Reply With Quote
This is all for show. Government will tap whoever they damn well please.
Obama Administration: Wiretapping Legal Challenge Must Die
By David KravetsJanuary 23, 2009 | 7:15:25 PMCategories: Surveillance
SAN FRANCISCO -- The Obama administration urged a federal judge on Friday to stay enforcement of a ruling favoring the plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging President George W. Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program.
Justice Department special counsel Anthony Coppolino told U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker during a 60-minute hearing here that the appellate courts should review his Jan. 5 decision allowing classified evidence into the case, a position the Obama administration took in court do ents the day before.
Without the classified evidence, Coppolino said, the government wins the case by default, and two American lawyers who claimed they were unlawfully spied upon can't pursue their lawsuit.
"If we are right about this, the case gets dismissed," Coppolino said.
But Judge Walker said he wanted more briefing on the matter. He refused to immediately stay enforcement of his order, which requires the government to allow the plaintiffs' attorneys, and the court, to review a highly-classified do ent that purportedly shows that the lawyers for a now-defunct Saudi charity had their telephone conversations wiretapped without warrants in 2004.
The lawyers -- Wendell Belew and Asim Ghafoo - sued the Bush administration after the U.S. Treasury Department accidentally released the Top Secret memo to them, then successfully demanded its return. The memo was barred from the lawsuit through years of litigation, until Walker recently ordered the government to turn it over, after the plaintiffs successfully gathered unclassified evidence to support their case.
As it stands, lawyers for the plaintiffs are scheduled to view the do ent as early as Feb. 13.
The do ents' use in the case is central for the two charity lawyers to acquire legal standing so they may challenge the cons utionality of Bush administration's warrantless-eavesdropping program.
Jon Eisenberg, the attorney for the two lawyers, suggested the litigation be put on hold to give the new Obama administration time to reconsider the legal posture it inherited from Bush.
"None of us knows whether or not they might take a different approach to this case," Eisenberg argued to Walker.
Neither Coppolino nor Walker responded to that point. Disputes with pretrial decisions generally require the trial judge to permit an appeal.
Walker noted that there were few grounds to allow an appeal partway through this case. But he said he would consider granting an appeal under a statute that allows judges to kick cases up to the appellate courts if a substantial question of law is at issue. In this case: can a do ent that the government has declared a state secret be allowed in a lawsuit?
"We believe that we have a successful privilege assertion in this case," said Coppolino, citing the "state secrets privilege", which, when invoked, generally results in a dismissal of lawsuits against the government.
Three years ago Walker allowed the government to appeal a decision in a different spy case under similar cir stances. The Electronic Frontier Foundation sued AT&T for allegedly being complicit in Bush's warrantless spy program.
In that case, too, the government asserted the state secrets privilege, saying the lawsuit should be dismissed because it threatens to harm national security.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as moot last year after Congress, including then-senator Barack Obama, voted to immunize the nation's telecoms from the lawsuit. In a separate vote, Obama opposed immunity, but he finally endorsed it as part of broad legislation legalizing the once-secret warrantless spy program.
Last month, the EFF asked Walker to overturn the immunity legislation. A decision by Walker is pending in that matter.
On Friday, Walker instructed the government and Eisenberg to provide further written arguments within weeks about why he should or should not permit the government to appeal a case brought by two former lawyers for the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation.
This is all for show. Government will tap whoever they damn well please.
Sure. That doesn't mean we have to bless it, though. Officials responsible for extralegal surveillance of Americans should face jail time. Period.
I'm waiting to see if another shoe is going to drop, if not consider me a very disappointed Obama supporter
Depends on the classified information involved.
Seeing as we'll never know what that is, it's difficult to say one way or the other.
I didn't like Obama's initial stance and voting on FISA and this is right in line with that. It sucks and I wish we had a more liberal stance on things.
In this case it appears to be info that verifies illegal surveillance. That's why the bid to suppress initially failed: secrecy must do something more than conceal wrongdoing.
I'm starting to think there is no organized left in this country. Liberal get tricked into voting for candidates that campaign as liberal and govern as centerists. The problem is that there is a definite political right in this country, often resulting in a very skewed interpretation of the political "center"
But everybody already knows that part -- there has to be something else.
why must there be something else? because the government used their version of the get out of jail card(in this case get out of trouble), which is declaring national security?
Yeah. The part we'll never find out about. We do know the judge didn't buy it, though.
Ok, there doesn't HAVE to be something else -- but it makes more sense if there is. Pretending you know what is contained in the classified information is -- well, it's par for the course around here.
Not yet, anyway.
Illegal spying was done. They demanded back the file and got it back.
They are getting sued, they declare national security and the judge doesn't buy it. Seems to me they are hiding behind their shield(national security) because if they lose, it can start off a wave of lawsuits which they could lose.
Or there is some super secret that can be used to harm the U.S, even though they originally already gave the file.
I don't know, but i can tell which one makes more sense. What do you think?
Either one makes sense, since the original classified information has still not been made public.
Again, why pretend to know everything that was in that file that was accidentally sent out?
i understand what you're saying, but i don't like the way national security is thrown around by the government. It's like the way your parents tell you something and it's supposed to be okay cuz their your parents.
Oh, we're the government, it's okay, it's for your own safety. we're doing this for you.
I agree that the national security argument has been overused by the government, but I simply don't know enough about this particular case to lump it in with the other examples.
fair enough
It's a disaster if you ask me. But Obama already voted in favor of the amnesty for the companies, and basically supporting the wiretaps before the election. So this really comes as no surprise.
It is funny that people like AHF jump at this simply as a chance to point at Obama supporters and say "OH LOOK HE'S BAD". I think most of us realize we're not going to agree with everything he does. That is OK.
It's a little early to see whether Obama will keep or change the policy. As already mentioned, this could be a maneuver to avoid an onslaught of defending what Bush did, which would mean giving up a lot more classified do ents. It is probably not what they want to spend their time on.
But it could be Obama keeping the policy. It's good that the EFF is keeping the pressure on.
Extremely. ing. disappointed. Looks like the Patriot Act is the left's finger-pointing followed no action equivalent to the right's stance on abortion.
pfffttt....leaks are now saying that the Bush Administration was sending domestic communications overseas so that they can 'conduct survillence' without nasty wiretapping laws.....I feel sorry for the plaintiffs in this case....but lets focus on the goal here....
Unless the plaintiffs can show reasonable cause that they know specific information is contained, then there should be no warrant for the do ents issued.
Now I would say it's not particularly accurate to apply the fourth amendment to the government, but lets consider the way it protects the people:
Now these standards are to prevent law enforcement from simply doing fishing expeditions upon individuals. Without such protections, anything can be considered reasonable by some people. Rumor is all that it takes to violate our rights without the fourth amendment. Worse than that, searches and seizures can be used at will by unscrupulous officials for intimidation.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Doesn't it seem unreasonable that the plaintiff has no case without searching for evidence? What tangible evidence do they have to be able to take the standards of "oath or affirmation" of someone in the know to support "probable cause" to issue a "warrant?"
I only see rumor, poor cir stantial evidence, and the desire to intimidate our government.
The Fourth Amendment is is still wirthing through its death-throws, I see.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
