Thursday, April 09, 2009
Obama Seeking To Expand Illegal Spying, Wiretapping, Surveillance. His Loyal Cultists Will Remain Dutifully Silent.
He doesn't need a warrant because he is above the law.
We are all wondering, Pbama Cultists, if you will now treat this in the same manner as you treated the same issue when G.W. Bush was the president.
Barack Hussein Pbama, Junior seeks to expand government spying. InfoWars:
Advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has warned that the Obama administration is seeking to expand the government’s authority to carry out wiretapping under the auspices of national security.
The EFF points to the dismissal of its own litigation against the National Security Agency for the warrantless wiretapping, warning that arguments made in defense of wiretapping by Obama’s Department of Justice are worse than Bush’s.
In short, not only is the Obama administration actively defending and protecting Bush officials over illegal wiretapping, they are arguing in favor of expanding the practice and already seeking to protect themselves and any other administration past or present from legal challenge.
Okay, so don't believe InfoWars. Dismiss it.
How about the same from TechDirt:
Many people hoped that with the Obama administration, things would change, and we'd finally move away from the warrantless wiretapping program, which by any basic definition, violates the 4th Amendment.
Apparently not. The EFF has an analysis of the new Justice Department in trying to get one of the warrantless wiretapping cases dismissed, noting that the new administration appears to be taking an even more extreme position than the previous administration (which was already quite extreme). Basically, the motion to dismiss claims that the government "is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying -- that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes."
If you're a Pbama Cultist who still doesn't want to believe this story, boy howdy, do I have news for you. Even Pbama sycophant Keith Olberwiener is railing against the Obama Justice Department and the EFF case. Click on the link, watch the video!
From IndyBay.org: Is Obama a neo-con in drag?
If a relatively mainstream progressive group such as EFF can say Obama is worse than Bush on such an important key issue, which also happens to be a key issue that he swore he would reverse during the campaign, and respected left scholars such as Zinn and Chomsky can point out the deeply rooted flaws in his economic policies (Zinn) and his foreign policy (Chomsky), I think it's fair to say that the coin toss called "voting for Obama" is turning out to be a two-sided coin at best[.]
...while Obama is definitely not Bush, the fact that he's proving to be the sort of person who is doing things that would most likely get the left out in the streets if he was, means that regardless of whether you supported Obama during the general election or not, it's your responsibility to hold him accountable.
...if the [Obama] Administration reneged on their promises, or worse yet, turned out to be a stealth version of the Bush administration, people would not stand for such a mess, and would take to the streets to reclaim their power. What the initial foreign policy assertions, economic assertions, and now, civil liberties assertions of the Administration are proving is that Obama is even more of a neo-liberal in his views than what he asserted during the campaign, which is more than a disaster, it's potentially cataclysmic in scope[.]
Yet another case where the Obama DOJ has chosen to continue the Bush administration's position and invoke the state secrets privilege to avoid any judicial scrutiny of the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. This time it's in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's suit against the government for its coupling with AT&T to gain access to all communications routed through their equipment without any warrant.
The suit is based largely on the testimony of a whistleblower at AT&T, Mark Klein, who has testified before Congress that the company allowed the NSA access to its entire network to monitor all electronic communications. Obama is arguing, as Bush did, that the court has no jurisdiction to hear the case at all because it involves classified national security information:
[The Obama Justice Department asserts that] the lawsuit can't proceed because of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They assert that the US government has "sovereign immunity" against statutory claims that it illegally wiretapped or accessed communications data.
This is absolutely nuts. The FISA law explicitly allows both criminal and civil sanctions against any government official who violates the law. To argue that the government has sovereign immunity is to render those provisions completely meaningless and do away with all possible safeguards built into the system to prevent the government from violating that statute.
This, by definition, is lawlessness.
And if you're a Pillow Biting Pbama Cultists who still doesn't want to believe the truth about your Messyiah - that he's a Fascist intent on gutting the Constitution - well, even Super Duper Uber-Liberal Glenn Greenwald is appalled at the Obama Justice Department. Salon:
...beyond even the outrageously broad "state secrets" privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they "willfully disclose" to the public what they have learned.
Glenn Greenwald and Keith Olberwiener agree Obama is gutting the Fourth Amendment. I'm sure both men are already being called "neocons" on all the Liberal Pbama Cultist blogs and sites.
Links to this post:
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.