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

[red states rule]

Where are all the libs who wanted Bush impeached and put on trial for his wiretapping program?

It is amazing the protection a "D" at the end of a politicans name can provide with proud memebrs of the kook left. I have not sen anything in the NY Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, or even CNN about this



Obama Administration quietly expands Bush's legal defense of wiretapping programJohn Byrne
Published: Tuesday April 7, 2009


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.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_Administration_quietly_expands_Bushs_legal_0 407.html

[theHawk]

Yet another 180 from King Hussien.

[April15]

Yet another 180 from King Hussien.
Perhaps you might read the papers before spiting out words.

[Kathianne]

Perhaps you might read the papers before spiting out words.

Well a link? Seems there was one in op, you have better?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6jSUHVUgJFc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6jSUHVUgJFc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[April15]

Well a link? Seems there was one in op, you have better?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6jSUHVUgJFc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6jSUHVUgJFc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I do not have sound.

[Kathianne]

I do not have sound.

Well then you use a sucky system, no problem here.

[bullypulpit]

In November of 2008 President Obama was elected to the office of President of the United States by me, and millions of other Americas, on a platform of hope and change. But recently, it seems to be more a case of "Meet the new boss...Same as the old boss".

It began with the reluctance of the Obama administration to live up to its duties in investigating the Bush administration for its apparent violation of US and international human rights law regarding the abuse of detainees in US custody. Now the administration seems to not only be siding with the late, unlamented Bush administration, but are actively seeking to expand the authority they claimed to conduct domestic surveillance operations on US citizens without a warrant! This in response to the lawsuit filed by the <a href=http://www.eff.org/press/releases>Electronic Frontier Foundation</a>.

The motion submitted by the DOJ does nothing short of gutting the Fourth Amendment, and all in the name of "state secrets" and "sovereign immunity". It should not be necessary for me...a layman...to point out that a right unenforced is no right at all. Secondly, using the doctrine of "state secrets" and "sovereign immunity" as a means of preventing the investigation of a crime is no better than complicity in that crime. And thirdly, one does not support and defend the Constitution by gutting it's provisions

Make no mistake, the Obama administration has been doing some good things. But, as we said in the Navy, "One 'Awww shit!' wipes out all of your 'Attaboy!'s". In this case the Obama administration has a MAJOR "Awww shit!" on its hands with this motion to dismiss the lawsuit by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

[bullypulpit]

I do not have sound.

Follow my link in the previous post.

[red states rule]

In November of 2008 President Obama was elected to the office of President of the United States by me, and millions of other Americas, on a platform of hope and change. But recently, it seems to be more a case of "Meet the new boss...Same as the old boss".

It began with the reluctance of the Obama administration to live up to its duties in investigating the Bush administration for its apparent violation of US and international human rights law regarding the abuse of detainees in US custody. Now the administration seems to not only be siding with the late, unlamented Bush administration, but are actively seeking to expand the authority they claimed to conduct domestic surveillance operations on US citizens without a warrant! This in response to the lawsuit filed by the <a href=http://www.eff.org/press/releases>Electronic Frontier Foundation</a>.

The motion submitted by the DOJ does nothing short of gutting the Fourth Amendment, and all in the name of "state secrets" and "sovereign immunity". It should not be necessary for me...a layman...to point out that a right unenforced is no right at all. Secondly, using the doctrine of "state secrets" and "sovereign immunity" as a means of preventing the investigation of a crime is no better than complicity in that crime. And thirdly, one does not support and defend the Constitution by gutting it's provisions

Make no mistake, the Obama administration has been doing some good things. But, as we said in the Navy, "One 'Awww shit!' wipes out all of your 'Attaboy!'s". In this case the Obama administration has a MAJOR "Awww shit!" on its hands with this motion to dismiss the lawsuit by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

BP it is something watching the liberal mind work and listening to what is important to them

You support Obama's promise to release terrorists who want you and your family dead by closing GITMO - yet you lose your hardon when Obama will not toss a former US President in jail for defending America from those same terrorists

It probably never entered your closed mind that since Obama is now President he knows what pres Bush knew about the terrorists and their operations - and Obama now knows Pres Bush was CORRECT in his actions to defend America

[red states rule]

Perhaps you might read the papers before spiting out words.

Where are the terrorist coddeling Obamanotswho constantly whining about Bush's wiretaps now?

The one's who said this was such an intrusion on liberty that it couldn't be tolerated?

Suddenly they've found themselves having no problem tolerating it :lol:

[bullypulpit]

BP it is something watching the liberal mind work and listening to what is important to them

You support Obama's promise to release terrorists who want you and your family dead by closing GITMO - yet you lose your hardon when Obama will not toss a former US President in jail for defending America from those same terrorists

It probably never entered your closed mind that since Obama is now President he knows what pres Bush knew about the terrorists and their operations - and Obama now knows Pres Bush was CORRECT in his actions to defend America

And just like Bush...one does not support and defend the Constitution by gutting it's provisions...That's something you'll never understand. It doesn't matter if it's US citizens or terrorists the law applies to all or it applies to none.

[red states rule]

And just like Bush...one does not support and defend the Constitution by gutting it's provisions...That's something you'll never understand. It doesn't matter if it's US citizens or terrorists the law applies to all or it applies to none.

I understand perfectly BP. Your hate for fellow Americans who have a different POV is greater then the hate you have for terrorists that want you and your family DEAD

In your mind conservatives are bigger threat to America then the killers who attacked the nation on 9-11

[glockmail]

In November of 2008 President Obama was elected to the office of President of the United States by me, and millions of other Americas, on a platform of hope and change. But recently, it seems to be more a case of "Meet the new boss...Same as the old boss"..... Wow a liberal who doesn't defend Obama. Watch your back pal.

[red states rule]

Wow a liberal who doesn't defend Obama. Watch your back pal.

BP might get a dead fish mailed to him from the White House

[bullypulpit]

I understand perfectly BP. Your hate for fellow Americans who have a different POV is greater then the hate you have for terrorists that want you and your family DEAD

In your mind conservatives are bigger threat to America then the killers who attacked the nation on 9-11

Go pack your ass with sand Red. Perhaps it will stop the flux of pure shit you post.

[red states rule]

Go pack your ass with sand Red. Perhaps it will stop the flux of pure shit you post.

Thanks for making my point BP. You do even attempt to refute my post about how you feel about people that have a different POV and how you feel about terrorists that want you dead

Where's the outrage BP? I seem to recall were ready to march on Washington and many of you were screaming impeachment. You still want Bush tossed in a jail cell

BTW, did I miss the repeal of the Patriot Act? Are poor citizens still having their public library records analyzed?

[bullypulpit]

Thanks for making my point BP. You do even attempt to refute my post about how you feel about people that have a different POV and how you feel about terrorists that want you dead

Where's the outrage BP? I seem to recall were ready to march on Washington and many of you were screaming impeachment. You still want Bush tossed in a jail cell

BTW, did I miss the repeal of the Patriot Act? Are poor citizens still having their public library records analyzed?

What's to refute, Red? You same the same thing every time...just changing the words around a little, but mostly just cut and pasting right wing talking points.

When you have an original, and coherent, thought...let me know and we can have a discussion.

[red states rule]

What's to refute, Red? You same the same thing every time...just changing the words around a little, but mostly just cut and pasting right wing talking points.

When you have an original, and coherent, thought...let me know and we can have a discussion.

BP like most libs you are more worried about your agenda then the nations security

Typical of the left fine to spy in on Americans but boy when it was Bush it was evil.

Liberalism is a total Farce like Global warming!!!!!

[glockmail]

Go pack your ass with sand Red. Perhaps it will stop the flux of pure shit you post.
:lol: I gotta admit you are in rare form today Bully. Sorry for the laugh at your expense Red but it is a funny insult.

[Yurt]

face it, anyone who voted for obama got fooled:


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

maybe not fooled, but virtually no one who supported him checked his record, you all swallowed up his change without ever checking who he really is. to my knowledge, no other candidate for president had the luxury of having no one check out who he really is....got a free pass from the media and now we are all paying for it

[April15]

Follow my link in the previous post.
So in truth Obama is covering Bush's ass? State secrets will be uncovered if the case goes to trial.

[red states rule]

So in truth Obama is covering Bush's ass? State secrets will be uncovered if the case goes to trial.

Eric Holder will never go after Obama and put him on trial

I am still waiting for libs like you April to express your outrage over the wiretaps like you did when it was pres Bush doing it

Of course being a liberal means you never have to be consistent

[glockmail]

...

Of course being a liberal means you never have to be consistent Of course not. It's all about what you "feel" at that particular moment.

[bullypulpit]

Eric Holder will never go after Obama and put him on trial

I am still waiting for libs like you April to express your outrage over the wiretaps like you did when it was pres Bush doing it

Of course being a liberal means you never have to be consistent

Guess what Red...It was wrong for Bush to do it...It is wrong for Obama to do it. And using the shield of "national security" to cover up crimes is nothing less than obstruction of justice, no matter who does it.

You see Red the difference between you and me is that you would cheerfully watch as the Bush administration burned the Constitution to a fine ash, all in the name of national security, I wouldn't. Why is that Red? It's because you, and your fellow travelers...unprincipled ideologues that you are, simply can't accept that without the Constitution, the Republic and everything it stands for is dead. The motto of you and your fellow so-called "conservatives" should be, "Amerika über allen!", given your taste for authoritarian rule.

[April15]

Eric Holder will never go after Obama and put him on trial

I am still waiting for libs like you April to express your outrage over the wiretaps like you did when it was pres Bush doing it

Of course being a liberal means you never have to be consistent
First they would have to hang Bush!

[glockmail]

...

You see Red the difference between you and me is that you would cheerfully watch as the Bush administration burned the Constitution to a fine ash, all in the name of national security, I wouldn't. Why is that Red? It's because you, and your fellow travelers...unprincipled ideologues that you are, simply can't accept that without the Constitution, the Republic and everything it stands for is dead. The motto of you and your fellow so-called "conservatives" should be, "Amerika über allen!", given your taste for authoritarian rule. Bullshit. Liberalism means tearing apart the Constitution; Conservatives revere it. Just look at the difference in Supreme Court justice opinions.

[5stringJeff]

Anyone who actually thought that Obama woudl relinquish any power of the State was a fool. Obama is no liberal; he's a Statist.

[April15]

Bullshit. Liberalism means tearing apart the Constitution; Conservatives revere it. Just look at the difference in Supreme Court justice opinions.All that does is prove Bullypulpit to be correct.

[red states rule]

Guess what Red...It was wrong for Bush to do it...It is wrong for Obama to do it. And using the shield of "national security" to cover up crimes is nothing less than obstruction of justice, no matter who does it.

You see Red the difference between you and me is that you would cheerfully watch as the Bush administration burned the Constitution to a fine ash, all in the name of national security, I wouldn't. Why is that Red? It's because you, and your fellow travelers...unprincipled ideologues that you are, simply can't accept that without the Constitution, the Republic and everything it stands for is dead. The motto of you and your fellow so-called "conservatives" should be, "Amerika über allen!", given your taste for authoritarian rule.

So are you calling for Obama's impeachment like you were with Bush? Where are the the Dalily Kos crowd who were outraged over Bush doing the wiretapping?

BP, Obama is doing on a much grand scale things Bush did - things you bitched about on a dialy basis. Spending, deficits, wiretapping, pork, expanding the size of government - yet I suspect you would vote for him again in 2012 and not want him impeached

Like Virgil, that "D" at the end of his name does decide how you view him and your reaction to hs Bush like policies

[April15]

To call for Obama to be impeached the crime must be established. To do that Bush must be indicted and tried, found guilty, hoooray, and hung. The Obama gets his turn.

[red states rule]

To call for Obama to be impeached the crime must be established. To do that Bush must be indicted and tried, found guilty, hoooray, and hung. The Obama gets his turn.

Even when libs are in total control of the government, you clowns are still full of hate, rage, and shit

Obama is doing the same things you bitched about Bush doing - yet sicne he is one of you - he gets a pass and you still blame Bush for everything

[bullypulpit]

So are you calling for Obama's impeachment like you were with Bush? Where are the the Dalily Kos crowd who were outraged over Bush doing the wiretapping?

BP, Obama is doing on a much grand scale things Bush did - things you bitched about on a dialy basis. Spending, deficits, wiretapping, pork, expanding the size of government - yet I suspect you would vote for him again in 2012 and not want him impeached

Like Virgil, that "D" at the end of his name does decide how you view him and your reaction to hs Bush like policies

Evidence of criminal activity is required for impeachment proceedings to take place. If the Obama administration should become involved in criminal activities as the Bush administration was, You'll be hearing for his impeachment from me.

[red states rule]

Evidence of criminal activity is required for impeachment proceedings to take place. If the Obama administration should become involved in criminal activities as the Bush administration was, You'll be hearing for his impeachment from me.

IF?

Obama is doing the SAME thing Bush did when you wanted his impeached.

As usual, that "D" at the end of Obama's name is giving him cover from the kook left

[Kathianne]

Evidence of criminal activity is required for impeachment proceedings to take place. If the Obama administration should become involved in criminal activities as the Bush administration was, You'll be hearing for his impeachment from me.

Like this Bully? Links at site

http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2009/04/obama-administration-will-appeal-court.html


Saturday, April 11, 2009
Obama Administration Will Appeal Court Ruling Which Allows Habeas Petitions for Certain Captives in Afghanistan
The Obama administration has announced that it will appeal a recent Federal District Court decision, which held that three captives at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan could challenge their status as "enemy combatants" in United States courts. The District Court held that the Supreme Court's ruling in Boumediene v. Bush, which allows Guantanamo Bay detainees to file habeas corpus petitions, also gives Bagram detainees access to United States courts. The Obama administration opposes the petitions and has announced that it will appeal the District Court's ruling.

Civil liberties advocates blasted the Bush administration for subjecting Guantanamo Bay captives to indefinite detention and for denying them access to federal courts. The outrage over Guantanamo Bay among President Obama's liberal base and among the populations of certain United States allies (particularly in Europe) probably explains why President Obama's first set of executive orders included a provision directing the closure of the controversial detention facility.

The Obama administration, however, has taken the position that Supreme Court's reasoning in Boumediene does not confer habeas rights to Bagram detainees. This is the same argument that the Bush administration made.

This logic, however, could support the capture and transfer of individuals to Bagram, where they could face prolonged and indefinite detention and denial of access to United States courts. Bagram could become the functional equivalent of Guantanamo Bay.

Even though Bagram differs from Guantanamo Bay because Afghanistan (unlike Cuba) is the site of a war, the particular detainees subject to the District Court's ruling were allegedly captured outside of Afghanistan and taken there for detention. Supreme Court precedent, however, has allowed the government to deny habeas rights to individuals detained in the "theater of war." The District Court, however, held that the government could not prevail under this exception because its own conduct and decisions placed the petitioners within the vicinity of a war.

[glockmail]

All that does is prove Bullypulpit to be correct. How so?

[red states rule]

How so?

To libs like April, everything proves his warped ideas that Bush is to blame for everything and all "evidence" proves it

[bullypulpit]

Like this Bully? Links at site

http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2009/04/obama-administration-will-appeal-court.html

Thank you dear lady. The following has already been sent to the White House, The DOJ, The Guardian Online, Asia Times Online, and several other blogs and BBB's around the nation and the world...


<center><h1>Another Brick in the Wall...</h1></center>

First is was the the failure of the Obama administration to begin investigations of war crimes under the Bush administration. You remember...water-boarding, stress positions, <b>torture</b>. Then it was the request for dismissal of <a href=http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush>Jewel v. NSA</a>. And, now it's this...

<center><a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/world/asia/11bagram.html?_r=2&partner=msnbcpolitics&emc=rss>Obama to Appeal Detainee Ruling</a></center>

On April 2nd, United States District Judge John D. Bates, ruled that three prisoners at Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan were entitled to the same legal rights GITMO detainees were <a href=http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2008/06/scotus-rules-gitmo-detainees-can-challenge-detention-us-civilian-courts>granted last year by the US Supreme Court</a>. On Friday, the Obama administration announced its intent to appeal this ruling.

<b><i>Habeas Corpus</i></b> has been a cornerstone of Western jurisprudence since the Magna Carta, or even earlier, by some accounts. It does not serve to determine the innocence or guilt of the defendant but rather, it serves to determine whether or not the defendant is legally imprisoned. In the cases of the men being detained at Bagram, they were captured outside of Afghanistan and have been imprisoned for some six years without charge or trial.

The Bush administration claimed the authority to suspend <i>habeas corpus</i> in the cases of those individuals described as "enemy combatants", including those interred at GITMO. This policy was later enshrined in the <a href=http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/commissions.html>Military Commissions Act of 2006</a>. It wasn't until 2008 that the US Supreme Court in BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH repudiated the Bush administration by stating that the denial of <i>habeas corpus</i> for GITMO detainees was unconstitutional and that they were entitled to hearings where they could contest their imprisonment and the charges against them. By extension, this ruling could apply to those in US custody elsewhere...such as at Bagram Airbase, and this is what Judge Bates has done. Why the Obama administration would choose to challenge what appears to be settled law is disappointing and, in this case, disturbing.

President Obama rode into office on a pledge of change, yet here his administration stands, defending the very policies of the Bush administration that played a key role in undermining America's reputation around the world as a beacon of hope and justice. As a former professor of constitutional law, President Obama should not need to be reminded by a layman that he cannot "...support and defend the Constitution..." by undermining the very foundations upon which it stands. Nor should he need to be reminded that using the authority of the office to cover up the crimes of his predecessor is nothing less than complicity in those crimes.

Additional Sources:

<a href=http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/11/bagram/>Obama and habeas corpus -- then and now</a>

<a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/washington/03bagram.html>Judge Rules Some Prisoners at Bagram Have Right of Habeas Corpus</a>

<a href=http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/commissions.html>MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT</a>

[red states rule]

Thank you dear lady. The following has already been sent to the White House, The DOJ, The Guardian Online, Asia Times Online, and several other blogs and BBB's around the nation and the world...


<center><h1>Another Brick in the Wall...</h1></center>

First is was the the failure of the Obama administration to begin investigations of war crimes under the Bush administration. You remember...water-boarding, stress positions, <b>torture</b>. Then it was the request for dismissal of <a href=http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush>Jewel v. NSA</a>. And, now it's this...

<center><a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/world/asia/11bagram.html?_r=2&partner=msnbcpolitics&emc=rss>Obama to Appeal Detainee Ruling</a></center>

On April 2nd, United States District Judge John D. Bates, ruled that three prisoners at Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan were entitled to the same legal rights GITMO detainees were <a href=http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2008/06/scotus-rules-gitmo-detainees-can-challenge-detention-us-civilian-courts>granted last year by the US Supreme Court</a>. On Friday, the Obama administration announced its intent to appeal this ruling.

<b><i>Habeas Corpus</i></b> has been a cornerstone of Western jurisprudence since the Magna Carta, or even earlier, by some accounts. It does not serve to determine the innocence or guilt of the defendant but rather, it serves to determine whether or not the defendant is legally imprisoned. In the cases of the men being detained at Bagram, they were captured outside of Afghanistan and have been imprisoned for some six years without charge or trial.

The Bush administration claimed the authority to suspend <i>habeas corpus</i> in the cases of those individuals described as "enemy combatants", including those interred at GITMO. This policy was later enshrined in the <a href=http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/commissions.html>Military Commissions Act of 2006</a>. It wasn't until 2008 that the US Supreme Court in BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH repudiated the Bush administration by stating that the denial of <i>habeas corpus</i> for GITMO detainees was unconstitutional and that they were entitled to hearings where they could contest their imprisonment and the charges against them. By extension, this ruling could apply to those in US custody elsewhere...such as at Bagram Airbase, and this is what Judge Bates has done. Why the Obama administration would choose to challenge what appears to be settled law is disappointing and, in this case, disturbing.

President Obama rode into office on a pledge of change, yet here his administration stands, defending the very policies of the Bush administration that played a key role in undermining America's reputation around the world as a beacon of hope and justice. As a former professor of constitutional law, President Obama should not need to be reminded by a layman that he cannot "...support and defend the Constitution..." by undermining the very foundations upon which it stands. Nor should he need to be reminded that using the authority of the office to cover up the crimes of his predecessor is nothing less than complicity in those crimes.

Additional Sources:

<a href=http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/11/bagram/>Obama and habeas corpus -- then and now</a>

<a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/washington/03bagram.html>Judge Rules Some Prisoners at Bagram Have Right of Habeas Corpus</a>

<a href=http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/commissions.html>MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT</a>

How typical of the left BP. You want to toss fellow Americans in jail for the methods they used keeping your ass safe - but you want to make sure terrorist have their "rights" protected - iand even let them go so they can kill more people

No wonder terrorists are happy you guys are now running things and in charge of national secuirty

[red states rule]

Change you can believe in!!

I am still waiting for the Matthews/Olbermann news network to start reporting this story and for Olbermann to make Obama the "Worst Person of the Week" like he did Pres Bush over wiretaps

[bullypulpit]

How typical of the left BP. You want to toss fellow Americans in jail for the methods they used keeping your ass safe - but you want to make sure terrorist have their "rights" protected - iand even let them go so they can kill more people

No wonder terrorists are happy you guys are now running things and in charge of national secuirty

Red, stupidity is not an endearing characteristic for anyone to possess, yet you possess it in abundance. Perhaps you should take the advice of the greatest Republican, Abraham Lincoln..."Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

[red states rule]

Red, stupidity is not an endearing characteristic for anyone to possess, yet you possess it in abundance. Perhaps you should take the advice of the greatest Republican, Abraham Lincoln..."Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

It is true BP> LIbs like you are bending over backwards for the rights of terrorists, even calling for them to be let go

At the same time, you want Bush and Cheney tossed in a jail cell

Both your stances are driven by your liberalism and hate for conservatives.

[Kathianne]

It is true BP> LIbs like you are bending over backwards for the rights of terrorists, even calling for them to be let go

At the same time, you want Bush and Cheney tossed in a jail cell

Both your stances are driven by your liberalism and hate for conservatives.

I've seen nothing BP that would demonstrate hate for anything-well other than some posters, even then it's more like disdain.

He's been consistent, if wrong IMO, since I first met him on the boards.

Some people consistently ignore what's posted, preferring to argue circularly until the topic is lost, *cough* MD *cough*, others just try to derail directly, *cough* Jagger *cough*, and some have their message lost by starting out their posts with 'Libs...'. My personal irritating posting feature seems to be sometimes too quick not to directly state how something is related to current events, trends I'm noticing, whatever. I assume everyone is reading and/or concerned.

In all likelihood, we'll all continue the way we've been. :coffee:

[red states rule]

I've seen nothing BP that would demonstrate hate for anything-well other than some posters, even then it's more like disdain.

He's been consistent, if wrong IMO, since I first met him on the boards.

Some people consistently ignore what's posted, preferring to argue circularly until the topic is lost, *cough* MD *cough*, others just try to derail directly, *cough* Jagger *cough*, and some have their message lost by starting out their posts with 'Libs...'. My personal irritating posting feature seems to be sometimes too quick not to directly state how something is related to current events, trends I'm noticing, whatever. I assume everyone is reading and/or concerned.

In all likelihood, we'll all continue the way we've been. :coffee:

and yet those Bush haters say little when Obama is giving the nation Bush's third term in some instances

But that is a trait I have seen in liberals since high shcool. Consisitency is not a strong character trait with those on the left

[Kathianne]

and yet those Bush haters say little when Obama is giving the nation Bush's third term in some instances

But that is a trait I have seen in liberals since high shcool. Consisitency is not a strong character trait with those on the left

Consistent is staying on the path to what you've done before. BP pretty much put his faith in Obama being different than Bush. If you read above, you'll see he's admitting the same crap is going on, when he was confronted with it. He then proceeds to tell us he's writing/protesting to representatives his disagreement and their hypocrisy. You call that inconsistent?

[red states rule]

Consistent is staying on the path to what you've done before. BP pretty much put his faith in Obama being different than Bush. If you read above, you'll see he's admitting the same crap is going on, when he was confronted with it. He then proceeds to tell us he's writing/protesting to representatives his disagreement and their hypocrisy. You call that inconsistent?

Is he caling for Obama to be impeached over the wiretaps as many on the left have done? (and I beleive BP as well)

BP may have put his faith in Obama, but BP is learning fast he was lied to and played for a fool by Obama and the liberal media

I have heard much out of BP as far as Obama flip flopping on his promise to start pulling troops out of Iraq starting Day One.

Or where is BP's outrage over the over spending? BP was upset over a $500 billlion deficit, but have I missed his posts over Obama $2 trillion deficit

I could go on, but I have made my point

My friend and co worker Blue States Rule is very silent on these devolopments. He once told me he hated that fucker Bush - but now that Obama is doing many of the things he was pissed over Bush doing - the silence is deafening Kat

[bullypulpit]

Is he caling for Obama to be impeached over the wiretaps as many on the left have done? (and I beleive BP as well)

BP may have put his faith in Obama, but BP is learning fast he was lied to and played for a fool by Obama and the liberal media

I have heard much out of BP as far as Obama flip flopping on his promise to start pulling troops out of Iraq starting Day One.

Or where is BP's outrage over the over spending? BP was upset over a $500 billlion deficit, but have I missed his posts over Obama $2 trillion deficit

I could go on, but I have made my point

My friend and co worker Blue States Rule is very silent on these devolopments. He once told me he hated that fucker Bush - but now that Obama is doing many of the things he was pissed over Bush doing - the silence is deafening Kat

And all we hear from you, Red, is a stream of unadulterated shit. If and when the time comes, I won't hesitate to call for impeachment.

[Kathianne]

Is he caling for Obama to be impeached over the wiretaps as many on the left have done? (and I beleive BP as well)

BP may have put his faith in Obama, but BP is learning fast he was lied to and played for a fool by Obama and the liberal media

I have heard much out of BP as far as Obama flip flopping on his promise to start pulling troops out of Iraq starting Day One.

Or where is BP's outrage over the over spending? BP was upset over a $500 billlion deficit, but have I missed his posts over Obama $2 trillion deficit

I could go on, but I have made my point

My friend and co worker Blue States Rule is very silent on these devolopments. He once told me he hated that fucker Bush - but now that Obama is doing many of the things he was pissed over Bush doing - the silence is deafening Kat

My stance regarding discussion is that by looking at what is happening; by issues, decisions, laws, and yes, even anecdotal examples; rather than what one hopes will happen, honest people will come to see what's right and wrong.

I find bunching/labeling everyone who believes government is more of a help, than hinderence, 'you liberals', etc., is about as useful as saying those who believe that bigger government causes more suffering than small government are 'hateful, racists, etc.' No one listens with those kinds of phrases. It may buy one some 'attaboys' from your buds, but not conducive to real thinking.

Bully has made me consider actions of the past administration, I think a couple times I've made him think. Things got heated during the election cycle, but we've always been pretty respectful of each other.

There was a time that the old poster, MFM seemed to be bright enough to converse with in such manner. I was wrong on that one. MD is nothing like him, he is a closed minded person that I don't spend much time on. While Bully may agree with some of what MD says, he'll never be 'like' him. Anymore than I can be like some of the stuff posted by people that I mostly agree with.

[5stringJeff]

How typical of the left BP. You want to toss fellow Americans in jail for the methods they used keeping your ass safe - but you want to make sure terrorist have their "rights" protected - iand even let them go so they can kill more people

No wonder terrorists are happy you guys are now running things and in charge of national secuirty

So which federal authorities should we exempt from having to uphold the protections of the Constitution?

[red states rule]

So which federal authorities should we exempt from having to uphold the protections of the Constitution?

Jeff, I am well aware of your desire to protect the rights of terrorists, and fight this war on terror with law books and not bombs and guns

Unlike BP, I have not seen your desire to toss Pres Bush, VP Cheney, and others in jail to appease your hate for the way they kept you safe

[5stringJeff]

Jeff, I am well aware of your desire to protect the rights of terrorists, and fight this war on terror with law books and not bombs and guns

Unlike BP, I have not seen your desire to toss Pres Bush, VP Cheney, and others in jail to appease your hate for the way they kept you safe

I'm refraining from the personal attacks. But the question remains: which federal officials should have to abide by the restrictions on the State's power that are laid out in the Constitution, and which ones get to ignore those limitations? Who gets to have habeus corpus and who doesn't?

[red states rule]

I'm refraining from the personal attacks. But the question remains: which federal officials should have to abide by the restrictions on the State's power that are laid out in the Constitution, and which ones get to ignore those limitations? Who gets to have habeus corpus and who doesn't?

What personal attacks?

I do not care what the government has to do to keep the country safe, pervent attacks, and kill/capture as many terrorists as possible

I am happy Obama is keeping the wiretaps. Sicne he now has access to the intel, he sees Pres Bush was doing the right thing

It is possible you would feel the same Jeff if you has access to the intel

[5stringJeff]

I do not care what the government has to do to keep the country safe, pervent attacks, and kill/capture as many terrorists as possible

I am happy Obama is keeping the wiretaps. Sicne he now has access to the intel, he sees Pres Bush was doing the right thing

It is possible you would feel the same Jeff if you has access to the intel

I do care what the government does in the name of "national security." A country that's secure enough to protect you from any threat is powerful enough to take every bit of your freedoms away. The Founders understood this, which is why they put restrictions on the government's power from the start.

I would rather live in a country where I was less secure but enjoyed more liberties than the type of country Bush and Obama seem to be creating for us.

[red states rule]

I do care what the government does in the name of "national security." A country that's secure enough to protect you from any threat is powerful enough to take every bit of your freedoms away. The Founders understood this, which is why they put restrictions on the government's power from the start.

I would rather live in a country where I was less secure but enjoyed more liberties than the type of country Bush and Obama seem to be creating for us.

Then you should be proud of Obama when he said in an interview it did not matter if released terrorists killed Americans.

The USA has to have a higher standard. So what if people die so terrorists can be free?

snip


MATT LAUER: — to be less of a threat. But if one of those people that's released goes back and takes part in the planning of or carrying out of an attack against U.S. interests, you're gonna have a Willie Horton times 100 situation on your hands. How are you gonna deal with that?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Of course I'm worried about it. Look, the — you know, I have to make the very best judgments I can make in terms of what's gonna keep the American people safe and is what — what's gonna uphold our Constitution and our traditions of due process ... If we don't uphold our Constitution and our values, that over time that will make us less safe. And that will be a recruitment tool for organizations like al-Qaida. That's what I've gotta keep my eye on.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28975726/#storyContinued

[bullypulpit]

Then you should be proud of Obama when he said in an interview it did not matter if released terrorists killed Americans.

The USA has to have a higher standard. So what if people die so terrorists can be free?

snip


MATT LAUER: — to be less of a threat. But if one of those people that's released goes back and takes part in the planning of or carrying out of an attack against U.S. interests, you're gonna have a Willie Horton times 100 situation on your hands. How are you gonna deal with that?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Of course I'm worried about it. Look, the — you know, I have to make the very best judgments I can make in terms of what's gonna keep the American people safe and is what — what's gonna uphold our Constitution and our traditions of due process ... If we don't uphold our Constitution and our values, that over time that will make us less safe. And that will be a recruitment tool for organizations like al-Qaida. That's what I've gotta keep my eye on.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28975726/#storyContinued

Red, if you want complete security you'll have to give up your freedoms. In that case, North Korea is the place for you. If you lack the courage required to live in a free society go someplace else...I'll pay for your ticket.

[red states rule]

Red, if you want complete security you'll have to give up your freedoms. In that case, North Korea is the place for you. If you lack the courage required to live in a free society go someplace else...I'll pay for your ticket.

Well if another 9-11 hits America, I know damn well who you will blame, The republican minoroty, or those who you attack for their methods by which they try to do their job

Those you will not blame are the terrorists, or Obama

[Kathianne]

I do care what the government does in the name of "national security." A country that's secure enough to protect you from any threat is powerful enough to take every bit of your freedoms away. The Founders understood this, which is why they put restrictions on the government's power from the start.

I would rather live in a country where I was less secure but enjoyed more liberties than the type of country Bush and Obama seem to be creating for us.

It's an important balance to hit, but interesting that all sides want the government to control things it hasn't the just powers for, just different things they want it to do.

How to get it restricted to the powers they have?

[bullypulpit]

Well if another 9-11 hits America, I know damn well who you will blame, The republican minoroty, or those who you attack for their methods by which they try to do their job

How many times must this be explained to you Red...? <a href=http://www.livescience.com/history/071019-torture-history.html>Torture provides no useful intelligence</a>. The only thing it is good for is producing false confessions...History has shown us that time and time again.

And this:

<center><a href=http://www.fcnl.org//issues/item.php?item_id=2512&issue_id=70>Rethinking the Psychology of Torture: A Preliminary Report from Former Interrogators and Research Psychologists</a></center>


Those you will not blame are the terrorists, or Obama

Wrong again...Mooseface! Now Red, if you have ANYTHING...ANYTHING AT ALL that is relevant to the conversation please feel free to add it. If all you're going to do is to continue to spout your irrelevant, unsubstantiated, personal prejudice laced excreta...Go piss up a rope.

[red states rule]

How many times must this be explained to you Red...? <a href=http://www.livescience.com/history/071019-torture-history.html>Torture provides no useful intelligence</a>. The only thing it is good for is producing false confessions...History has shown us that time and time again.

And this:

<center><a href=http://www.fcnl.org//issues/item.php?item_id=2512&issue_id=70>Rethinking the Psychology of Torture: A Preliminary Report from Former Interrogators and Research Psychologists</a></center>



Wrong again...Mooseface! Now Red, if you have ANYTHING...ANYTHING AT ALL that is relevant to the conversation please feel free to add it. If all you're going to do is to continue to spout your irrelevant, unsubstantiated, personal prejudice laced excreta...Go piss up a rope.

and once again, the THREE terrorists who were waterboarded gave up intel that saved lives and stopped attacks


For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three al Qaeda figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.

As ABC News first reported in September, waterboarding has not been used since 2003 and has been specifically prohibited since Gen. Michael Hayden took over as CIA director.

Officials told ABC News on Sept. 14 that the controversial interrogation technique, in which a suspect has water poured over his mouth and nose to stimulate a drowning reflex as shown in the above demonstration, had been banned by the CIA director at the recommendation of his deputy, Steve Kappes.

Hayden sought and received approval from the White House to remove waterboarding from the list of approved interrogation techniques first authorized by a presidential finding in 2002.

The officials say the decision was made sometime last year but has never been publicly disclosed by the CIA.

One U.S. intelligence official said, "It would be wrong to assume that the program of the past moved into the future unchanged."

A CIA spokesman said, as a matter of policy, he would decline to comment on interrogation techniques, "which have been and continue to be lawful," he said.

The practice of waterboarding has been branded as "torture" by human rights groups and a number of leading U.S. officials, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., because it amounted to a "mock execution."

It has been at the center of the debate that threatens to derail the confirmation of President George Bush's attorney general nominee, Michael Mukasey.

As a result of Hayden's decision, officials say, the most extreme technique left available to CIA interrogators would be what is termed "longtime standing," which includes exhaustion and sleep deprivation with prisoners forced to stand handcuffed, with their feet shackled to the floor.

The most effective use of waterboarding, according to current and former CIA officials, was in breaking Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, known as KSM, who subsequently confessed to a number of ongoing plots against the United States.

A senior CIA official said KSM later admitted it was only because of the waterboarding that he talked.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html

[emmett]

I do care what the government does in the name of "national security." A country that's secure enough to protect you from any threat is powerful enough to take every bit of your freedoms away. The Founders understood this, which is why they put restrictions on the government's power from the start.

I would rather live in a country where I was less secure but enjoyed more liberties than the type of country Bush and Obama seem to be creating for us.

So well said. Why is it that we all don't seem to get this? Security is nothing if it isn't Liberty that is being protected.

[glockmail]

and once again, the THREE terrorists who were waterboarded gave up intel that saved lives and stopped attacks...[/url]
Admit it bully- this pretty much slams your theory, doesn't it? :poke:

[Kathianne]

So well said. Why is it that we all don't seem to get this? Security is nothing if it isn't Liberty that is being protected.

Hell Jeff can make nothing sound good. He's multi-talented. ;)

[5stringJeff]

Hell Jeff can make nothing sound good. He's multi-talented. ;)

I'll take that as a compliment! :D

[5stringJeff]

Then you should be proud of Obama when he said in an interview it did not matter if released terrorists killed Americans.

The USA has to have a higher standard. So what if people die so terrorists can be free?

snip


MATT LAUER: — to be less of a threat. But if one of those people that's released goes back and takes part in the planning of or carrying out of an attack against U.S. interests, you're gonna have a Willie Horton times 100 situation on your hands. How are you gonna deal with that?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Of course I'm worried about it. Look, the — you know, I have to make the very best judgments I can make in terms of what's gonna keep the American people safe and is what — what's gonna uphold our Constitution and our traditions of due process ... If we don't uphold our Constitution and our values, that over time that will make us less safe. And that will be a recruitment tool for organizations like al-Qaida. That's what I've gotta keep my eye on.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28975726/#storyContinued

Obama didn't say it didn't matter if released terrorists killed Americans. You are mischaracterizing his remarks. He said that he was worried about that very thing. What Obama realizes (or at least pays lip service to) is that things like due process and Constitutional rights matter. You, sir, do not seem to realize this.

[Kathianne]

I'll take that as a compliment! :D

You should. Until reading this, couldn't see any other take. Now I can, wasn't meant.

[Psychoblues]

President Barack Hussein Obama is also a lawyer, don't you know?!?!?!?!??!?!?! This is all legal maneuvering!!!!!!!!!!! Do any of you mind if I bring all this shit up again as this case approaches fruition?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?

Take a bite at that apple!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[PostmodernProphet]

I would rather live in a country where I was less secure but enjoyed more liberties than the type of country Bush and Obama seem to be creating for us.

what liberties are you missing out on?........getting on a plane thirty minutes before takeoff?......tell me what you have actually lost....let's say you lived somewhere where you really had "lost" liberty, like England, where they have cameras on every street corner....would your world come to an end because someone was watching?......

[red states rule]

Obama didn't say it didn't matter if released terrorists killed Americans. You are mischaracterizing his remarks. He said that he was worried about that very thing. What Obama realizes (or at least pays lip service to) is that things like due process and Constitutional rights matter. You, sir, do not seem to realize this.

Well Jeff, if we are hit again you can hold your head high with pride the US did not sink to the level of the terrorists - as the bodies are taken away from the blast zone and to the morgue

Folks like you and BP can hold up a law book and tell the people the US is a country of law and will not violate the rights of terrorist

[red states rule]

Sorry folks, looks like the NSA wiretaps are here to stay

Hope, Change and 4 more years of Pres Bush! Gotta Love it!



Obama Administration Maintains Bush Legal Argument for Terrorist Surveillance Secrecy

President Obama's most liberal supporters are dismayed and disgusted ... because this administration is invoking the "state secrets" privilege.


President Obama's most liberal supporters say they are dismayed and disgusted because this administration is invoking the "state secrets" privilege -- just as former President George W. Bush did -- to shield eavesdropping programs from public exposure.

"I wasn't happy when George Bush asserted that he could do these things and I'm not happy that President Obama is now agreeing with George Bush," said Jane Hamsher of Accountability Now.

"Other than being flat wrong, the Obama administration's position is seriously disappointing to those Americans who listened to candidate Obama's promises of a new era of government accountability and transparency, said Kevin Bankston, senior attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

EFF sued the government claiming that AT&T and perhaps other telecommunications companies cooperated with it to allow access to people's phone and Internet records -- a so-called dragnet in a search for terrorist communications.

Obama criticized the cooperation during the campaign, calling it an abuse of authority and arguing that the Bush administration "undermined the Constitution."

Now, the Obama administration is trying to have that same lawsuit dismissed.

"For the Obama administration now to try to have our lawsuit dismissed based on the exact same state secrecy arguments is quite a turnaround and very disappointing," Bankston said.

Top Obama officials, including Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, dispute the assertions claimed in the suit.

"Admiral Blair in two separate affidavits sworn under penalty of perjury has flatly said that the allegations of dragnet NSA surveillance are quote 'false' close quote," said Bryan Cunningham, a former CIA and Justice Department attorney.

After a full review, Attorney General Eric Holder and the administration has asked the case be dismissed, arguing that hearing it would cause "extremely grave harm to national security. "

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/13/obama-administration-upholds-terrorist-surveillance-secrecy-rules/

[5stringJeff]

what liberties are you missing out on?........getting on a plane thirty minutes before takeoff?......tell me what you have actually lost....let's say you lived somewhere where you really had "lost" liberty, like England, where they have cameras on every street corner....would your world come to an end because someone was watching?......

The right to board an airplane without the government searching my person and my property. If you don't think that's "really losing liberty," then you either don't understand the Constitution or don't care.

Over-taxation is another means by which we lose our liberty.

[5stringJeff]

Sorry folks, looks like the NSA wiretaps are here to stay

Hope, Change and 4 more years of Pres Bush! Gotta Love it!

I'm saddened, yet not surprised, that you're applauding the erosion of your own rights.

[red states rule]

I'm saddened, yet not surprised, that you're applauding the erosion of your own rights.

I applaud the fact that Obama is finally doing something right

[PostmodernProphet]

The right to board an airplane without the government searching my person and my property. If you don't think that's "really losing liberty," then you either don't understand the Constitution or don't care.

Over-taxation is another means by which we lose our liberty.

sorry Jeff....but that ranks right up there with the right to buy meat that got to my grocery store without being inspected for salmonella poisoning.....or the right to walk the street from which all the pickpockets haven't been arrested....

[Kathianne]

More abuse, accidental of course:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/16nsa.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss


April 16, 2009
N.S.A.’s Intercepts Exceed Limits Set by Congress

By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN
WASHINGTON — The National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year, government officials said in recent interviews.

Several intelligence officials, as well as lawyers briefed about the matter, said the N.S.A. had been engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications of Americans. They described the practice as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional.

The legal and operational problems surrounding the N.S.A.’s surveillance activities have come under scrutiny from the Obama administration, Congressional intelligence committees and a secret national security court, said the intelligence officials, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because N.S.A. activities are classified. Classified government briefings have been held in recent weeks in response to a brewing controversy that some officials worry could damage the credibility of legitimate intelligence-gathering efforts.

The Justice Department, in response to inquiries from The New York Times, acknowledged Wednesday night that there had been problems with the N.S.A. surveillance operation, but said they had been resolved....

[5stringJeff]

sorry Jeff....but that ranks right up there with the right to buy meat that got to my grocery store without being inspected for salmonella poisoning.....or the right to walk the street from which all the pickpockets haven't been arrested....

Wrong. It's a violation of your right to not be searched by the government without probable cause and a warrant.

[5stringJeff]

sorry Jeff....but that ranks right up there with the right to buy meat that got to my grocery store without being inspected for salmonella poisoning.....or the right to walk the street from which all the pickpockets haven't been arrested....

Wrong. It's a violation of your right to not be searched by the government without probable cause and a warrant.

[PostmodernProphet]

Wrong. It's a violation of your right to not be searched by the government without probable cause and a warrant.

you aren't forced to fly.....personally, I want my government to make sure the wings are firmly attached to the airplane as well as making sure the guy next to me isn't carrying an Uzi......

[5stringJeff]

you aren't forced to fly.....personally, I want my government to make sure the wings are firmly attached to the airplane as well as making sure the guy next to me isn't carrying an Uzi......

It's not about whether I'm forced to fly. It's about whether I'm forced to consent to search when there is no warrant or probable cause.

And, until just after 9/11, the government wasn't running security. Did you not fly before that without worrying about Uzis?

[Kathianne]

It's not about whether I'm forced to fly. It's about whether I'm forced to consent to search when there is no warrant or probable cause.

And, until just after 9/11, the government wasn't running security. Did you not fly before that without worrying about Uzis?

With the new administration the problems from the former are becoming more clear. I'm with you Jeff.