Obama fighting to keep wiretaps secret

[ArlJim78]

Isn't it odd how Bushs warrantless wiretapping caused the left to go ballistic, with talk of trampling the constitution etc, yet when Obama's Justice department defends that same practice in numerous lawsuits, you can hear nothing but crickets chirping. suddenly its not an issue anymore. what happened?? where's the outrage? where is the ACLU? you don't suppose that the ones who were crying about it under Bush were not really concerned so much about the issue as they were with scoring political points against Bush do you? no that couldn't be the case.:rolleyes:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/06/BARP16TJOQ.DTL&tsp=1

(04-06) 15:26 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The Obama administration is again invoking government secrecy in defending the Bush administration's wiretapping program, this time against a lawsuit by AT&T customers who claim federal agents illegally intercepted their phone calls and gained access to their records.

Disclosure of information sought by the customers, "which concerns how the United States seeks to detect and prevent terrorist attacks, would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security," Justice Department lawyers said in papers filed Friday in San Francisco.

Gee, where have we heard that before? sounds just like Bush/Cheney

[boxcar]

May I suggest that "exceptional grave harm to national security" will be the excuse given by BO if we presented legal challenges to prevent the feds from monitoring our emails and internet activities?

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

interesting thought, It wouldn't surpise me any. i know that they have their eyes on the internet for the next domain to conquer and I don't think its only to do with national security.

[JustRalph]

Duplicity

[PaceAdvantage]

I for one am shocked. :sleeping:

[mostpost]

Isn't it odd how Bushs warrantless wiretapping caused the left to go ballistic, with talk of trampling the constitution etc, yet when Obama's Justice department defends that same practice in numerous lawsuits, you can hear nothing but crickets chirping. suddenly its not an issue anymore. what happened?? where's the outrage? where is the ACLU? you don't suppose that the ones who were crying about it under Bush were not really concerned so much about the issue as they were with scoring political points against Bush do you? no that couldn't be the case.:rolleyes:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/06/BARP16TJOQ.DTL&tsp=1

(04-06) 15:26 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The Obama administration is again invoking government secrecy in defending the Bush administration's wiretapping program, this time against a lawsuit by AT&T customers who claim federal agents illegally intercepted their phone calls and gained access to their records.

Disclosure of information sought by the customers, "which concerns how the United States seeks to detect and prevent terrorist attacks, would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security," Justice Department lawyers said in papers filed Friday in San Francisco.

Gee, where have we heard that before? sounds just like Bush/Cheney

Apples and Oranges. The "Left's" problem is with WARRANTLESS wiretapping.
The issue here is whether information gleaned from wiretapping (warrantless or otherwise) should be made public, if doing so would result in a breach of national security. The answer to that is NO. Now, what if the Obama administration had agreed to this request and released the information? There would have been a firestorm on this board. He would have been called a traitor and a POS, and the call to revolution would be heard throughout the land.

[mostpost]

interesting thought, It wouldn't surpise me any. I know that
they have their eyes on the internet for the next domain to conquer and I don't think its only to do with national security.

The White House called. It's your turn to bring donuts to the next cabinet meeting.

[ArlJim78]

Apples and Oranges. The "Left's" problem is with WARRANTLESS wiretapping.
The issue here is whether information gleaned from wiretapping (warrantless or otherwise) should be made public, if doing so would result in a breach of national security. The answer to that is NO. Now, what if the Obama administration had agreed to this request and released the information? There would have been a firestorm on this board. He would have been called a traitor and a POS, and the call to revolution would be heard throughout the land.
its certainly not apples and oranges. Obama has not rescinded the Patriot Act or warrantless wiretapping, so it's now "Obama's Warrantless Wiretapping".
he is doing nothing different from Bush, the only difference is that people like you would never for a second think to be critical of Obama when he is in fact carrying out the identical policy that Bush did. But Bush was called a criminal who spit on the constitution. sorry but those are the facts.

[mostpost]

its certainly not apples and oranges. Obama has not rescinded the Patriot Act or warrantless wiretapping, so it's now "Obama's Warrantless Wiretapping".
he is doing nothing different from Bush, the only difference is that people like you would never for a second think to be critical of Obama when he is in fact carrying out the identical policy that Bush did. But Bush was called a criminal who spit on the constitution. sorry but those are the facts.

Unlike you, I don't have a seat at Cabinet meetings, so I am not privy to what type of wiretapping the Obama administration is carrying out. Nevertheless, I am sure that it follows the dictates of the law, and that is, therefore, quite different from what Bush did.
The issue in the court case is wiretapping done during the Bush Administration.
The lawsuit dates to 2006. The question is if the plaintiffs should have access to information from the wiretaps in order to move their case forward. My view is that they should not, if to do so would jeopradize security and intelligence gathering capabilities. This is NOT the same as agreeing with the methods used to gather that intelligence if those methods were not legal.

[Lefty]

post, Obama is defending the Bush wiretaps, so he can continue them. If you can read, no need to be in cabinet meetings. If he's defending the wiretaps, they would be the same warrantless wiretaps. So don't be a hypocrite.

[Tom]

Frankly, as president, in times of terror-threats, I have no problem with HIM doing it either. As long as he, like Bush, doesn't abuse the power.

[mostpost]

Frankly, as president, in times of terror-threats, I have no problem with HIM doing it either. As long as he, like Bush, doesn't abuse the power.

OK. Except for the two words "like Bush" I agree with Tom.

I'm going to go lie down now.:confused: :confused: :confused:

[Lefty]

so,post, give us some facts on how Bush abused the power.

I have no problem with Obama doing it, my problem is with him, and the rest of the lying sanctimonious dims, criticizing Bush and then do the same thing.

[mostpost]

so,post, give us some facts on how Bush abused the power.

I have no problem with Obama doing it, my problem is with him, and the rest of the lying sanctimonious dims, criticizing Bush and then do the same thing.

From ArlJim78's post beginning this thread:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/06/BARP16TJOQ.DTL&tsp=1

Read paragraph 5. By his own acknowledgement>