NationStates Jolt Archive

Not just repeating Bush-era history - but 'improving' it.

http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/jewel/jewelmtdobama.pdf

So - not only has the Obama administration decided that Bush was right to claim 'states secrets' privilege, after all... but are ALSO claiming that the Patriot Act renders the US government immune under the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act.

So - not only have they supported Bush's claimed "sovereign immunity" (on FISA) - they've also extended it further. Effectively, they are arguing, the government is immune on illegal surveillance - under ALL federal statutes.

So - thoughts?

I find it strange that the favorite conservative insult of Obama is to compare him to a conservative President.

Couldn't this have gone in the 'more of the same' thread?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14694254#post14694254

Lol.

I find it strange that the favorite conservative insult of Obama is to compare him to a conservative President.

Which addresses Obama taking Bush's policies forward one generation... how, exactly?

It's not an 'insult' to point out that the current administration is perpetuating the crimes of the former.

Couldn't this have gone in the 'more of the same' thread?

No - because it's not just 'more of the same'.

This is 'more of the same, and then more'.

Obama hasn't just supported Bush policy, he's expanded it.

Leave Obama alone.

He's lovely.

Which addresses Obama taking Bush's policies forward one generation... how, exactly?

It's not an 'insult' to point out that the current administration is perpetuating the crimes of the former.

He has altered some things. It is true that he is also fucking-up a number of things that same way Bush did. Whom did you vote for?

He has altered some things. It is true that he is also fucking-up a number of things that same way Bush did.


By 'altered', in this instance', I assume you mean 'embraced, AND expanded upon'?


Whom did you vote for?

How does that even matter?

Either you believe Presidents should be accountable, or you don't.

By 'altered', in this instance', I assume you mean 'embraced, AND expanded upon'?

:tongue: He did a bit of that.

I am thinking, in this instance, of his efforts to stop torture, and of his funding of stem-cell research.

How does that even matter?

If you impugn Obama for acting like Bush, and you voted for McCain, then you are hypocritical.

Either you believe Presidents should be accountable, or you don't.

I do. You can find numerous posts of mine that express disgust at Obama.

:tongue: He did a bit of that.

I am thinking, in this instance, of his efforts to stop torture, and of his funding of stem-cell research.


Both of which could be argued as very commendable things.


If you impugn Obama for acting like Bush, and you voted for McCain, then you are hypocritical.


I'm pretty sure that's not a valid deduction. If - for example - I had voted for McCain, but had consequently ALSO argued that he should be accountable, there'd be no conflict.


I do. You can find numerous posts of mine that express disgust at Obama.

I'm not necessarily talking about 'disgust'. I'm talking about standing by the things you get elected on.

is there any government that isn't restricting rights to privacy these days?

dammit whats all the fuss about me masturbating!

He's lovely.

then why can't I melt him into my hot coco?

is there any government that isn't restricting rights to privacy these days?

dammit whats all the fuss about me masturbating!





Public projectile ejaculation.. it's just not cool anymore..:(

Both of which could be argued as very commendable things.

More importantly, they were different than Bush's policies.


I'm pretty sure that's not a valid deduction. If - for example - I had voted for McCain, but had consequently ALSO argued that he should be accountable, there'd be no conflict.

Accountable is one thing, but you are using Bush as an insult. You thread is not titled "Lack of accountability", but is rather about how Obama is not different from Bush. If you voted for McCain, than you might pass with "Son of Carter".

I'm not necessarily talking about 'disgust'. I'm talking about standing by the things you get elected on.

I cannot remember many Presidents who did that.

I have to wonder, since Obama seems to have done a 180 on wiretapping and similar issues, could it be that these programs are actually gathering useful information? Not that it excuses such actions, just explains them.

Accountable is one thing, but you are using Bush as an insult. You thread is not titled "Lack of accountability", but is rather about how Obama is not different from Bush. If you voted for McCain, than you might pass with "Son of Carter".


The thread is not titled 'lack of accountability'. This is true - partly because that's so long, but partly because it also doesn't describe most of what I wanted to describe - the fact that the policies are not only validating Bush's policy, but also going two steps further.

If you think that Bush was doing wrong, then Obama must also be doing wrong, and moreso - because he's apparently expanding on it.

I've said before - I'm not using Bush as an insult, but as a comparison - because that's the measuring rod for warrantless wiretapping. That's the second time I've had to explain that - but you just claim it again, anyway.

I can't speak for No true scotsman, but I can proudly say that I didn't vote in 2008. I only voted once in my life, and I regret it (not just who I voted for, but the very fact that I voted).

I can't speak for No true scotsman, but I can proudly say that I didn't vote in 2008. I only voted once in my life, and I regret it (not just who I voted for, but the very fact that I voted).

You should have voted, even if you only wrote it in. You could have voted for someone who promised to abolish the Government. :D

lol, that would be ironic. :p

I find it strange that the favorite conservative insult of Obama is to compare him to a conservative President.

No, that would be to call him a socialist, possibly while erroneously equating socialism and communism.

Comparing him to Bush may be over used, but if he's continuing illegal/unethical Bush policies, his supporters and opponents all have a right to complain. Even if they stupidly didn't when Bush was in power. You cannot deffend someone's actions simply by saying someone else was given a free pass.

Do you really want to go with the "Bush did it, so now our guy should get a free pass on the law too" argument? It just makes you look hypocritical, and helps conservatives to argue that liberals lack real principles. Thank you, but I have no desire to see my President follow in Bush's shoes.

I can't speak for No true scotsman, but I can proudly say that I didn't vote in 2008. I only voted once in my life, and I regret it (not just who I voted for, but the very fact that I voted).

Why do you regret voting?

This is why it's never a good idea to start crap like this in the first place. You never know who will come after you.

No, that would be to call him a socialist, possibly while erroneously equating socialism and communism.

Comparing him to Bush may be over used, but if he's continuing illegal/unethical Bush policies, his supporters and opponents all have a right to complain. Even if they stupidly didn't when Bush was in power. You cannot deffend someone's actions simply by saying someone else was given a free pass.

Do you really want to go with the "Bush did it, so now our guy should get a free pass on the law too" argument? It just makes you look hypocritical, and helps conservatives to argue that liberals lack real principles. Thank you, but I have no desire to see my President follow in Bush's shoes.

qft

This is why it's never a good idea to start crap like this in the first place. You never know who will come after you.

qft also.

The confusing thing - You can read the source - Obama's administration is basically giving the nod to Bush's policy, and even adding to it - and yet there's no big protest. The things that were 'bad' about the former regime are sinking into the woodwork, now.

Which begs the question of how bad those things were in the first place. Were they really harmless, in which case it was a fuss about nothing? Or is this evidence of a double-standard of EPIC proportions?

Do you really want to go with the "Bush did it, so now our guy should get a free pass on the law too" argument? It just makes you look hypocritical, and helps conservatives to argue that liberals lack real principles. Thank you, but I have no desire to see my President follow in Bush's shoes.

Pretty much accurate.

qft also.

The confusing thing - You can read the source - Obama's administration is basically giving the nod to Bush's policy, and even adding to it - and yet there's no big protest. The things that were 'bad' about the former regime are sinking into the woodwork, now.

Which begs the question of how bad those things were in the first place. Were they really harmless, in which case it was a fuss about nothing? Or is this evidence of a double-standard of EPIC proportions?

Obama has a thing called "popularity" that Bush hasn't had since Katrina or before. Nobody grilled Bush nearly enough right after 911, when his popularity was around 80 or 90% approval ratings.

Has anyone read the source? It doesnt say quite what the OP claims it does.


I smell DK.

Has anyone read the source? It doesnt say quite what the OP claims it does.


I've read the source.

In what way do you think it contradicts?

I find it strange that the favorite conservative insult of Obama is to compare him to a conservative President.
Pity poor George Bush. That is his "legacy."

Pity poor George Bush. That is his "legacy."

Now, don't indulge it. Saying the comparison is an insult is an evasion - to avoid dealing with whether or not it is true.

Not just repeating Bush-era history - but 'improving' it.

http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/jewel/jewelmtdobama.pdf

So - not only has the Obama administration decided that Bush was right to claim 'states secrets' privilege, after all... but are ALSO claiming that the Patriot Act renders the US government immune under the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act.

So - not only have they supported Bush's claimed "sovereign immunity" (on FISA) - they've also extended it further. Effectively, they are arguing, the government is immune on illegal surveillance - under ALL federal statutes.

So - thoughts?

Um. The document cited doesn't come anywhere close to supporting your wild assertions about the Obama Administration. Nice try, but massive fail.

Um. The document cited doesn't come anywhere close to supporting your wild assertions about the Obama Administration. Nice try, but massive fail.

Am I the only one that gets a Kimichi vibe from NTS?

Am I the only one that gets a Kimichi vibe from NTS?

Muravyets said so too. But I got serious doubts from what I'm getting from this poster on the Christians thread. That doesn't reek of DK.

The OP is behind the times. This story was in the news more than a week ago, and I recall Harvard (I think) Law Professor Jonathan Turley on MSNBC making the same criticism the OP is -- that Obama is expanding immunity to those involved in warrantless wiretapping in a way that would effectively kill any hope of justice in regards to those violations.

Professor Turley made a strong argument, but I am not entirely sure he is correct on this.

The foundation of Turley's argument, which Turley did disclose, is that he adheres to the legal philosophy that the purpose of the Constitution is to preserve "core principles" and, thus, the Constitution cannot be treated like "regular" laws. Lawyers cannot or should not manipulate it to achieve legal ends.

In many ways I agree with Turley. To me the Constitution is the "bedrock" of US law and codifies the legal principles upon which all our other laws are dependent.

On the other hand, I feel that there is a danger of going too far in that direction and transforming the Constitution from a legal document to "holy writ", unassailable and unadaptable except by full-blown amendment. I think there needs to be an intellectual level at which one operates on the basis that the Constitution is dependent on core principles, but the core principles are not dependent upon the Constitution.

And this is where I think Turley may be jumping to conclusions about what Obama is actually doing. Obama, after all, is also a Constitutional law attorney, just like Turley, with a strong pro-core-principles record behind him. I find it hard to believe on the basis of having seen so little of him at work that he is just abandoning all that, all of a sudden. The fact is that even among the framers of the Constitution, there were varying views of the proper way to relate to and use the document, and I am of the opinion that what we are seeing between the Turley camp and the Obama camp is such a difference of legal opinion and principled approach.

So on what do I base my willingness to give Obama a little more time to show me where he is taking this Sovereign Immunity thing?

I base it on the fact that the documents linked by the OP present rather technical legal arguments that seem to argue that under conditions XYZ and according to rules ABC applied in this and that way, this thing cannot be done and therefore the actions should be dismissed or whatever. But in practice, such an argument does not actually cut off OTHER avenues to the same goal. So I think it is premature at this point to say that Obama is definitely shielding wrongdoers. I think it is very possible that he is playing a much more complex game than that. It's not a game I like very much, but that, all by itself, does not make it the same thing as expanding Bush's abuses.

I have occasionally stated that I think citizens should be able to sue the government for stuff the government does, but in realistic terms, I do see the practical value in Sovereign Immunity. I can definitely see a value in shutting down a legal attack that would crack Sovereign Immunity in general. I think there is a good possibility that that is what the linked documents are doing.

But as much as this particular incident may anger us, preserving Sovereign Immunity does not necessarily equate to throwing out the Constitution.

Am I the only one that gets a Kimichi vibe from NTS?

Muravyets said so too. But I got serious doubts from what I'm getting from this poster on the Christians thread. That doesn't reek of DK.

Now, don't indulge it. Saying the comparison is an insult is an evasion - to avoid dealing with whether or not it is true.
Okay, I won't dodge it -- your comparison is false. Happy now?

Nothing like fermenting Kimchi. Hmm... how long before the Ebil Mozlem threads?

Am I the only one that gets a Kimichi vibe from NTS?

http://www.popculturemadness.com/Polls/Celeb-Pics/SpidyS.gif

"My Kimchi sense is tingling!"

Pity poor George Bush. That is his "legacy."

To be used as a mocking-device by his own party.

"Har, har, look how stupid the Democrats are! their President sucks as much as ours!"

Um. The document cited doesn't come anywhere close to supporting your wild assertions about the Obama Administration. Nice try, but massive fail.

Since I posted it, I've been looking around. Apparently, I'm far from the only person who came to that conclusion - so I wonder if you can point out how I'm wrong?

Nic attempt to sweep in and pull a 'oh, you're wrong' riposte, but it would be intellectually dishonest of ME, (regardless of how it would reflect on you) to allow you to get away with it as fait accompli.

Okay, I won't dodge it -- your comparison is false. Happy now?

But you know that's a lie. Not only has Obama clearly continued Bush's policy, but he's expanded on it - even if you argue he's done it to a different extent to that which I have suggested.

But you know that's a lie. Not only has Obama clearly continued Bush's policy, but he's expanded on it - even if you argue he's done it to a different extent to that which I have suggested.
No, I don't know that it's a lie. Quite the opposite, in fact -- I know it to be the truth. Obama has not clearly expanded on Bush's policy. I wrote a long post explaining that. Are you too busy throwing bullshit around to read your own thread (again)?

No, I don't know that it's a lie. Quite the opposite, in fact -- I know it to be the truth.


You 'know' no such thing.


Obama has not clearly expanded on Bush's policy.


Apparently you didn't actually read the source I provided.

You could argue - maybe - that I was suggesting a more EXTREME version than might be accurate. You could argue I'm reading more into it than there is. You could argue that my argument is basically right, but that it is irrelevant because none of it would be applied, anyway.

The one thing you can't argue, if you've actually read the source - is that Obama has expanded on what went before.


I wrote a long post explaining that. Are you too busy throwing bullshit around to read your own thread (again)?

Ignoring the ad hominem which you seem so ready to employ, this long post? The one about Johnathan Turley, is that the one you mean?

An opinion-post reference to someone else's comments? A denial based on the fact that it's 'really technical'? In your own words: "...my willingness to give Obama a little more time"?

Since I posted it, I've been looking around. Apparently, I'm far from the only person who came to that conclusion - so I wonder if you can point out how I'm wrong?

Several people believe Obama to be a muslim. Several believe him to be a socialist. Several believe him not not to be an American citizen. Several people believe that he and ACORN conspired to rig the election.

Considering the bullshit, nonsense, and out and out slander that's targeted this administration, I wouldn't be surprised if you did find people who believe it. But you know what's the one thing in common between all those things that "several people believe"?

Not one of them is true.

Several people believe Obama to be a muslim. Several believe him to be a socialist. Several believe him not not to be an American citizen. Several people believe that he and ACORN conspired to rig the election.

Considering the bullshit, nonsense, and out and out slander that's targeted this administration, I wouldn't be surprised if you did find people who believe it. But you know what's the one thing in common between all those things that "several people believe"?

Not one of them is true.

Fortunately, none of those are even mentioned in either the OP, or in the source I cited.

How lucky is that?

Fortunately, none of those are even mentioned in either the OP, or in the source I cited.

You're right, and had you actually read, understood, and used your article to support your argument (yeah, right, look who I'm talking to) then it would be irrelevant.

But instead of actually trying to form an honest, intelligent, and well informed (again, look who I'm talking to) argument, you tried to pull the "but, but, OTHER people believe it!" Which of course opens the door to the whole litany of random crap "other people" believe. Fail

But you're used to that, aren't you DK?

You're right, and had you actually read, understood, and used your article to support your argument (yeah, right, look who I'm talking to) then it would be irrelevant.

But instead of actually trying to form an honest, intelligent, and well informed (again, look who I'm talking to) argument, you tried to pull the "but, but, OTHER people believe it!" Which of course opens the door to the whole litany of random crap "other people" believe. Fail

But you're used to that, aren't you DK?

Not only did I read, understand AND use the 'article' (did you even look at what I posted?) to support my argument - but I managed to do it all without a swathe of ad hominems, and an attempt to 'poison the well'.

Honoring your response more than it deserves - I'll explain why I made the comment you seem to be taking such exception to - 'Cat Tribes' thinks my evaluation 'wild'... (and yet, you'll notice, fails to actually address what the source does say). I'm pointing out - it's not that 'wild' - it's actually an appraisal that apparently resonates quite well with some fairly reasonable people.

I'm not saying 'it must be right' because it's popular. I'm not justifying it's truth through appeal to popularity. I'm saying it's not that wild.

Honoring your response more than it deserves - I'll explain why I made the comment you seem to be taking such exception to - 'Cat Tribes' thinks my evaluation 'wild'... (and yet, you'll notice, fails to actually address what the source does say). I

Here's the problem. You didn't substantiate your claim. You didn't provide quotes from the briefs, you didn't supply page numbers, you didn't even give a general summary of the relevant legal points. You just threw up a link and declared "this is what it says".

And since you made absolutely zero effort to substantiate your point, I fail to see why you in any way expect TCT or anyone else to make even the slightest bit of effort in return, other than to say you're wrong. If you have such utter disrespect for the posters here that you can't even bother to make even the most basic attempt to substantiate your claim, why should we bother to demonstrate exactly why your claims are false, especially given that you're identity is becoming more and more apparent.

In short, when you're willing to put in some effort into your argument, other than making unsubstantiated claims backed up with a "well, other people think so!" then those arguments are worth refuting. Since you didn't, won't, and, obviously, can't, you are, simply put, not worth it.

Here's the problem. You didn't substantiate your claim. You didn't provide quotes from the briefs, you didn't supply page numbers, you didn't even give a general summary of the relevant legal points. You just threw up a link and declared "this is what it says".

And since you made absolutely zero effort to substantiate your point, I fail to see why you in any way expect TCT or anyone else to make even the slightest bit of effort in return, other than to say you're wrong. If you have such utter disrespect for the posters here that you can't even bother to make even the most basic attempt to substantiate your claim, why should we bother to demonstrate exactly why your claims are false, especially given that you're identity is becoming more and more apparent.

In short, when you're willing to put in some effort into your argument, other than making unsubstantiated claims backed up with a "well, other people think so!" then those arguments are worth refuting. Since you didn't, won't, and, obviously, can't, you are, simply put, not worth it.
I think I am the only person so far who has made an effort to make a serious topic out of this latest Obama-bash. Of course, since he made no point and presented no argument in his OP, I had to go into the linked documents, and since I'm not a lawyer, I had to instead focus on what other, more serious people have been saying about this controversy. And I did my best to explain my own point of view based on what the real controversy actually is.

And look how I got treated for my trouble. "Bah, all you can do is tell us what you think! Loser!" Not much incentive there for anyone else to show him the respect of trying to make a real discussion out of his little pity party, is it?

Mind you, I didn't go to that effort in the expectation that DK would have anything of value or seriousness to say in response. But I thought, "Ah, what the hell? Maybe someone like TCT or NA or Ashmoria or a numbr of other decent NSGers will take it up." But with attacks like the one I got flying around, why would anyone want to try having a real discussion here?

Here's the problem. You didn't substantiate your claim. You didn't provide quotes from the briefs, you didn't supply page numbers, you didn't even give a general summary of the relevant legal points. You just threw up a link and declared "this is what it says".


I did substantiate my claim - I provided the actual, specific document.

I then explained what it's gist was, because I don't assume that everyone is GOING TO sift through the whole thing. But, it's there if they want to.


And since you made absolutely zero effort to substantiate your point,


Well, we both know that's not true - I provided my source, and I explained it's significance.


I fail to see why you in any way expect TCT or anyone else to make even the slightest bit of effort in return, other than to say you're wrong.


Making no effort? Sure, fine.

Saying it's wrong, despite the presentation of the source- but NOT saying WHY it's wrong? What is that? Lazy? Dishonest?


If you have such utter disrespect for the posters


Nothing to do with respect. And, yet another poster to add to the list of people who will launch a tirade of ad hominem, and then complain that THEY are somehow being victimized/disrespected.


...especially given that you're identity is becoming more and more apparent.


Aw Jeez, not this shit again?

I'm pretty sure NS moderators can easily settle this one for you, if it's really getting your panties in a bunch.


In short, when you're willing to put in some effort into your argument, other than making unsubstantiated claims backed up with a "well, other people think so!"


Do you not even read the posts you reply to?


...then those arguments are worth refuting. Since you didn't, won't, and, obviously, can't, you are, simply put, not worth it.

Ad hominem.

Whether or not 'I'm worth it' is irrelevant.

The source is there. The argument was raised. Argue against it or don't, but do so based on the source.

Not much incentive there for anyone else to show him the respect of trying to make a real discussion out of his little pity party, is it?


Pity party?

The point is accountability.

Do you think the Obama administration should endorse Bush's position, and expand on it?


But with attacks like the one I got flying around, why would anyone want to try having a real discussion here?

'Attacks like I got'. Pointing out that you resort to ad hominem is not me attacking you.

Why would anyone try to have a real discussion?

Because accountability shouldn't be partisan.

Pity party?

The point is accountability.

Do you think the Obama administration should endorse Bush's position, and expand on it?
And once again you try to prop up a strawman on me.

Kindly point out where I said anything at all about Obama not being held accountable.

I know I'm wasting my time with this, but one last attempt -- here is the point I was actually making:

When we read the briefs you linked to, we can see that the arguments are actually technical issues of law and legal procedure. In and of themselves, they only would cut off one avenue of approach to this problem, but not necessarily shut it down altogether. I do not approve of shielding the parties who carried out warrantless wiretapping at all, BUT I am not convinced YET that Obama is doing that, on the basis of these documents.

Now I will wait for you to show how that boils down to not holding Obama accountable for something.

But you're used to that, aren't you DK?

I had this thought is it really him?

I thought DK was a hardcore rightwing republican.

I find it strange that the favorite conservative insult of Obama is to compare him to a conservative President.

You forgot the important part: ..while still praising the conservative President for the very basis of the comparison.

You forgot the important part: ..while still praising the conservative President for the very basis of the comparison.

Which is ever so exciting and fun.

But... what does it have to do with the topic?

Not just repeating Bush-era history - but 'improving' it.

http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/jewel/jewelmtdobama.pdf

So - not only has the Obama administration decided that Bush was right to claim 'states secrets' privilege, after all... but are ALSO claiming that the Patriot Act renders the US government immune under the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act.

So - not only have they supported Bush's claimed "sovereign immunity" (on FISA) - they've also extended it further. Effectively, they are arguing, the government is immune on illegal surveillance - under ALL federal statutes.

So - thoughts?

The thread is not titled 'lack of accountability'. This is true - partly because that's so long, but partly because it also doesn't describe most of what I wanted to describe - the fact that the policies are not only validating Bush's policy, but also going two steps further.

If you think that Bush was doing wrong, then Obama must also be doing wrong, and moreso - because he's apparently expanding on it.

I've said before - I'm not using Bush as an insult, but as a comparison - because that's the measuring rod for warrantless wiretapping. That's the second time I've had to explain that - but you just claim it again, anyway.

Since I posted it, I've been looking around. Apparently, I'm far from the only person who came to that conclusion - so I wonder if you can point out how I'm wrong?

Nic attempt to sweep in and pull a 'oh, you're wrong' riposte, but it would be intellectually dishonest of ME, (regardless of how it would reflect on you) to allow you to get away with it as fait accompli.

Not only did I read, understand AND use the 'article' (did you even look at what I posted?) to support my argument - but I managed to do it all without a swathe of ad hominems, and an attempt to 'poison the well'.

Honoring your response more than it deserves - I'll explain why I made the comment you seem to be taking such exception to - 'Cat Tribes' thinks my evaluation 'wild'... (and yet, you'll notice, fails to actually address what the source does say). I'm pointing out - it's not that 'wild' - it's actually an appraisal that apparently resonates quite well with some fairly reasonable people.

I'm not saying 'it must be right' because it's popular. I'm not justifying it's truth through appeal to popularity. I'm saying it's not that wild.

This is frakkin' ridiculous. A few observations.

1. Neither sovereign immunity nor the state secrets privilege are inventions of either the Bush Administration or the Obama Administration. They are age-old concepts well established in the law. From the brief linked in the OP:

“Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.” Dep’t of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 525 U.S. 255, 260 (1999) (quoting F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994)). Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing such a waiver, see Prescott v. United States, 973 F.2d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1992), which must be explicitly and unequivocally expressed in statutory text. See Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996); Sigman v. United States, 217 F.3d 785, 792 (9th Cir. 2000). This Court should “strictly construe[]” any purported waiver “in favor of the sovereign,” Blue Fox, 525 U.S. at 261, and a statute does not waive sovereign immunity if it will bear any “plausible” alternative interpretation. See United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 33-37 (1992).

....

“The state secrets privilege is a common law evidentiary privilege that permits the government to bar the disclosure of information if ‘there is a reasonable danger’ that disclosure will ‘expose military matters which, in the interests of national security, should not be divulged.’” Al-Haramain Islamic Found. v. Bush, 507 F.3d 1190, 1196 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 10 (1953)). The ability of the executive to protect state secrets from disclosure in litigation has been recognized from the earliest days of the Republic. See Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105 (1875); United States v. Barr, 25 F. Case 30 (C.C.D. Va. 1807); Reynolds, 345 U.S. at 7-9; Al-Haramain, 507 F.3d at 1196-97; Kasza, 133 F.3d at 1165-66 (discussing cases); see also Hepting, 439 F. Supp. 2d at 98-981.9

9 The privilege has a firm foundation in the constitutional authority of the President under Article II to protect national security information. See Dept. Of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988); United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 710-11 (1974) (recognizing the
President’s constitutional authority to protect national security information) (citing Reynolds); see also El-Masri v. United States, 479 F.3d 296, 304 (4th Cir. 2007).

The privilege protects a broad range of information, including the “disclosure of intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities.” See Ellsberg v. Mitchell, 709 F.2d 51, 57 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (footnotes omitted); accord Al-Haramain, 507 F.3d 1202-03 (holding that state secrets privilege precludes disclosure of whether plaintiffs were subject to foreign intelligence surveillance); see also Halkin v. Helms, 690 F.2d 977, 990 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (Halkin II) (holding that state secrets privilege protects intelligence source and methods involved in NSA surveillance). The privilege also protects information that on its face may appear innocuous, but in a larger context could reveal sensitive classified information. Kasza, 133 F.3d at 1166.

One can argue about the merits of these well-established principles of law and to what extent they should apply to the case at hand, but it is simply dishonest to claim the Obama Administration is "just like Bush" or "worse than Bush" merely because the Obama Administration defends these principles.

2. There is a significant difference between the Obama Administration asserting sovereign immunity and state secrets privilege in this case involving wiretapping and other surveilence by the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration approving of or extending those underlying policies of wiretapping and surveilence.

3. So, the worst that can be argued about the brief linked in the OP is that it contains new arguments regarding sovereign immunity or the state secrets privilege. I'd love to see the OP point to where in the document even that actually occurs. By my reading the only "new" thing asserted by the Obama Administration is that, in response to new arguments from the plaintiffs in the case claiming sovereign immunity has been waved by certain statutes, the Obama Administration has argued that sovereign immunity is not waived by those statutes. The horror, the horror!

4. I stand by my comments that the OP makes wild allegations. Whether or not internet searches can find similar assertions being made by others is pretty frakkin' irrelevant to the truth of those assertions and whether they have a good faith basis.

This is frakkin' ridiculous. A few observations.

1. Neither sovereign immunity nor the state secrets privilege are inventions of either the Bush Administration or the Obama Administration. They are age-old concepts well established in the law. From the brief linked in the OP:

“Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.” Dep’t of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 525 U.S. 255, 260 (1999) (quoting F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994)). Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing such a waiver, see Prescott v. United States, 973 F.2d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1992), which must be explicitly and unequivocally expressed in statutory text. See Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996); Sigman v. United States, 217 F.3d 785, 792 (9th Cir. 2000). This Court should “strictly construe[]” any purported waiver “in favor of the sovereign,” Blue Fox, 525 U.S. at 261, and a statute does not waive sovereign immunity if it will bear any “plausible” alternative interpretation. See United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 33-37 (1992).

....

“The state secrets privilege is a common law evidentiary privilege that permits the government to bar the disclosure of information if ‘there is a reasonable danger’ that disclosure will ‘expose military matters which, in the interests of national security, should not be divulged.’” Al-Haramain Islamic Found. v. Bush, 507 F.3d 1190, 1196 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 10 (1953)). The ability of the executive to protect state secrets from disclosure in litigation has been recognized from the earliest days of the Republic. See Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105 (1875); United States v. Barr, 25 F. Case 30 (C.C.D. Va. 1807); Reynolds, 345 U.S. at 7-9; Al-Haramain, 507 F.3d at 1196-97; Kasza, 133 F.3d at 1165-66 (discussing cases); see also Hepting, 439 F. Supp. 2d at 98-981.9

9 The privilege has a firm foundation in the constitutional authority of the President under Article II to protect national security information. See Dept. Of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988); United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 710-11 (1974) (recognizing the
President’s constitutional authority to protect national security information) (citing Reynolds); see also El-Masri v. United States, 479 F.3d 296, 304 (4th Cir. 2007).

The privilege protects a broad range of information, including the “disclosure of intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities.” See Ellsberg v. Mitchell, 709 F.2d 51, 57 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (footnotes omitted); accord Al-Haramain, 507 F.3d 1202-03 (holding that state secrets privilege precludes disclosure of whether plaintiffs were subject to foreign intelligence surveillance); see also Halkin v. Helms, 690 F.2d 977, 990 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (Halkin II) (holding that state secrets privilege protects intelligence source and methods involved in NSA surveillance). The privilege also protects information that on its face may appear innocuous, but in a larger context could reveal sensitive classified information. Kasza, 133 F.3d at 1166.

One can argue about the merits of these well-established principles of law and to what extent they should apply to the case at hand, but it is simply dishonest to claim the Obama Administration is "just like Bush" or "worse than Bush" merely because the Obama Administration defends these principles.

2. There is a significant difference between the Obama Administration asserting sovereign immunity and state secrets privilege in this case involving wiretapping and other surveilence by the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration approving of or extending those underlying policies of wiretapping and surveilence.

3. So, the worst that can be argued about the brief linked in the OP is that it contains new arguments regarding sovereign immunity or the state secrets privilege. I'd love to see the OP point to where in the document even that actually occurs. By my reading the only "new" thing asserted by the Obama Administration is that, in response to new arguments from the plaintiffs in the case claiming sovereign immunity has been waved by certain statutes, the Obama Administration has argued that sovereign immunity is not waived by those statutes. The horror, the horror!

4. I stand by my comments that the OP makes wild allegations. Whether or not internet searches can find similar assertions being made by others is pretty frakkin' irrelevant to the truth of those assertions and whether they have a good faith basis.

I may come back to this in a little bit, but the first thought in my head is - oh god, another strawman.

Where did I say that Bush or Obama 'invented' states secrets privilege or sovereign immunity?

The point, to me, is that Obama made specific reference to Bush's abuses of things like states secrets privilege, and now his administration is allowing at least the same extent, and more.

I may come back to this in a little bit, but the first thought in my head is - oh god, another strawman.

Where did I say that Bush or Obama 'invented' states secrets privilege or sovereign immunity?

The point, to me, is that Obama made specific reference to Bush's abuses of things like states secrets privilege, and now his administration is allowing at least the same extent, and more.

For some reason, I get the feeling you did no more than quickly skim TCT's post, just as you did with the docs you linked to. The reason I get that feeling is that you just repeated the precise argument that TCT just finished debunking.

You say they made reference to abuses of the power by Bush. Then you say they invoke the power. You claim that they are using the power in the same and even worse ways as Bush.

But the documents you claim show this do not actually show it at all. All they show is technical arguments and response to specific arguments from the other side in the matter the docs refer to. They do not show Obama DOING anything at all. As TCT points out, the principle of sovereign immunity is FAR older than Bush and is a valid and valuable principle of governmental authority. That being the case, you can't just point to someone invoking the power and claim it as proof that they are abusing it. Since the power is, in and of itself, legitimate, you must show the person abusing it in order to claim abuse. Obama's admin merely arguing that "in these particular instances, the previous administration did not abuse the power of sovereign immunity" is not proof that Obama is abusing that power himself.