Obama goes to bat for Bush wiretap program

[defendandprotect]

Obama goes to bat for Bush wiretap program
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Obama "does not intend to use the state-secrets privilege to cover up illegal activities," said Justice Department attorney Anthony Coppolino. But in exceptional circumstances, he said, the president will invoke secrecy to protect "the sources and methods of detecting terrorist attacks ... the crown jewel of the United States national security administration."

Coppolino said the administration will cite national security in seeking dismissal of a lawsuit by telephone customers accusing the government of illegally intercepting phone calls and obtaining phone company records.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker heard about 90 minutes of arguments and said he would rule later.

The suit is similar to claims filed against AT&T and other telecommunications firms in 2006, following Bush's acknowledgement that he had authorized eavesdropping on Americans' communications with suspected foreign terrorists without seeking court approval.

Walker, in whose court the cases were consolidated, dismissed the suits earlier this year based on a 2008 law that shielded the companies from liability for alleged cooperation with surveillance that Bush had authorized.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/15/MN3U18PAU3.DTL

[atreides1]

1. Like I said in another thread

We'll have to learn to live with disappointments from this administration as well!

[defendandprotect]

2. I don't think our Constitution is advising us to "live with disappointments" . . . !!

[Political Heretic]

6. We don't have to "learn to live with" anything. It's not our job to passively accept what DC does.

Part of our job includes calling Washington politicians out on their bullshit and pressuring our people ceaselessly demanding that they better protect our interests.

That's not going to remove all disappointments, but its still our responsibility while we have this busted political system in place.

[timeforpeace]

9. We have to learn to live with this, but we wanted to impeach Bush for it. What a message.

[TheWatcher]

21. "As long as our football team does it, it's OK."

Of course, he can't possibly go to bat for single payer health care, or actually hold the criminals from the previous administration accountable for their crimes, end the wars, etc.

But hey, the spying can continue!

For our safety of course.

:eyes:

Oh and I know, chess, pony, unicorn, etc, etc, etc.

[Skittles]

63. it's not a disappointment, it is a TRAVESTY

[kentuck]

3. Not only should he go to bat for it...

He should use it to spy on mofo's like Limbaugh, Mark Levine, Savage, and all the other traitors in this country.

Just kidding, of course. :-)

[Buzz Clik]

4. We should have a contest

Who can find all the misleading aspects of your title?

You can make your point with far less hyperbole.

[Political Heretic]

7. "your title?" It's the title of the San Fransico Chronical newspaper piece.

[defendandprotect]

14. Thank you . . . I was just going to point that out to him . ..

I love the refrain that it is DU undermining Obama/Dems and that they ignore

what the world outside DU is saying, preferring to believe that DU progressives

are polluting the minds of readers here.

Reading your stuff -- good/interesting/right on!

[Buzz Clik]

18. So you object to the misleading title, too? Glad to hear it.

A lot of bullshit gets pushed around in the the titles of articles. Considering the titles of newspaper articles set the tone for the reader, I find it particularly annoying. It's good to see you agree.

[Political Heretic]

33. I object to you blaming the poster and not the author.

[Buzz Clik]

53. He's now openly endorsed the title of the OP. Your outrage is misdirected.

[defendandprotect]

40. Usually the BS comes from the right . . . but, IMO, this title isn't that far off --

[Buzz Clik]

52. I see. So, blaming you for the title isn't that far off.

No regrets, then.

[omega minimo]

62. It's far off discussing the actual issue and a ridiculous distraction from very important news.

[PassingFair]

5. Illegal surveillance now equals "Crown Jewel".

:cry:

[Cant trust em]

10. "the sources and methods of detecting terrorist attacks ..."

Is the crown jewel. I don't think its a good idea to make public the processes and tactics we use to detect terrorist attacks.

[PassingFair]

11. THIS is our CROWN JEWEL right here:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."



The rest is bullshit.

[Cant trust em]

12. "but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,"

Certainly there be a place where we can come together on the need to gather intelligence and the need to preserve our civil liberties.

I'm not an attorney, or a national security expert, but speaking in broad terms there has to be a way to get this done.

[PassingFair]

13. "but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,"

all of which were NOT used in the secret surveillance
of the US.

I am actually kind of ambivalent about data mining,
as long as some kind of warrant is issued before they
take a direct look at someone.

As it stands now, they don't even have to get
warrants AFTER THE FACT.

[Cant trust em]

15. Based on what I understand, the case to be made on warrantless wiretapping

is going to be made in September. I'll be watching that case like a hawk.

I think that we're pretty much on the same page in terms of our values and ideas about this policy. If there is going to be a program, it needs to be warranted and supervised by a judge.

[PassingFair]

16. No argument from me on that account.

:hi:

[Cant trust em]

19. Holy shit. Two people on DU when after initial disagreement

came to work it out.

Quick! Someone tell Skinner!

[defendandprotect]

25. "By a judge" . . .???? No . .. by Congress . . .

[Cant trust em]

29. Yes. I would be more likely to support congressional oversight. nt

[omega minimo]

66. There is. Don't let stand the illegal implementations of the previous criminal administration.

[defendandprotect]

27. Original FISA law was already in violation of that --

and came in response to Nixon/Watergate wiretapping --

would have been preferable to prosecute Nixon --

[Buzz Clik]

20. You might keep in mind that surveillance of this type has been on the books for decades.

The objection the Bush's use was bypassing the legal process.

[defendandprotect]

23. FISA was in response to Nixon wiretapping/Watergate . . . but was itself

a violation of the Constitution --

[PassingFair]

24. I know, right? FISA was BAD ENOUGH!

These bastards couldn't be bothered getting
warrants from a SECRET COURT, AFTER the spying
had commenced.

Cripes.

The ONLY reason is because they were spying
on political "enemies".

I don't think "our side" should do it, either.

[defendandprotect]

28. All was made retroactively OK . . . and this wiretapping began BEFORE 9/11 . . .

and they put one of the communications companies that said "No" out of

business . . . think it was QWest --??

They should have a lawsuit but probably couldn't afford it!!

[PassingFair]

32. They went after 5 or 6 of the officers!

The second thing Obama DID was to take
THAT case "off the table".

[defendandprotect]

43. Someone here at DU reported on this one company which is why

I know about it -- but I don't know EXACTLY what they did to them.

And, are you saying they tried to sue and OBAMA prevented it?

Thanks!

[PassingFair]

47. Apparently there is a hearing TODAY....

from an older article at EFF:

http://www.eff.org/cases/jewel

Obama's administration moved to
dismiss the case in April, I also
remember immunity being part of the
deal.

WIRED has followed this from the
onset:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/07/jewel/

[defendandprotect]

50. Thank you for two very interesting links . . .

Read one fairly quickly and was only able to breeze thru half of second --

But, it is great that many DU'ers stay in touch with alternative info and share it.

However -- is that QWest the company that was knocked out?
Or am I getting "national security" dizzy?

[PassingFair]

51. Nope, you're correct. It was QWEST.

http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSWEN674820070420

The Bush Feds also prosecuted a bunch of the
other corporate officers.

The had the guy, but really, what corporate
CEO COULDN'T they prosecute for "insider
trading" is they wanted to?

[defendandprotect]

54. Wow . . . this is certainly info I have to try to get back to later . .. thanks!!

[Political Heretic]

34. It's expansion of a very narrow scope with strict oversight deserves our opposition.

[omega minimo]

64. Why are you apologizing for Bushco crimes against the people and the Constitution?

[defendandprotect]

41. ...but notice wiretapping began 7 months BEFORE 9/11, therefore . . .

it would be outrageous to make any claim that it protected America!!!

In fact, the world had put the full plot in their laps and they were running
"Operation Ignore" -- which is why the Russians went to the United Nations
Security Council. They saw what was coming with Bushco ignoring the intelligence.

In August - just before 9/11 -- the United Nations sent their representatives to
the White House and to our intelligence agencies to alert them.

There's also this . . .

Walker, however, cited a recent inspector general's report on U.S. intelligence that said the surveillance was far broader than Bush had described and was on legally shaky ground.

Dum de dum dum . . ..

The Russians clearly cited 9/11 as "The Reichstag Fire in NYC" --

[FiveGoodMen]

8. Change we can be sure will never happen

We've been had.

Again.

[defendandprotect]

30. As long as right wing interests control government, you're right --!!!

[Cant trust em]

17. Does anyone know what information is sought in this lawsuit?

What the government would be required to disclose that they need to keep secret?

[Contrary1]

22. Well, there is one upside to this...

Every time the Republicons hear a click, or have a poor connection while on the phone,
they get to wonder just who is listening in...

[Cant trust em]

26. Is there a difference in implementing a program and defending the results?

It seems like the administration's argument is "we wouldn't have started the program, but now that it was in effect we're going to use the results".

[defendandprotect]

31. If the program is still active they can continue to wiretap . .. "results" are something else...???

[Cant trust em]

36. I think that one thing I'm trying to resolve

is how does the government show that the program is no longer inactive, while also not tipping their hand too much on what intelligence we're trying to gather.

[defendandprotect]

37. With a blanket of "national security" being used now by OBAMA to cover these

issues, I doubt there is any way to verify if the program is inactive now or ever?

On the other hand, I'm certainly not an authority on any of this and I think you
have to get that info elsewhere. Oftimes I find lawyers on Olbermann and Maddow
helpful -- on this stuff. Hate to refer you to the idiot box . . . but there is also
"Find Law" website.

Keep in mind, however, that Bush pretty much started the wiretapping the day he walked
into the White House -- presumably this was set up before they even arrived!
Indeed, it was in full swing 6-7 months BEFORE 9/11.

Therefore, when you look at the article and any claims that this wiretapping/intelligence
protected Americans in anyway, you see the outright fabrication!

I'll try to find the quote on that for you -- I was planning to highlight it in another
post.

Here --
But in exceptional circumstances, he said, the president will invoke secrecy to protect "the sources and methods of detecting terrorist attacks ... the crown jewel of the United States national security administration."

Well, of course, it did start 7 months BEFORE 9/11 -- and wasn't much in the way of a "crown jewel"
in protecting US from the alleged hijackers, was it -- ????

[Cant trust em]

44. Well, I think the point of the quote

essentially says that we can't let people know how we are trying to keep the country safe. If we let too much out, then it will give hostile actors some possibly needed information.

Thanks for the reference to that website. I'll definitely check it out as I try to make some sense of this issue.

We should all mark Sept. 1 on our calendars. That is the date that the court is expected to hear DOJ's arguments if warrantless wiretapping is legal or not.

[defendandprotect]

45. What bother knowing which program . . . point is didn't protect us from 9/11 . . .

The "hostile actors" of course were in the White House --

[Cant trust em]

46. Right. I think that the quote is a very broad, statement.

We should be sifting out bad programs, but I think it's fair for the government to reserve a modicum of secrecy. Without talking about any specifics, that's the theme I think we should be looking at.

[defendandprotect]

48. Okay . .. so you're looking for release of info without disclosing details of program?

[Cant trust em]

49. Honestly, I don't know enough about the issue to give a detailed answer

I can only speak in general guiding principles. I think that it's a difficult issue to balance. How much transparency is too much transparency.

[defendandprotect]

55. Disagree . . . the American public can be trusted when it is well informed on issues . . .

when we have widespread fearmongering and issues like this hidden, it doesn't help

democracy.

[Cant trust em]

56. So you think that it is good policy

To release to the public how we gather information and the type of information we're looking for?

What about the possibility that terrorists will use that information to change their routines, thus making it more difficult for us to suss them out?

I don't believe that the war on terror is entirely a phony war. There are real dangers out there and we need to be ready for them. I don't believe that being careful is fearmongering.

[defendandprotect]

57. This is massive surveillance -- they're looking for everything. . .

NOTHING is that fragile that it can't be divulged at least in good part --
and from what we've seen of past corruption -- and as OBAMA LARGELY AGREED WHEN HE
WAS RUNNING FOR OFFICE -- we need more transparency, not less.

Bushco succeeded because they could keep everything secret.

We have created the "terrorism" -- up and down the line to make Americans think that
they are unsafe and require a "war on terrorism."

History should point you towards questioning your own government and especially this
last 8 years of lies, repeated lies -- outrageous lies.
WMD/Mushroom clouds ...

and, keep in mind that this wiretapping began BEFORE 9/11 . . . that's the transparency
you need to keep in mind.

[Cant trust em]

58. "at least in good part"

That is where we agree. But what is that part?

I think that transparency is a great thing. But I don't want transparency to disrupt a properly run investigation either.

Again, I'm not defending a specific practice or policy. But these are just my broad, guiding principles.

[defendandprotect]

59. Divulge the info to the Congress . .. to a panel and let them decide. . .

As you can see all of the intelligence has been limited now even to the Intelligence Committee!!!!

Used to be everyone was informed -- now only 8.

Again -- nothing is that fragile --

and again -- this was MASSIVE SURVEILLANCE . . . they weren't picky . . .

they picked up everything.

Gotta move on now . . . bye

[Cant trust em]

60. Great. I appreciate your perspective. nt

[Echo In Light]

35. The thing is, when you consider the fact that it's a phony "war," what does that say about this?

Exactly

[defendandprotect]

38. It's another phony war hiding behind "national security" blanket . . .

and everything else that came after 9/11 is hiding behind that, as well.

Keep in mind that the wiretapping began 7 months BEFORE 9/11 so any claims
that the intelligence protected America is outright blasphemy!

Walker, however, cited a recent inspector general's report on U.S. intelligence that said the surveillance was far broader than Bush had described and was on legally shaky ground.

And that also gives us lots more to worry about --
It would be interesting to see again Nixon's long list of those he wiretapped . . .
including Kissinger -- he pretty much had Kissinger's pj's wiretapped!

[omega minimo]

65. And what does it say that the 2008 law the article cites was created AFTER the crimes to protect

corporate communications accomplices? :thumbsdown:

[Tim01]

39. Maybe it is OUR lives which are going to be more transparent.

I thought it was going to be about the government. I guess I was confused about that.

[solstice]

42. Who didn't see this coming? Obama doesn't give a shit about civil liberties any more than Bush did.

And there is no other way to spin this.

[omega minimo]

67. and the thread drops ...................... ....................

[omega minimo]

61. .

[Truth2Tell]

68. K&R. Obama never really disagreed

with Bush on these issues. Anyone who thought he did was fooling themselves. He voted in the Senate to cover this up while he was running.

Still sucks to see the same ol crap in action.