posted August 21, 2013 05:05 PM            

Update: In response to EFF's FOIA lawsuit, the government has released the 2011 FISA court opinion ruling some NSA surveillance unconstitutional.

For almost two years, EFF has been fighting the government in federal court to force the public release of an 86-page opinion of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). Issued in October 2011, the secret court's opinion found that surveillance conducted by the NSA under the FISA Amendments Act was unconstitutional and violated "the spirit of" federal law.

Today, EFF can declare victory: a federal court ordered the government to release records in our litigation, the government has indicated it intends to release the opinion today, and ODNI has called a 3:00 ET press conference to discuss "issues" with FISA Amendments Act surveillance, which we assume will include a discussion of the opinion.

It remains to be seen how much of the opinion the government will actually make available to the public. President Obama has repeatedly said he welcomes a debate on the NSA's surveillance: disclosing this opinion—and releasing enough of it so that citizens and advocates can intelligently debate the constitutional violation that occurred—is a critical step in ensuring that an informed debate takes place.

Here are examples of documents previously released by the administration in response to our Freedom of Information Act request. Anything even resembling those "releases" would be utterly unacceptable today. But we've come a long way since then. It took filing a lawsuit; litigating (and winning) in the FISC itself; the unprecedented public release of information about NSA surveillance activities; and our continuing efforts to push the government in the district court for release of the opinion.

posted August 21, 2013 05:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catalina:
Not sure how you come to that conclusion? It seems Snowden has infinitely made it easier for Obama to bring reforms he's talked about for years into effect despite congress' EXPRESS DESIRE to stymie his every move!

---

posted August 22, 2013 07:20 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catalina:
Not sure how you come to that conclusion? It seems Snowden has infinitely made it easier for Obama to bring reforms he's talked about for years into effect despite congress' EXPRESS DESIRE to stymie his every move!

---

Oh no!

We were getting along so well...now this...

BTW, are you the rebirth of katatonic? If not, she was a member who also thought the President was just endlessly frustrated by an uncooperative Congress, never seeing his complicity.

posted August 22, 2013 08:10 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
With the recent reveal of how many thousands of times the NSA violated the law and their own policies with little to no oversight, Obama finally has to concede and create true reforms. But you can bet that little snake doesn't want to.

---

Of course not

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted August 22, 2013 12:07 PM            

Nor am I the only person who sees that Obama appears to pick his battles and frequently gets his way only by appearing to want the opposite. Or have you not noticed that congress has a kneejerk reaction to everything he opposes? Politics is a game and an art. Kennedy declined to play the game, Johnson quite the opposite.

posted August 22, 2013 01:30 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catalina:
Yes, Faith, I was katatonic.

---

Well God bless, hope you enjoy your resurrection, kat/Cat.

posted August 22, 2013 03:05 PM            

That's why it makes no sense to me to separate Obama from the rest Congress, as if he is in a different class. They work so well together.

posted August 22, 2013 03:43 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted August 24, 2013 07:51 AM            

quote:

---

This administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

---

^ Barack Obama, 2007

But now...

posted August 24, 2013 08:21 AM            

quote:

---

First, I will work with Congress to pursue appropriate reforms to Section 215 of the Patriot Act � the program that collects telephone records. As I've said, this program is an important tool in our effort to disrupt terrorist plots. And it does not allow the government to listen to any phone calls without a warrant. But given the scale of this program, I understand the concerns of those who would worry that it could be subject to abuse.

---

^ Obama loves the Patriot Act and so does Congress.

quote:

---

Second, I'll work with Congress to improve the public's confidence in the oversight conducted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, known as the FISC. The FISC was created by Congress to provide judicial review of certain intelligence activities so that a federal judge must find that our actions are consistent with the Constitution. However, to build greater confidence, I think we should consider some additional changes to the FISC.

One of the concerns that people raise is that a judge reviewing a request from the government to conduct programmatic surveillance only hears one side of the story � may tilt it too far in favor of security, may not pay enough attention to liberty. And while I've got confidence in the court and I think they've done a fine job, I think we can provide greater assurances that the court is looking at these issues from both perspectives � security and privacy.

---

^ Obama loves the FISA courts and so does Congress.

quote:

---

Having said that, though, if you are outside of the intelligence community, if you are the ordinary person and you start seeing a bunch of headlines saying, U.S.-Big Brother looking down on you, collecting telephone records, et cetera, well, understandably, people would be concerned. I would be, too, if I wasn't inside the government.

---

Does he mean, "Now that I AM Big Brother, I see the advantages of this scheme"?

quote:

---

And the other thing that's happening is, is that as technology develops further, technology itself may provide us some additional safeguards. So, for example, if people don't have confidence that the law, the checks and balances of the court and Congress are sufficient to give us confidence that government is not snooping, well, maybe we can embed technologies in there that prevent the snooping regardless of what government wants to do. I mean, there may be some technological fixes that provide another layer of assurance.

---

^ Nice tip to the industry. Sometimes Obama doesn't seem to know which side he's on. Blame it on his Aqua/Pisces Cusp SN.

posted August 24, 2013 08:27 PM            

quote:

---

Obama and Congress usually agree in the end, don't they?

---

No. Not according to the filibuster record. Not according to the legislative record either.

quote:

---

Obama loves the Patriot Act and so does Congress.

---

I distinctly remember some in Congress having a big problem with the revelations of Snowden.

quote:

---

Does he mean, "Now that I AM Big Brother, I see the advantages of this scheme"?

---

posted August 24, 2013 08:29 PM            

Obama DOJ Asks Court to Grant Immunity to George W. Bush For Iraq War

quote:

---

In court papers filed today (PDF), the United States Department of Justice requested that George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz be granted procedural immunity in a case alleging that they planned and waged the Iraq War in violation of international law.

Plaintiff Sundus Shaker Saleh, an Iraqi single mother and refugee now living in Jordan, filed a complaint in March 2013 in San Francisco federal court alleging that the planning and waging of the war constituted a �crime of aggression� against Iraq, a legal theory that was used by the Nuremberg Tribunal to convict Nazi war criminals after World War II.

�The DOJ claims that in planning and waging the Iraq War, ex-President Bush and key members of his Administration were acting within the legitimate scope of their employment and are thus immune from suit,� chief counsel Inder Comar of Comar Law said.

The �Westfall Act certification,� submitted pursuant to the Westfall Act of 1988, permits the Attorney General, at his or her discretion, to substitute the United States as the defendant and essentially grant absolute immunity to government employees for actions taken within the scope of their employment.

In her lawsuit, Saleh alleges that:

� Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz began planning the Iraq War in 1998 through their involvement with the �Project for the New American Century,� a Washington DC non-profit that advocated for the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

� Once they came to power, Saleh alleges that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz convinced other Bush officials to invade Iraq by using 9/11 as an excuse to mislead and scare the American public into supporting a war.

� Finally, she claims that the United States failed to obtain United Nations approval prior to the invasion, rendering the invasion illegal and an act of impermissible aggression.

�The good news is that while we were disappointed with the certification, we were prepared for it,� Comar stated. �We do not see how a Westfall Act certification is appropriate given that Ms. Saleh alleges that the conduct at issue began prior to these defendants even entering into office. I think the Nuremberg prosecutors, particularly American Chief Prosecutor Robert Jackson, would be surprised to learn that planning a war of aggression at a private non-profit, misleading a fearful public, and foregoing proper legal authorization somehow constitute lawful employment duties for the American president and his or her cabinet.�

The case is Saleh v. Bush (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2013, No. C 13 1124 JST).

---

posted August 24, 2013 08:51 PM            

I was talking about the laws that get passed, though. 'Doesn't seem like Congress is serving up any tough decisions for the President, maybe because they are communicating with him through the whole process to see what he will and will not accept?

posted August 24, 2013 08:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catalina:
Before I had kids I had a lot of criticisms of my parents. Now I understand why they did some of those things I thought were wrong. As we grow and learn we see some things differently. Does that mean we were lyibg before?

---

Your analogy is confusing, C. It's apples and oranges.

Obama may or may not have been lying when he spoke out against surveillance while in Congress.

posted August 25, 2013 02:01 AM            

As to the Patriot Act, I have never been wishy washy about it. In fact I remember arguing with our resident conservatives about the nasty NDAA update that Obama signed. As far as they were concerned it was all about protecting our troops.

I did, however, say that I could understand how a pragmatist would sign a bill voted for by all but ONE handful of senators and similar numbers in the house...because it was a military appropriation bill and not signing it meant completely holding up ANY appropriations to the military, which, frankly as much as I too am against our vast military reach, even you would recognize as a disaster if it happened. The soldier/dupes overseas would be left stranded and the military establishment would waste VERY little time taking a preemptive defense here at home, ie staging a coup.

BUT Principle and showing Cajones seem more important to some people. Personally I prefer a man who knows when to fold'em and when to hold'em.