<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<br> Last week the government filed a motion to dismiss in the NSA surveillance <br>suit that reaffirmed Bush arguments that state secrets trumped the right<br>to sue. Further analysis shows that the government goes far beyond that<br>to claim that the state's sovereign immunity ("divine right of kings") means<br>the citizen has no recourse to force the government to adhere to its<br>own wiretapping statutes.<br><br> Jonathan Turley gives his usual cogent analysis on Olbermann tonight. <br><meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.0 (Win32)"><style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7uomucNU8E">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7uomucNU8E</a><br></p><br> He says <style type="text/css">!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
--></style>the Bush people have gotten Obama to
protect Bush and Cheney from <br>any criminal investigation of torture,
but now Obama's even exceeded Bush's<br>extremist arguments in protecting
unlawful surveillance.<br><br> The government is claiming sovereign
immunity--that they can not be sued <br>for violating federal
surveillance statutes unless there is willful disclosure of
<br>intelligence information. Unless they use it, you have nothing to say about
it.<br><br> This is a breathtaking claim. The
original rule was that no one could sue the<br>king, but the government had waived elements of this sovereign
immunity <br>through legislation and before this case it was assumed that
you could sue <br>these agencies.<br><br> The law Obama voted for last summer to
protect the telecom companies is <br>now being claimed to protect not
just the telecoms but the gov't as well. This <br>leaves citizens with a right with
no protection. It's impossible to have a <br>constitutional right that
can never be enforced.<br><br> We can no longer suggest that Obama is
advancing the civil liberties that <br>he promised to advance. The Obama people are arguing that Bush
was a bad <br>person doing bad things, but it doesn't matter if you say
you're a good person <br>doing bad things. Our president is more
interested in programs than principles, <br>and he never intended to
fight on issues like torture and electronic surveillance.<br><br> The people need to tell Obama they will
not let him eviscerate privacy and <br>fritter away our rights simply
because a cult of the personality permits him to <br>do anything he
wants.<br><br><br> There are further details in the following articles:<br><br><meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.0 (Win32)"><style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2009/04/dojs-brief-in-jewel-v-nsa.html">http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2009/04/dojs-brief-in-jewel-v-nsa.html</a><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html">http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html</a><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush">http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush</a></p>
<br><br><br>
<br /><hr />Quick access to your favorite MSN content and Windows Live with Internet Explorer 8. <a href='http://ie8.msn.com/microsoft/internet-explorer-8/en-us/ie8.aspx?ocid=B037MSN55C0701A' target='_new'>Download FREE now!</a></body>
</html>