What is the Obama Administration’s defense of their quest to still be able to perform the warrantless wiretaps that Obama pledged to end if he was elected? “It’s not as Bushie as the way Bush did it.”
We’ll see how this flies with the average Hopey Changey voter:
Attorney General Eric Holder says a lawsuit in San Francisco over warrantless wiretapping threatens to expose ongoing intelligence work and must be thrown out.
In making the argument, the Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration’s position on the case but insists it came to the decision differently. A civil liberties group criticized the move Friday as a retreat from promises President Barack Obama made as a candidate.
Maybe it would quell the anger on the left a bit if Holder would tell them that the person they’re wiretapping is a “right-wing extremist teabagging racist.”
Not only is the left concerned that another Bush policy is remaining intact, but that the Obama policy is even worse than it was under Bush:
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 Ã¢â‚¬â€ 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 Ã¢â‚¬â€ not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration Ã¢â‚¬â€ has ever interpreted the law this way.
This isn’t change we can believe in. This is change for the worse.
Change for the worse is still change, so you got what you asked for, suckers! Unfortunately, the rest of us got what you asked for too.