Jim Webb: Spy Bill Too Complicated For Some Bloggers

The Seminal:

The following exchange took place on the eve of the FISA vote, July 8th, between myself and Virginia Senator James Webb.

Josh Nelson: You mentioned the role the blogosphere played in your Senate campaign. I was wondering if you could elaborate on that a little bit. And also tell us what type of role you would like to see them play in legislative fights in the future.

Jim Webb: The blogs... the good news and bad news about blogs. First the bad news. The bad news is anybody can say anything about someone and they don't even have to put their name on it. In fact, the anonymity encourages irresponsibility. And it is pretty frustrating, I'll be honest with you, that's why I just stopped reading this stuff a long time ago.

...

Josh Nelson: Are you talking about FISA?

Jim Webb: Specifically I'm thinking about FISA since I have to vote on it tomorrow afternoon.

(laughter)

That's a very complicated issue and I've looked at it from every single angle that it can be looked at. Having had the black clearances that we were talking about, and at the same time I'm very strong on privacy rights. It's not an issue that is easy to boil down in the way a lot of the blogging community has boiled it down.

Read the whole story: The Seminal

Comments

[gloriar8]

Didn't the congress read something equivalent to the black pages, which was prepared by the the Bush admin, before they sent our soldiers into Iraq. These guys have no credibility. Once they lie to people, even if they might be telling the truth, (this time) they look like the little boy who cried wolf.

I too, had been withholding my money from Obama over FISA, but since the New Yorker (rag), I am donating to his campaign again. That racist dribble could only help McCain. I hope McCain sent them a thank you.

[research]

You're quicker to forgive Obama, than I am.

Give your money to Kucinich, at least he has never flagged in his endeavor to impeach these criminals!

http://kucinich.us/

[lily]

I live in VA and I would like to ask Webb a question. If the FISA bill is too complicated for bloggers, what about all the SENATORS who voted against it?

Of course, Senator Obama was not one of them. And that's the REAL problem here. I never thought that I would live to see the day when so many of my fellow liberal Democrats would be tying themselves in knots in an attempt to explain why the FISA isn't really so bad instead of calling Obama the traitor that he is for his vote on it.

Well, I have no such compunction on calling 'em as I see 'em. Webb - you suck. Obama - you suck even harder. GLENN GREENWALD FOR PRESIDENT.

[geobushono]

So it's time to fold our tents and let our betters decide for us........
Jim Webb is a republican.....he is a conservative...what do you expect from him?

[Michale32086]

}}}}}}Jim Webb is a republican

You REALLY need to get your facts straight..

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

Here is the ACLU's PR post:

}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
The FISA Amendments Act allows the mass acquisition of U.S. citizens’ and residents’international communications."
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

But the ACLU fails to point out which section of HR6304 does this...

}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
The law’s effect – and indeed, the law’s main purpose – is to give the government nearly unfettered access to Americans’ international communications.
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

Pure fear-mongering with absolutely NO evidence whatsoever to support the claim.

}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
Yet the FISA Amendments Act permits the government to acquire the international communications of U.S. citizens and residents without requiring it to identify the people to be monitored; to specify the facilities, places, premises, or property to be surveilled; to comply with meaningful limitations on the retention and dissemination of acquired information; to obtain individualized warrants based on criminal or foreign intelligence probable cause; or even to make prior administrative determinations that the targets of government surveillance are foreign agents or connected in any way, however tenuously, to terrorism.
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

No substantiation whatsoever.. We're simply supposed to take the ACLU's word for it.

The rest of the ACLU's bullet points are just more fear-mongering without ANY evidence or text from HR6304 to support the claims.

In short, ACLU's entire "case" is built around, "Trust us.. It's bad".....

I can just picture the ACLU in court...

JUDGE: "The Plaintiffs may begin their case."

ACLU: "Your honor. This law is bad. Trust us. The Plaintiffs rest."

Oh yea... THAT'LL fly.... :^/

Michale.....

[Lemeritus]

Suggest you read Motion for Leave to Participate in Proceedings Required by Section 702(i) of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, filed July 10. I was going to insist that you find it yourself, but decided I couldn't bear to hear you bellyache about "link, please" so: http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/fisc_motion_20080710.pdf

[Michale32086]

Thanx I have been hoping that someone could put up that link..

It's family movie night tonight (3:10 To Yuma) so I'll review it in the morning and give you my thoughts...

Thanx again...

Michale.....

[geobushono]

thank you for hoisting him for all to ridicule....clearly an undergraduate.

[research]

Thank you! excellent research, lemeritus!

[research]

Michale, still at it? We all trust the ACLU more then we trust you.

How can you advocate giving this outlaw BushCo more power to control every person one earth?

Do you not understand the power of unlimited surveillance?

Do you not understand Orwell's 1984?

Can you not imagine tha Obama has been compromised by BushCo Spying?

Obama didn't just vote for the FISA bill, he played along with the distraction, the misdirection,

that it was all about immunity.

Take a look at the big picture.

[Michale32086]

BushCo???

Bush is going to be gone in 8 months, give or take...

But the way you guys are tearing down Obama, we're gonna have McCain as the next President..

Good job..... :^/

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@research

}}}}}}}}}I'll take the ACLU over you, mechale, every time.

So, where is the ACLU's filing???

It's not in any of the Court Records that I can find..

The ACLU said they would file a challenge as soon as Bush signed HR6304 into Law.. That was several days ago...

Where is the ACLU's filing??

Michale.....

[research]

Ya'll totality don't get it.

This bill is the SPY ON ANYONE IN THE WORLD BILL.

Thanks to the vote to shred the 4th amendment and give Orwellian surveillance power to president most people wouldn't trust with a 20 dollar bill, all Bush or Cheneny have to do is say:

I don't like what "research" says. He must be a foreign agitator. Spy on all his record, all his internet all his phone calls.

and it will happen for 7 days.

Then the FISA court will say "no! that's totally unreasonable, stop it!"

BushCo will say "We appeal" and automatically get 60 more days to spy on me or anyone in the WORLD.

60 days later the court will say: "Still NO! Stop it!"

BushCo still get to keep any and all data collected during the now illegal spying.

I suppose, then Bush will say "Spy on him because he has foreign friends" New reason, new round of spying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOA1YAglmUw
FISA for dummies video explains it real simple.

Read the ALCU's take on it.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/10/aclu/index.html

[Michale32086]

Would SOMEONE... ANYONE... please explain to bgregs that, just because someone CAN violate the law, doesn't make the law Unconstitutional...

Michale.....

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Instead, I would point out to you that the Constitutionality of a law doesn't depend on whether the ensuing law can be proven to have caused harm, let alone to an individual bringing a suit.

You need standing. But the warrantless wiretaps were secret. So you don't know if you've been wiretapped. But you can't sue unless you can show you were illegally wiretapped. So you can't determine whether or not you had standing.

That was actually the cockamamie basis on which the court threw out a challenge to the PRIOR fisa law.

[Michale32086]

So, is that a YES, that simply being able to violate the law doesn't make the law unconstitutional???

Michale.....

[bgregs]

Will someone please explain to Michale that when the law does not allow for any OVERSIGHT for those who MIGHT break the law, then the law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!

[tc399]

It's a simple concept. The majority of Obama supporters expected him to do what he promised to do: Fight FISA. He said it was wrong and he'd fight it. Even if he knew he was going to lose the vote, the only members of the Senate who really got the respect of most literate Americans were the ones who promised to vote against it and did.

Obama voted against the war when it wasn't a popularity contest, and he was right. Hillary voted for it and lost the nomination. Now that it's a popularity contest, and there are a lot of dirty hands on both sides of the aisle, someone whispered in his ear and he broke his promise.

He said FISA was wrong and we believed him. FISA didn't change, so it's still wrong. He owed us that "NO" vote.

[Michale32086]

Or else, once OBAMA became the nominee he became privy to information that showed him that HR6304 was necessary...

Possible?? yes...

Do you REALLY want a leader who "stays the course" regardless of new information???

Michale....

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

How was telecom immunity necessary?

[LABC]

He doesn't owe you a "no" vote. The "most literate Americans"? Wow, your farts smell like roses, huh? I got other concerns, bucko - I would love to live in your world, where gas and food prices are low, health care is perfect, and the war is peachy. Then I can base my entire decision on one vote. I am an Obama supporter and you don't speak for me, okay?

[bgregs]

I'm gonna bring something over here, since you never answered me in the other thread:

Michale: "I can point to several sections that actually STRENGTHEN the 4th Amendment protections that all Americans have.."

Really? You can point to provisions that strengthen the 4th? I would LOVE to see that, since you've claimed it for WEEKS now without EVER presenting the "proof"! Please do so, and then we can rip THAT argument to shreds too!!

[Michale32086]

``(1) may not intentionally target any person known at the
time of acquisition to be located in the United States;
``(2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably
believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose
of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person
reasonably believed to be in the United States;
``(3) may not intentionally target a United States person
reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;
``(4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to
which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the
time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and
``(5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the
fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

These provisions were not part of The Patriot Act or The Protect America Act..

Michale.....

[geobushono]

Jeezus!!! how could The Framers omit such obvious loopholes that needed fixin' in 2008.

I guess some folks figure if we break it and add new pieces it's ok...

.kinda like topping mountains to strip the coal, and replacing the mountain with a pile of tailings, sticking in some flags and declaring it's a golf course.

[bgregs]

So we needed them to violate the fourth???

[bgregs]

"``(1) may not intentionally target any person known at the
time of acquisition to be located in the United States;
``(2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably
believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose
of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person
reasonably believed to be in the United States;
``(3) may not intentionally target a United States person
reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;
``(4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to
which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the
time of the acquisition to be located in the United States..."

Once again you are proving MY point!!! All of these subsections specify that they will not INTENTIONALLY wiretap Americans, and when coupled with subsection c(4) which states that they DON'T NEED A WARRANT..... Yeah, you just made MY point for me!!

[Michale32086]

@bgregs

}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
And YOUR argument seems to consist of "nobody will violate ANY law, EVER, because NOBODY has EVER violated ANY law!!!"
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

No, that is not my argument..

Of course the law COULD be violated.. And, if it is, THAT would be unconstitutional...

But that doesn't mean the LAW ITSELF is unconstitutional.. Just because someone COULD violate it...

Using your reasoning, EVERY law we have on the books is "Unconstitutional" because someone COULD violate them..

Michale.....

[research]

Is that you mukasi?

[bgregs]

But you keep bringing it up that the sections that I'm pointing to (which WILL be violated, any one with psych 101 will admit that!) will only be Unconstitutional if they are violated. I'm simply pointing out to you that a basic study of human nature will show you that those sections WILL be used to violate the law, and since there are no protections in the law to FORCE them to be properly obeyed, the WHOLE THING is Unconstitutional!

[Michale32086]

}}}}}}}}}}
(which WILL be violated, any one with psych 101 will admit that!)
}}}}}}}}}}

So, you are claiming unconstitutionality on what "WILL BE" violated???

Regardless of that ludicrous piece of illogic, the simple fact is, if the law is obeyed, then there is no Constitutional violation.

THIS IS BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION....

Ergo, the law itself is perfectly Constitutional...

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@bgregs

Bingo..

You just killed your whole argument..

"those who are not thought to be US persons"

While there IS oversight ( court, HOUSE & SENATE) the simple fact that there is no oversight DOES NOT MAKE THE LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL..

It might make it a bad law, poorly written etc etc..

But lack of oversight, even IF true, does not make the law unconstitutional..

BOOM, baby... That's YOU nuking your own argument..

Michale.....

[bgregs]

WHAT OVERSIGHT?????? THEY DON'T NEED TO GET WARRANTS IF THEY PRETEND THAT THE PEOPLE ARE NOT AMERICANS!!!! THEREFORE THEY *WILL* PRETEND THAT THEY DON'T KNOW, AND THE LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!

[Michale32086]

If they "pretend" then they are violating the law...

That doesn't make the law unconstitutional...

If adhered to, the law is perfectly constitutional....

Michale.....

[milo9]

The recepient of the communication is open to investigation without warrant or oversight. Oversight by an independent branch would provide a de facto a warrant.

[research]

Michele and others seem to fail to understand the "GAME" rules that have been set up. Of course, the are not supposed to spy on the wrong people, but there are no consequences, and they get to keep 67 days worth of spying, then create a new reason to spy, and continue them forever.

‘(4) USE OF INFORMATION- If an application for approval submitted pursuant to paragraph (1) is denied, or in any other case where the acquisition is terminated and no order is issued approving the acquisition, no information obtained or evidence derived from such acquisition, except under circumstances in which the target of the acquisition is determined not to be a United States person, shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof, and no information concerning any United States person acquired from such acquisition shall subsequently be used or disclosed in any other manner by Federal officers or employees without the consent of such person, except with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.

[Michale32086]

}}}}}}}}}}}}}
Michele and others seem to fail to understand the "GAME" rules that have been set up. Of course, the are not supposed to spy on the wrong people, but there are no consequences, and they get to keep 67 days worth of spying, then create a new reason to spy, and continue them forever.
}}}}}}}}}}}}}

Regardless of whether or not that is true, the simply fact that "there are no consequences" doesn't mean that it's unconstitutional....

You people are so hysterical about everything but the simple fact is, there is NO Constitutional conflict... It may be wrong, it may be bad, it may be poorly written and have little or no consequences if violated...

All of that MAY be true, but that still doesn't make the law UNCONSTITUTIONAL....

The simple FACT is, if HR6304 is adhered to, to the letter.... It's perfectly Constitutional....

It's THAT simple...

Michale.....

[bgregs]

And yet since the 4th states that : "... no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." that means that for them to wiretap without warrants for even ONE day is Unconstitutional. I will allow the three days that FISA originally allowed, however, since I do want us to be safe!

[research]

Mechale you are a fool or a tool.

[research]

Is this just blind faith in Obama? He can do no wrong? He can't be bought, he can't be blackmailed?

I believed Obama, I sent him over a 1000$.

For whatever reason, he voted to allow spying on everyone in the world.

Sorry, but there is no excuse for that.

[Michale32086]

@bgregs...

I will give you your due...

*IF* someone were to violate HR6304, it would be unconstitutional...

However, the converse of that is also true...

IF HR6304 is adhered to, it is perfectly constitutional..

I am guessing that is why the ACLU hasn't really filed any challenge HR6304...

There IS no challenge to HR6304 based on constitutional grounds...

Michale....

[bgregs]

However, since there is no oversight to PREVENT violations of the fourth, everybody KNOWS that it WILL be violated, even by one such as Obama!

[Michale32086]

@bgregs

}}}}}}}}}}
That's because subsection 5 is obviously negated by subsection c(4) which states that they don't need warrants, which CLEARLY not only violates the 4th, but ALSO makes it so that there is no oversight to ensure that the 4th is followed!!
}}}}}}}}}}

"Nothing in title I shall be construed
to require an application for a court order under such title
for an acquisition that is targeted in accordance with this
section at a person reasonably believed to be located outside
the United States."

How does that violate the US Constitution??

It's OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES and it's an acquisition in accordance with the section, meaning NO US PERSONS can be acquired without a warrant.

So, what's the problem???

Michale.....

[bgregs]

Just do me a favor and learn to read, then you can see EXACTLY what I said (about how your stupid little argument was flawed!!!) and understand that you have said the same thing that you said before, and I refuted you then!!

[Michale32086]

You have no argument...

It states plainly "OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES"....

Explain how that violates the US Constitution....

You can't...

Michale....

[Informed]

The ACLU explains why FISA is unconstitutional here...

http://www.aclu.org/images/nsaspying/asset_upload_file578_35950.pdf

"the government could use the new law to collect all phone calls between the U.S. and London, simply by saying to the FISA court that a significant purpose of its new surveillance program is to collect foreign intelligence information."

[Michale32086]

And yet, the ACLU cannot quote the section of HR6304 that says that.

Why is that??

The ACLU says "The LAW Does This" or "The LAW Does That" and we are just supposed to take the ACLU's word for it???

Let's see some citations from HR6304 itself that does what the ACLU claims.

Why don't we see any of that???

Michale.....

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

M,

I would have guessed with your libertarian tendencies you would support more careful FISA-supervised warrant-ing.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

You already wrote that you are a Bush supporter:
"I think that Bush is ... doing the best he can under very very trying circumstances."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ostertag/obama-web-site-protest-gr_b_110825.html

Some of us, however, are not.

[bgregs]

What part of yes, they can, and HAVE pointed to the specific points, along with many of us here, along with several Senators. Why is this not enough proof for you???

[IndependentTogether]

Of course the FISA bill would have passed regardless of Obama's vote, and there is no refuge with McCain for FISA voters, so any backlash against Obama is asinine. Be that as it may, here's our potential future courtesy of the wishes of the FISA voter:

==My daughter has to get an abortion in a back alley... but I can sue the telecoms!
I'm paying $10+ for a gallon of gas... but, dammit, I can sue the telecoms!
==My home is being foreclosed... but, hell yeah, I can sue the telecoms!
==Morale in the country and consumer confidence are at historic lows... but, by God, I can sue the telecoms!
==Worldwide hatred of America has reached near 100% saturation... but, thank you Jesus, I can sue the telecoms!
==My son has to do another couple of tours in Iraq... but, praise the Lawd, I can sue the telecoms!
==War with Iran is imminent, which would likely trigger WWIII... but, hallelujah, I can sue the telecoms!

Perspective.

[Michale32086]

Well said....

Michale......

[Gma11]

Thank you for some perspective, Independent.

I could give a rat's patootie, at this moment in history, whether we can sue the telecoms or not. The issues you'e mentioned are much more important to me.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Keep those false choices a-comin'.

Soooeeey!

[IndependentTogether]

C'mon, you can do better than that. Please elaborate...

[IndependentTogether]

Just to be clear, if FISA voters (should they actually exist) get their way, Obama would lose the election because of his FISA vote. Last I checked, if Obama loses, McCain wins.

McCain has already stated that he thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned. He has already stated that he doesn't know much about the economy; he believes the downturn is psychological. He's been antagonistic toward Iran and indicated that diplomacy with Iran is pointless. He wants to remove Russia and China from the G8. He's flip-flopped so much on Iraq that the wake is likely to affect weather patterns!

Tell me what would actually be positive about a McCain presidency...

[bgregs]

Perhaps you don't understand the two problems here:

1) immunity: this is simply the vehicle to find out just how bad this program has been abused

2) the violation of the 4th Amendment. This is the BIG issue!!

[Michale32086]

}}}}}}}}}2) the violation of the 4th Amendment. This is the BIG issue!!

And yet... And yet... And yet...

NO ONE can point to a violation...

Not even the ACLU can point to a section of HR6304 that violates the US Constitution..

Michale.....

[IndependentTogether]

You've missed the point completely. I'm not debating the validity of anger over FISA. Let me make it clearer: regardless of how you feel about FISA, it's irresponsible and shortsighted to lay the blame solely on Obama's shoulders.

Be angry over FISA if you have issues with it. Be active if you'd like to see things change. But keep in mind that there are other critical issues that have a much greater impact on people's everyday lives. If you ignore these other critical issues and vote solely based on FISA, you'd be exhibiting the irresponsible behavior of which you accuse those who voted for the FISA bill.

Vote *responsibly*.