I am far from an expert on any of this, but my hair hurts from reading and discussing it here! There are a lot of fundamental misunderstandings.
First, some background info and analysis:
Here is the argument from Electronic Frontier Foundation:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama... Here is the Obama administration's motion to dismiss:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/jewel/je... They link to Glenn Greenwald, who in turn links to more background information.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200... And of course, Turley and Olbermann, like it or not:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#30096... Now, some things I've seen on DU today (I'm paraphrasing):
1. "It's okay because it isn't official Obama administration policy." It is an Obama administration filing. Whether or not you call it a "policy," it's still pretty damned important.
2. "The motion says Obama has 'dismissed' wiretapping." I think this is a misunderstanding of a phrase in the motion to dismiss referencing BushCo's "Terrorist Surveillance Program" as no longer "operative." That was put out of use (supposedly) back in 2007. (Which means warrants, by the way, not "no more wiretapping.")
3. "Obama shouldn't insert himself into this because it's a suit against BushCo." It's a suit against the government. It is now for Obama's administration to deal with, and they are. (Having said that, I think it could impact possibilities for lawsuits against Bush admin. personnel later.)
4. "The DOJ has to defend the government." It doesn't have to make the arguments it's making, re state secrets and legal immunity, in attempts to throw the case out.
5. "The motion to dismiss is Obama's way of getting the courts to rule on this illegality once and for all." This doesn't even make any sense.
6. "There are lots and lots of lawsuits out there." What has generated such controversy this week is the motion linked above. There's complicated history but there's not a big soup of confusion about "which case" -- this is the Obama administration's first response to the EFF lawsuit and it's a stunner.
7. "Why, imagine if everybody could just sue the government whenever they wanted to!" Imagine if we couldn't!!
8. "This is a financial lawsuit. The plaintiffs want taxpayer money. If everybody did that, it'd get expensive." Please. This is about the public's right to know whether or not the government is acting legally.
9. "It's only about what BushCo did in the past." It is certainly that, but it also impacts our Constitutional rights going forward.
10. "We can't let state secrets out!" Even just knowing whether or not intel was illegally collected will endanger us all? Please. We already know.
11. "Presidents don't give up power, they just don't." We aren't describing animal behaviors here, as in "cats don't bark, they just don't." This is about the law. If there is a "power" to break the law with impunity, it is a power that must be "given up."
12. "Bush asked Congress to make wiretapping legal, and they did, and now Obama isn't doing it anymore." Uh, not exactly. I'm not saying Obama's administration is eavesdropping without warrants, but Congress did not "make it legal."
Bottom line: civil rights and laws don't mean much if they can't be enforced. This is about holding government accountable for breaking the law. Otherwise we can't ever know, going forward, that the government is acting legally.
To be continued, probably...
