Warrentless Wire Taps

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Government opts for secrecy in wiretap suit

The Obama administration is again invoking government secrecy in defending the Bush administration's wiretapping program, this time against a lawsuit by AT&T customers who claim federal agents illegally intercepted their phone calls and gained access to their records.

Disclosure of the information sought by the customers, "which concerns how the United States seeks to detect and prevent terrorist attacks, would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security," Justice Department lawyers said in papers filed Friday in San Francisco.

Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a lawyer for the customers, said Monday the filing was disappointing in light of the Obama presidential campaign's "unceasing criticism of Bush-era secrecy and promise for more transparency."

In a 2006 lawsuit, the AT&T plaintiffs accused the company of allowing the National Security Agency to intercept calls and e-mails and inspect records of millions of customers without warrants or evidence of wrongdoing.

The suit followed President George W. Bush's acknowledgement in 2005 that he had secretly authorized the NSA in 2001 to monitor messages between U.S. residents and suspected foreign terrorists without seeking court approval, as required by a 1978 law.

Congress passed a new law last summer permitting the surveillance after Bush allowed some court supervision, the extent of which has not been made public. The law also sought to grant immunity to AT&T and other telecommunications companies from suits by customers accusing them of helping the government spy on them.

Nearly 40 such suits from around the nation, all filed after Bush's 2005 disclosure, have been transferred to San Francisco and are pending before Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker. He is now reviewing a constitutional challenge to last year's immunity law, which the Obama administration is defending.

Walker is also considering a challenge to the surveillance program by the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, a now-defunct charity that was inadvertently given a government document in 2004, reportedly showing that its lawyers had been wiretapped during an investigation that landed the group on the government's terrorist list.

The Obama administration is also opposing that suit and has challenged Walker's order to let Al-Haramain's lawyers examine the still-classified surveillance document.

The administration's new filing asks Walker to dismiss a second suit filed in September by AT&T customers that sought to sidestep the telecommunications immunity law by naming only the government, Bush and other top officials as defendants.

Like the earlier suit, the September case relies on a former AT&T technician's declaration that he saw equipment installed at the company's San Francisco office to allow NSA agents to copy all incoming e-mails. The plaintiffs' lawyers say the declaration, and public statements by government officials, revealed a "dragnet" surveillance program that indiscriminately scooped up messages and customer records.

The Justice Department said Friday that government agents monitored only communications in which "a participant was reasonably believed to be associated with al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization." But proving that the surveillance program did not sweep in ordinary phone customers would require "disclosure of highly classified NSA intelligence sources and methods," the department said.

Individual customers cannot show their messages were intercepted, and thus have no right to sue, because all such information is secret, government lawyers said. They also said disclosure of whether AT&T took part in the program would tell the nation's enemies "which channels of communication may or may not be secure."

If it was such an offense when Bush enacted it... why is it OK when Obama defends it and expands it?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Obama Administration quietly expands Bush's legal defense of wiretapping program

In a stunning defense of President George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, President Barack Obama has broadened the government's legal argument for immunizing his Administration and government agencies from lawsuits surrounding the National Security Agency's eavesdropping efforts.

In fact, a close read of a government filing last Friday reveals that the Obama Administration has gone beyond any previous legal claims put forth by former President Bush.

Responding to a lawsuit filed by a civil liberties group, the Justice Department argued that the government was protected by "sovereign immunity" from lawsuits because of a little-noticed clause in the Patriot Act. The government's legal filing can be read here (PDF).

For the first time, the Obama Administration's brief contends that government agencies cannot be sued for wiretapping American citizens even if there was intentional violation of US law. They maintain that the government can only be sued if the wiretaps involve "willful disclosure" -- a higher legal bar.

"A 'willful violation' in Section 223(c(1) refers to the 'willful disclosure' of intelligence information by government agents, as described in Section 223(a)(3) and (b)(3), and such disclosures by the Government are the only actions that create liability against the United States," Obama Assistant Attorney General Michael Hertz wrote (page 5).

Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is suing the government over the warrantless wiretapping program, notes that the government has previously argued that the government had "sovereign immunity" against civil action under the FISA statute. But he says that this is the first time that they've invoked changes to the Patriot Act in claiming the US government is immune from claims of illegal spying under any other federal surveillance statute.

"They are arguing this based on changes to the law made by the USA PATRIOT Act, Section 223," Bankston said in an email to Raw Story. "We've never been fans of 223--it made it much harder to sue the U.S. for illegal spying, see an old write-up of mine at: http://w2.eff.org/patriot/sunset/223.php --but no one's ever suggested before that it wholly immunized the U.S. government against suits under all the surveillance statutes."

Salon columnist and constitutional scholar Glenn Greenwald -- who is generally supportive of progressive interpretations of the law -- says the Obama Administration has "invented a brand new claim" of immunity from spying litigation.

"In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad 'state secrets' privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they 'willfully disclose' to the public what they have learned," Greenwald wrote Monday.

He also argues that the Justice Department's response is exclusively a product of the new Administration, noting that three months have elapsed since President Bush left office.

"This brief and this case are exclusively the Obama DOJ's, and the ample time that elapsed -- almost three full months -- makes clear that it was fully considered by Obama officials," Greenwald wrote. "Yet they responded exactly as the Bush DOJ would have. This demonstrates that the Obama DOJ plans to invoke the exact radical doctrines of executive secrecy which Bush used -- not only when the Obama DOJ is taking over a case from the Bush DOJ, but even when they are deciding what response should be made in the first instance."

"Everything for which Bush critics excoriated the Bush DOJ -- using an absurdly broad rendition of 'state secrets' to block entire lawsuits from proceeding even where they allege radical lawbreaking by the President and inventing new claims of absolute legal immunity -- are now things the Obama DOJ has left no doubt it intends to embrace itself," he adds.

Both the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union say the "sovereign immunity" claim in the context of the case goes farther than any previous Bush Administration claims of wiretap immunity.

Writing about the changes to the Patriot Act last year, the EFF asserted that revisions to the Act involved troubling new developments for US law.

"Unlike with any other defendant, if you want to sue the federal government for illegal wiretapping you have to first go through an administrative procedure with the agency that did the wiretapping," the Foundation wrote. "That means, essentially, that you have to politely complain to the illegal wiretappers and tip them off to your legal strategy, and then wait for a while as they decide whether to do anything about it before you can sue them in court."

Moreover, they said, "Before PATRIOT, in addition to being able to sue for money damages, you could sue for declaratory relief from a judge. For example, an Internet service provider could ask the court to declare that a particular type of wiretapping that the government wants to do on its network is illegal. One could also sue for an injunction from the court, ordering that any illegal wiretapping stop. PATRIOT section 223 significantly reduced a judge's ability to remedy unlawful surveillance, making it so you can only sue the government for money damages. This means, for example, that no one could sue the government to stop an ongoing illegal wiretap. At best, one could sue for the government to pay damages while the illegal tap continued!"

The Obama Administration has not publicly commented on stories that revealed their filing on Monday.

[Der Nister]

Government opts for secrecy in wiretap suit

If it was such an offense when Bush enacted it... why is it OK when Obama defends it and expands it?

It seems that you enjoy jumping to the conclusion that everyone else has already said that this is ok.

Why is that?

[phee]

It seems that you enjoy jumping to the conclusion that everyone else has already said that this is ok.

Why is that?

Same question... why do you think that everyone else has said this is okay?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

It seems that you enjoy jumping to the conclusion that everyone else has already said that this is ok.

Why is that?

Well, if it's not OK... Why is no one throwing fits like they did when Bush was in office? Where is the outrage? Not only has Obama defended the Warrentless Wire taps, he has expanded them. Yet, I don't see anyone throwing a fit over it. Yes, I made the assumption that somehow, giving up even more of our Constitutional Rights is somehow OK now.

If it's not, why are you attacking me and in affect defending this deplorable act rather than showing the outrage against Obama and his actions that you did against Bush?

[Rev.Reverence]

Government opts for secrecy in wiretap suit

If it was such an offense when Bush enacted it... why is it OK when Obama defends it and expands it?

It is not. This..I'll stand & say this is some BULLSHIT!

Were you offended when Bush activated it? OR did you think it was a necessary step?

I think to say 1 thing & to do another is one of the greatest Sins a man can perpetuate...other than lying to ones self.

(EDIT: I did start this responce at 9:00, I had to stop to assist Jr.Goat with some math {homework on Spring break?})

Edited April 16, 2009 by Rev.Reverence

[Der Nister]

If it's not, why are you attacking me and in affect defending this deplorable act rather than showing the outrage against Obama and his actions that you did against Bush?

How do you equate asking a simple question with an attack?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

For the same reason you took a question as an assumption.

Now, can you actually answer the questions I have posed rather than try to deflect the conversation?

Rev.

In answer. I only sort of support Warrentless Wire taps. If the call originates outside the US from a known terror operative... I agree with listening in on it. I also think a warrant needs to be issued within a reasonable amount of time of the wiretap.

If the government breaks the Law or violates a US citizens right, I do believe they should have means to sue.

In other words, I do support it under limited conditions that are fully outlined as long as there is recourse for anyone wronged by the act.

[phee]

If it was such an offense when Bush enacted it... why is it OK when Obama defends it and expands it?

Answer its not... why do you assume it is?

[Rev.Reverence]

For the same reason you took a question as an assumption.

Now, can you actually answer the questions I have posed rather than try to deflect the conversation?

Rev.

In answer. I only sort of support Warrentless Wire taps. If the call originates outside the US from a known terror operative... I agree with listening in on it. I also think a warrant needs to be issued within a reasonable amount of time of the wiretap.

If the government breaks the Law or violates a US citizens right, I do believe they should have means to sue.

In other words, I do support it under limited conditions that are fully outlined as long as there is recourse for anyone wronged by the act.

That I can not argue..but they weren't obeying their own words...

..which brings us to thew root of the REAL problem in D.C.

LIARS.

[Shade Everdark]

Well, if it's not OK... Why is no one throwing fits like they did when Bush was in office? Where is the outrage? Not only has Obama defended the Warrentless Wire taps, he has expanded them. Yet, I don't see anyone throwing a fit over it. Yes, I made the assumption that somehow, giving up even more of our Constitutional Rights is somehow OK now.

If it's not, why are you attacking me and in affect defending this deplorable act rather than showing the outrage against Obama and his actions that you did against Bush?

You know what they say about assuming, but you seem to be rather good at that.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Answer its not... why do you assume it is?

because by suddenly going silent on this issue after years of ranting against it, you are defacto supporting it.

Where is the outrage you were showing when Bush was doing this? Why is everyone suddenly a mute when Obama not only continues it, but goes even farther?

You silence says just as much as you words, if not more.

[ttogreh]

The warrantless wiretaps are unacceptable, no matter if a "D" or an "R" is after the President's name. With that settled, we can assume that unless Obama has a really good reason to pursue this potentially politically suicidal course of action, he would not be doing it. We can also assume that Obama will do his best to express this to an American public and to a rather more conservative supreme court as best that he is able to do so.

To be perfectly honest, if there are overseas calls or correspondences going from this country to people that are suspected of terrorism in other countries, I want the NSA to be all over that shit.

If there are domestic calls and correspondences going on between suspected terrorists, I want the FBI to be all over that shit.

And I want a FISA court to back these people up.

I honestly never understood why Bush never wanted to use the FISA court, or why Obama seems to want to not use it either. I suppose a certain personality is attracted to the position of the President. Let us hope Obama can rise above the temptations of his lesser demons, and work towards a country with the rule of law, again.

Edited April 16, 2009 by ttogreh

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

You know what they say about assuming, but you seem to be rather good at that.

Your only response is a mild insult. Nice.

[phee]

because by suddenly going silent on this issue after years of ranting against it, you are defacto supporting it.

Where is the outrage you were showing when Bush was doing this? Why is everyone suddenly a mute when Obama not only continues it, but goes even farther?

You silence says just as much as you words, if not more.

I have responded twice within this thread... and even stated that "it's not" how is that silent?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I have responded twice within this thread... and even stated that "it's not" how is that silent?

You first response was a question as to what my reasoning was.

Your second actually answered the question.. with a little enthusiasm as you could muster.

My question still stands. Where is the outrage that was shown when Bush was doing this? Why the sudden apathy?

[Slogo]

Gaf, it seems like you're actually hoping for nobody to be pissed about this so you can bitch at them. You'd be happy as a pig in shit if everyone on here said they don't mind if Obama does it (even though I don't think anyone here, myself included, seems to think that).

It seems like the typical conservative thing.

1. Get really really pissed about something

2. hope the other side disagrees with you

3. bitch at them for not agreeing with you (or in this case labeling them hypocrites, even though they aren't)

4. (Use only if the above steps fail) Give a speech using the words "Reagan" and "Nine-Eleven" as much as possible.

I made the last one up but you get my point

Even Keith Olberman is pissed about it

Edited April 17, 2009 by Slogo

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

It may seem, but it's not.

Show me some outrage. Give me one post. Just one.

So far, I have either seen apathy or attacks on me.

[phee]

It may seem, but it's not.

Show me some outrage. Give me one post. Just one.

So far, I have either seen apathy or attacks on me.

I am annoyed as all hell at the concept of warrentless wire taps no matter which face is behind it, Bush or Obama.

[Rev.Reverence]

It may seem, but it's not.

Show me some outrage. Give me one post. Just one.

So far, I have either seen apathy or attacks on me.

HEY!

I was neither apathetic NOR attacking you....have fun with your Martyr Complex

[Slogo]

Look at video #3

Olbermann angry at Obama

[phee]

Look at video #3

Olbermann angry at Obama

That counts as nobody lol

[Rev.Reverence]

That counts as nobody lol

Um...you should watch it anyways...it was talkin' about a whole buncha' older than BIG-O shit...the guest is who you need to listen to...I don't think they even talked about BIG-O...if they did..it wasn't but for a moment.

[phee]

Um...you should watch it anyways...it was talkin' about a whole buncha' older than BIG-O shit...the guest is who you need to listen to...I don't think they even talked about BIG-O...if they did..it wasn't but for a moment.

You misunderstand.... I was making a sarcastic comment on the over generallizing "its okay" and that "don't see anyone throwing a fit over it" So I guess Olbermann is a "nobody"

[Rev.Reverence]

You misunderstand.... I was making a sarcastic comment on the over generallizing "its okay" and that "don't see anyone throwing a fit over it" So I guess Olbermann is a "nobody"

OOOOOOOOOOh.....but I did not really see him "rip" into Obama...they talked a whole bunch about taps in the past being far more wide scale than was previously uncovered...even they wanted to tap a Congressman...