Right. Never mind how compelling an inference that is. Never mind how, if I had said about Bush, “Even though he’s asserted and is continuing to defend the state secrets doctrine, he may have cancelled the wiretap program – we just don’t know,” I would have laughed at so hard people would have needed to seek medical attention.
I grant that we don’t technically, specifically, know. But – sheesh.
I don’t know who pissed in your cornflakes, Bricker. I’d appreciate if you’d not insinuate that I’m biased without providing a lick of evidence beyond hypothesizing what other posters would say if the tables were turned.
If you think Obama’s assertion of state secrets means that he’s continuing the wiretap program, then say so. Spell out exactly how you reach that conclusion. It seems to me that not only can we not infer that (which you apparently acknowledge but insist on ridiculing me for), but that it is in fact plausible that he has ended the program and secrets would nevertheless be revealed by the litigation. Instead of sarcasm, perhaps you’d care to actually describe why you think that’s so completely implausible as to be laughable.
This looks to me like the motion to dimiss is more about saying, “Sorry, state secrets are state secrets, unsavory or not” than “Wiretapping is fine. We’ll probably do it again, if we like.”
I’d like to see more transparency about the whole debacle, but I would rather not see Obama squandering his administration’s honeymoon period exhuming a gross abuse of presidential power in the midst of exercising a considerable amount of executive ‘Oomph’ getting the economy on track.
The point is: it was illegal for them to do it then, its illegal to do it now, and it’ll be illegal for them to do it in the future.
Given that, what is the reasoning for the motion?
So when the courts deny this motion, the administration can claim that it tried to protect the integrity of the office and, well, all the dirt now coming out about Bush…whatayagonnado?
I hope you’re right.
The motion is being put forth on the grounds that the government says that letting itself be prosecuted for violating the rights of us plebs would result in some ultra-secret info being divulged which would be even worse than just forgetting the whole thing even happened. “Trust us.” :mad:
I don’t like it, but I don’t see the political will being gathered to right this considerable wrong while the economy circles the drain.
I’d settle for letting the whole thing being forgetten about if there were iron-clad legislation making any repeat snooping high treason.
I’m letting the terrorists win, aren’t I? :dubious:
I have to laugh a little. The EFF is using my donation money to sue the President I donated money to to get elected. :smack:
I don’t understand this at all. With the secret courts for getting the warrants, and the “morning-after” warrant availability, why the fuck couldn’t the last administration, or the current one, be bothered to uphold the constitution? They swear to uphold and defend it, and are put off by a matter of inconvenience.
Is there any justifiable reason for not getting a warrant from a special, not public-record court?
Of course there is. But if they told us, we’d have Obama kneeling to General Zod on the White House lawn hours later.
-Joe
This is what happens when a naive candidate panders to the left and the left, having been so filled with the Messiah’s grace, shouts forth Hallelujah before actually considering if what this person is promising can be done. Nevermind that Obama doesn’t know what the real score is, it only matters that he is the Messiah and he can’t be wrong.
Now that Obama has been educated about the wiretapping, he changes his mind as he should have and the left are feeling down. Sorry - but you were bamboozled. Suckers!
See, its things like this which is why you guys never win any elections.
I had considered that. But I can’t even come up with any hypotheticals. How could getting the warrant affect national security/open the door for the terrists and/or extraterrestrial overlords?
Is the FISA court itself infiltrated? And they want to give them ‘fake’ requests to see if that intelligence makes it to the bad guys? What?
Is there any hypothetical serious reason for not going to FISA?
We knew going in that Obama wasn’t perfect. The only ones claiming that was people like you because it made him easier to mock.
But now you’re saying that your candidate would’ve been done exactly what he said he’d do, thoroughly turn the country around, and resolve the crisis we’re in. Because while OUR candidate was simply an empty suit, your guy would run Washington the way it needs to be run and keep every campaign promise he made, right?
And you say that WE are the ones who’ve been bamboozled?
Tell me, what is the name of the politician you wish to elevate to sainthood?
Good point, Lightnin’. This is excellent news for the McCain campaign!
Go away Hillaryis44.
I’m not going to go as far as Andruil, but I will say the situation tends to look different when you’re a candidate than when you’re President, and that presidents in general don’t agree to measures that will limit their own power.
So I think there might have been a little bit of “bamboozlement” there, if people thought that electing Obama really would stop the wiretapping. It looks to me that this is more of a structural thing than a personal one.
I will be surprised and disappointed if it is revealed that Obama has continued warrantless wiretapping. You can consider me among the bamboozled if that is revealed.
I am unsurprised that some former Bush supporters want to jump to that conclusion from this motion to dismiss.
Educated on what, though? I may not have the world’s greatest imagination, but I do all right, and I can’t for the life of me imagine what secret[s] we’re concealing such that once the dossier is opened, the reader’s resolve melts like a Nazi cracking open the lost Ark. Maybe it is “national security,” but if it’s something so monumental and secret that it’s worth contorting the Constitution to prevent revealing it, I feel a lot more nervous than secure. As a cynic, I’m more apt to suspect that it actually relates to moneyed interests----large, large amounts of money that a few shadowy folks are really, really interested in. But even that beggars the imagination; is one of these tenth-rate bin Laden wannabes threatening to reveal the formula for New Coke?
Two Diamond Members of the Liberal Media Conspiracy, Slate and Salon, both have critical articles on this very topic.
That would have been an apt reply if I was a McCain supporter.