3....2....1

[John Q. Citizen]

44. I'm happy Obama is working with the bush administration to let telcos spy on us.

As I'm sure you are too.

The people opposing it just hate bush and Obama.

[No Elephants]

48. Obama is joining the Bush adminstration in using telcos to spy on us.

[nebenaube]

33. This of course...

Infers that TIA is still out there growing more omniscient by the day as the signal splitting continues. Wonderful. At least we'll be able to buy tera-byte harddrives for pennies a meg.

[sniffa]

34. Where's the Obamarage!!?

Oh, and dupe.

[Myrina]

35. "Unless there are compelling reasons, I don't think we would reverse course,"

... the compelling reason would be that WIRETAPPING AND SPYING ON CITIZENS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!! :nuke: :nuke:

[Politicalboi]

36. And how do they get away with this shit?

Anyone! Anyone! Buford? They are going to invoke 9/11 of course. 9/11 still taking away our freedoms over a fairy tale scenario. If WE are going to lose freedoms WE deserve to have the whole story. How did NORAD fail? Where are the other video's of the Pentagon attack? How did they ID the 19 "terrorist" who weren't on the flight list? Who gave the DNA to be tested for the "terrorist". How come 9/11 isn't listed on the FBI list for Osama bin Laden? There are so many other questions but these would help for starters.

[villager]

46. Because we let them?

:shrug:

[scytherius]

37. I still support Obama in spades, but this is horrible. n/t

nt

[peacetalksforall]

38. I don't care what Obama says about this - IT IS WRONG!!!! It is morally inhuman. I will never

give into Obama or Holder. Immunity and the Patriot Act are the worst things that have happened to us in our personal lives side by side with our broken hearts caused by our leaders - the torture, the massacres, the thefts, the lies, the deaths, the destruction, the maiming, the suicides, the stealing and hording.

Everything that comes from that data should never be used against any citizen if it is has nothing to do with terrorists. It should be purged, it is lives stolen.

Obama is WRONG! He was wrong for voting for it - for making it law. He is wrong for perpetuating that law. Morally, humanely wrong.

[Svafa]

39. This is at best extremely disappointing...

I disagree with Obama on many foreign policy issues but I had high hopes for him on many fronts, including the restoration of the civil liberties that were taken from us by the bush administration. I am disappointed and outraged that Obama would stick with such an unethical, unconstitutional policy.

[PSPS]

40. As each day goes by in his presidency, Obama disappoints more and more.

President Milquetoast.

What's also disappointing is how his rabid sycophants continue to come to his defense even as he casually tramples on their constitutional rights. Personally, I'd prefer to have a real american as president -- one who actually believes in, upholds and defends the constitution.

[iandhr]

41. Think how you would have reacted to McCain

We would already be at war with Iran.

[biopowertoday]

42. I would expect it from McCain!! but NOT Obama. Crap!!

[Prospero1]

43. Very disappointing.

I expect such crap from the Bush crime family but where is the "change" we were sold on? By supporting this blatant trampling of the constitution Obama, like Bush, is violating his oath of office. I suggest that those who fear terrorists more than they value their rights move someplace safe, like China or Saudi Arabia.

[captainjack08]

45. If they stop spying on Americans...

...who is going to do the work of blackmailing the wimpy dems like Pelosi and Feinstein into compliance.

They are not spying on terrorists. They are spying on Americans. They were spying on the 9/11 hijackers before 9/11 in the USA and a host of other countries and no one stopped them. 9/11 still occured. Able Danger watched and didn't stop them. The CIA watched and didn't stop them. Germany watched and didn't stop them. Poland watched and didn't stop them. Spain watched and didn't stop them. The FBI infiltrated them with informants, watched and didn't stop them.

They are spying on Americans to make sure you will bend over backwards for the next big war. Remember the defense contractor connections to the Porter Goss, Foggo and prostitute thing? Remember Spitzer and the prostitute thing? Getting compromised and blackmailed is the name of the game.

[No Elephants]

50. What about a "Draft Feingold" movement?

[AyanEva]

53. This is the one thing that I STRONGLY disagree with him on

I just don't understand WHY you would even think about voting for or supporting this. It makes no sense at all.

[biopowertoday]

57. Obama Justice Department signals it will go to the Supreme Court to defend the Bush Administration

X-posted.


Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject Obama Justice Department signals it will go to the Supreme Court to defend the Bush Administration
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5155951#5155951
5155951, Obama Justice Department signals it will go to the Supreme Court to defend the Bush Administration
Posted by kpete on Sat Feb-28-09 05:31 PM

Sen. Whitehouse: Before We Can Repair the Harm, We Must Learn the Truth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGt87QKPpHs&eurl=http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/27/whitehouse-before-we-can-repair-the-harm-we-must-learn-the-truth /

Obama DOJ Signals It Will Continue To Fight For Bush Invocation Of "State Secrets" Privilege
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/2/28/12755/2372
By Big Tent Democrat, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 11:07:55 AM EST

Via Greenwald,

The Obama Justice Department signals it will go to the Supreme Court to defend the Bush Administration's invocation of the "state secrets" privilege in the Jeppesen rendition case.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/28/al_haramain/index.html

The AP reports:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/02/27/washington/AP-Warrantless-Wiretaps.html?_r=3

The Obama administration has lost its argument that a potential threat to national security should stop a lawsuit challenging the government's warrantless wiretapping program. A federal appeals court in San Francisco on Friday rejected the Justice Department's request for an emergency stay in a case involving a defunct Islamic charity.

Yet government lawyers signaled they would continue fighting to keep the information secret, setting up a new showdown between the courts and the White House over national security.


..............

(Emphasis supplied.) Greenwald writes:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/28/al_haramain/index.html
One of the worst abuses of the Bush administration was its endless reliance on vast claims of secrecy to ensure that no court could ever rule on the legality of the President's actions.

They would insist that "secrecy" prevented a judicial ruling even when the President's actions were (a) already publicly disclosed in detail and (b) were blatantly criminal -- as is the case with the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program, which The New York Times described on its front page more than three years ago and which a federal statute explicitly criminalized.

Secrecy claims of that sort -- to block judicial review of the President's conduct, i.e., to immunize the President from the rule of law -- provoked endless howls of outrage from Bush critics.

Yet NOW, the Obama administration is doing exactly the same thing. Hence, it is accurately deemed "a blow to the Obama administration" that a court might rule on whether George Bush broke the law when eavesdropping on Americans without warrants. Why is the Obama administration so vested in preventing that from happening, and -- worse still -- in ensuring that Presidents continue to have the power to invoke extremely broad secrecy claims in order to block courts from ruling on allegations that a President has violated the law?


I have no adequate answers to Glenn's questions.
The Obama Administration's behavior on this matter is simply indefensible.

(we can do better, kp)

[struggle4progress]

59. OMG! The Justice Department is taking the position that rule of law actually matters

Yeah, it's a lousy law -- but personally I got kind of tired of the previous gang ignoring anything they didn't like