Stunning al-Haramain Filing Shames Obama; Shows Duplicity Of Officials

[flyarm]

Stunning al-Haramain Filing Shames Obama; Shows Duplicity Of Officials
By: bmaz Thursday July 9, 2009 12:35 pm http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/

In early June, a critical hearing was held in front of Judge Vaughn Walker in the al-Haramain warrantless wiretapping case. As a result of that hearing, Judge Walker entered an order commanding the attorney for plaintiffs al-Haramain et. al to file a motion for summary judgement. Hot off the press, the motion was filed minutes ago, and it is a stunning demonstration of just how disingenuous and two faced President Obama and his administration have been on the seminal issues of warrantless wiretapping, protection of Constitutional rights, transparency and accountability.

The first words in the main body of the motion are a stark reminder to President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder of the very words and promises they have spoken in the past on the issue of illegal wiretapping:

“Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional.”
President Barack Obama, December 20, 2007

“We owe the American people a reckoning.”
Attorney General Eric Holder, June 13, 2008

Apparently those words only were operative during the election, because that sure is not what Obama and Holder are saying and doing now. Instead, in pretty much as big of a Constitutional about face as is imaginable, Obama has decided to turn his back on his words and promises and throw his lot in with Bush and Cheney by asserting state secrets to protect the government from inquiry and accountability on its illegal and unconstitutional acts. It is not radical left wing bloggers saying that, it is distinguished US Senator Russell Feingold:


Of State Secrets, he said the Administration's repeated assertion of State Secrets in litigation was reminiscent of the Bush Administration. He alluded to the cases before Vaughn Walker, and complained that the invocation of State Secrets would prevent Americans from finding out what really went on with the warrantless wiretap program

Senator Feingold is exactly right in his quote.



read the rest at Emptywheel's blog........

[FreeJG]

1. kick & rec!

It is time now to hold them to their word!!!!

[rateyes]

2. This thread has had 14 recs and 4 unrecs at the time of this posting.

I find that very interesting. I won't be surprised if this very important story, because it is critical of the Obama administration, falls off the greatest page.

Make that now 14 recs and 5 unrecs.

[scheming daemons]

3. Actually... this thread is showing that threads critical of Obama CAN achieve "greatness"

if they're not snarky and based on a VALID criticism.


This thread shows that skinner's system works... and I'll gladly rec it.

[rateyes]

4. We'll see.

I hope you are right. And, my question is, why would ANYONE unrec this thread?

[subcomhd]

5. yeppers, this "cheerleader" gives it a big ol' K&R

[rateyes]

8. Wow. The number of votes on this thread jumped quickly

didn't they? I'm glad to see it climbing.

23 recs and 7 unrecs.

[scheming daemons]

12. So... hopefully all the teeth-gnasher about the new system will relax a little...

[rateyes]

6. Now, to the issue at hand. This really is disappointing that

a so-called progressive Democratic president would go back on his word when it comes to warrantless wiretapping and state secrets.

[subcomhd]

9. I don't know

It is wrong. They are wrong about this. At the very least they owe a better explanation for their switch.

[followthemoney]

7. Bucko Bomber changes positions like he ...

Changes clothes. He is not a chameleon at this stage because his admirers are willing to fill that role.

[Vidar]

10. K&R.

[pscot]

11. Aw c'mon. Obama's only been in office seven months

This is olitical jujitsu. You're thinking checkers and he's playing chess. If you can't hit his curve, what are you gonna do with his slider? You just don't understand the subtle way his mind moves. Capisce?

[followthemoney]

13. You stealin lines from Palin's resignation speech? nt

[pscot]

14. Heaven forfend!

That's a direct quote from another DUer.(wink,wink;nudge,nudge)

[followthemoney]

15. Tee hee! nt

[HamdenRice]

16. Article cited in the OP is illogical rubbish that misrepresents the Obama administration position

There is so much wrong about the article it's hard to know where to stand, but in general, like most of the hysterical anti-Obama and anti-Democratic Party "outrage" of late, it conflates the Bush administration and the Obama administration as some sort of fundamentalist, non-reality based article of faith to claim that Obama has somehow broken a promise.

It is dishonestly conflating and confusing two different issues -- warrantless wiretapping and state secrets privilege.

All the statements of candidate Obama referenced in the article are to the effect that he opposed warrantless wiretapping. To fulfill that "promise" or stance, all Obama had to do was stop the warrantless wiretapping program. No one has a shred of evidence that the program is continuing.

But stopping warrantless wiretapping is not the same as state secrets. In other words, it's perfectly consistent that the Obama administration ended the illegal program but nevertheless has concluded that disclosing certain technical information during civil actions over the Bush administration's program may harm national security.

That's not supporting or continuing warrantless wiretapping.

In fact, like most of the bullshit posted here of late, the OP article is based on a prediction of future behavior that hasn't even happened yet. As the DailyKos diary on this same topic points out, the Obama Justice Department hasn't even responded to the motion yet, so we don't know what their view is of the litigation:

http://dailykos.com/

This information <that the program was illegal> has been well known for years. The question now is whether Obama's Justice Department is going to continue to defend it. It hasn't commented yet on the filing. Walker will hear arguments on this filing on September 1.

[flyarm]

17. I believe bmaz who wrote it has been in court for most of the proceedings..

you might want to write him and tell him your objections, but for past articles he has written I believe it was brought out that he/she has been in court for most of the case proceedings.

And if you have a problem with what is written, please take it up with Emptywheel, she and her blog have done exemplary reporting on the case.

What i posted here was taken directly from Emptywheels blog, and was posted according to DU rules.

You can also see what KPETE also posted in this regard, here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3962067&mesg_id=3962067


If you care to read what The Washington Independent wrote you can find it here..i am now posting quotes from their article which refer to what was posted at emptywheel's blog.
( and a Thank you to Kpete for posting this article)

http://washingtonindependent.com/50268/terror-case-may-force-obamas-hand-on-state-secrets

Snip according to DU rules:

"The Justice Department did not respond to questions about whether it would contest the al-Haramain motion, and if so, what arguments it would use to oppose it. In the past, Walker has rejected the Justice Department’s claims that even ruling that al-Haramain has the standing to sue would endanger state secrets, and he may do so again. But if the administration seeks to shut the case down using the state secrets privilege, it may antagonize the Senate, where Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) have proposed legislation to restrain the government’s ability to invoke the privilege. Holder last month promised senators that the Justice Department would soon issue a new state secrets policy.

Eisenberg said he is curious to see whether the Obama administration would actually defend the warrantless surveillance activities of its predecessor. The motion seeks to put the administration in a bind by citing numerous statements from senior officials denouncing the Terrorist Surveillance Program as illegal and the constitutional arguments for it to be dubious.

“Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional,” the motion quotes then-Senator Obama telling the Boston Globe in December 2007. Similar statements recounted in the motion come from Holder; Solicitor General Elana Kagan; Kagan’s deputy Neal Katyal; Assistant Attorney General David Kris; and Associate Deputy Attorney General Donald Verrilli.

“What does Obama do?” Eisenberg said. “This is not just a question of hypocrisy. It’s a big constitutional mistake if he endorses Cheney’s theory of executive power.”

[mistertrickster]

18. I tried to warn the CONs that I knew that when they supported powers for

Bush, they supported powers for ANY DEMOCRATIC president that would later fill Bush's shoes.

Now listen to THEM cry and moan because Obama broke his promises.

Very few leaders are great enough to voluntarilly give up power once it has been established.

George Washington did it, when the Congress wanted to crown him king.

No one else springs to mind since then . . .

[mistertrickster]

19. We should be putting a lot of heat on Obama to live up to his promises. nt.