Court rules against Obama
By lilwonders
@lilwonders456 (8214)
United States
February 27, 2009 8:44pm CST
The Obama administration has lost its argument that a potential threat to national security should stop a lawsuit against the government's warrantless wiretapping program.
A federal appeals court in San Francisco on Friday rejected the Justice Department's request for an emergency stay in a case.
The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, claimed national security would be compromised if a lawsuit was allowed to proceed.
The decision is a setback for Obama as he has adopted some of the same positions on national security and secrecy as the Bush administration.
A number of organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, tried to sue the government over warrantless wiretapping but were denied because they could nto prove they were targeted.
Well it does not look like Obama is going to keep that promise he made about getting rid of the Patriot Act. Seem he likes warrantless wire taps too. What happened to transparency in the government? What do you think? Should people be allowed to sue the gov. for wire tappig them WITHOUT getting a warrant? Who is to stop them from abusing it?
2 people like this
6 responses
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
2 Mar 09
That's because those people trust Obama implicitly without question. He speaks and they obey. They treat him like the chosen one and when he defies the constitution, quadruples the budget deficit, and supports Bush's policies, everything is ok because he has the letter "D" next to his name.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
2 Mar 09
I vote for the latter...even though I did not vote for him.
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
28 Feb 09
In terms of civil liberties, the Obama administration is looking more and more like a 3rd Bush term. I sit in disgust with each passing year at what our federal government has become. Our founders would never have allowed things to progress this far. They are almost certainly looking down uopn us in great shame.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
28 Feb 09
I think it's even worse than Bush for civil liberties. Between the first, second, and fourth amendments he's violating it's only a matter of time before he just writes up a new constitution entirely. Those are just the ones I think of off the top of my head. I'm sure you could name more.
1 person likes this
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
28 Feb 09
Well this could not have happen to a greater guy, LOL! Where are all of those Ron Paul supporter that had the nerves to say that Obama would bring a positive attitude towards civil rights. Publication like Reason, websites like Lew Rockwell.com and others that supported Ron Paul during the primaries actually wrote that America would be better off with Obama than McCain. Okay now what, Obama running his administering very similar to George W. Bush. While Obama was a Senator he actually voted for the renewal of the Patriot Act, so I really am not shocked by this. What I am shocked by this is the lack of out cry from his supporters. The Fourth Amendment does not say anywhere about the state reserve the right to ignore using a warrant.
@gvannorman (438)
• United States
28 Feb 09
I think that the Patriot Act was put in place, not to give the Goverment more power over the people, but to give it the angle it needs to help protect the people.
I dont know about you, but right after 9/11 it was not easy to sleep. I did not feel safe in this country. I feel safer now than I did right after the attack on the WTC.
1 person likes this
@xParanoiax (6987)
• United States
28 Feb 09
Fact is, unless people can sue the government or take some legal action against the government...NO ONE can keep them from abusing it.
Why not work on getting warrants for wiretapping in a more speedy process? Why not focus on making THAT system more efficient?
I'm disappointed, though not surprised that that is indeed how thing look on where Obama stands with this.
@xParanoiax (6987)
• United States
28 Feb 09
P.s. after looking up at your response lilwonders, I'm happy to say that I THOUGHT that's what they did...and the reason I said "more speedy" was 'cause that was their excuse for why "getting warrants sucks". Just thought I'd clarify.
@BlueGoblin (1829)
• United States
28 Feb 09
Gvannorman sounds like the PR guy for the Patriot Act. I fear my government more than I fear a terrorist threat. Trading freedom for security is a dangerous thing.
@gvannorman (438)
• United States
28 Feb 09
NO people should not be able to sue the goverment for wire tapping them. How is the goverment supposed wire tap someone with a warrant. It is supposed to be a secret, that way you can catch them in the act of breaking the law. I feel that if the goverment thought I was a threat to the country then so be it, tap my calls. Make sure. It helps me sleep at night knowing that this country is making the world a safer place for all of us.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
28 Feb 09
Well actually before Bush put the patriot act in place....there used to be a special department within the gov that just did that. Did warrants for secret wire taps. They were judges that looked at the evidence...made sure there was probable cause and that laws of privacy were followed. But not in open court so it was still secret. The people still did not know they were being listened to. Now...well they can decide to wire tap whoever they want without justification or cause and no one can say a word. I do think it should go before a panel of special judges to make sure the gov. is not abusing its power.
@gvannorman (438)
• United States
28 Feb 09
Dont you think that this special panel of Judges were biased on the goverments side?
I think that regardless if the warrants are seen before the secret panel of Judges or not, it doesn not matter. I guess I just dont see a difference. You still dont know if there is a warrant or not, and you never will.
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
28 Feb 09
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S Constitution
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.
I do not see where in that gives the state the right to ignore using a warrant?
