You are not connected. Please login or register

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

SSC


Admin
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.

FOXNews.com

Monday, April 13, 2009

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. "

"The Obama administration is making a very spirited, a very robust assertion of state secrets privilege just like the Bush administration did before it," said former Justice Department attorney Dave Rivkin.

"You would think that if the critics were sincere in the past but had real problems with the Bush administration they might take some note of this but no they are really not interested. They are just as disinclined to trust the Obama administration's officials when it comes to balancing individual liberty and public safety as they were with regard to .... officials of the Bush administration," he said.

"This is the attorney general and the director of national intelligence that were strongly supported by the left wing of the Democratic Party and I don't know what critics think happened," Cunningham said. "I don't know if they think Admiral Blair and Attorney General Holder got sent into the Dick Cheney mind meld machine or what."

Instead of the mind meld, analysts say Obama's eyes were opened as he learned more about the program and now realizes it is both lawful and necessary. But critics don't accept that. They think they've been betrayed by the man they expected to reverse almost every policy of the Bush years, especially this one.

gypsy


Moderator
ok,but I don't believe it

fox news? this
exacly my point~fox news among many more

gypsy


Moderator
[quote="gypsy"]ok,but I don't believe it

fox news? this
exactly my point~fox news !!!!????quote]

I will say B S another speculation??howd o u know~??

gypsy


Moderator
[quote="gypsy"]ok,but I don't believe it

fox news? this
exacly my point~fox news

gypsy


Moderator
[quote="gypsy"]
gypsy wrote:ok,but I don't believe it

fox news? this
exactly my point~fox news !!!!????quote]

I will say B S another speculation??howd do u know~??

Guest


Guest
[quote="gypsy"]
gypsy wrote:
gypsy wrote:ok,but I don't believe it

fox news? this
exactly my point~fox news !!!!????quote]

I will say B S another speculation??howd do u know~??
You posted and quoted yourself 3 times? How about posting ANY credible source that the news,as reported,is untrue.

gypsy


Moderator
Is there an URL to this article?or did I miss it

SSC


Admin
Good Lord Gypsy..what is with the posting in triplicate, yes FOX NEWS....just as accredited as ABC, CBS or NBC
Don't think it is the news source as much as it is Obama is keeping with Bush's views something that will cause you nightmares.

SSC


Admin
gypsy wrote:Is there an URL to this article?or did I miss it


guess you didn't see Foxnews.com on the top of the article
now go read it for yourself www.foxnews.com

SSC


Admin
If you didn't know it was from Fox news why 3 posts that made absolutely no sence what so ever

gypsy


Moderator
[quote="meemoon"][quote="gypsy"]
gypsy wrote:
gypsy wrote:ok,but I don't believe it

fox news? this
exactly my point~fox news !!!!????quote]

I will say B S another speculation??how do u know~??
You posted and quoted yourself 3 times? Ho
what difference does it make? ur opinion or mine,it makes no diffenece

SSC


Admin
What in the hell are you talking about...I didn't post and quote myself 3 times that distinction belongs all to you

gypsy


Moderator
I don't do fox news~~ sorry ssc an moon

SSC


Admin
[quote="meemoon"]
gypsy wrote:
gypsy wrote:
gypsy wrote:ok,but I don't believe it

fox news? this
exactly my point~fox news !!!!????quote]

I will say B S another speculation??howd do u know~??
You posted and quoted yourself 3 times? How about posting ANY credible source that the news,as reported,is untrue.

Meemoon has a very good point Gypsy, since you refuse to believe in the news reports, please produce reliable sources that can dispute the reports validity. That seems only fair.

Guest


Guest
"Meemoon has a very good point Gypsy, since you refuse to believe in the news reports, please produce reliable sources that can dispute the reports validity. That seems only fair." /// We've been here before. It's hopeless.She actually posted at IYT that there really isn't such a thing as "news". It's all some reporter's opinion, and nobody's opinion is any better than hers. I'm through with it.

runawayhorses


Owner
Gypsy don't "Quote" yourself, first of all you're not doing it right and the quote code is showing in your posts, and secondly its confusing to the readers. Clicking the quote button is for quoting someone else not yourself. If you want to add something more then use the "Post Reply" button.

When you do use the quote write your message underneath everything in the text area, you are altering the quote code when you write that's why its not working.

Here's how to to do, click "quote" then put you cursor after the last part of text in the text area and then left click, then press the "Enter" key on your keyboard, that will bring your cursor underneath all the text so you can write without disturbing the quote coding.


Thank you

gypsy


Moderator
Sorry for all the quoting myself~ I have looked it up this surveillance topic,it is being talkedabout but i haven't found where it is being passed. the law it mainly keeps individuals from suing the government~is the way i understand ,,but I my be interpreting wrong~
also was just being silly and spoofing, on repeating myself~ there are many things i disagree with Obama~ that is to be expected about all political figures~
just wanted to explain myself

I think he is being scrutinized by all people but especially picked on by Republicans~ who want him to be wrong~
just my opinion, not written in stone~
but we all better pray he does help/the US to recover~ I don't think it can be done in four years..

runawayhorses


Owner
Well, please do not be silly that way and spoof by repeating yourself, it makes for a bad topic to read and is irritating to the readers. When used that way its misusing the forum for "spoofing" purposes. Quoting yourself does not help matters.

Thanks

SSC


Admin
this administration is invoking the "state secrets" privilege -
-------------------------------------------------------------

It is not a law Gypsy it is a privilege allowed the President

rosco 357


Veteran
gypsy, ur silly to not read fox, i will agree, like some ppl on fox, like hannitys show, u have to take with a grain of salt on his beliefs, i do agree with him on some things and some i dont ,, but he is not a reporter, what ssc posted on is either black or white, no middle ground, either obama is doing it or not, it should be easy to find, i will try to find it, and will post here if i do, anyway, i liked the law, its ok unless ur doing something wrong, ppl blow it way out of proportion, its a bunch of silly left wing pll that are against it, but i choose to belief it has helped keep us safe, take care

gypsy


Moderator
yes I looked it up, I made a mistake, I don't see anything wrong with it, if it keeps America safe~ i am sure he will have to change a lot of his campaign ideas since he sees what it is really like~
I also want to clarify something,I have never said i don't believe news, i just said I don't believe some of it~ I dislike Fox like beck,hanniety or what ever his name is, they ruined it for me~ i haven't watched it since~
but after reading the article and looking up some more,I do understand it better~

22 Handling Of 'State Secrets' At Issue on Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:37 pm

rosco 357


Veteran
Handling Of 'State Secrets' At Issue
Like Predecessor, New Justice Dept. Claiming Privilege

By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 25, 2009; Page A01

Civil liberties advocates are accusing the Obama administration of forsaking campaign rhetoric and adopting the same expansive arguments that his predecessor used to cloak some of the most sensitive intelligence-gathering programs of the Bush White House.

The first signs have come just weeks into the new administration, in a case filed by an Oregon charity suspected of funding terrorism. President Obama's Justice Department not only sought to dismiss the lawsuit by arguing that it implicated "state secrets," but also escalated the standoff -- proposing that government lawyers might take classified documents from the court's custody to keep the charity's representatives from reviewing them.

The suit by the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation has proceeded further than any other in challenging the use of warrantless wiretaps, threatening to expose the inner workings of that program. It is the second time the new Justice Department has followed its predecessors in claiming the state-secrets privilege, which would allow the government to exclude evidence in a civil case on grounds that it jeopardizes national security.
ad_icon

Attorneys for al-Haramain are seeking monetary damages from officials at the White House, the National Security Agency, the Treasury Department and the FBI, saying that the government's alleged illegal eavesdropping of the charity's board members and attorneys five years ago violated the charity's rights of due process and freedom of speech. Representatives of the charity, whose U.S. operations have gone out of business, say that its purpose was philanthropic and that authorities have no evidence that it funded terrorism.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker in San Francisco has resisted Justice Department attempts to claim the state-secrets privilege, making it one of the only cases to survive such a government challenge. Over the past eight years, authorities successfully invoked that argument dozens of times to prevent civil liberties groups from winning access to highly classified materials on a range of topics, including secret overseas prisons for terrorism suspects and warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.

In his campaign plan to "change Washington," Obama criticized the Bush administration, saying that it had "ignored public disclosure rules" and that it too often invoked the state-secrets privilege, according to his Web site.

Now, Obama's claim of state secrets has prompted criticism.

"There has to be other ways to protect secret information without having to block accountability," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine. He said that "state secrets" has become a sort of "talismanic phrase" uttered by government officials who want to dispose of inconvenient or troubling challenges to their authority.

Legal scholars say there are legitimate reasons for the state-secrets privilege, pointing out that it may be necessary to keep from disclosing government sources and methods of intelligence gathering. And Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller countered the criticism, saying that "in just two months, the Justice Department has already moved on a number of fronts to ensure Americans have access to information about their government's actions, and with respect to state secrets, the attorney general has ordered a review of pending cases to ensure the privilege is only invoked when absolutely necessary."

In the al-Haramain case, Obama has not only maintained the Bush administration approach, but the dispute has intensified, with the Justice Department warning that if the judge does not change his mind, authorities could spirit away the top-secret documents.

"Any way you look at it, it's pretty remarkable," said Jon B. Eisenberg, an attorney for al-Haramain. "This is an executive branch threat to exercise control over a judicial branch function."

Walker's ruling, which could come at any time, is unlikely to end the disagreement and, if challenged, could bring the matter before the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time in a generation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/24/AR2009032403501.html

23 glen beck and hannity on Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:50 pm

rosco 357


Veteran
glen beck and hannity,
i have not watched glens show hardly, i do watch some of hannitys, what i dont like about hannity is he talks over ppl to much, i liked it much better when alan commes was on there with him, but neither of these are news shows but ppl political airing of there opinions, im not hard core right, im a bit in the center,with a touch to the right, lol, from what i have seen of becks show, i dont think i like it, but i have not seen enough to judge, , take care i do like bill oriley the show"" the factor"", i believe he does try to be fair and balanced like he said, he has the number one ratings show on tv,or shows of that type, between networks of that type, plus fox has the blond babes, lol

SSC


Admin
I at times watch several on Fox, but I prefer their rapid response to unfolding news situations, and the way they give complete details.

gypsy


Moderator
I don;t like o'riley either LOL

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum