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

[FogBelter]

I have great respect for Senator Webb, but I disagree with him on this point ... there is absolutely no reason to believe that the American People outside of high ranking political positions in the Federal Government are somehow intellectually inferior to those in the positions. There are a lot of reasons for an individual to wind up a Congressman, Senator, Judge, Cabinet Appointee, or President that have nothing to do with their intelligence or sense of morality ... as we have seen. In short, there is no way I believe that our elected officials, in anyway, represent the best and brightest of American Society, and it is possible that they are the ones who didn't understand the FISA Bill or chose not to understand the FISA Bill.

There are many people of many backgrounds blogging now, it is impossible to know what background or insights they have on a given area of expertise ... some know nothing, others know far more than the good Senator despite his "Black Clearances".

[FogBelter]

Furthermore, while I have great respect for the Senator, he is a Military Man, and one thing that characterizes most individuals I have ever met in the Military is a level of constant paranoia ... there is always someone out to the destroy the US ... there is always an enemy crouching and conspiring to destroy our way of life ... I believe that mindset is cultivated within those in the military to justify the never ending war notion that keeps the Military Industrial Complex in Business, and also to give them the moral justification needed to murder their fellow human beings in combat ... some rise above the intoned paranoia, but most I have come across don't ... so I am sure that Senator Webb will always be able to identify an American Enemy that requires votes like he made on FISA ... it is the foundation of his Military Training.

[Sarahjan]

Dear, Sir, Jim Webb,
many bloggers and well read and well educated. I respect as a man of letters. Please, rather than talking down to us, do tell us things you think we do not know and that we should know.

Thank you.

[lainey]

Webb is 100% right about this. It is a complicated bill and it deserves hours of study. Even after that was done, many scholars and legislatures came up with different answers, all believing that they are right. FISA is a complicated issue, as are most issues in this campaign. That is why it requires a great deal of thinking, a great deal of studying and a great deal of listening to opposing views before positing. Most write their opinion--not based on facts or seen through the lens they choose--thus making many remarks invalid. That is evidenced in the name calling and cruelty of many posts, for when all else fails, insult the person writing rather than provide evidence. There is a great deal of civility and knowledge lacking from bloggers.

[Fightnmad]

Yet, here you are. If I were to disagree with you and say, "Webb is 100% wrong about this", would you accuse me of being ignorant of the issues, ill-read, plebeian, and myopic?

[plainsman]

The fact that reasonable people can look at the same bill and come to entirely different conclusions about it's merits and application is evidence that the bill is too ambiguous. Such a poorly written bill, with loopholes big enough to drive an illegal spy program through, should have been trashed.

[Grunty1]

Excellent point.

[Countdown09]

Perhaps this is why many politicians in previous careers were lawyers. The average blogger won't understand the ins and outs of government legislation and frankly shouldn't try unless of course they have the legal skill to do so. I never pretended to understand this bill, however I did believe it was a issue that republicans hoped they could use against O and other democrats at some point. Weak on terror national security came to mind.

[Liam]

I entirely disagree with you. It's not that hard to find the text of the bill on line and read through it. There are no end of sites that will provide you with the actual text as well as a breakdown of what it's saying, for those who have trouble understanding legalese.

I spent about 3 hours looking at FISA, it's history and what's in the current amendment before I wrote up the piece on it on my blog, and nothing I learned changes my opinion.

And for the record, my opinion is that we, as a nation, have sunk really far when the civil libertarian position is arguing IN FAVOR OF a secret court, accountable to (and overseen by) no one, because the other side of the issue is in favor of abolishing even that court as oversight of Presidential authority.

Adding in to it the idea that we should immunize telecommunications company for anything, no matter how illegal, they may have done or may yet do, just because the President asked them to, that's insane.

Do you realize that, as written, a case could be made that the immunity is neither limited to access to communications nor solely to things they've done in the past. It is ambiguously written, but an argument could be made that under the right circumstances, this law could allow the President to have the telecoms do just about any illegal thing with impunity.

So much for "no one is above the law".

Liam

[trollsbwild]

Fuuny, but bloggers were not the authors of this poorly written bill. So poorly written in fact, that it is the opinion of several legal experts that the courts will overturn if, if challenged.

[GOP4MoreTears]

Bottom-line... This whole issue is about being comfortable with ones leader/leaders to do what's proper when tough calls have to be made, can you trust them not to abuse that trust?

The right-wing, (not so) Compassionate conservatives, GOP, proved by abusing their power and We, the Peoples faith that they would act responsibly was *NOT* well founded, and they abused our TRUST.

The GOP have continued to to act irresponsibly and have *NO* intent to do otherwise. That's just how they see things, they are the problem, period, FULL STOP !

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Honorary HuffPick.

[studlyguy]

Webb doesn't like bloggers cause we call politicians out on their bulls**t and they can't get away with their cave - ins anymore ,cause the bloggers call them out on it,that's the real reason Senator Webb doesn't like bloggers.

[terragazelle60]

So Webb can'nt just be telling the truth? That it is easier to write a negative blog then it is to research facts and make yourself understood. It's so much easier to claim the same first ammendment rights as a journalist then it is to hold the same honor. Lies are always more fun to write and to believe.

We will have another repub in the oval office...this time one that has always flip flopped...one that is to flippin old and whose claim to fame is crashing a plane and being taken as a pow. Other then that what has he done for his state? He rides in his wife's jet..he has 7 homes and is a millionaire.
Yet calls Obama an elitist. And the netroots go along with it.

Webb is a truth teller...it is petty to denigrate someone's honor because he has an opinion opposite yours. That FISA bill is not what hgas been reported on line. The telecoms can be taken to criminal court...not civil court. Personally I think those who take offence to not being able to sue the telecoms for money is not worried about civil rights...only their wallet.

And the FISA now has charge of more then they did have. Do some research and stop whineing and those who do know what is going on.

[Liam]

Actually, there's some question about that criminal court thing. They can't be taken to criminal court by the states, only by the Federal government, who clearly won't have any urge to do so unless someone not complicit with the original un-Constitutional spying is in charge.

And the whole "criminal vs civil" thing goes to how poorly the bill is written in the first place. It's so non-specific that you could read it one way to say that it only provides protections against CIVIL suits, you could read it another way and say that if the President is willing to have is Attorney General assert certain basic facts, he could request the Telecoms commit any crime and they'd be immunized against it.

The definition of assistance covered by the law is "The term `assistance' means the provision of, or the provision of access to, information (including communication contents, communications records, or other information relating to a customer or communication), facilities, or another form of assistance.". That "or another form of assistance", without further clarification, is a hell of a loophole.

Webb may honestly believe he has a good grasp on things, he probably does. So does Russ Feingold, who is diametrically opposed to Webb. But this is his opinion, it doesn't make it factual, just his opinion.

Liam.

[SpoxLogic]

Unfortunately, the FISA issue ia a prickly one. We need our rights, that's for sure. We also need to be protected. (I am of the mind that we need more protection from our own govt than from "terrorists".)
That said, since the majority of the masses don't want to be bothered with anything outside of their own lives, it's up to the elected officials to do what they feel is right for the country.

Now, most of these officials are of the same mindset as the masses, so it is easy to see how FISA came into being and has evolved into what it is now. PLEASE NOTE THAT FISA HAS BEEN AROUND FOR 30 YEARS ALREADY. It is nothing new. We've been allowing our rights to be trampled for 30 years already. So why the great big hubabaloo now?

Fixing and changing the mindset of the masses is the only way to recover our rights, but since the brainwashing process has been in effect for many decades now, I doubt it can be done without much Herculean efforts.

So, should we give up? I dunno. Maybe elected Obama will be a good first step, maybe not. And should we even put all of this on his Shoulders alone?
But, overall, electing him over McCain, is definitely a better deal.

[Liam]

Yeah, I said it before, but it's pretty amazing when you think about it that the civil libertarian argument right now is IN FAVOR OF a secret court, because the only other serious option on the table is that even that minimal oversight of the President should be abolished.

The problem, though, isn't with FISA (although we could certainly have that debate at another time), its with the extent to which the new law relaxes even the amazingly limited oversight. About the only positive thing in it is that it's not as "screw all y'all's rights" as the August 2007 "Protect America Act".

Still, in what world is it any kind of protection at all if the government is not required to keep any records of their searches, if they are no longer required to document in any detailed way who or what they wish to search to the FISA court, and if they can spy on you for a whole week before having to even mention it to the secret court?

There's really only two good things about this bill: It prohibits targeting a foreigner in order to get around the rules for tapping an American's communications, and it explicitly says that invoking war powers does not supersede the FISA law.

Liam.

[research]

Webb, you probably hate that votes are anonymous too, don't ya?

Well, thanks to your vote to shred the 4th amendment and give Orwellian surveillance power to president most people would'nt 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.
.

Jim, Maybe the 4th amendment is just too hard for YOU to understand, or maybe that spying BushCo did before 9/11, and only on local, not international switches, got some juicy info about you?

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

[Helzapoppin]

Another example of another arrogant politician the "netroots" championed basically over a single issue (Webb's opposition to the war) who turned out to be just another elitist and not the great & noble progressive he was made out to be. When are people going to learn?

[Relax08]

He did not say what the headline says. He said that the bill is more complicated than is being presented on the net. That is not arrogant, that is simply correct. Have you read FISA?

[Liam]

I have. Every word.

Still can't figure out how anyone thought it was a good idea to vote for it. It gives away far too much (even without the telecom immunity) for the two minor things it actually does right.

First off, a true compromise wouldn't involve giving away the store in favor of one or two minor concessions.

Secondly, some principles are too important to compromise away.

Liam.

[AnotherTry]

What is it these guys are afriad of if they had voted no?

[TovSquirrel]

He merely expounded upon the elite's view of the great unwashed masses.

If he thinks anonymity is the problem for some of what you see in the way of tasteless prose on the web (no pun intended), he needs to explain why all those "well-known" deceivers and "great minds" (talking heads, "pundits" & politicians) get away with bellicose BS they spew.

At least we should all know now where we truly stand in the eyes of the War Party--if we didn't already.

[olivia]

He's right: Obama was damned either way he voted. I think he chose the option that might let him become President.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

A "New Kind of Politics" was soooo..... 2007.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

We ARE talking about the master of the non-vote, who DID once promise to filibuster that which he then supported.

Sheesh.

[Wildcatdiva]

Oh, please all you people do is itch and moan, because Americans are idiots and write big and bad on sites but don't get off their behinds to do anything. When push comes to shove you will elect Granpa because he's something you know and love (corrupt, white and old). That’s why you get the government you get. Americans are a bunch of whiners and idiots...lol

[darthdarcy]

You know Senator; I know a bit about the Constitution and our Founding Fathers and one of it's great strengths is that the Constitution is short and simple that's one of it's great strengths, only crooks, liars and usurpers seek to make it complicated so they can criminally violate that sacred document...and oppress our people and abuse their power...!

[memoryaid]

Nowhere does this bill provide immunity for the administration. (nor does it preclude their ability to be charged with criminal charges, but that's another story).

So no, the Bush administration, and indeed any administration, should not be able to do what they've been doing. They should, and I hope they will, be prosecuted for their breach with the constitution.

I would urge people to trust those that are involved in these debates, and do spend the time parsing these pieces on legislation. "NO KIND OF IMMUNITY EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE" is almost as stupid an attitude as "DEPORT ALL ILLEGALS NOW".

These are complex issues, we'd all do well to heed Sen. Webb's advice and not fall into the same traps that the hard-right dittoheads stumble over every day.

[NeoStar9]

Exactly. This is the huge problem with this FISA issue. Those upset with Sen. Obama have never read the bill themselves. All they see is the immunity factor which itself is only civil. If you really want to bring people to justice then you need to criminally prosecute them. Which you still can. I rather have the ability to bring criminal charges.

Also the government until this bill was passed didn't have to go to the FISA courts. No one wants to talk about that little issue. This bill makes them go there again since that little thing was undone earlier in the year by accident (I believe it was or could have been done on purpose). This actually restores part o fthe constitution. Being able to sue civilly isn't a huge issue. Those making it out to be don't even understand what they are really arguing against. All they here is immunity and lose their heads.

[loucreattie]

. "NO KIND OF IMMUNITY EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE" is almost as stupid an attitude as "DEPORT ALL ILLEGALS NOW"

Thats priceless. Thank you very much for the great post.

[Liam]

Yes, but...

When we go after mob bosses, we often let the "little fish" off scot free, often in exchange for their testimony against the larger fish.

We do not issue a blanket immunity to everyone below the level of "Don's lieutenant" and then expect that we'll have access to the same level of information when we go after the Don.

I'm not opposed to the Telecoms getting away with it. They were, after all, assured by the White House that what they were doing was legal, and although they should have known better, I can see the patriotic side of them wanting to comply. But their immunity should be:

1) A result of the bigger fish having been caught, not ultimately protection for those bigger fish as well, and

2) Not so broad as to immunize them against lawsuits by anyone who was genuinely harmed by their actions. I don't know if anyone has been, but as of this point even if someone was genuinely harmed they have no recourse.

And absolutely it should not be written so vaguely as to pretty well allow the Telecoms to be Bush's legal "above the law" squad, which it is possible to construe in the bill (which I have read).

Liam.

[sandtats]

Simple, uncomplicated, speaks to the truth; a beacon of clarity and simple elegance, its only intention to keep the masses free from oppression, as in sanctioning slavery, segreation, denying women the right to vote, etc.; that "uncomplicated" Constituion?

[Zhonni]

You may think you know much about the constitution but you don't.

Not as much as the collective Senators who voted for this bill nor a single Senator.

Are you telling me that a bunch of Senators decided to burn or overturn the constitution in the FISA bill? People don't know much about the bill but what they know is the immunity for Telecoms. If they do what the government asks then the Gov. should be held responsible for any misuse.

[Helzapoppin]

And are you aware that most of those senators never read the bill?

Or that the majority of constitutional scholars who have spoken out about that bill agreed that burning/overthrowing the 4th amendment was precisely what that bill did? And the telecom immunity was only a small part of that.

The government of the US was designed by the founders on the principle that those in power cannot be trusted. If you want to play the sheep and trust that those politicians know what they are doing or are acting out of benevolence, you go right ahead. Some of us choose not to play the sucker.

[freedomis]

Did anyone tell bush and cheney about this.They don't seem concerned about that peice of paper.Tony

[darthdarcy]

There's a lot more than just Telecom immunity that stinks about this Bill and I have repeatedly pointed that out maybe you should brush up on the Constitution and 4th Amendment yourself ...

Go learn the facts 67 days the government can eavesdrop on anyone without any Warrant and even when requesting a warrant they do not have to reveal who they want to Data mine and eavesdrop so there will no longer be specific warrants or direct real oversight it eviscerates the 4th Amendment...

[Relax08]

Your statement actually indicates that you know very very little about the Constitution. It's neither short and it's certainly not simple. You must be a Limbaugh Ditto head out doing mischief!

[Countdown09]

If the constitution were so simply why is it the supreme court is constantly having to interrupt it for people who bring their cases to them to be ruled on?

[lynnn]

It was too complicated for Bush as well. I see a lot of bloggers who say, "It wasn't a compromise Bush was happy!". Bush was happy during his "Mission Accomplished" speech as well. Bush is a dolt.