A Powerful, Easy Way to Tell Obama to Get FISA Right
Since I started writing about Senator Obama's reversal on the upcoming FISA vote, the number of comments to column shot up 1000%, and they are mostly supportive. It turns out that there are a lot of Obama supporters who feel as I do: we support Obama over McCain as much ever, but his about-face on FISA and the US Constitution is a disaster that cannot be ignored.
It seems that we are right back to the dreary old position we so often find ourselves in: having our votes taken for granted as the nominee moves relentlessly to the right. Except this time it is even more infuriating because we had so much to do with the candidate getting far enough down the road that he can turn his back on us.
The Internet had a lot to do with this. What if we can find a way to use it to our advantage now? Is there a creative way to use the Internet to make our voice heard? I have a proposal:
Imagine how inspired you would have been if, instead of turning and running, Obama was interrupting his campaign schedule to fly to Washington and lead the filibuster against the FISA legislation. Take the money donate it instead to Russ Feingold, the senator who is leading the struggle. Then tell everyone you know to do the same.
This will be simple and effective:
* This won't be a vote against Obama. It will be a vote for the US Constitution and for political courage.
* It won't help McCain, and it will strengthen the part of the Democratic Party that will do what Obama said he would do but now won't.
* We will be able to measure our success by the size of the bump in contributions to the Feingold campaign fund.
* It is a no risk deal. If no one does it except you and me, we have still given some money to the senator who is actually out front leading on this. And if lots of others do it to, we will be making a statement that might reverberate nationally.
Now, about Feingold. Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) has led the fight against the FISA bill. He is still leading it. He has not backed down one inch. Here is his latest statement on the matter:
I hope that over the July 4th holiday, Senators will take a closer look at this deeply flawed legislation and understand how it threatens the civil liberties of the American people. It is possible to defend this country from terrorists while also protecting the rights and freedoms that define our nation.
Note how the clarity of this statements contrasts with the pathetic hemming and hawing of Senator Obama's most recent statement, which is here.
The leadership shown by Feingold was a big reason why Obama wanted to get next to him the week before the Wisconsin primary (back when Obama needed progressive votes). Here is Obama back then:
I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty. There is no reason why telephone companies should be given blanket immunity to cover violations of the rights of the American people -- we must reaffirm that no one in this country is above the law... It is time for this politics of fear to end. We are trying to protect the American people, not special interests like the telecommunications industry.
Obama won Wisconsin, and is now leaving Feingold out to dry. It is funny (sort of) that Obama still has this statement up on his Senate Web site, while his campaign site has his new statement in support of the legislation. Dude! That's embarrassing! You caved in so fast your own Web sites are arguing with each other! This is not what we had in mind when we gave you all that time and money, and votes.
For a contrast, watch the video on Senator Feingold's home page. Nope, he is not a great orator, but he gets right to the point and says what he means.
You can donate to Feingold's campaign fund here.
If you have a moment, come back to this column after you make your contribution and leave a comment stating how much money you gave.
OK. Let's see what happens. I am logging off to go put my $100 in the Feingold campaign. Join me if you can.
Loading comments…
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
I'm sure there are many out there that are much smarter than me.
I had a thought that all elected officials take a oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States. Is it posible t remove them from office for violating this oath? Something for you lawyer types to ponder.
You would first have to prove that the oath has been violated..
Since you don't know everything they know, it's probable, even likely, that they ARE fulfilling their oaths.
At least the majority of them are..
Michale...
Ah yes. The trust me doctrine. Thats worked great lately.
Same old repuglican crapola!
I'm reluctant to accept the idea that they know more than me. That idea makes it so much easier to be an irresponsible citizen. They knew a lot more about Iraq pre-invasion, right? Let's just trust them...
It's a technical possibility to remove a congressman from office for violating his/her oath. In reality it would be really tough and require the focused efforts of a group of dedicated people.
Mr. Buchite, I think you're right to suggest that their oath is serious and not subject to lots of "interpret
Of course, since bush has lied about HIS oath, it's also possible (though you've NEVER Admitted that you might be wrong on this one!!!!!!!) that they ARE violating their oaths to protect and defend!
I'd say voting to give immunity to companies who violated the 4th amendment without really knowing how or why they violated it or what they did qualifies.
And you can keep the lame "they know best" argument, that's a non-starter. As the very existence of the Bingaman amendment shows, they have no clue what they are immunizing.
If the majority of them had fulfilled their oaths this bill would have failed.
If it were, it would have been done 6 years ago.
But as for the FISA, there are valid reasons it has to be pushed through now, this one's considerably better than anything else that's been put forth, and supporting the dropping of the immunity is the best way to go. Without any FISA, we effectively tell Bush we don't even think he NEEDS legal authority to do the things he's been doing without it anyway, thus ceding him the victory.
With a new FISA taking up as the old one dies, we just need to drop the immunity or retroactively negate it later, because it's deplorable--but right now, as things stand, we can't do without FISA altogether and there's no way we can get it agreed on again with that part cut out of the original, due to far too many corrupt and selfish persons involved.
No, it isn't better.
Not only does it grant immunity to corporations that paid into the campaign war chests of the politicians voting for it (count O b a m a as one of those who are bought and paid for), it expands the President's powers to wiretap Americans.
Rachel Maddow and Jon Turley talking about it here:
http://www
I wouldn't vote for anyone who votes for this. I can't imagine any American would. There isn't a flag pin in the world big enough to sell those who vote for it as patriots.
In the unlikely event that the pending FISA legislation is not enacted, the existing FISA law continues, and the existing FISA law is not as flawed as the pending FISA legislation. The entire premise of your illogical argument is false.
Sorry, accountability is "off the table" with these weak and pliant democrats.
A Modest Proposal re Campaign Accountability
If everyone making campaign contributions would cite, in writing,
specifically which of the candidate's commitments prompted
their contribution, that would establish the basis for a potential future class-action
lawsuit for "breach of contract".
A contract is created whenever something of value is provided
by one party (campaign supporters) in exchange for a promise to
deliver something of value in return (campaign promises).
Barring clear, legally-defensible extenuating circumstances (yeah - I know, I know ...)
a significant breach of this contract should make an official subject to
successful prosecution for breach of contract. If actual damages can
be demonstrated reulting from that breach (e.g. Bush: "I will reduce greenhouse gases")
then you would have grounds for a class-action tort [damage] suit.
Of course Congress would have to change laws crafted to immunize elected officials from such suits, even despite clear violations of oaths of office, mendacity and overt criminality on their part.
All-in-all an important exchange to have with candidates in an election year!
@TonalCrow
While you are at it, please point to the section(s) and/or subsection(s) that also state this:
}}}}}}}}}}
But that's not the worst of it. H.R. 6304 permits the government to use these communications -- which can include your calls to your doctor, your psychiatrist, your pastor...a
Yes, that's right: talk to your lawyer, and the government can use what it finds to investigate -- and then prosecute -- you. And, because the program is hidden under the "state secrets privilege", you're unlikely to be able to challenge your prosecution.
}}}}}}}}}}
Thanx, ever so much....
Michale...
Michale32086 QUOTE: "OK, now I honestly think we're getting somewhere.
There are technical reasons why everything must be scooped up at once..
With today's technology, it's simply impossible to isolate ONE line or ONE call or ONE pathway.. It's simply not possible..
Therein VIOLATING FISA... That is equivalent to saying the Police can search (equivalent = Data Mine) a whole Neigborhood, without Warrants and if they find anything suspicious, or illegal, then apply for a Warrant... That CLEARLY Violates the 4TH Ammendment, except in the Police State you seek to create... Court tested Violation.
It's like the Court tested search rule of the Elephant in the match box... In a search Warrant seeking an elephant believed to be on a specified property, one is NOT allowed to search a match box under the Warrant, because only in Michale's Police State might it fit...
Whats that michale? Crickets?
@TonalCrow
Since you are back with us, perhaps you can answer my question.
Please point to the exact sections of HR6304 that do what you claim as listed below..
}}}}}}}}}}}
No, the bill does not require "further scrutiny into individuals" to be "SIGNED OFF BY A FISA JUDGE". It only requires "intentionally targeted" surveillance to be signed off, where the executive defines "intentionally targeted", and its definition is secret and unreviewable by any court. And this bill places no limits on how the government can use the proceeds of the "basket surveillance". Nor does it require it to be reviewed only by software.
BTW, "due process" is a procedure involving timely individual notice, a full opportunity to respond and to present evidence and witnesses, all before an impartial decisionmaker, with full judicial review. This bill provides nothing like this. Its "due process" is a kangaroo court minus the kangaroo and most of the court.
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
It appears the telecoms just had to grease the skids.
http://www
Pop quiz: which major party presidential candidate has taken zero money from PACs in this election?
Fact #1: H.R. 6304, See: http://www
Fact #2: H.R. 6304, pp. 47-48. Under an order from the President, the Attorney General, the National Security Agency is exempt from obtaining a court order to intercept and ALL phone and email communications – including YOURS. The Constitutional guarantee of a warrant is voided.
Fact #3: H.R. 6304, pp 45, 85-95: The telecom Goliaths complicit in Bush’s warrantless wiretappings will be inoculated against civil lawsuits brought against them. True, telecoms will be taken to Federal Court. However, documentation that the White House solicited their assistance, will assure that any lawsuit against them will be "promptly dismissed.
Fact #4: H.R. 6304, p. 69: Bush and any future president, is authorized to bypass Congress to “enact emergency provisions” to bypass the guidelines in the FISA Amendments Act.
Fact #5: Senator Obama and the Senate and House Democrats could choose to stand defiant against Bush and uphold the Fourth Amendment. How novel...!
Contact Barack Obama AND your legislators at http://www
See also:
http://act
http://www
I've been contacting them all for days. But the fix as they say, is in. The Dems, with the exception of a principled few, have been either bought off, scared off, or triangulated off.
Fact 1: this is NOT A FACT, this is an opinion. A bad way to start...
Fact 2: the bill is divided into sections and subsections. Do you mind telling us PLEASE what section and subsection you are getting this information from? I think we will find this so called "fact" to be another distortion.
Fact 3: so I guess there was a compromise
Fact 4: again, section and subsection if you don't mind... then we will see.
Fact 5: Vacuous opinion. There is no violation of the 4th amendment you have proven, or anyone else for that matter.
Overall, your idea of "Facts" is truly wanting!
Fact 1: This IS a fact, it is EXACTLY what bush asked for, in EVERY particular!!!
Fact 2: Section 702 allows them to spy on people without a warrant, provided that they don't "intentionally" spy on US persons.
Fact 3: How is this a compromise, exactly?? The telecoms ALREADY HAVE the assurances from the WH that it was all legal, therefore EVERY lawsuit will be thrown OUT!!! Hmmm, kinda looks like EXACTLY WHAT BUSH WANTED!!! Yup, THAT'S a compromise!
Fact 4: I can't answer this one off hand.
Fact 5: OR they COULD stand up to bush! Even if you don't think that there's a fourth amendment violation, you MUST admit that bush has LIED about EVERYTHING. Therefore to trust him when he claims that he needs this program (which he started in FEBRUARY, 2001, more than 7 MONTHS BEFORE 9/11!) is pretty stupid!
Coming to bgregs defense regarding "Fact 1", please see Republican Sen. Kit Bond's comment "I think the White House got a better deal than even they had hoped to get." Unfortunately, as we become more and more entrenched in our hyperbole, dueling facts get us nowhere (even the Supreme Court issues "opinions", not "facts").
I'd like to see us back up a little and discuss what we would like from FISA:
No one has suggested that that we do no want to give intelligence the tools they need to do their jobs effectively and efficiently -- I, for example, have no problem with giving NSA 7 days instead of 72 hours to find probable cause for a warrant. But at the end of 7 days, I want a court (even a secret court) to review based on "particularity".
I'd also like a little accountability going forward and looking back; an annual Inspector General's report of the "US Persons" likely to be affected not only assumes (on the very face of the bill) that US persons will be affected, but it provides neither redress, destruction of information thus harvested, nor even an apparatus for notifying caught up in the "bucket" warrants born in the Protect America Act and being rolled into the new FISA resolution.
These are 4th Amendment concerns. You would have to be blind or brainwashed to think they were of no moment, or that this act does not open wide the door for abuse.
"You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."
Hell, the REPUBLICANS in Congress are saying that it's MORE than bush could have DREAMED of getting!
CONT
Now, of course you can argue, "What if NIV is not discarded" "What if a US Citizen is involved and it's not sent thru the courts" etc etc..
Well, that would be a violation of the law...
But if your entire objection to HR6304 is that someone might break the law, then that argument should also entail that we shouldn't have ANY laws.. Because someone still might break them...
HR6304 brings the courts back into the process with HOUSE and SENATE oversight.
I have to ask again...
What is the problem???
Michale...
Michale32086
Is that "Command Language" you use playing your GAME? Bark out convincing dialog as though you believe... Listener's will respond as though Fact? Did they teach you that in Spy, oooops, I meant in Intelligence Gathering School, in becoming an Officer?
QUOTE: "Well, that would be a violation of the law... But if your entire objection to HR6304 is that someone might break the law, then that argument should also entail that we shouldn't have ANY laws.. Because someone still might break them..."
'Puking off your Command Language': The Law already has been broken most likely... Proven in Court? NOT YET... FISA exists long before HR6304... Essentially, if you want to search, get a Warrant in a "timely" manner... You give permission to the Feds to break into Whole Neighborhoods, Cities, States... Then hide behind Secrecy, when asked in Court what right they had to do so... Then, Feds can Data Mine and sift the Un-Constitutional "searches" and show the Court only any they choose...
Is it, your GAME, or you're so involved in Intelligence gathering, no Constitution should, GWB style, get in the way?
QUOTE: "I have to ask again... What is the problem???
Violation of the Foundation of our Nation? You supporting G W Bush Behavior and pretending to be pro Obama? Are you being paid to do this? Work for an Agency in Dis-Information? Just an EGO driven GAME?
Exactly. The entire thing is hidden beneath a veil of secrecy, so there is no effective public supervision. We are being asked simply to give up and trust the very people who've consistently broken the law (1978 FISA) and violated the 4th Amendment, and to trust their successors into perpetuity.
That is neither good sense, nor good government. What it is, is profoundly anti-American.
And yet since there is NO way in the bill to PREVENT abuses of power, that is a GUARANTEE that there WILL be abuses! Therefore we can tell for SURE that the fourth amendment WILL be violated, therefore this bill violates the fourth amendment, and therefore we need to ensure that this UNCONSTITUTIONAL law is never passed!!
@bucky
}}}Every single communication from
}}}every single person is
}}}gathered and potentially suspect.
}}}Without probable cause.
OK, now I honestly think we're getting somewhere.
There are technical reasons why everything must be scooped up at once..
With today's technology, it's simply impossible to isolate ONE line or ONE call or ONE pathway.. It's simply not possible..
Think of it as a school of a million grey minnows. And, in that million, there are a couple slightly lighter gray ones.. And those are the ones that are needed to be located.. It's not technically feasible to check each and every minnow.. So, you scoop up the whole school, and run them thru a spectral analyzer to locate the ones you want..
It's the same concept..
Anything flagged is then analyzed by human beings. If, during that analysis, it is determined that a US Citizen or a US Location is involved, a court order is secured within 72 hours. This 72 hour limit exists so that authorities can follow up on imminent issues without losing vital intel..
CONT
You just lost your legal argument because you cannot analyze the content of a communication without searching the content of that communication, and you cannot search the content of the communication of a U.S. citizen or other legal U.S. resident without probable cause. You are stating that it is legal to search the communications as the means to determine if probable cause exists to search the communications. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is clear and concise: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 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." In the case of KATZ v. UNITED STATES (1967), the Supreme Court stated: "The Government's eavesdropping activities violated the privacy upon which petitioner justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a 'search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
Ahhh yes. Probable cause. What a concept. I heard that used to be part of the Bill of Rights in the olden days.
Thank you for your iron-clad, succinct and documented rebuttal. Stay strong!
This is what is MOST WRONG with America - Its Language. No matter HOW hard people try to convince themselves FISA does not violate the 4th Amendment as it is written. To include wiretapping as a part of privacy the 4th Amendment would have to be rewritten.
The Fourth Amendment protects privacy only to the extent that it prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures of "persons, houses, papers, and effects." No general right is created by the Amendment so as to give this Court the unlimited power to hold unconstitutional everything which affects privacy.
The Fourth Amendment was aimed directly at the abhorred practice of breaking in, ransacking and searching homes and other buildings and seizing people's personal belongings without warrants issued by magistrates.
It is the wording of the Fourth Amendment that prevents its application to eavesdropping. To apply the wording of the Fourth Amendment to FISA is to open up the door to interpretational misapplication to the other Amendments as well. To interpret wiretapping as a violation of the Fourth Amendment, would amount to a rewriting of the language. This is a dangerous precedence.
It would be much better to update the Fourth Amendment to include wiretapping than to automatically assume that is what the Framers meant.
I would disagree with this. I don't think eavesdropping is in harmony with the 4th Amendment unless it is motivated by probable cause as determined by law and a judge issuing a warrant. This is exactly the principle the Bush administration violated and the principle this new FISA bill ensures again.
The flagging of suspect communications pinpointed by a computer amongst a myriad of bytes is instead a more difficult issue. The probable cause has to be built into the programming, and the results stemming from the acquired data must be supervised carefully through FISA court.
I agree with BO that this program can be administrated with the utmost respect for civil liberties and American rights.
I will respectfully agree to disagree with you as there has been a marked increase by the Supreme Court in ruling for the government in Fourth Amendment cases. Unless the Fourth Amendment is rewritten to be more dated with privacy rules of today the test of the Amendment will forever be balanced to the extent of the intrusion of the our privacy rights against the need by the government to protect society.
In the last 12 years the Supreme Court has found that police roadblocks, drug testing in schools and the workplace and police search of household garbage have been deemed legal by a majority of opinions. Where is the outrage by society on these rulings? Unless there is a clear and defined update to the Amendment it will forever be left up to an individual interpretation as to what constitutes privacy or a reasonable search AND seizure thus WEAKENING the very law we expect to protect us from an overbearing government.
As such, instead of us debating whether our rights are being violated with FISA or not we should require a reframing of the Fourth Amendment to ensure that ALL expectations of privacy are inclusive for as it stands now, wiretapping is REALLY not protected by the Amendment or at the very least it is interpretational. Especially as it relates to one being on a wireless phone in a public facility or outside ones home on any telephony. Nine times out of Ten the GOVERNMENT will WIN THAT CASE!
Thank you, Antonin Scalia. His -- and your -- strict constructionist view of the Constitution is foolish and, thankfully, still in the minority. Confining one’s understanding of the Constitution to “the letter” of the text makes the fallacious assumption that contemporary readers can be certain about the intentions of the Founders, who were writing in totally different time and with a totally different understanding of the world than we have today.
Worse, it is preposterous to assert that Justice in any true sense can be served, by applying some phantom “original intent” standard to the present day. At the time the “original intent” was formed, it was legal to buy and sell human beings as slaves, women could not vote or hold political office, and homosexuality was punishable by prison or even death.
In fact, all the high minded rhetoric in favor of “strict constructionism” and against “activist judges” is nothing more than a conservative tactic, aimed at preventing the advancing morality of society as a whole from chipping away at the entrenched power of an established few.
It also makes for some preposterous contradictions, as when Scalia recently waxed melodramatic about how granting habeas corpus to prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay would somehow lead to American deaths, but shortly thereafter lauded the Court’s decision to strike down the DC ban on hand guns -- a ruling that will without question lead to many American deaths.
I grant you your position, however as you state: when the "original intent" was formed, it was legal to buy and sell human beings as slaves, women could not vote or hold political office, and homosexuality was punishable by prison or even death." - And yet we as a society found a way to CHANGE those injustices with WRITTEN LAWS that are more reflective of the time in which we live.
As such, with the word 'terrorism' being tossed around to justify the hinderance of ones privacy at every corner, is it asking to much to UPDATE those parts of the Constitution that are left for interpretation. Just because you want something to be true does not make it that way. One cannot presume that a CONVERSATION is private as it is SPOKEN - much different than ones WRITINGS.
As such, I respectfully allow you your opinion but I will agree to disagree. The 4th Amendment covers persons - not conversations or as I stated at the very least it is interpretational.
Your name calling or attempting to belittle my opinion by comparing to another is childish and is not necessary for a reasonable and ADULT type debate. However, you will not deter my opinion because it differs from your own. You have been given the right to your individual thought . Makes you neither right or wrong - just your opinion - which differs from my own. God Bless
"At the time the "original intent" was formed, it was legal to buy and sell human beings as slaves, women could not vote or hold political office, and homosexuality was punishable by prison or even death."
Ah yes, the good ole days; gone forever. And we did not have to fool with the constitution to get it done.
Hmm... An interesting argument, FACINGREALIT, more to the way the Constitution should be read than to the actual issue of 4th Amendment abuse.
Here's another take on the 4th Amendment and what it may or may not mean:
"The 4th Amendment and the personal rights it secures have a long history. At the very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.
I would suggest to you that in REALIT, we can no longer be completely free of government intrusion, but we can and should hold tight to whatever reasonable remedies we can fashion for oversight and accountability.
"It is the wording of the Fourth Amendment that prevents its application to eavesdropp
You're sadly misinformed, Facing. There are literally thousands of legal opinions specifically holding the Fourth Amendment to include electronic eavesdropping. Books of them. Over many decades. A lot of them written by the US Supremes. Every state has laws governing the way wiretaps have to be conducted, where they are allowed at all. The rationale for all of these
laws is to insure that any 'eavesdropping' is CONSISTENT WITH THE PROTECTIONS OF THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT. "Papers" is simply how private communications were carried out
in the 18th century, because electronic communications were not yet on the horizon.
Under your argument, it would seem that 'effects' would include, clothing, wigs, spitoons
and possibly horses, but not Ipods, cars, contact lenses, cellphones and batteries.
@bucky
}}}}Who tells the computers what to look for?
}}}}Who decides whats important? Every single
}}}}communication from every single person is
}}}}gathered and potentially suspect.
CT officials, in conjunction with the DOJ and the DNI will create the algorithms and parameters that will be utilized.
Once established, it is run thru the FISA Court to insure that it is compatible with the US Constitution and especially the 4th Amendment.
As I said, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM????
}}}But of course we can just trust them, whoever they are.
}}}Thats a problem.
Why?? Why is running it thru the courts "a problem"???
Do you want them to check with you first?? To make sure it passes your "wide area of expertise??"
Jeeeze, you people.. You really are just using this as an excuse to derail Obama, right??
Michale...
Yeah jeeze you people is right.
Every single communication from every single person is
gathered and potentially suspect. Without probable cause.
Your algorithms and parameters notwithstanding, thats a problem.
Every single communication is gathered? Where are you getting this idea? Do you think all our communications will end up on some hard drive?
Section 707 also specifies how Congress will monitor compliance further.
Are Feingold, Dodd, Boxer, and the ACLU anti-Obama because they oppose this monstrosity?
Do you want my honest opinion??
I think they are doing it to score political points with the far Left...
I base this opinion on the fact that it is Obama and the rest of the Democrats who support this are doing so at great political risk to themselves
That leads me to believe they are doing it based on principle.
Michale...
They disagree with immunity. That is their prerogative. Obam believes securing the tools necessary for disrupting terrorism trumps immunity. The fault is the President's who threatens to Veto, and John McCain who supports that position. If this threat were not there, immunity would not be built into this bill.
Looks like it to me. The Dems always seem to find a way to self-destruct. The right, the M.S.M and the left are attacking him. His own supporters are dragging him down. Keep it up and Mc Flip Flop walks into the WH.
For SOME, not all, of you who now won't support Obama solely based on FISA: I know you were just aching and looking for a reason, any reason not to support him, especially since Hillary didn't get the nomination. She under-planned, over-spent and didn't bring her A-game. And she LOST. Sorely.
So rather than feel petty for simply not supporting Obama because Hils didn't win, you do the bait and switch in your head and tell yourself that FISA broke the deal when you never intended on voting for him anyway. Try to be honest, at least with yourself about why you as a "democrat" won't support the democratic party's nominee. And if McCain wins because we couldn't unite behind our candidate, we deserve to lose if we can't beat the train-wreck that the GOP has become.
Ding, Ding, Ding.... We have a winner!!!
Michale...
I guess I was thinking that it was the job of the candidate to unite the party and not abandon his principles and reverse course on what he said he would do to protect the Constitution.
No, you weren't "thinking"
And, since the US Constitution doesn't NEED protection from HR6304, Obama is out there doing his job...
As you are, apparently doing your job, by trying to cripple Obama's campaign..
Michale...
Accusations without merit. Where did he reverse course and abandon principle? This is just garbage... sorry.
Absolutely. Obama did a good job of defending his decision on his site. I read his defense. It is cogent and lucid and makes sense. He does not have the time to filibuster a bill. He is trying to beat John McCain, an laudatory effort. One note voters get what they deserve, another four or eight years of tragic consequences. If you are a democrat and don't vote for Obama, then you are no longer a democrat.
laudatory particularly when you consider the free ride Mcsame continues to get from the media while they can run with a faux flip on Iraq story for 3 days but when mcsame flips on his position on leaving Iraq if asked by the Iraqi people...? Nothin but crickets.
No, he'd gain MUCH more political capital if he were to filibuster this one. I can understand his choices, but I think that they are the wrong ones. He will still get my vote, cause McBush would be MUCH worse, but it will now definitely be the lesser of two evils....
Actually, I think Clinton supporters are smarter than this! They know the stakes. I think most commentators here are just people who don't care for a Democratic President period.
There is a small segment of Democrats who are so self-loathing that they are almost addicted to losing elections so they can feel how stupid America is for voting the way it does...
And they all showed up in this thread? What a stroke of luck for you and Troll #1.
Are you a psychologist? You're projecting things onto other people that may or may not be true. Does Obama have your unconditional support? The democrats need to start acting like democrats or I'll vote for Nader. Simple as that.
}}}The democrats need to start acting like democrats
The Democrats may or may not be acting like Democrats.
But they ARE acting like Americans.
They just don't fit YOUR narrow view and that is what has you po'ed...
Obama has said he would be an AMERICAN President. Not a DEMOCRAT President.
Get used to it... This is the way it's going to be.
Michale...
I am a Cultural Anthropologist. This is not projection. I simply understand deep Clinton loyalty, culture within the democratic party and corresponding attitudes surrounding Obama's candidacy. I also see how the dynamics of these variables are playing out related to the FISA issue. I support Obama because I am a Democrat. Not because I agree with EVERYTHING he says or does. And I know that McCain will lead us deeper into tragedy and despair.
Please vote for Nader. The more the better.
And once again:
H.R. 6304 does far worse than merely to immunize the telecoms. It lets the government warrantlessly gather all of our international communications (including not only calls and emails, but visits to many websites). It lets the government warrantlessly gather many (perhaps most) of our domestic communications. And it lets the government retain these communications indefinitely.
But that's not the worst of it. H.R. 6304 permits the government to use these communications -- which can include your calls to your doctor, your psychiatrist, your pastor...a
Yes, that's right: talk to your lawyer, and the government can use what it finds to investigate -- and then prosecute -- you. And, because the program is hidden under the "state secrets privilege", you're unlikely to be able to challenge your prosecution.
Yes, it is that bad. Don't like it? Call Sen. Reid right now and ask him to pull the bill from the floor. 202-224-3542 (D.C. office); 775-686-5750 (Reno); 702-388-5020 (Vegas).
More info:
http://www
http://fei
Bulk monitoring, basket surveillance, whatever you want to call it, can be conducted while respecting the civil liberties of Americans. The type of big brother specter you are raising does not reflect the reality of this bill.
Yes international communications are digitally monitored by a computer programmed to spot trends in communication that may indicate terrorist activity. However, further scrutiny into individuals- the step from bulk monitoring to individual scrutiny - MUST BE SIGNED OFF BY A FISA JUDGE. Why didn't you mention that? Why didn't you indicate the due process involved?
My bet... because you have a very poor argument.
That is the point that I have spent the last week or two trying to get thru.. HR6304 actually brings the Courts back into the procedure.
My guess is TonalCrow et al have not even read HR6304. They simply are parroting the propaganda of the ACLU or people like Greenwald and Turley..
That is why they can't point to any specifics of HR6304...
Because they haven't read it.
What's even worse is the spend loads of bandwidth on here trying to convince OTHER people not to read it. They just want everyone to take the word of the ACLU and other people with agendas...
Michale...
Michale...
No, the bill does not require "further scrutiny into individuals" to be "SIGNED OFF BY A FISA JUDGE". It only requires "intentionally targeted" surveillance to be signed off, where the executive defines "intentionally targeted", and its definition is secret and unreviewable by any court. And this bill places no limits on how the government can use the proceeds of the "basket surveillance". Nor does it require it to be reviewed only by software.
BTW, "due process" is a procedure involving timely individual notice, a full opportunity to respond and to present evidence and witnesses, all before an impartial decisionmaker, with full judicial review. This bill provides nothing like this. Its "due process" is a kangaroo court minus the kangaroo and most of the court.
Clearly there are many who are angry at BO because he doesn't agree with you when it comes to sacrificing the immunity piece in the FISA bill. I agree, and so does BO, that this is an infuriating part of the bill. However, you all should focus your anger in the right place GEORGE BUSH and JOHN MCCAIN. The first would veto a bill that would not allow immunity, the second supports that veto.
BO is making a compromise in order to maintain specific tools within FISA that allow our intelligence agencies to fight terrorism internationally. The President has basically hijacked congress in this instance, and BO, WISELY, has chosen to put the tools to fight for America's safety first.
This does not mean justice will never be served. Lets not abandon our righteous anger against this administration and its absolute disregard for the law and the Constitution, but lets not let progressive double talkers, and media whores manipulate us into thinking that we are being betrayed by B.O. We should be smarter than this.
If you disagree with Obam's stance on the very tools within FISA he has sought to protect, then that is different.
Constitutional scholar and libertarian Jonathan Turley was on Countdown tonight and I thought he was going to cry. He appeared shaken toward the end of the interview being conducted on the matter of the FISA vote which he says is totally about political expediency. According to professor Turley, there is not an ounce of public good in this bill and tomorrow night the telecoms will be breaking open the champignon over what he said was the evisceration of the 4th amendment. According to him, the telecom lobby spend huge amounts of money here and the "fix is in". He seem visibly troubled.
And yet, Turley cannot point to ONE aspect, section or subsection of HR6304 that violates the US Constitution.
WHY is that??
Michale...
The constitutional violations that this abomination represents have been pointed out to you over and over and over and over again. Your 24/7 telecom-a-thon in defense of the gutting of the Constitution is repugnant.
Because they can't make that case. The case they can make is the emotional appeal to justice... lets bring telecoms to justice! We all agree, and so does BaracObam. The only problem is we do need to have the tools in FISA to fight terrorism, and we can't allow those provisions to expire. Very few are willing to argue against that because it is not as appealing as the justice argument. They say they want a NO vote from Obam, but wont tell listeners the full truth as to why they want that NO vote.
When in doubt, side with the constitution
ONCE AGAIN, STOP FLAPPING YOUR GUMS AND LISTEN TO US WHEN WE TELL YOU AGAIN!!! SECTION 702 VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, FOURTH AMENDMENT, BY ALLOWING THEM TO WIRETAP WITHOUT A WARRANT AS LONG AS THEY DON'T "INTENTIONALLY" TAP AN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!
Why is this so difficult for you to grasp????? I used to think that you were pretty intelligent, but now you're seeming pretty dumb!
I saw it too. And he didn't look all that shaken. Let's not be dramatic. He seemed more annoyed than shaken. But I expect that from Libertarians, who put free will above everything
And we might be needin' some protection now that Al-Quaeda and the Taliban seem to be gaining power in Pakistan and Afghanistan respectively.
Bob, you are so incredibly disingenuous!
Are you opposing Obama's stance on immunity?
Or, in fact, are you opposing Obama's long held position regarding the FISA provisions that allow for computers to sift through enormous International digital communication data to red flag potential terrorist activity?
Obama decided to sacrifice immunity for the moment in order to maintain the tools he sees necessary to protect America.
Weren't you the very Huffpo contributor who last week enlightened readers on this very issue? I think you were...
In any case, many progressives commentators are manipulating the public in a shameful and ridiculous manner. They accuse BO of flipping on immunity, but don't tell us their biggest gripe is the fact that his "YES" vote will allow "bulk monitoring" of international communications data.
Hitting BO on immunity is much easier because it appeals to people's sense of justice... something BO actually agrees with. Criticizing BO for his position regarding basket surveillance is a MUCH HARDER SELL, and most progressive commentators avoid this topic altogether in their criticism of BO. They know it is a weak position with basically no record or data to base a serious opposition on.
To echo BO, you don't have to agree with his position, but don't call say he has changed his mind out of political expedience just because you disagree and can't figure out a better tactic to try to manipulate public opinion!
Good posts..
But they fall on deaf ears.
The STATED intention of this crowd is to derail Obama's campaign and insure a McCain presidency.
HR6304 will pass... Obama will maintain his position of integrity in this matter..
What the Anti-Obama crowd will do next is anyone's guess..
Michale...
"The STATED intention of this crowd is to derail Obama's campaign and insure a McCain presidency
STOP LYING!!!!!
yes yes yes, but like others i fear your good sense falls on deaf ears.
Well, Lisa, those ears you mention are not the one's I am interested in. Most anti-Obama posters here are not voting for a democrat to win in November, I suspect.
But 'tis a common proof,
That lowliness is young ambition's ladder,
Whereto the climber-upward turns his face;
But when he once attains the upmost round.
He then unto the ladder turns his back,
Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees
By which he did ascend.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
