In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ's New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush's

Electronic Fountier Foundation ^ | April 7, 2009 | by Tim Jones

[Altera]

April 7th, 2009 In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ's New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush's Commentary by Tim Jones

We had hoped this would go differently.

Friday evening, in a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA, EFF's litigation against the National Security Agency for the warrantless wiretapping of countless Americans, the Obama Administration's made two deeply troubling arguments.

First, they argued, exactly as the Bush Administration did on countless occasions, that the state secrets privilege requires the court to dismiss the issue out of hand. They argue that simply allowing the case to continue "would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security." As in the past, this is a blatant ploy to dismiss the litigation without allowing the courts to consider the evidence.

It's an especially disappointing argument to hear from the Obama Administration. As a candidate, Senator Obama lamented that the Bush Administration "invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court." He was right then, and we're dismayed that he and his team seem to have forgotten.

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.

This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one — not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration — has ever interpreted the law this way.

Previously, the Bush Administration has argued that the U.S. possesses "sovereign immunity" from suit for conducting electronic surveillance that violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). However...

[Altera]

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush

[autumnraine]

What’s DU saying about this?

[philly-d-kidder]

Is this world upside down!!

[HiTech RedNeck]

Maybe the EFF will cool its jets when it turns out that Obama has only been spying on Tea Parties.

[Altera]

I don’t know DU’s position yet.

I do know Obama is a Fraud.

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/shut_up_its_still_a_secret.php

[VeniVidiVici]

Oh, well, hey. It’s ok if Hussein does it. He’s their messiah.

[Steely Tom]

Ha ha Mr. Jones. Who’d you vote for?

[darkwing104]

I wonder which the ACLU will be on?

[Nachum]

The List, ping

[bobby.223]

I have snooped on a few threads over at the DUmp the last 2 days on this and they are goin’ NUTS!!! 50% of the posts are just slammin’ the muslim. fun to watch ‘em eat their own, the worthless idiots.

[philly-d-kidder]

I wouldnt Doubt the New CIA Guy I don’t trust him he is sneakie in normal Life! Give hima an Inflated EGO and watch out!

[Star Traveler]

You asked — What’s DU saying about this?

—

It seems clear to me that a candidate for President always changes some of his positions once he gets into office. The candidate, once he becomes President, then seeks to preserve, protect and extend the power of his office.

It would seem that each of the branches of government does the same, to the detriment of the other branches... :-)

In Obama’s case, like EFF says, they are *really going out on a limb* on this one...

[... as they say... “This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one — not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration — has ever interpreted the law this way.” ]

[jveritas]

May be Obama and his left wing socialists want to interpret it this way so they will make it easier for the judiciary to scrap the whole wiretap program and hence they would have achieved what they wanted all along but at the same not take the blame for scrapping this program.

God forbid if we have another terrorist attack in the future because the wiretap program has been eliminated then Obama can blame the judiciary.

[OneWingedShark]

>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.

Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments Be Damned!
Oy-vey... and I’m not Jewish. [/disgust]