Obama Refuses to Release Bush’s Legal Excuse for Illegal Surveillance

What is your opinion on warrentless wiretaps ? How does such a policy impact our rights under the fourth amendment of the US Constitution ?

I ask this because of what I read in this short blog:

www.allgov.com...

It is about the FOIA request concerning the memo from the OLC to Bush. Giving him the go-a-head for warrentless wiretaps of American citizens.

One thing from the memo that was released by the Justice Department was a brief assertion involving the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which dictates when the government can snoop on those deemed a threat to the nation. The statement read that “unless Congress made a clear statement in FISA that it sought to restrict presidential authority to conduct warrantless searches in the national security area—which it has not—then the statute must be construed to avoid such a reading.”

I would appreciate a "civil" discussion of this topic as I personally find it one more step down a "slippery slope" toward our downfall as a nation.

reply to post by hdutton


I really don't know what to think about it I can understand that people think it is an invasion of privacy. Personally, I don't care if anyone listens to me or not. I have nothing to hide.

I also have nothing to hide. I just wish people would be honest with themselves and admit Obama and Bush have the exact same stances and policies on privacy rights. But they won't.

reply to post by hdutton


I do not have anything to hide either, but that does not give someone permission to watch me shower. Nor does it give them permission to insert a microphone into my home to listen to my conversations. Nor does it give a person the right to listen to my private conversations occurring from one household to another household.

There was one provision of the FISA bill that I could possibly support for national security reasons and this is international calling; but, only for the purpose of monitoring the out of country caller. However, FISA allowed government to do just this prior to 9/11, so expanding it into the US, makes absolutely no sense to me. How about we keep our borders monitored instead?

reply to post by hdutton


The wiretaps are unconstitutional, so I can't see how any politician would approve of them. The Patriot Act really did some serious damage to our rights, and a president that swears an oath to defend the Constitution and then extends the Patriot Act should be impeached.

I'm sure at least 20% of people on here are considered "threats" and are monitored at all times. Hell, there's probably some fat bastard reading every post I write.

Originally posted by billy197300
reply to post by hdutton

 

I really don't know what to think about it I can understand that people think it is an invasion of privacy. Personally, I don't care if anyone listens to me or not. I have nothing to hide.

You don't care because you have nothing to hide???? This is what's wrong with people. This is why we have rights stripped away everyday. This is why we are groped at the airport, etc....
Wake up.

reply to post by billy197300

I really don't know what to think about it I can understand that people think it is an invasion of privacy. Personally, I don't care if anyone listens to me or not. I have nothing to hide.

You have nothing to hide, huh? So you wouldn't mind if some cops came to your house and searched every inch looking for anything illegal? It would be OK if you got a manditory cavity search because you don't have anything up there to hide? You'd be OK with having an implanted microchip which monitors where you are at all times, because you have nothing to hide?

:shk:

Judging from the response to this post I can only conclude that most people are correct in their belief "they have nothing to hide."

It might be interesting to hear these same statements from these people after they takeup residence in one of those FEMA camps.

Not saying this will happen but I can't help wondering if they had ever thought about the possibilities.

Oh, no ! I am sure the government can be fully trusted on all levels.

So what, exactly, IS the difference between the Dems and Repubs? Seems Obama picked up right where Bush left off, even adding a few new wrinkles(Libya, health care to name just a couple).

He sure as hell hasn't changed anything. It's really quite laughable, how he ran with the transparency and change, he's about as transparent as lead and has only changed things for the worse.

I sometimes think this world just can't be real. People actually FALL for the left/right paradigm - really, just come and talk to my Mom, she'll likely say that all Democrats should be killed, that's how much she hates them. It's insane hatred coming from a tiny old lady. To boot, she willingly listens to the GOP radio propaganda every waking moment of every day but believes everything they say, and I do mean everything.

Talk to her about anything other than politics and you might think she's a pretty smart old bird. Once politics is raised, it's like Jekyll and Hyde and I'm not joking. The sneers, the contempt, it's racism IMHO.

Yet here we have Obama sticking up for Bush. Right? Isn't that what is essentially happening? Meanwhile, essentially doing all the same things Bush did. IMHO it shows collusion, which under the definitions of conspiracy theory, means there is a conspiracy. That leads to who is really pulling the strings, the International Banking Cartel.

So Obama is just doing what he's told, keep us in slavery and under constant and ever far more reaching surveillance, really. He's just a pawn(well, maybe a bishop or something like that) like the rest of us. He just gets a retirement home and loads of cash while we get nothing. Death, a nice one, if we're lucky, is all we can hope for.

So, again, I'd like to ask, exactly where lies the difference between these two damned parties? I surely am NOT seeing it. Maybe I've lost my marbles and my logic is faulty.

Maybe not.

I'm guessing the excuse Bush used Obama is hoping to use too.

All these illegal wiretaps are more about an invasion of privacy and voyeurism more than anything else. As if they attempted to bring anyone(american citizen) to trial with any information collected while under illegal surveillance the case would promptly be thrown out.

Although I don't have anything to hide, I like my privacy and tend to keep it that way, because what ever I do really isn't any of the governments business. It also isn't like all the "homegrown terrorist" that have been all over the news have all been setup and orchestrated by the FBI.

reply to post by TheLoony


I am afraid if your logic is faulty, so are many of the rest of us.

I will admit I was hoping for much more than I have realized from Obama, but I could not find a way to vote Republican the last presidential election.

So much is my personal disappointment with ALL the current applicants for this job, I am thinking of starting a movement to draft someone else.

No, not a third party. Just an American citizens draft !

First I would need to find someone who puts this country first and is also not afraid to speak their mind about their convictions.

Of course, it would be nice if they agreed with me.

I've always considered this type of surveillance Battlefield Intelligence.

THEY brought the battlefield to US.

This is an invaluable tool in the war on terror. It makes me wonder what the motives are for the people against it?

The angle of this article which particularly struck me is the blatant description of the different way "justice" is applied to the so-called "elite" as compared to the rest of us plebes.

The "let's look forward, not back" policy, in effect, eliminates any and all possibility for justice!

The entire justice system is based on looking back... gathering evidence of wrong-doing, and imposing punishment to dissuade the repetition of the undesired behavior! No wonder the ruling classes continue to engage in extremely questionable acts and decision making.

Would people be more or less likely to rob a bank if, once the crime was committed, there would be no investigation into it whatsoever, and no attempt at any type of prosecution...
hmmm, let me think....
oh wait, we know the answer just by watching the actions of the banks, guilty of fraud causing the financial collapse, who were given the same "let's look forward" system of parallel justice.

the Billmeister

I've always considered this type of surveillance Battlefield Intelligence.

reply to post by Carseller4


With this I agree.

THEY brought the battlefield to US.

Can't help but wonder which THEYand why.

This is an invaluable tool in the war on terror

Yes, but does not the prefix "in" give the root word a negative meaning?

It makes me wonder what the motives are for the people against it?

I am aware you are from Texas, but I would have thought you could read and understand the US Constitution.
Maybe succession has some good points after all.

Just for the record, Obama hasn't the authority to overturn or release Bush's legal counsel communications. Obama nor the next administration can simply declare it public. This is a grossly misleading headline. Read this again:

The Department of Justice mostly denied Aid’s Freedom of Information Act request, saying the redacted information in the OLC opinion was “classified, covered by non-disclosure provisions contained in other federal statutes, and is protected by the deliberative process privilege.”

If you want to know what Bush's legal advisor wrote to him about how to conduct illegal surveillance you'll have to take them to court. A FOIA request of privileged legal communication between client and their legal advisor was never going to fly. This is another "blame Obama" for something he has no control or authority over.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


According to "Scooter" Libby, it is up to the president to decide what is or is not classified.

If one president can decide to declassify the existance of a CIA officer, surely another can declassify the memos which undermine the forth amendment.

reply to post by hdutton


It's not just classified, it's protected attorney-client communication. The only way Obama or any future president can make this public is to overturn a whole bunch of laws protecting such. That's what makes this FOIA request different from a typical FOIA request.

EPIC is going about this the right way, by taking the DOJ to court and asking that these docs be released. EPIC along with the ACLU and the National Security Archives have combined forces to get at these letters. The author of the blog piece in the OP is not going about this the right way filing a FOIA for protected communication between Bush and his lawyer - which rightly so should e rejected, just as any letter between you and your lawyer should not be subject to public disclosure. He only makes himself look foolish by trying to claim that Obama "refuses" to release it, when Obama is not the authority in this case.

reply to post by TupacShakur


I agree with you and if Obama doesn't end this war and repeal the Patriot Act then I think he should be removed from office but I also think Bush and Cheney should be tried and executed for treason for doing what they did in the first place.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by billy197300

 

I really don't know what to think about it I can understand that people think it is an invasion of privacy. Personally, I don't care if anyone listens to me or not. I have nothing to hide.

You have nothing to hide, huh? So you wouldn't mind if some cops came to your house and searched every inch looking for anything illegal? It would be OK if you got a manditory cavity search because you don't have anything up there to hide? You'd be OK with having an implanted microchip which monitors where you are at all times, because you have nothing to hide?

:shk:

WOW! I was talking about phone taps. Last time I checked cops where I live need a warrent to search my house, and they wouldn't unless I was doing something wrong. I have never been anywhere that has mandatory cavity searches and I have been all over this country. If I actually found a place where they have those I would probably just not go there lol. AND sorry to say, but, noone is implanting people with chips that monitor them where I live. Paranoid alot there buddy lol? I want to know where you live where these kind of things are happening?

reply to post by billy197300

WOW! I was talking about phone taps. Last time I checked cops where I live need a warrent to search my house, and they wouldn't unless I was doing something wrong. I have never been anywhere that has mandatory cavity searches and I have been all over this country. If I actually found a place where they have those I would probably just not go there lol. AND sorry to say, but, noone is implanting people with chips that monitor them where I live. Paranoid alot there buddy lol? I want to know where you live where these kind of things are happening?

You didn't get the point. My point in going to those extremes was to show how an invasion of privacy is an invasion of privacy regardless of the circumstances, and your mentality is what's paving the way for those situations that I described.

You might not have anything to hide, but that doesn't give the government to unconstitutionally spy on you. That was my point, if you don't have anything to hide in your home as well, why not let some cops search every inch of it? If you don't have anything hidden in your rectum, why not let a cop poke around in there? If you don't go anywhere and do anything illegal, why not let the government implant a chip to monitor where you go, it can't hurt since you have nothing to hide, right?