Huh?
Hamlet linked to a PDF of the actual court document. How much more reputable do you want? How much more reputable can you get? It’s all right there if you want to read all 36 pages of it.
I did read it. I was sickened.
'xactly. Wrong is wrong no matter who does it.
Why do you think Obama is wrong on this? Why do you think he’s doing it if it’s wrong?
-XT
My speculation are it would be one (or several) of the following (in no particular order):
-
There really are state secrets involved and there is just no way around it. Proceeding with a court case would be unacceptably damaging to the US overall.
-
The government has enough problems and is in the hole pretty deep financially. They do not relish the thought of a court case awarding likely significant damages in the midst of all the rest of this not to mention the distraction.
-
The wiretapping is producing really useful results and despite the scary implications they do not want to turn that faucet off.
-
He likes the power this grants. Bush blazed the trail, Obama is happy to follow it. Power corrupts.
Obama’s powers are derived from the Constitution of the United States of America. Which he has sworn to protect. Doesn’t matter why he’s doing it. It’s wrong and it needs to stop.
Man…really wish you had sent Bush the memo on that 8 years ago.
If what Obama (or Bush) is doing is unconstitutional then it can be attacked on those grounds. IS it being attacked on Constitutional grounds? I assume the answer to that is…no.
Which parts are you claiming are unconstitutional, and on what grounds exactly?
-XT
I was 17 then, but if you do a search of my posts for the term “bush” I’m sure you’ll find my opinion of him as well.
4th Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled wire taps count as a search under the 4th Amendment. So their current rulings agree with me.
Are you saying some government creep potentially listening in on your private phone calls, for example, isn’t a search?
I don’t perzackly know what he’s up to with this, I suspect he’s trying to walk a very fine line here. Perhaps he wants the people who signed of on this from the telecom side to be warned and chastened, but doesn’t see a need for any actual punishment. And, at the same time, he might be seeking to keep lines of cooperation open, to signal that if you mind your P’s and Q’s you need not fear that the government will turn on you and prosecute you for something they asked you to do in the first place.
I am also mindful of “9/11 psychosis”. 9/11 drove us nuts, some of us have gotten over it, some have not (Dennis Miller leaps to mind…) If we can make the point stick that it won’t happen again, perhaps it is not so important that it did.
I trust Obama, which is why I voted for him, setting aside stark terror at the notion of Sarah Palin ascending to the Oval Orifice. I am willing to offer the benefit of a doubt, and not to withdraw that trust without solid reason. This isn’t an audition, this is the show.
No. But I take the government at their word that there are state secrets involved that, if exposed, would be damaging to the security of the country.
The very existence of the state secrets doctrine is: there are a small number of instances in which we can’t tell you X, even though fairness would otherwise dictate you get to know X. Since your knowing X is critical to your claim, your case must be dismissed.
Isn’t that usually handled in camera though? So you could atleast have a 3rd party examine the data to see if it really applies?
Is there not a way for parts of court proceedings to be sealed or classified or something? Couldn’t this prevent any state secrets from being “revealed”?
It is being attacked on constitutional grounds. That’s where the state secrets assertion is being used.
Fair enough…I will await the out come of the court cases before I accept that what Obama (and/or Bush) actions are in fact unconstitutional. I don’t know enough about it but I assume that Obama DOES have access to such counsel, and assume he has asked them to look into this issue before taking the stand he has…however, as I said, I will await developments.
-XT
The whole point is that there won’t be an outcome of court cases to assess, xtisme. That can only happen if the court rejects the state secrets doctrine, which would probably be a legally incorrect decision, so that result is unlikely.
It is worth noting, however, that the state secret here may be that they are no longer engaging in warrantless wiretapping domestically. We cannot presume from the assertion of state secrets that Obama is continuing the program, I don’t think.
I have a question.
What kind of useful information on the terrorists could this really give?
Think about it. The same technology that encrypts your bank data would easily encrypt terrorist communication.
All a terrorist has to do is have an account on a foreign VPN service (you can do this for $5 in some places), then connect to an foreign VOIP service and suddenly he’s making untraceable, unwiretapable calls. It’d be trivial to do using off the shelf software.
Say the VPN and VOIP service was in Iran. I guess they could figure out he was VPNing into Iran, but that’d be about it.
I think someone needs to explain how the government could listen in on properly, and easily encrypted communications before we go any farther debating the merits of this.
Because if terrorists can easily cover their tracks, and the government should have people skilled enough to know this. Then what fuck are the creeps really looking for?
If it’s not being disputed in the courts how is it ‘being attacked on constitutional grounds’ exactly? And I assume you mean that this is Bush et al’s policy…not Obama’s so far unknown application, correct? I’m confused…if it’s unconstitutional then why isn’t it being arbitrated in the courts? If it’s being attacked, why isn’t it being attacked using the court system…wouldn’t that normally be the way something like this is settled?
As I said earlier, IANAL.
I think that’s an excellent point…just based on the OP it seems too early to tell WHAT Obama has in mind on this. I seriously doubt he will just do things ‘business as usual’ the way Bush did though.
-XT
Yeah, that’s it.
It is being disputed in the courts, but the court will dismiss the case because of the assertion of state secrets.
No. Obama is being sued for his official actions.
Unless I’m missing something, this is an unnecessarily sarcastic reply to a correct statement. I’m not saying it’s likely, I’m saying we cannot assume from the assertion of state secrets that Obama is protecting the ongoing use of the program.