-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
Is it Really Expansion of Power?
Author: Raine
Date: 04/09/2009 12:38:37
Over the weekend, we got wind of a particularly nasty story about the Obama Administration quietly expanding Bush's legal defense of wiretapping program. It was reported at Raw Story among other media outlets. When I first read this, I was disheartened to say the least and outraged over the appearance of unconstitutionality to it. I simply could not wrap my head that this new administration could be so complicit in continuing what was in my mind illegal activity.
So, I decided to do some digging. This is the actual motion to dismiss that was filed: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/jewel/jewelmtdobama.pdf. Turns out, it was a motion to dismiss, it was not a mandate from the administration nor a final ruling from a judge.
The lawsuit is, as I understand it, in it's infancy. It is also a civil suit. The motion to dismiss is a common procedure by ALL attorneys . It is simply what is done. Lest I sound like an apologist, I want to make clear that I am not happy about this motion, but it is just a part of an entire case, not the case itself. We do not know where this is going or what the purpose was.
We also do not know who actually appointed the attorneys in this case. President Obama was handed a corrupted DOJ, and not all Bush appointed attorneys have been replaced. We simply do not know what the motives are here. I think after seeing what happened to Ted Stevens this past week, we can all say that this is a broken department that will take time to fix. Personally, I am suspect of the defense lawyers on this case. That said, it is a case in motion, and while the suit names the president, it also says this, from the EFF website: If The president of the United States intervened in this case, he would 1) be obstructing Justice, and 2) disrupting a lawsuit for political reasons. It wasn't that long ago when we were up in arms at another administration for doing JUST that. I am speaking of the firing of a number of DOJ attorneys for political reasons, by Alberto Gonzales.
There are numerous lawsuits happing in the DOJ; this is but one motion - it is not policy. I'd also like to add that this case is a civil case, not a criminal case. Therefore they are not - despite appearances to the contrary - defending the Bush Administration. Sadly these attorneys are following the law as it is now, particularly the Patriot Act. Until Congress changes this law, attorneys are required to follow it. We have had far too many years of the exact opposite happening from our government, I would rather the laws on the books be followed. If the laws are wrong Congress can change them, or they are appealed to the Supreme Court.
This is a civil lawsuit, but it is also a financial suit. People are seeking money for damages. The President's name is on this suit, as well as other current government officials. I believe that the President should be able to defend himself from the actions of the previous administration. That is the point of invoking Sovereign Immunity. We have had that clause for a long time in the United States. It was abused by the previous Administration, but I am not sure if that is the case with this motion. As it stands now, we do not have proof that illegal wiretapping is still continuing, and according to the actual motion, it has allegedly has ceased. I cannot defend that notion, because I do not have proof. None of us do, sadly.
So, I am feeling dubious of this lawsuit, and I will let the administration know how I feel about it, but it must run its course. The president and others cannot step in and stop it, and I do not want them to. I want the law followed. There is cause for alarm, yes, but there have been NO expansions of power, yet. I know that Jonathan Turley and others would have us believe otherwise, and I share the alarm, but this is not the Bush Administration. This is not policy and this is not the bad old days, where we automatically assumed that things were not being done in our own interest. We all still need to do our research and find out what the other side of the story is. Until all the Attorneys from the Bush Administration are gone, we will need to remain vigilant and pay attention. I may be opening up new cans of worms here, but I would rather question than automatically assume that the new boss is the same as the old.
:peace: and
Raine
So, I decided to do some digging. This is the actual motion to dismiss that was filed: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/jewel/jewelmtdobama.pdf. Turns out, it was a motion to dismiss, it was not a mandate from the administration nor a final ruling from a judge.
The lawsuit is, as I understand it, in it's infancy. It is also a civil suit. The motion to dismiss is a common procedure by ALL attorneys . It is simply what is done. Lest I sound like an apologist, I want to make clear that I am not happy about this motion, but it is just a part of an entire case, not the case itself. We do not know where this is going or what the purpose was.
We also do not know who actually appointed the attorneys in this case. President Obama was handed a corrupted DOJ, and not all Bush appointed attorneys have been replaced. We simply do not know what the motives are here. I think after seeing what happened to Ted Stevens this past week, we can all say that this is a broken department that will take time to fix. Personally, I am suspect of the defense lawyers on this case. That said, it is a case in motion, and while the suit names the president, it also says this, from the EFF website:
In Jewel v. NSA, EFF is suing the National Security Agency (NSA) and other government agencies on behalf of AT&T customers to stop the illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records.
Jewel v. NSA is aimed at ending the NSA’s dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans and holding accountable the government officials who illegally authorized it. Evidence in the case includes undisputed documents provided by former AT&T telecommunications technician Mark Klein showing AT&T has routed copies of Internet traffic to a secret room in San Francisco controlled by the NSA.
That same evidence is central to Hepting v. AT&T, a class-action lawsuit filed by EFF in 2006 to stop the telecom giant’s participation in the illegal surveillance program. Earlier this year, Congress passed a law attempting to derail that case by unconstitutionally granting immunity to AT&T and other companies that took part in the dragnet. Hepting v. AT&T is now stalled in federal court while EFF argues with the government over whether the immunity is constitutional and applies in that case — litigation that is likely to continue well into 2009.
In addition to suing the government agencies involved in the domestic dragnet, the lawsuit also targets the individuals responsible for creating, authorizing, and implementing the illegal program, including President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and other individuals who ordered or participated in the warrantless domestic surveillance.
There are numerous lawsuits happing in the DOJ; this is but one motion - it is not policy. I'd also like to add that this case is a civil case, not a criminal case. Therefore they are not - despite appearances to the contrary - defending the Bush Administration. Sadly these attorneys are following the law as it is now, particularly the Patriot Act. Until Congress changes this law, attorneys are required to follow it. We have had far too many years of the exact opposite happening from our government, I would rather the laws on the books be followed. If the laws are wrong Congress can change them, or they are appealed to the Supreme Court.
This is a civil lawsuit, but it is also a financial suit. People are seeking money for damages. The President's name is on this suit, as well as other current government officials. I believe that the President should be able to defend himself from the actions of the previous administration. That is the point of invoking Sovereign Immunity. We have had that clause for a long time in the United States. It was abused by the previous Administration, but I am not sure if that is the case with this motion. As it stands now, we do not have proof that illegal wiretapping is still continuing, and according to the actual motion, it has allegedly has ceased. I cannot defend that notion, because I do not have proof. None of us do, sadly.
So, I am feeling dubious of this lawsuit, and I will let the administration know how I feel about it, but it must run its course. The president and others cannot step in and stop it, and I do not want them to. I want the law followed. There is cause for alarm, yes, but there have been NO expansions of power, yet. I know that Jonathan Turley and others would have us believe otherwise, and I share the alarm, but this is not the Bush Administration. This is not policy and this is not the bad old days, where we automatically assumed that things were not being done in our own interest. We all still need to do our research and find out what the other side of the story is. Until all the Attorneys from the Bush Administration are gone, we will need to remain vigilant and pay attention. I may be opening up new cans of worms here, but I would rather question than automatically assume that the new boss is the same as the old.
:peace: and
Raine
