READER COMMENTS ON

"Federal Judge Finds Bush/Obama's Domestic NSA Wiretapping Program Illegal"

(19 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... any mouse said on 3/31/2010 @ 9:02 pm PT...





I'm so happy to read this. There is at least one judge in America upholding citizens rights. Perhaps this will result in setting matters straight throughout the United States.

COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... Billy said on 3/31/2010 @ 9:25 pm PT...





To defend Bush now would defeat the purpose of becomming a Teabagger. Republicans became Teabaggers because they were proven wrong about everything. Republicans became Teabaggers because they were afraid to fess up to what they did to our country. Republicans became Teabagges because thousands of American troops died for no reason. Republicans became Teabaggers because they are cowards of the lowest order.

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... Ancient said on 3/31/2010 @ 9:38 pm PT...





Vitamine E, water, and roughage...stay present and THINK. Good ole crossword puzzles and scrabble!

COMMENT #4 [Permalink]

... Ska-T said on 3/31/2010 @ 10:27 pm PT...





I wonder if Teabaggers see the irony in how the US preaches morality to the world, but doesn't abide by it. In this case, Bush violated the Constitution and Obama refuses to bring the law breakers to account (and he continues the illegal practice). I'm a strong believer that it's important to look forward and not backwards, and to remind ourselves that we do have very real security threats out there. -Obama But when Obama commented on the violations of another government (Indonesia, in this case) he said: We have to acknowledge that those past human rights abuses existed. We can't go forward without looking backwards ... Obama can't have it both ways, and neither can the Teabaggers and militia terrorists.

------------

The above is stolen from Glenn Greenwald.

COMMENT #5 [Permalink]

... sophia said on 4/1/2010 @ 5:13 am PT...





Wasn't SURE this was not Brad's idea of an April Fool's Day posting. Am allowing myself a tiny glimmer of hope, it being spring & all. Yay?!

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]

... simon said on 4/1/2010 @ 5:37 am PT...





This is as explosive as Sibel's exposure of Marc Grossman. Why is Sibel out of town for this one? Can Mark Klein's attorneys reopen his case now with precedent? Is this Obama's way of supporting the case by allowing Judge Vaughn to see classified reasons for supporting warrantless wiretapping? It can't be let to die. All Americans are being wiretapped, and anyone speaking out is placed under surveillance. This goes to the very basis of freedom of speech!

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 4/1/2010 @ 7:34 am PT...





So glad you could cover this as I didn't have the time. Of course, if we had real accountability, those who ordered the violations of FISA and statutes banning torture would have long ago been brought before the bar of justice.

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]

... Paul L. said on 4/1/2010 @ 8:15 am PT...





Why are you are quoting the "hated"/"dishonest" NY Times who got the "ACORN PIMP HOAX" wrong? For you Tea Baggers: Looks like the NYTimes mis-characterized the decision. The Obama Administration wasn’t arguing that the surveillance program was lawful. As a result, the decision doesn’t rule that the program was unlawful. Rather, the Obama Administration was just arguing that Judge Walker couldn’t reach the merits of the case because of the state secrets privilege. After Judge Walker rejected the state secrets privilege claim, the case was over: DOJ not having argued that warrantless monitoring was lawful, Walker had no choice but to grant relief to the plaintiffs on their claim.

COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... Taylor Johnston said on 4/1/2010 @ 10:03 am PT...





Please Remove Your Shoes is a revealing documentary about Broken Government; The TSA. Please check it out here: http://www.facebook.com/...hoes/106678037093?ref=ts

COMMENT #10 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 4/1/2010 @ 10:18 am PT...





Paul L. asked: Why are you are quoting the "hated"/"dishonest" NY Times who got the "ACORN PIMP HOAX" wrong? Because this time they got the story right, courtesy of one of their few smart hiring decision recently by bringing on Charlie Savage. As to your other reach, courtesy of The Volokh Conspiracy, the technical issue you've quoted unskeptically from Orin Kerr is largely dispatched by the bulk of the commenters over there. Here is just one of them that smartly sums up the general theme: Orin, I think you’re being a little hyper-technical here. First, I think that the arguments the Bush admininstration originally put forth to justify its warrantless surveillance program (that the president has the “inherent authority” to disregard FISA or that the AUMF trumps FISA) are implicit rejected in several parts of this opinion. Second, as I suspect you concur, the reason the government didn’t even try to defend the legal merits of the program itself is because those arguments are frivilous. Indeed, they were largely rejected (belatedly) by even Bush’s DOJ, which is why FISA had to be amended. The contention that Bush’s program was legal under the then-existing version of FISA is just not defensible. Finally, since you appear to be one of Andrew Breitbart's Tea Bag Boyz, I'll ask you to speak for those Tea Baggers I queried in the original post. It is your opinion that Barack Obama may spy on any American he feels like, at any time --- via phone taps or reading their emails, etc. --- for any reason whatsoever, without receiving approval from anyone, any court, to carry out his search and seizure at any time, as the Bush Administration had argued? Do I understand you Baggers correctly that you are in favor of such unchecked powers for President Obama?

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]

... Paul L. said on 4/1/2010 @ 10:48 am PT...





It seem that you like to use the "technicality" excuse when you do not agree with a court decision.

Like you did with the dismissal of the ACORN lawsuit in Baltimore.

So I and the "teabaggers" are considered to be a suspected terrorists/Foreign agents by the Obama Administration?

From Wiki The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between

"foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" (which may include American citizens and permanent residents suspected of being engaged in espionage and violating U.S. law on territory under United States control).

COMMENT #12 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 4/1/2010 @ 1:47 pm PT...





Paul L. said: It seem that you like to use the "technicality" excuse when you do not agree with a court decision.

Like you did with the dismissal of the ACORN lawsuit in Baltimore. Are you having trouble keeping your stories straight? The Bush/Obama Administration's did not lose wiretapping case on a "technicality". That's an absurd, and full unsupportable argument. Second, as to the dismissal of the case against O'Keefe and Giles, there was no finding at all. The case was simply dismissed because plaintiffs didn't timely serve the defendants. An argument that O'Keefe and Giles didn't break the law there would be absurd. But, of course, I suspect you know that and don't care, because it supports your partisan agenda to argue otherwise. So I and the "teabaggers" are considered to be a suspected terrorists/Foreign agents by the Obama Administration? Don't know. It's up the Obama Administration. So I'll presume you don't mind them deciding if you are or not. The question was, do you support Barack Obama deciding whether you are, on his own, with no oversight, so that he can then tap any citizens phone or email that he likes, for any reason whatsoever? You and the Tea Baggers are in favor of that, correct?

COMMENT #13 [Permalink]

... Paul L. said on 4/1/2010 @ 2:31 pm PT...





The Obama Administration has to prove that the teabaggers fall under FISA.

I would guess that progressives and the would say the Tea party is a Zionist conspiracy and the Obama Administration could use Israel as the "foreign power" to use FISA.

Progressives in the past have use similar crazy legal logic to apply RICO to abortion protesters. Your statement that "Domestic NSA Wiretapping Program Illegal" is not supported by the decision since the DOJ did not argue about the legality of the program instead used 'State Secrets Privilege'.

Pointing this was the "technicality".

COMMENT #14 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 4/1/2010 @ 3:19 pm PT...





Paul L.: Why won't you answer the question? Do you support Barack Obama being able to spy on any American citizen he likes without oversight of any sort? As to your continued obfuscations: Your statement that "Domestic NSA Wiretapping Program Illegal" is not supported by the decision since the DOJ did not argue about the legality of the program instead used 'State Secrets Privilege'.

Pointing this was the "technicality". That is nonsense. Setting aside that this is the second court to have determined that Bush's spying was illegal (the first decision was overturned on appeal, based on lack of standing, but the substantive decision about the illegalities of Bush spying was not spoken to by the appelate court, so was left to stand, essentially), the fact is, by your argument, if I'm charged with murder, use an insanity defense without speaking to whether I murdered or not, and the court finds me guilty, then the court never found I was guilty of murder. The litigants in Al-Haramain who charged that Bush illegally spied on them were found, by summary judgment, to have been guilty of exactly that. Simply because the Obama DoJ could find to legitimate defense for having illegally spied, and thus chose to use "SSP" as their defense instead, is no "technicality". But even guilty parties aren't guilty in your corner of the world, so out of touch have you become with reality, it would seem. So do you believe Obama should be able to spy on any American citizen he wants, at any time, without court order or oversight, as Bush argued, or not?

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 4/1/2010 @ 9:35 pm PT...





Paul L-- Glenn Greenwald rebutts Orin Kerr's claim that this ruling did not find the illegal wiretapping illegal. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/01-4 "Kerr is wrong when he says that this ruling does not constitute a decision that the Bush NSA program was illegal --- it does exactly that, because the plaintiffs offered evidence and arguments to prove it was illegal and the Obama DOJ (like the Bush DOJ before it) failed to offer anything to the contrary"

COMMENT #16 [Permalink]

... Robert O'Hara said on 4/2/2010 @ 2:54 pm PT...





A finding/judgement of illegality that doesn't result in any indictments is hard to get excited about. The rest of the world would be very impressed to see some people go to prison. Otherwise, its just words.

COMMENT #17 [Permalink]

... CharlieL said on 4/2/2010 @ 3:37 pm PT...





Robert O'Hara at #16 has a point. The TeaBaggers and Paul L are right on one score: Since nobody is being punished or pursued, clearly this behavior is LEGAL. If it were illegal, then the Department of Justice would stop it and indict those who did it in the past. Since that will never happen, we can assume that it is legal. Based on the actions of the Obama DoJ, torture is legal. Outing a CIA spy is legal. Lying America into illegal wars of aggression is legal. Killing innocent civilians in wartime is legal. Stealing from the US Treasury for personal or corporate gain is legal. Railroading a political candidate into prison is legal. Stealing an election is legal. Denying people their right to vote is legal. Refusing to count legally cast votes is legal. Just about ANYTHING is legal.

COMMENT #18 [Permalink]

... Simon said on 4/3/2010 @ 3:44 am PT...





Simple, but true. Wireless wiretapping is practiced on many U.S. citizens, including Quakers because they support non-violence. That translates into being put on a terrorist watch list. When caught the Feds cannot apologize because that is admission of liability, the only thing presently that holds up in court. Police State anyone?

COMMENT #19 [Permalink]

... Tomazulob said on 4/4/2010 @ 7:40 am PT...

