Obama is wire tapping?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

You first!

I assume this means you accepted my proof, but (as usual) have no balls to admit it, right?

You had better open one of them there links if you dare and you will see nothing has been accepted

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Here, you seem to need help so I will offer a story from a site you could visit.

Quote

Roundup: Media's Take
Mehdi Hasan: Barack W Bush ... Change we can't believe in

Source: New Statesman (UK) (10-8-09)

[Mehdi Hasan is senior editor (politics) of the New Statesman.]

On a cold February morning, less than three weeks after Barack Obama's inauguration as the 44th president of the United States, a lawyer from the department of justice stood up in a San Francisco courtroom to defend the government from accusations of torture. Five detainees, including the British resident Binyam Mohamed, had filed a suit against Jeppesen Dataplan Inc, a subsidiary of Boeing, for its alleged role in "extraordinary rendition", in which terrorism suspects are sent to third countries for detention, interrogation and - the plaintiffs claim - torture.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly criticised the Bush administration's treatment of detainees, its rendition policy and the use of the "state secrets" privilege to prevent classified information from being discussed in court. Writing in Foreign Affairs magazine in 2007, he had argued that building a "better, freer world . . . means ending the practices of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, of detaining thousands without charge or trial, of maintaining a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law".

But on that February morning, the government lawyer Douglas N Letter made the same "state secrets" argument for dismissing the case as the Bush administration had used in previous months. The legal position he was advancing on behalf of the government, Letter said, had been "thoroughly vetted with the appropriate officials within the new administration", and this was the "authorised" position.

As the prominent liberal blogger and lawyer Glenn Greenwald pointed out at the time, this was "the first real test of the authenticity of Obama's commitment to reverse the abuses of executive power over the last eight years". But Obama failed the test - and he did so not only in this instance, but in a number of similar court cases. Together, these cases suggest that his administration has no immediate or concrete plans to realise the hopes and dreams of liberals at home and abroad by rolling back the imperial overreach of the Bush era. On the contrary, in the field of counter-terrorism and on the issue of executive power as a whole, Obama has distressingly begun to resemble George W Bush.

Another San Francisco court case in February this year involved the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, a charity that the Bush administration accused in 2004 of supporting terrorism. The plaintiffs claimed that federal authorities had illegally listened in on their lawyers' phone calls. In 2007, Obama described Bush's warrantless wiretapping programme as "unlawful and unconstitutional", but two years later the Obama justice department again followed in the footsteps of Bush and tried to have the case dismissed on grounds of national security and protecting "state secrets".

“Obama has stepped into the shoes of President Bush," Jon Eisenberg, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told me. "He continues to assert the state secrets privilege to resist holdover lawsuits from the Bush era . . . in an attempt to prevent the judiciary from adjudicating on the legality of the warrantless wiretapping programme, and addressing the larger presidential power issues that the case presents." He added: "Change we can believe in? Nope."

The distance between Obama and Bush on a host of policies is not as great as many people might hope or have expected - and it appears to get narrower by the day. This should not, perhaps, come as a huge surprise. One reason for continuity between US presidents - even those who are, on the surface, as different as Bush and Obama - is the nature of the modern imperial presidency, at the apex of a bloated national-security state. As the historian Garry Wills pointed out recently in the New York Review of Books, the president "is greatly pressured to keep all the empire's secrets . . . he becomes the prisoner of his own power . . . a self-entangling giant".

Then there is the pattern of presidential candidates railing against the incumbent's record, only to find themselves sympathising with their predecessor's predicament and policies once they have taken his place. In 1952, as a candidate, Dwight Eisenhower denounced President Truman's policy of containment towards the Soviet Union, yet embraced it within six months of entering the White House. In 2000, Bush derided President Clinton's attempts at nation-building in Somalia and Bosnia, only to spend two terms trying to build new political structures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

During his inauguration, Obama, it is said, told Bush that he hoped to call on him for advice - and he has since spoken to his predecessor at least once. But there are those who would argue that it is absurd to compare the liberal Democrat Obama with the ultra-conservative Republican George Bush. And some would say it is unfair to hold Obama to account only nine months into his presidency. Others would point to the range of policies on which Obama has marked out new terrain: proposing health-care reform, taking climate change seriously, standing up to Wall Street and announcing an end to torture and the closure of Guantanamo Bay. On these and many other issues, his army of fans would argue, the president has shown the world his liberalism, his radicalism, his enthusiasm for change - that he is, in the words of the writer Michael Tomasky, "the anti-Bush".

But let us consider each of these in turn. Now is, in fact, an ideal time to pass an interim verdict on Obama's presidency, with the one-year anniversary of his election fast approaching. Previous presidencies, from FDR on, have been judged on their first 100 days in office: Obama has had more than 250, representing a fifth of his first - possibly only - presidential term...

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

You had better open one of them there links if you dare and you will see nothing has been accepted

Your links do not prove your point. Too bad you cannot grasp a "relative" concept.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

You had better open one of them there links if you dare and you will see nothing has been accepted

Your links do not prove your point. Too bad you cannot grasp a "relative" concept.

Talk about eyes wide shut

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Quote

Your links do not prove your point. Too bad you cannot grasp a "relative" concept.

Talk about eyes wide shut

Yeah, I can say it this way too. It is hard to find another way, besides skipping the 3rd grade math, why it is so difficult to understand that the government, which opened 100 documents to public is more open than the one, which only opened 99 documents to public - even though both of them still keep 10,000 documents classified, and will likely never open 9,000 of them. But, apparently, for you the government will only become open once the list of undercover spies is published on the CIA website together with their legend, pictures and personal information.

You Republicans sometime are so funny that I wish someone make a movie about you. Would be a nice comedy.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

OMG I'm a bad Christian because I insulted you.... I'm going to HELL!!!!!

It is impossible for you to insult me, don't praise yourself. I just pointed out that you claim you are Christian, and you are judging other people - even though your own lord and savior said something very explicit about it. Not to mention even the god does not judge anyone until the Judgment Day. Tells me a lot about what kind of Christian you actually are.
And, of course, you're not going anywhere, as there is no hell.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes.

I'd like to hear Andy or Lawrocket's opinion about it, but here is my understanding why: DOJ belongs to executive branch. They cannot change laws (it's up to legislative branch), and they cannot decide that the law is non-constitutional (it's up to judicial branch). Until the law is in the books, and is not repealed by the legislative branch nor struck down by the judicial branch, the role of DOJ is to support and enforce the existing law. Therefore what they do is basically expected behavior, and it would be naive to expect anything else from them.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I just pointed out that you claim you are Christian, and you are judging other people - even though your own lord and savior said something very explicit about it.

Really? Where did I claim that, George? Show me the post.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

There isn't yet, may never be. However the article mentions he is using Bush's exact same policies which according to the left were undeniably unconstitutional. If Obama uses em I'm sure it doesn't count though.

.

Ummm NO!

Bush was reigned in after the 2006 elections and ageed to put his secret unConstitutional warrantless wiretap program under FISA supervision. The 2007 Protect America Act et seq put safeguards in place which have been upheld as Constitutional by the courts.

There is NO evidence in this article that Obama is acting outside of the current rules that have been held to be Constitutional.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

You obviously didn't read what I wrote. But I'll repeat: it's not absolute, it's relative.

Absolutely:

Bush Patriot Act baaaaaad, Obama Patriot Act gooooood.

Correction. Bush original unConstitutional warrantless wiretapping baaaaaad. Bush after 2007 Protect America Act, et seq. ruled Constitutional by the courts, OK

Obama, inheriting later Bush Constitutional methods, OK too.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

There isn't yet, may never be. However the article mentions he is using Bush's exact same policies which according to the left were undeniably unconstitutional. If Obama uses em I'm sure it doesn't count though.

.

Ummm NO!

Bush was reigned in after the 2006 elections and ageed to put his secret unConstitutional warrantless wiretap program under FISA supervision. The 2007 Protect America Act et seq put safeguards in place which have been upheld as Constitutional by the courts.

There is NO evidence in this article that Obama is acting outside of the current rules that have been held to be Constitutional.

Really? So, the whole "state secrets" defense that you said was so bad when Bush did it, is now A-OK since Obama is doing it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There isn't yet, may never be. However the article mentions he is using Bush's exact same policies which according to the left were undeniably unconstitutional. If Obama uses em I'm sure it doesn't count though.

.

Ummm NO!

Bush was reigned in after the 2006 elections and ageed to put his secret unConstitutional warrantless wiretap program under FISA supervision. The 2007 Protect America Act et seq put safeguards in place which have been upheld as Constitutional by the courts.

There is NO evidence in this article that Obama is acting outside of the current rules that have been held to be Constitutional.

Really? So, the whole "state secrets" defense that you said was so bad when Bush did it, is now A-OK since Obama is doing it?

Having a little reading comprehension problem, are you?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Having a little reading comprehension problem, are you?

Not at all - I just read where Holder made exactly that argument in court. They also said the complaintants had no ground to sue due to sovereign immunity.

Then, of course, there's the bill that went forward a week or so back to re-authorize roving wiretaps, business record searches and suspect tracking.

But, hey...it's OBAMA now, so it's all good - right?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Having a little reading comprehension problem, are you?

Not at all - I just read where Holder made exactly that argument in court. They also said the complaintants had no ground to sue due to sovereign immunity.

Apparently you ARE having a comprehension problem.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[BDashe 0]

Quote

Quote

There isn't yet, may never be. However the article mentions he is using Bush's exact same policies which according to the left were undeniably unconstitutional. If Obama uses em I'm sure it doesn't count though.

.

Ummm NO!

Bush was reigned in after the 2006 elections and ageed to put his secret unConstitutional warrantless wiretap program under FISA supervision. The 2007 Protect America Act et seq put safeguards in place which have been upheld as Constitutional by the courts.

There is NO evidence in this article that Obama is acting outside of the current rules that have been held to be Constitutional.

potayto-potahto. There won't be evidence either because he is utilizing the state secrets privilege. I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase 'where there's smoke, there's fire?' There must be a subclause in there when it pertains to Obama that smoke means a blue watery oasis.

I dont think this is worth digging into and wasting money to prove that Obama is doing what any self respecting leader would do. I still think it is funny that A. He is doing exectly what he criticised to get liberal voter brownie points a year ago, and B. that the left is OK with it.

I don't blame the guy, the stuff needs to be done sometimes for national security, and needs to be kept secret to save face. Sure it is all speculative right now, but i mean if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's not a f*ckin elephant.

Edit: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9n5u8khGqNQT6DTlcKGV6ouKqfQD9BLULIG2

Last paragraph:

""The Obama administration has essentially adopted the position of the Bush administration in these cases, even though candidate Obama was incredibly critical of both the warrantless wiretapping program and the Bush administration's abuse of the state secrets privilege," said Bankston."

So there I was...

Making friends and playing nice since 1983