YOU FOOLS! Aren't you paying attention to the chatter coming from the neocons? Everything is about attacks - whether it's a TERRORIST ATTACK on the US, or the US attacking Iran. They are setting the stage for a humdinger, and here you are worrying that Obama is DISAPPOINTING you.
Pay attention to what is happening outside of your little world. Everything isn't gonna be nice and rosy, just because of Obama. The real world is still happening and he is smack dab in the middle of it. You think the neocons and GOP aren't thinking of ways to steal this election? Do you think they've just given up?
TRUST THE MAN TO DO RIGHT BY US, OR IS YOUR FAITH THAT FLIMSY??
Also, why are you putting so much pressure on him. He IS NOT the POTUS, yet. And he alone is not gonna change everything TWO days after he gets sworn in. Yet you all talk as if he should lead us to Nirvana RIGHT NOW!
A lot of you state that the Dem party is SPINELESS. I put it to you that it's you guys who are spineless, since you cannot seem to stomach a perceived setback!
Is Obama Selling Out on FISA bill?
Is Obama being a shrewd pol or selling out civil liberties?
That's the question raised by Glenn Greenwald's tough new column taking Obama to task for supporting the bogus "compromise" bill condemned by the ACLU, the New York Times and most of the liberal blogosphere.
Greenwald takes on his fellow bloggers as well:
In the past 24 hours, specifically beginning with the moment Barack Obama announced that he now supports the Cheney/Rockefeller/Hoyer House bill, there have magically arisen -- in places where one would never have expected to find them -- all sorts of claims about why this FISA "compromise" isn't really so bad after all. People who spent the week railing against Steny Hoyer as an evil, craven enabler of the Bush administration -- or who spent the last several months identically railing against Jay Rockefeller -- suddenly changed their minds completely when Barack Obama announced that he would do the same thing as they did. What had been a vicious assault on our Constitution, and corrupt complicity to conceal Bush lawbreaking, magically and instantaneously transformed into a perfectly understandable position, even a shrewd and commendable decision, that we should not only accept, but be grateful for as undertaken by Obama for our Own Good.
Accompanying those claims are a whole array of factually false statements about the bill, deployed in service of defending Obama's indefensible -- and deeply unprincipled -- support for this "compromise." Numerous individuals stepped forward to assure us that there was only one small bad part of this bill -- the part which immunizes lawbreaking telecoms -- and since Obama says that he opposes that part, there is no basis for criticizing him for what he did. Besides, even if Obama decided to support an imperfect bill, it's our duty to refrain from voicing any criticism of him, because the Only Thing That Matters is that Barack Obama be put in the Oval Office, and we must do anything and everything -- including remain silent when he embraces a full-scale assault on the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law -- because every goal is now subordinate to electing Barack Obama our new Leader.
It is absolutely false that the only unconstitutional and destructive provision of this "compromise" bill is the telecom amnesty part. It's true that most people working to defeat the Cheney/Rockefeller bill viewed opposition to telecom amnesty as the most politically potent way to defeat the bill, but the bill's expansion of warrantless eavesdropping powers vested in the President, and its evisceration of safeguards against abuses of those powers, is at least as long-lasting and destructive as the telecom amnesty provisions. The bill legalizes many of the warrantless eavesdropping activities George Bush secretly and illegally ordered in 2001. Those warrantless eavesdropping powers violate core Fourth Amendment protections. And Barack Obama now supports all of it, and will vote it into law. Those are just facts.
The ACLU specifically identifies the ways in which this bill destroys meaningful limits on the President's power to spy on our international calls and emails. Sen. Russ Feingold condemned the bill on the ground that it "fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home" because "the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power." Rep. Rush Holt -- who was actually denied time to speak by bill-supporter Silvestre Reyes only to be given time by bill-opponent John Conyers -- condemned the bill because it vests the power to decide who are the "bad guys" in the very people who do the spying.
This bill doesn't legalize every part of Bush's illegal warrantless eavesdropping program but it takes a large step beyond FISA towards what Bush did. There was absolutely no reason to destroy the FISA framework, which is already an extraordinarily pro-Executive instrument that vests vast eavesdropping powers in the President, in order to empower the President to spy on large parts of our international communications with no warrants at all. This was all done by invoking the scary spectre of Terrorism -- "you must give up your privacy and constitutional rights to us if you want us to keep you safe" -- and it is Obama's willingness to embrace that rancid framework, the defining mindset of the Bush years, that is most deserving of intense criticism here.
Moveon.org is also launching an email campaign urging Obama to keep his word on supporting a filibuster to block telecom immunity:
Dear MoveOn member:On Friday, House Democrats caved to the Bush administration and passed a bill giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to phone companies that helped Bush illegally spy on innocent Americans.1
This Monday, the fight moves to the Senate. Senator Russ Feingold says the "deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation."2 Barack Obama announced his partial support for the bill, but said, "It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."3
Last year, after phone calls from MoveOn members and others, Obama went so far as to vow to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."4 We need him to honor that promise.
Can you call Senator Obama today and tell him you're counting on him to keep his word? Ask him to block any compromise that includes immunity for phone companies that helped Bush break the law.
Obama's presidential campaign: (866) 675-2008
Then, help us track our progress by clicking here.
These companies helped the Bush Administration illegally spy on the emails and phone calls of innocent Americans. By giving "immunity" to these companies, all lawsuits brought against them by civil liberties groups would be thrown out of court. That means we may never find out how far Bush went in breaking the law. And once it's done, it can't be undone. That's why we need Obama to promise to block any bill that has immunity.
Supporters of today's deal say it doesn't guarantee immunityâ€"it just kicks the issue to a court to decide. But that's deceptive. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) points out:
"It gives [Bush's] attorney general the power to decide if cases against telecommunications companies will proceed. The AG only has to certify to the FISA court that the company didn't spy or did so with a permission slip from the president. A note from the president is not a legal defense. Allowing phone companies to avoid litigation by simply presenting a 'permission slip' from the president is not court review."5The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit group working with the ACLU to hold these companies accountable, adds, "whatever gloss might be put on it, the so-called 'compromise' on immunity for phone companies that broke the law is anything but a compromise...no matter how they spin it, this is still immunity, period."6
President Bush and the phone companies know that the facts are against them. A judge appointed by President Bush's father already wrote one opinion finding that "AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal."7
But we'll never know how far their illegal actions went unless we fight back now. Can you tell Barack Obama you're counting on him to keep his word and block any compromise that gives immunity to lawbreaking phone companies? Obama's presidential campaign: (866) 675-2008
Then, help us track our progress by clicking here.
Thanks for all you do,
â€"Nita, Adam G., Patrick, Ilyse, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Saturday, June 21, 2008Sources:
1. "George Bush's latest powers, courtesy of the Democratic Congress," Glenn Greenwald on Salon.com, June 19, 2008
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/19/telecom/index.html
2. "Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On the FISA Deal," Statement of Senator Russ Feingold, June 19, 2008
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/08/06/20080619f.htm
3. "Obama Backing FISA 'Compromise," Greg Sargent at TPM Election Central, June 20, 2008
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/obama_backing_fisa_compromise.php4. "Obama Camp Says It: He'll Support Filibuster Of Any Bill Containing Telecom Immunity," Greg Sargent at TPM Election Central, October 24, 2007
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/obama_camp_says_it_hell_support_filibuster_of_any_bill_containing_telecom_immunity.php
5. "Facts on the Senator Kit Bond's (R-Mo.) FISA Proposal," June 13, 2008
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/35652res20080613.html
6. "Prepared Statement of Eff Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston on Immunity 'Compromise,'" Electronic Frontier Foundation, June 18, 2008
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/EFF_bankston.pdf
7. "Targeting Steny Hoyer for his contempt for the rule of law," Glenn Greenwald on Salon.com, June 17, 2008
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/17/hoyer/index.html
There's nothing significant for Obama to gain in the general election if he ends up going along with the bill, and much to lose in terms of his reputation for integrity and keeping his word, so it's important to keep pressure on him to oppose the new bill, especially if it contains any telecom-favoring provision.
UPDATE: Here's Obama's rationalization for supporting the current bill, while claiming he'll work to strip it of the telecom immunity provision. What's not clear in this statement or some of the blog commentary is what he'll do regarding the measure if the telecom provision stays in. Some highlights:
It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
Unfortunately, though, the thrust of his comments is that he will support the bill as written, even though he'll support -- how, he doesn't say -- efforts to remove the telecom provision, perhaps after it's already become law:
"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."
Sadly, we expected more from Obama than this position on critical civil liberties legislation. That's why it's important to call his campaign to urge him to follow up on his promise to back a filibuster against the telecom immunity provision. Obama's presidential campaign phone: (866) 675-2008. Let him know you'd like him to stand up against the Bush administration on this issue, showing the sort of strength that can resonate with voters in the general election.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
FAUXlogic: Quote "YOU FOOLS! Aren't you paying attention to the chatter coming from the neocons?"
I'm reminded: A Fool isn't a Fool until they open their mouth and prove it...
Yes and NO, as to "everything is about attacks..." We're paying attention wider than you is all... WE perceive the attacks on the U S Constitution and Rule of Law, also...What profits a person to gain a Presidential Office holder and lose their Country?
QUOTE "TRUST THE MAN TO DO RIGHT BY US, OR IS YOUR FAITH THAT FLIMSY??" Never put your Faith in BELIEFS ABOUT any Person... The disappointment I sense in Obama supporter/believers is they invested in their Hope of Change... When his Behavior failed to match their Hope of Change, their comments have been of disappointment...
I don't believe Obama has changed his pattern of behavior... I Believe, many are beginning to see thru THEIR beliefs ABOUT the Obama's though...
WE the People want to Believe the Best about Elected Office Holders... Yet WE know Decider G W Bush had Co-operation from both Branches of our Dominant/ Corrupt, Corporate/Greed influenced, Political Party... WE know so, yet continue keeping these two Branches in Control... I would observe the American Voters greatest peril is being blinded by our Beliefs (about Life) and our Hope of Change...
POGO: WE have met the Enemy and IT is US... (POS +) WE have met our Friend and IT is One's personal Honesty...
down the thread the idea sets in that people who criticize obama for supporting this immunity bill never supported obama in the first place. this is dead wrong. the assertion implies that all obama critics are of one mccainite rightie troll cloth. this is dead wrong. honest liberals who swallowed the rejection of rev wright , the campaign finance switch, and the aipac surrender, the nafta switch and so on are concerned with this. most have no real intention of voting for anyone else. beware the true believers. a fanatical core of online pit bulls will not be doing the campaign any favors, as valuable as their enthusiasm is.
Congrats, Obama! You just killed my enthusiasm. So much for changing Washington -- you're just another cynical, scheming politician. I can't believe I believed in you.
I'll still vote for you come November, since anything's better than McSame, but you will not get another cent from me, and I will not lift a finger to help your campaign. Ever.
That surge of faith and hope in you to change Washington is what's carried you this far, and you've just destroyed it. Real smart move there, O.
I'm disappointed, but I'm a realist. I'm going to disagree with him on this, and say it strikes me as a bit spineless, even if (perhaps especially if) he was just trying to protect his flank for november.
But I'm not about to let the perfect become the enemy of the good... what's that the Stones once sang? You can't always get what you want.... but if you try sometime...
The Democratic Party, permanently and completely (with very few exceptions) spineless.
What keeps sticking in my mind is that image of Hoyer leaning back in a chair chatting and laughing with bush in the white house. It"s sickening. But I am sure Champagne corks are popping in the white house. Our little dictator king and his accomplices the telecoms are going to get just what they wanted with the help of the weak and enabling dems.
As voters we the people have only one recourse; vote against any democrat that votes for this measure. After all, if they are going to act like republiCONs, they might as well be replaced by the real thing.
Please go to the ActBlue FISA page and contribute if you can. Or just urge others to contribute.
ActBlue is trying to do *exactly* what you mention, and replace our spineless "Democratic" leadership with new blood who will actually support the Constitution and the rule of law.
The URL is http://www.actblue.com/page/fisa
Amen, brother.
The more I think about this whole bill, it seems insane for Sen Obama to support such a measure.
I can not think of one rational political scenario which includes the people as part of the equation,
that makes this vote sensible. Thats another reason why it will be a huge slap in the face of the people if he does this. The public will know that he made this constitutional decision without thinking about them in the least bit. He's way too smart to be that stupid.
Hillary still lurks in the wings as August nears.
Republican attempts to destroy Sen. Obama will become much more effective without progressives to defend and champion his message to friends, family, coworkers, independents and republicans.
It seems Sen Obama is misunderstanding just how much responsibility he has given him as a result of the position most of us have pushed for him to have. If he accepts the role, he must live up to it. The American people are looking for their champion. This job is one of high expectations, and the national situation is one where this type of backroom unprincipled scheming wont play.
Our next leader will not be afforded such a lack of accountability.
Dont ask to be the people's champion, if you are not willing to raise your sword in their name during battle.
Absolutely. Nicely put.
Even if he backs down now, and is suddenly "strongly against the bill, just as he has always been", or whatever David Axelrod tries to spin at us, Senator Obama has made it clear that when it's time to stand up and be counted....he sits down, as quickly as possible.
I guess there's a reason Senator Clinton hasn't released her delegates yet.
Don't think Ms. Clinton would be much better. Her record on Constitutional issues is just as bad, if not worse.
Not defending Obama (read my other posts): his behavior was reprehensible and (nicely put, here) a huge slap in the face of the progressive community. He really doesn't understand how much he needs us, and that may well be his downfall.
But let's be honest. Hoping for Ms. Clinton to ride in on a white horse and save the day (if that's what you're hoping; if not, I apologize for misreading you) is as naive as hoping for Obama to save us apparently has been.
Well said.
A big 'well said' to all of you! I'm glad that people are starting to wake up to the reality of the Obama campaign. Because he is new on the scene, hope and change where all he could run on. Obviously it was enough, but his actions are already weakening his position. Because he has such a short resume, his actions now are amplified that much more.
His actions in this matter go agains everything he has said in his campaign.... against everything he supposedly stands for.
And as someone said, Hillary is still there. We know who she is. She will compromise at times, yes... but if she feels strongly about something, she will stand up and fight. And she will never give up when it comes to an issue she believes in. Some people thought Obama learned about this type of tenacity from her... I guess not.
I am so with obama on this, He finally is standing up for his country and our great friend isreal. if your getting calls from obl or his crew, f --- your rights. the people who protect us need to know about it. If a phone company ,helps our government get this information,, during time of war , God bless them. If you don't like it, then don't accept collect calls from terrorists.
This is satire.....right?
Two related, in this case, quotes come to mind. The first being, "If there is one thing that history teaches us, it is that we learn nothing from history." This prefaces the second, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety will have neither."
In other words, it seems we have forgotten the latter.
Maybe I'm the only liberal out that feels this way but I really don't think amnesty is unreasonable. These companies were approached by the POTUS and dept. of defense in a time of national paranoia and asked for their co-operation. It's the administration that should be held accountable for their gross misuse of power. As for the companies, they should be given a pass on this one with the understanding that doing it again, even if the gov't requests, will come with harsh penalties. I can't really speak to the rest of the bill but it doesn't seem that different than the current law.
So I guess I agree with Obama on this one. As for the direction of the country I'm totally on board with Obama. I don't think he can do everything he hopes to in the way that he hopes to it, but who can? If he can accomplish 1/2 of his goals in the first 3 years I'll be satisfied. Those of you feel so betrayed that you'll sit out in Nov. I implore you to reconsider. McCain is a completely backward looking and misogynistic. Obama may not be your perfect candidate but McCain is terrible.
Here's the problem (or one of them, at least); with impeachment "off the table," these lawsuits were the best chance (possibly the last chance) to actually gather information against the administration. See the problem?
If the companies hold no liability, then why not let a court of law determine that, instead of giving blind immunity? There is no excuse for granting blanket immunity, as opposed to looking at this in on a case-by-case basis.
Oh, I'll vote for him. But if he wants my money and time, he has to work for it.
Har har. Tried and failed:
A previous bill in the House would have allowed the US Government to take the place of Telecom companies in any civil litigation. Thus the Telecom industry would be immune from any wrongdoing, and in its stead the government would be held accountable.
As you might imagine, this bill was handily squashed.
Astonishing how quickly he has changed his tune on FISA, Public Financing, NAFTA. Perhaps the most cynical repositioning I've whitnessed in modern politics. I have spiritual whiplash. Barak we hardly know ye!
Ohhh, now you know what he meant by "change." I figured that one out by looking at his record. His only claim to fame was something he wasn''t even in Congress to vote on. You really think he wouldn't have pulled a "Hillary" on that vote?
He has, in fact, said so himself, more than once. Something to the effect of "I don't know how I would have voted if I'd actually been in a position to vote."
If Senator Clinton had just had the good sense to admit that she regretted her vote on that issue (and a few others), we wouldn't be spiraling towards disaster.
I'm not sure which would be worse: the Democrats losing the White House, or Senator "Let's hope they don't notice how far over my head I am" Obama winning. I kind of suspect it's the latter.
The Senate/House majorities will keep McCain in line. But, with Senator Obama, no one seems to be capable of speaking truth to power. Or, more likely, he simply doesn't care to hear it. Shades of President Bush, frankly.
This is nothing new. When O b a m a was in the Ill state senate he found ways to look like he was supporting both sides of the same issue.
He did this by claiming he pressed the "NO" button when he meant to press "YES" or vice versa. In this way, he could request the record reflect his error but the original vote always stood.
----------
Quote:
O b a m a angered ... the Illinois Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side.
But O b a m a had a ready explanation: He goofed.
"I was not aware that I had voted no," he said that day in June 2002, asking that the record be changed to reflect that he "intended to vote yes."
... some lawmakers say the practice also offers a relatively painless way to placate both sides of a difficult issue.
Even if a lawmaker admits an error, the actual vote stands and the official record merely shows the senator's "intent."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obamavotes24jan24,1,7079399.story
----------------
Are we really to believe a Harvard graduate pressed the wrong button six (6) times?
And then there's those 200-plus. non-commital present votes...
IF you chose him because you believe he would actually take a stand on important issues like FISA immunity, you were misled. You should have vetted him better.
He wouldn't be a Democrat if he didn't cave in to Republican demands. It's a requirement of membership.
We know what wexler thought of this bend over.
Now read Feingold's
http://rawstory.com/news08/2008/06/23/feingold-farce-wiretap-deal-could-be-hiding-impeachable-offense/
Obviously the big fear is how the information gathered could be misused.
It just isn't right that people and organizations get to know everything about us while refusing to let us while hiding behind national security or executive priviledge. We"ve already seen the results of this with Enron and related scandals which quite possibly originated at closed door energy meetings between Bushco and big energy. There must be limits placed on the collusion between government and big industry or really bad things are going to happen.
And it will be misused.
Even if you assume that those who currently hold the control over the data are good and worthy people, if there is no accountability, not only must they be good and worthy, but so must be all of those who work for them. And everyone who takes their place as they move on.
That is not realistic. Power corrupts.
Posted June 22, 2008 | 06:03 PM (EST)