Obama To Preserve Bush's Domestic Spying Program
Several published reports surfaced on Monday (4/13) saying that the Obama administration will preserve its right to invoke the "state secrets" privilege that drew unwavering criticism from Democrats when former President George W. Bush put it into practice. Essentially this allows the federal government to not only continue its domestic eavesdropping practices, but shields such programs from any and all public exposure.
Several left-leaning think tanks have already voiced their dismay, but it'll be interesting to see if the general public (that was so up in arms a few years ago when Bush did this) gives Obama yet another hall pass.
Several left-leaning think tanks have already voiced their dismay, but it'll be interesting to see if the general public (that was so up in arms a few years ago when Bush did this) gives Obama yet another hall pass.
Advertisement
Will you please give a few cites as referenced (several published.........)
Thanks.
April 14, 2009 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's hope not.
The issue is not whether the Obama administration can be trusted with this power. The issue is whether any government should ever be trusted with this power. I say no. I feel absolutely confident in saying that our founders would agree.
Spying on the people, who have done nothing wrong, in the name of security is an invitation to tyrrany and despotism. Adding insult to injury by using the State Secrets privelege to prevent any judicial review of the spying program is an iron clad recipe for empowering an authoritarian police state. Whatever the alleged benefits of this domestic spying program may be, they are outweighed by the massive threat this sort of police state program represents to the preservation of liberty and the safety and security of our citizens, their homes, effects,papers and communications.
It is genuinely shocking on top of extremely disappointing that Obama would take this tack.
April 14, 2009 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Assuming he does what it is reported he will I will be as critical of him on the issue as I was to Bush...and having been around here long as you have Gettysburg you know how tough I was on Bush about that policy.
April 14, 2009 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sources:
1. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/13/obama-administration-upholds-terrorist-surveillance-secrecy-rules/
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/us/10torture.html?_r=1
April 14, 2009 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reading the entire article offers some much needed context. For example -
NYT referenced content:
“It is the policy of this administration to invoke the state secrets privilege only when necessary and in the most appropriate cases,” he said, adding that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. had asked for a review of pending cases in which the government had previously asserted a state secret privilege.
“The attorney general has directed that senior Justice Department officials review all assertions of the state secrets privilege to ensure that the privilege is being invoked only in legally appropriate situations,” he said. “It is vital that we protect information that, if released, could jeopardize national security.”
.....What the A.C.L.U. is asking, he said, is that the case be allowed to go forward, giving the courts a chance to decide, based on classified information revealed solely to the judge, what should be allowed to be discussed.
But Mr. Letter said that the lower court judge, James Ware, did receive classified information and came to the correct conclusion in dismissing the case last year. He urged the judges to pore over the same material, and predicted “you will understand precisely, as Judge Ware did, why this case can’t be litigated.”
April 14, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's very simple. Obama or his advisors most likely think that this policy is the right one.
The far bigger challenge is the introspection on why this policy was attacked in the first place.
If it was wrong, I expect to see growing public outrage over Obama doing "more of the same".
If it was right, it amounts to a vindication of sorts for Bush. But that of course will never be honestly admitted.
It would be fascinating to watch what happens with the principled integrity of left-wingers as this unfolds.
April 14, 2009 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
“I think it's very simple. Obama or his advisors most likely think that this policy is the right one”
Obama and his advisers could very well think it is a policy/power they want to keep without believing that it is a “right” policy..What do you think? I think it is a wrong policy and I will continue to be pissed if the policy stays in place.
“If it was wrong, I expect to see growing public outrage over Obama doing "more of the same".
"IF" it was wrong? Do you have your own opinion? Will you show outrage if the policy continues or will you show outrage if the policy is revoked? Which side are you on?
“If it was right, it amounts to a vindication of sorts for Bush. But that of course will never be honestly admitted.”
It was not “right” so no vindication is available.
“It would be fascinating to watch what happens with the principled integrity of left-wingers as this unfolds.”
Don't be shy, if you think there are no left-wingers with principled integrity, then just say so.
April 14, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lulu, how is you SCOTUS case law comprehension?
Check out United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953). The 6-3 opinion handed down by Justice Vinson, pretty much handed over the determinations for "state secret" over to the government, while the Federal Court system was told to lie down like a good obedient puppy dog.
The claim that the Obama FDOJ has asserted an heretofore unknown claim of Sovereign immunity is laughably absurd. Chief Justice John Marshall asserted just such a claim for the Federal Government back in 1821:
You cannot get anymore absolute than that.I am amused that when you asked Gettysburg to provided citations to "Several published reports surfaced on Monday (4/13)", he replied with two, and the NY Times cite was published on February 9, 2009, although I appreciate it, because it is a new Obama DOJ pleading I was previously unaware of. I need to do further research on the case, as I'm not one to accept short quotes as authoritative, especially on this topic, because many have been taken way out of their original context. I will however offer a quick spin: It is not proper for a new Administration to rescind the word of the previous administration's promise of non-accountability to a government contractor. In this specific trial, Binyam Mohamed has filed suit against a subsidiary of Boeing, for its use as a government contractor involved with extraordinary renditions during the Bush Administration. If the Bush Administration promised immunity to the Boeing subsidiary as a part of the contractual agreement, it is not proper for the succeeding DOJ to argue against it. The proper place for resolving this is in the Federal Court system.
It is not proper for an incoming President to initiate criminal investigations into acts of its predecessor; this clearly is a duty of Congress'. What people who are decrying the actions of Obama's DOJ desire, is for Obama to willfully disregard his oath and duty to office. Obama has said that extraordinary renditions will not occur during his Presidency; that the Geneva Convention apply to all who are detained in the GWOT; and that torture will cease. I for one, would be happy if the American President were to faithfully uphold his freely sworn oath of office, no matter if it meant that the Bush Administration did not face proper accountability. The Nation has three branches, each with their own duties. Place responsibility where it belongs.
April 14, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
PCA,
I think you have the right string but the wrong yo yo. Your comment doesn't seem to address anything I said to Lalo. Maybe Aunt Sam as she asked for some links.
April 14, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aunt Sam,
I didn't mean to imply that you are a yo yo. That was, though, somewhat my intention of my original comment to Lalo.
April 14, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it was terrible policy for Bush and Obama is making it even worse:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/13/obama/index.html
But to my point about liberal integrity (denial, postrationalization, whitewashing), all you have to do is scroll this thread to see exactly what I meant.
My prediction is that left-wing will make peace with it because of all the wonderful things Obama has in store.
Just watch.
April 14, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love the smell of bullshit in the morning. Smells like...bullshit.
April 14, 2009 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I love the smell of bullshit..."
I knew you did. Good luck to you.
April 14, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The program cannot be openly be ended because it would allow the Republicans (Dick Cheney, Rove, Limbaugh, etc) to whip up more uncontrolled terrorist hysteria in wingnut fantasy land (25-30% of citizens-Bush base).
It is likely the program is more restricted under Obama. Who knows, it may help prevent the attack that so many Republicans are praying for.
April 14, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
April 14, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
In other words - he won't change the policy because he will loose in some "game" against Republicans....
Really?
Yeah, that's the clearest indication yet that "change has come to Washington".
April 14, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
If that's the case, then state secrets be damned, give us an example. I'm tired of people giving any administration the benefit of the doubt, with respect to the 'state secrets' they are privy to. That kind of (non)thinking by the electorate enabled the neocon adventurism into Iraq.
April 14, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, invoking state secrets is not in any way related to the question whether domestic spying is to continue, and in what capacity, FISA or something else, if so.
Secondly, I am not actually sure they are invoking state secrets at this point:
Asking the case to be dismissed on some grounds is not the same as refusing to comply or to close the judicial process down.
I have not followed in detail but someone has to actually get some real data from the proceedings instead of guesswork like this.
It is an extremely important topic, so it is right to be concerned about it. At the same time, though, one must be judicious, avoid jumping to conclusions and all that jazz.
Personally I am quite opposed to both spying and state secrets/executive privilege (at least without a inextensible mandatory declassification after 5-10 years), but overreactions lead to burrowing to trenches on all sides.
April 14, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're also continuing to protect the habeas and torture violations. The Red Cross documents that were leaked a couple of weeks ago were official evidence of torture abuses. The law demands that these crimes be prosecuted if convincing evidence exists, but not a peep from DOJ.
Somewhat related: the Spanish courts are going ahead with the prosecution of Gonzalez, Feith, Addington, Woo, et al. for torture. And they’re appointing another judge instead of Garzon-Leal who was, ironically, trying the same accused terrorists on which this case was based. The Spanish government has expressed hope this prosecution doesn't affect our improved relations with them, but they are still going forward. Seems their justice system prosecutes lawbreaking regardless.
April 14, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
affect our improved relations
Hey, it doesn't erode my affection for Spanish chicks one bit.
Ole.
April 14, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
¡No tengo problemo!
April 14, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excusé- para jollyroger.
April 14, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Several left-leaning think tanks have already voiced their dismay, but it'll be interesting to see if the general public (that was so up in arms a few years ago when Bush did this)
I am not going to look up and produce citations, since it's not that important to me, but I don't remember it this way. I remember the blogosphere "up in arms," but I also remember general public/ polls showing a shrug, ala "privacy is history, everyone else is already spying on us, we're almost suprised the government is getting into the game so late." No? It almost seemed to me like the blogosphere was doing a "where's the outrage?!" at the time, and the public wasn't too upset though they might have been cynical about the value of it terrorism-wise.
April 14, 2009 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
the public wasn't too upset
I think you may be on to something, and I confess I got a wave of Fuddy Duddy Anxiety when I realized that the whole notion of "privacy" is perhaps (not unlike the Geneva Conventions in a different context...) "quaint".
I think "those kids", with their Tweeter-Totter, or whatever it is, and that MyFace thing, they don't think of privacy like we, um, we stuck-in-the-muds do, as it were.
April 15, 2009 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I seem to remember some polls a few years ago showing about 60-70% against the illegal spying and later polls showing majority public support for prosecution of crimes committed by the Bush admin. Of course, everything is overly intense in the blogosphere (it's a wonder people still use lower case letters).
Most people close to me have been outraged over the gamut of abuses, but some more generally (more about the lying about Saddam and Iraq than anything). Acquaintances and co-workers do express fear of loss of privacy when the subject comes up.
But you're right that people aren't marching in the streets or calling their Senators (much). Still, if they were, would it be televised?
As for those damn kids- oi! You don't know that you've lost something, if you never knew you had it.
April 15, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't know that you've lost something
Yes and no--the pursuit of "privacy", in its essence, is the vindication of one's interest in avoiding the experience of shame before one's peers.
The solution: Let your freak flag fly.
April 16, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. But I’m not quite ready to shout, “Go naked!” (not in the shape I’m in). And it wasn't so very long ago that your "freak flag" would get you rousted in many parts of the country. One man's freak is another's sin or crime.
Now, if my neighbor sunbathes topless in her backyard, and I just happen to trim the hedges at the same time every day (they do grow awfully fast)... I don’t know if that’s an invasion but would likely be to her. Regardless, the privacy I was talking about was freedom from invasions by the state.
The TIA programs that the government has been running, sweeping up all information on everyone they can, looking for some infraction against whatever sacred cow scarecrow (or sacred crow scarecow either) they’ve decided is a threat, is most definitely ripe for abuse, and there lies the way to oppression.
I wonder what kind of chilling effect the whole surveillance state thing has had (not only in the establishment media but in our institutions and government itself).
April 16, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
rousted in many parts of the country.
Indeed.
Myself, (not surpisingly), I am impatient with those who wish to be protected from being offended by the sight of my ass--even if it is not the ass of my youth. Let'em suck it up.
April 19, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're talking a different kind of chilling effect there.
I'm just offended that some of these kids can, apparently, afford better underwear than I can shirts, pants or any wardrobe! (I recently chided my son for proudly parading his kitschy underwear emblazoned with creepy-looking clowns. He just said, "Oh, that's what those are?!").
April 19, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
parading his kitschy underwear emblazoned with creepy-looking clowns
You will, I'm sure, understand my stated conviction that the clowns in question are not peering out over the top of a fifteen-year-old's saggy pants, altho' if they were it would be a hellova fashion statement.
April 19, 2009 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink