Goverment trust Free Dating, Singles and Personals

Goverment trust Posted: 9/19/2009 9:59:36 AM
January 22,2009 Obama was sworn into office. Note the date on the piece below and how it is critical of the Obama administration with regards to H L S , something I personally think unnecessary and a breach of civil liberties. Actually created in the wake of failures in Federal Agencies. So more Federal Agencies were created and nobodies head rolled in the CIA, FBI or Immigration after America was attacked on it own soil from within. It's almost as if some people expected change January 23th 2009. 60 days into his administration Obama was still filling cabinet position. That he hit the ground in a hard run at three times the speed of his processor wasn't good enough for his critics as early as April of this year. To think that somehow any "on going" legal proceeding will somehow change their position overnite due to an administration change, begalls me. This is unreasonable and navie expectation, one would think anyone smart enough to offered criticism on such a topic "might" know something about due process and what they are talking about. April 7, 2009 Commentary by Tim Jones Electronic Frontier Foundation, Deeplinks Blog We had hoped this would go differently. Friday evening, in a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA, EFF's litigation against the National Security Agency for the warrantless wiretapping of countless Americans, the Obama Administration's made two deeply troubling arguments. First, they argued, exactly as the Bush Administration did on countless occasions, that the state secrets privilege requires the court to dismiss the issue out of hand. They argue that simply allowing the case to continue "would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security." As in the past, this is a blatant ploy to dismiss the litigation without allowing the courts to consider the evidence. It's an especially disappointing argument to hear from the Obama Administration. As a candidate, Senator Obama lamented that the Bush Administration "invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court." He was right then, and we're dismayed that he and his team seem to have forgotten. Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying -- that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes. This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one -- not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration -- has ever interpreted the law this way. Previously, the Bush Administration has argued that the U.S. possesses "sovereign immunity" from suit for conducting electronic surveillance that violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). However, FISA is only one of several laws that restrict the government's ability to wiretap. The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and claims that the US PATRIOT Act also renders the U.S. immune from suit under the two remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. Essentially, the Obama Adminstration has claimed that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes.<<< This case ~ was just more baggage for a new administration, which already had plenty. If the plaintiffs wanted a better outcome, their legal council should have timed the trial better, for everyone knew we were going through an Administration change. But what do we "choose" to do? ~ Lay it at Obama's feet! Yea ! that's the ticket! Just one more rabbit trail. ~~ that lead to nowhere ~ Dance