Conclusions range from "change we can believe in" on interrogation and torture, to "more of the same" on state secrets, and "Cheney on Red Bull" when it comes to Obama's hideous position on surveillance.
The Bush administration had previously invoked "sovereign immunity" arguments to block judicial scrutiny of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act cases, but the Obama administration went further, arguing that the government is essentially immune from lawsuits involving wiretapping under any circumstances. In its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the administration writes, "Congress expressly preserved sovereign immunity against claims for damages and equitable relief, permitting such claims against only a 'person or entity, other than the United States.'"Just read it.
This argument is "extremely troubling," Cohen says. "It means that even in a regular lawsuit, not involving terror but involving the government tapping you illegally, you would not be able to sue them."
"The Obama administration is arguing instead that you can only sue the government when they disclose a wiretap that was supposed to remain secret," Cohen continues. "The only protection the American people have is when the government decides it's done something wrong." What's the likelihood of that?

0 comments:
Post a Comment