Obama Tries and Fails to Put Out the FISA Fire in His Own House

In an unprecedented attempt to put out a fire in his own house, Senator Barack Obama yesterday issued a response to supporters who had been protesting his position on government surveillance. The release was followed by an 90 minute interchange on MyBarackObama.com between campaign officials and supporters (though as far as I could tell, the campaign officials made no comments themselves but just read the comments being made, leaving it unclear who was actually reading and for how long)..

Unfortunately, there was nothing in Obama's response that addressed the harsh criticism some of his supporters have voiced. I could go into detail on why the statement stinks, but since this is the Internet I don't have to, since I can instead direct you to the excellent point-by-point analysis offered by Glenn Greenwald. My focus here will be the novel political dynamic unleashed by the Obama campaign's social networking site, MyBarackObama.com.

These are uncharted waters we are dealing with here. Yesterday I asked the question whether 18,000 people protesting on the campaign's own web site (out of hundreds of thousands) were a lot or a little. Apparently they were enough to get the attention of the campaign and the candidate.

The comments were a mix of people who were star-struck that Obama had noticed them and written a reply, people who felt any criticism on the site was inappropriate, people who just spouted typical Internet invective at each other, but then an awful lot of extremely informed and thoughtful people who did not back down an inch.

Some defending Obama's position questioned whether the protestors were really from the Obama camp or were Republicans who had logged on to wreak havoc. However, since MyBarackObama.com is a full-fledged social networking site, one can check the profile of each commenter, see how long they have been active on the site, what action groups they are part of, and so on. It appeared that many angry critics were people who had put a lot of time and money into the campaign.

The whole episode raised more questions than it answered. Certainly what is going on here is something new. There are going to be many more controversial issues. A presidential candidate can't always be having to log on to the Internet to defend himself from his own supporters. I am reminded The Obama campaign promised to give its supporters new Internet tools to empower them to make the campaign their own. Now that it as done so, the leadership has to be wondering if it was a good idea. of the musicians who have figured out how to make modest livelihoods marketing their music directly to fans over MySpace, only to discover that doing requires spending hours every day maintaining the sort of direct relationship fans on social networking sites expect.

On the other hand, overall this has to be considered a victory for, and an extension of, democracy. This is a clear-cut case of a candidate promising one thing and doing another. Turns out that in the age of the online campaign there will be a higher price for this time-honored activity.

The folks at Obama HQ better tighten their saddle. They have let the horse out of the barn, and it might be a bumpy ride.

* Some sample comments:

Frankly, I'm disappointed. No, Senator Barack, it's not a "deal breaker". But even using these words is almost like taunting your position in our face. Almost like you are taking our votes for granted because you know we have not choice but to vote for you. No, I don't want McCain, but I can say with clarity that my personal enthusiasm, and many of others who I talk to, have certainly diminished by a huge margin.

At the end of the day, the question is, do you want your supporters to vote for you because you are the lesser of the two evils, because they have "no choice" when comparing the alternative (as you say yourself) or do you want people to vote for you because they are proud of what you stand for?

- Christine

Christine, I, too, did not like that "deal breaker" line. I felt like it was dismissive, especially when he has been trying soo hard to get the gun advocates, the evangelicals, the death penalty advocates...It's like, ok, get lost. I got plenty more voters and money!! What has happened to him???

- JonnieRae

Comments

[genseric13]

The parasite lawyers are dying over this flip. They thought they could start up a bunch of class action lawsuits, cost the telecoms billions and then get their huge payouts. Oh man they are crying in their bourbon after that vote. Obama did the right thing in the end but he lied all along like the whole Democratic Party which has been crying about this for years and years. They really do owe Bush an apology.

[oldwiseone]

You know what? I don't care what anyone else thinks, I think Obama will becme a great president. But first he has to get elected. I think he is thinking of what does he have to do today to get elected. Once he gets elected the whole ballgame changes. Then he will thik about what he has to do on that day . Besides he is smarter than most of us.

[kroses98]

He will not get elected by selling out his "base!" They were the ones who put him where he is. I think he might have forgotten that fact. I also think he may be a bit too arrogant for his own good. That is always the way they get themselves into trouble. He had better take a good hard look at his behavior, and he had better do it very quickly, if he wants to win!

[Paralogos]

Obama's "base" has never been the progressive end of the American political spectrum, those who are now whinging that they want to take their ball and go home. They may have been Kucinich's and Edwards' base (for all the good it did for those two), but they were never Obama's. Get a clue. Obama has a pretty progressive voting record and is an extremely intelligent and articulate guy, but he has never toed the blog-liberal line, and it would not enhance his election prospects to keep doing so now.

[rzan]

A large part of his base (the majority) still support and approve of Barack. There are also those people who don't spend huge portions of their lives on Huffington post or other web sites who are very excited about his candidacy and agree with his FISA stance. They also have to be considered. My 88-year-old parents were for Hillary, but now are very happy to vote for Barack and feel better and better about his run for the Presidency. They, as do I, feel sorry that some people are so critical of him. We are lucky to have such a candidate.

[AtheistAd]

I don't know what part of the 22% that still supports Bush he thinks he can win with this crap, LOL.

[FearlessFreep]

What I find most appalling about this affair isn't Obama's cynical, unnecessary sellout, or even the liberals who claim he's somehow actually making the right decision. It's the "pragmatic" liberals who effectively insist that Obama doesn't HAVE to be right! They'd rather direct their venom at leftists who are "extreme" enough to openly criticize Fearless Leader. You see, it's up to every single progressive to promise Obama their unquestioning support; it isn't up to Obama to earn such unanimous support if he doesn't feel like it.

The message these people are sending to Obama is, "If you alienate voters on the left, it's only unacceptable to the extent that we can blame the left." Not a smart message to send. (It wasn't smart for the Nader-haters to send Gore and Kerry that message either.)

[TheIndependenceParty]

The sad truth is that Congress is doing what Bush has demanded. The court, indeed the opinion is written by a GHW Bush appointee, has ruled that FISA is the only way a president may have to intercept the suspect communications.

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/washington/03fisa.html&OQ=_rQ3D1&OP=1b344700Q2F)Q22Q23z)gQ243oFQ24Q24N2)266b)61)6Q27)Q22!om9Q5D_NQ24Q5D)6Q27J9o!Q25mNOV

Any members of Congress who sign on to this pathetic piece of legislation with its "Get out of Jail Free" provisions, has bent to the whim of this White House. The differences are not in these times, but in the spineless representatives who appease the president in his abuse of office.

[NotMcCain]

FISA will prevent civil prosecution.

It will ALLOW criminal prosecution.

It will allow CRIMINAL prosecution.

It will allow criminal PROSECUTION.

(sigh)

Will Americans EVER understand this? It's frustrating to see the comments here.

[AlisonChaynz]

The telecoms didn't even ask their bought-and-paid-for politicians to immunize them from criminal prosecution because they know they don't need it. It is the civil court that they fear.

...and yeah, it IS frustrating to see some comments..­..

[valkyrie607]

Hmmm, for which kind of liability cases does the President have the authority to issue pardons?

Why, I do believe it's criminal liability cases!

...a total coincidence, I'm sure. Nothing to do with the bags and bags of money transferred from government coffers to the telecoms' bank accounts. Nothing to do with the other bags of money transferred from the telecoms to our Senators' PACs and whatnot.

[3arthling]

This assumes the outgoing President won't simply issue a pardon on his way out of office. I would question whether or not this is a valid assumption.

[kroses98]

This also assumes that Obama will win the Presidency. No one is thinking about the HACKABLE electronic voting machines, with their corruptible source codes, owned by private corporations,which are already well known to do DIRTY DEEDS, along with other election FRAUD activities. We may very well have another Republican presidency, who will then possess those powers.

[HumeSkeptic]

Why any kind of immunity?
What is the purpose if not to shield corporations who violated basic rights of citizens?

Why is that acceptable?
Why is that acceptable?
Why is that acceptable?

[Paralogos]

If you actually want an answer to that question - which I somewhat doubt - one possibiltiy is that keeping the sacntions criminal allows negotiated immunity in return for testamony about the abuses of the Bush administration. Once civil suits are in the mix, that becomes impossible, and the telecoms companies will clam up, "lose" their backup tapes, etc.

I'm not saying that's the only reason, nor that it justifies the provision on its own, but it *is* one particularly obvious reason why it might be acceptable.

[Changeling]

Which is pointless when Bush pardons them Jan 20, 2009.

Don't think for a moment he would not. Sign a piece of paper and pardon them all to save what's left of his reputation.

He's done far worse already in the name of the certainty of his righteousness.

Will people like you EVER understand that?

[racom]

Some of those posting on this issue try to tell us to read the FISA law and the pending legislation ourselves to know what we are talking about. We are told that we have to be our own legal counsel on these matters. If we listen to the opinion of others we will never understand our own position. Also we will be guiding from questionable advice because it didn't come from our reading of the bill.
Worst advice I've ever heard. How many lawyers are willing to go to court without legal counsel?
We have some of the countries most qualified legal minds involved with this, the ACLU. They have opined the pending bill should NOT be voted into law. Just as Glenn Greenwald, a constitutional lawyer, has stated.
From 08/10/2007 ABA statement:
ABA President Karen Mathis on Friday urged Congress to reconsider changes it made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

President George W. Bush signed a bill on Sunday that gives the National Security Agency broader authority under FISA to monitor phone calls, e-mails and other communications between people in the United States and those outside the country.

Critics argue that this broader authority allows the government to engage in more frequent secret surveillance without first going to a FISA court for a warrant, the ABA Journal reports. Mathis said at a news conference that Congress shouldn't wait until the six-month sunset period for the FISA revisions.


Now you decide who will advise you!

[FearlessFreep]

Sounds like the diehards who say we can't criticize the dropping of the A-Bomb unless we were 1945 GIs about to be sent off to invade Japan. (Such pre-emptive sophistry isn't an argument for approving the decision; it's an argument against disapprovi­ng.)

[racom]

"it's an argument against disapprovi­ng.)
Was the double negative intentional?

[racom]

Of course the cited ABA quote is not about the FISA legislation under consideration. I used it to illustrate how troublesome all the Bush administration abuse and violation of the FISA law is and has been. At the same time the current pending changes from the democratic congress are just as questionable.

[ALIMO]

Obama is right it is a deal breaker for me. I have supported him for 16 months and bought into this "Change " message. He completely overturned his position that he campaigned so vigilantly in the primary about. He was going to bring the Constitution back. Numerous times he said he would support a fillubuster on immunity for telecoms. Now, he has the audacity to tell his supporters-ah, no now I am going to support this FISA BILL because why? His explanation was not even clear. Well, that is not the only thing I am upset about. Why didn't he campaign about his new Faith Based Bush like policy? I believe in a Separation of Church and State. He got what he wanted now, and he threw the progressive dems under the bus, just like he does anyone who gets in his way. Right now, he is trying to cater to swing voters, many of whom will not vote for him no matter what he says because of racism. So, sad this man who I truly believed was authentic turned out to be a "hood winker". If one dare try to talk about the issues rationally on his blog-LOOKOUT-for their venom will totally blow your mind. Very irrational over on that sight. He has proven to be just another Pelosi/Reid/Clinton et al. Obama will lose the progressive base. Will not be voting for McCain. We will go to a third party or sit it out.

[WheredidIleavemyteeth]

You clearly have no appreciation for priority, nuance, or compromise. Most of the progressive base does. He hasn't thrown anyone under the bus. These are minor compromises to just a few of very many issues progressives care about. Try to keep more than one or two issues in mind at a time.

[williamwilliam]

The Bill of Rights is not nuance.

My rights are not now, have never been, nor will ever be, up for fire sale
on some politician's personal butcher's block or web site.

Happy Independence Day-

- may you celebrate this weekend with all the compromise and
adroit nuance you can stomach without having to run to the toilet,
where inevitably, you'd catch sight of yourself in the mirror.

[racom]

How many comments do you think you will be able to post when our freedom of speech has gone the same as our protection from invasion of privacy? The issue is: protect and defend the constitution and civil liberties.

[kfdan]

Highly intense information gathering is the bane of today's leading nations. It goes without saying that intelligence gathering at home and abroad is a reality. The main concern that i have is that it's monitored properly and that accountability is strictly observed. I think it's unrealistic to demand that FISA go away. It's not going away, so, push for controls! The greatest threat to America is that no real balance of powers exist among the 3 branches of government. We have seen our Constitution trashed by the Bush administration and Habeas Corpus destroyed. These conditions cannot continue!!!
Demand strict systematic accountability!

[Titonwan]

IT NEVER WENT AWAY! Don't you understand that! This new bill not only grants immunity to the criminal activities of the Telcos, it will let Bush off of his crimes. AND THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP. Barack is making a fatal mistake covering for Nancy, Harry and Jay Rockefeller. Especially Jay. Jay doesn't need the Telco bribe money, so why is he rushing this bill through? IT KEEPS HIM FROM GOING TO JAIL! GOD you ignorant people had better get more informed on how F#CKED this bill is and your loss of privacy and search and seizure. Every time we relax a little, they try to bumrush this illegal bill through. Barack lied to us and he is trying to hide the evidence. Get a grip on reality. They've got to him.

[Okieborn]

Hey Bob, GREAT ARTICLE,
I have finally come to the conclusion that consevatives,or Hillary backers are not behind this supposedly smear of Sen. Obama !!
No it is people like my wife and I who worked hard and believed that Sen. Obama was different.
Well folks he "AIN'T" we will face it and go on or set crushed.
Not me I will be more careful and read between the lines when Sen. Obama says he is going to do something !!!!

[LarBear]

WOW.... I appreciate your self honesty... Bless you with an abundance of more of the same.....

[castlerider]

What infuriates me is the fact that there's so much constant FEAR in everything these politicians say and do, and expect to cram down our throats.

The USA has the most powerful military in the history of this planet. It has more capability to strike then anyone. Anywhere. Our surveillance they say, is in danger, but we all know that's a joke. They're already seeing everything going on 10 times harder and longer then they ever were pre 911.
So this panic to get this legislation across, I feel is a disservice in itself and should be scrutinized to the deepest, hardest and most careful degree.
Why even worry about getting this legislation done while Bush is in office? let the damn thing SIT.
After this election, we'll have more sensible and realistic, constitution minded and principled leaders we can count on. I say forget it- until the next administration steps in, and hopefully, we'll have it done fairly, and correctly, under the guidelines of our Constitution. I don't trust Bush and his government any farther then I can spit..-
For this reason, Obama's truly wasting his time and energy being such a moderate. People in this country are furious.Th­ey know they've been lied to, and that this's the biggest transfer of wealth happening right before their eyes in our histotory.
You get a whole lot more energy (and votes!) when people are fired up. Better to use that energy to your advantage, then to water it down.

[HumeSkeptic]

You made some good observations and I agree with your assessment of political impact of this on 0bama.

On the lighter side, do you think that people who wish us harm would be using any kind of phones or sending emails to communicate, after knowing what this bill is about?

So, who would they be listening to and to what sort of conversations?

[racom]

Good reply, I hear smoke signals are coming back!

[skibum49]

I live overseas and travel frequently to the middle east where I often phone or email the US or have others phone or email me from the US. Therefore I may have often gotten caught up in the big vaccum cleaner at Fort Meade. Could I prove that? No! And if I could prove it how exactly have I been damaged? Well other than the fact that I am an American Citizen communicating with other American Citizens and would like to believe that I have some right to privacy in those communicat­ions...I haven't been damaged at all (smiles).

My conversations of course are the easy ones to analyze. Everyone is speaking reasonably good english.

Problem is that the people they really want (and need) to be paying attention to might be speaking one of fifteen dialects of spoken Arabic with all kinds of regionalisms thrown in just to make the translations even more difficult. This all happening at a time when the number of even rudimentary arabic speakers in Civilian and Military Intelligence agencies is nowhere near adequate to handle basic Arabic translation and analysis let alone regional variations of the spoken language. So short of some really major advancements in computerized voice analysis and translation for all forms of arabic I wouldnt count on the big vacuum making much difference even if the "bad guys" were stupid enough to use the phone.

[lobear00]

I myself will write in Dennis Kucinuch for President. The Democrats don't like him, the Republicans don't like him, and the Media can't stand him. Kucinuch will expose all of them for the "Lying little "Rats that they are. The Corruption runs "Wide and Deep in the Congress.

[goosie29]

Go ahead, and watch Under Saudi Arabia come to a standstill! Kucinich can't govern when no side will support him! pfft!

[Larry of Corrales]

"watch Under Saudi Arabia come to a standstill!!" What does that mean??

[Michale32086]

OK, just finished dinner. Self harvested shark meat is delicious!!! :D

So, it's family movie time... I just don't want anyone to think I am bailing out of a fight.. :D

So, I will look for responses in the morning..

HOPEFULLY, I will see some posts from the Anti-FISA/Obama crowd that has some FACTUAL basis and are not simply personal attacks and refrains of "My Aunt Bertha/The ACLU/The Guy In The Blog said that HR 6304 is bad!!!"

Just let me leave in closing...

The sky is blue...

Water is wet...

HR6304 has ZERO Constitutional conflicts.­...

These are the facts..

And they are indisputab­le...

Michale...­..

[HumeSkeptic]

I hope your departure has nothing to do with your inability to answer the simple questions I posed, Michale. I would hate to see you run away because of something that I did.

.

[Titonwan]

Hume, you and I know that Michale is an AT&T troll on their payroll to calm the fence sitters. To hades with the fence sitters. I still bother to refute his tripe, but lobbying money won't deter him. I just keep reminding people, that don't know it, that he is. A TROLL.

[KingCranky]

Since you chose to ignore Hume Skeptic's very simple questions, here they are again

What is the purpose of granting retroactive immunity to corporations who violated rights of citizens, if not to protect the corporations?

How can denying citizens the right to challenge corporations in the court of law good for the citizens?

These are simple questions. What are your answers?

I, too, would like to know how letting these corporations knowingly break the law-hence the need for "immunity"-and rewarding them for it with a free pass legally (because Obama has given no indications he'll pursue them criminally when he's President) is good for our Constitution, the spied-upon customers and, most importantly, which actual terrorist plots, of the "imminent" variety, have been disrupted by the telecoms spying on, and datamining of, their customers.

Oh yeah, W's warrantless spying has NOT caught or killed Usama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, or anyone else involved in the 9-11 strikes.

The most ironic aspect of all this rigamarole is the "just shut up and don't criticize our guy" meme, seems rather like the Bush Jr supporters in that respect.

[Kalifornika]

What is the purpose of granting retroactive immunity to corporations who violated rights of citizens, if not to protect the corporations?

That is how compromise was done to get the FISA courts involved in oversight again. It is called compromise. Obama has consistently said he would reach across the isle.

How can denying citizens the right to challenge corporations in the court of law good for the citizens?
Rather than relying on civil suits to punish corporations, he can still, if elected, use criminal process to go after them.

[Synoia]

"OK, just finished dinner. Self harvested shark meat is delicious!!! "
Does that make you a cannibal?

[BlaineKinsey]

You ask yourself a lot of questions, but your opinions are straight out of the Republican talking-point disinformation campaign. I plan to vote for Senator Obama, but even Senator Obama does not agree with your inarticulate views on FISA. The targeting procedures outlined in H.R. 6304 make reference to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, but these targeting procedures are inconsistent with the clear and concise language in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Granting retroactive immunity from civil liability to the telecommunication providers (that assisted with the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program) is unconstitutional because it would deny "due process of law" to the plaintiffs in the lawsuits pending against the telecommunication providers, and your assertions that these plaintiffs have no evidence of injury is contradicted by the evidence that has already been submitted in connection with the lawsuits pending against the telecommunication providers. Although the provision in the pending FISA legislation that grants immunity to the telecommunication providers would not be considered an "ex post facto" law under existing legal precedents (because courts have limited that designation to criminal laws which make an activity illegal that was legal at the time the activity was performed), this immunity provision, if enacted, should be considered an "ex post facto" law because it selectively and retroactively alters the law with respect to civil liability to advance the interests of one group at the expense of another group. By asking yourself, you direct your questions to an unreliable source.

[AbbieXHoffman]

"HR6304 has ZERO Constitutional conflicts.­..."

Except that it does. It violates the 4th Amendment

Here is the 4th Amendment:
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.

So you need a warrant and you need to specify who you are wiretapping in that warrant. (I have no problem with that.) Except this bill allows a grace period of 67 days for wiretapping without securing a a warrant and even then it only requires a MASS warrant (meaning you don't need one for each individual you are spying on).

Our privacy is in the hands of computer programmers that write sophisticated algothryms to come up with lists of people that are to be wiretapped. Even the president doesn't have oversight to how these algothryms are created.

This is unconstitutional. That is a fact and that is indisputable.

[tommybones]

Michale, now, to tackle your defense of the telecoms..­.

The idea that we shouldn't punish these companies in order to avoid higher rates is as naive as it is cowardly. It assumes, erroneously, that the primary reason for the lawsuits is monetary damages. It isn't. Because our gutless democratically led Congress decided to abdicate their responsibility to the Constitution by taking impeachment "off the table," these suits stand as the only remaining opportunity to compel the release of information pertaining to the illegal spying program. In order to understand this egregious program and, more importantly, prevent it from happening again in the future, we must a) know precisely what happened and by whom and b) punish the lawbreakers to the fullest extent of the law. It's very simple. You want the law respected? You must ENFORCE IT. The idea that we should abdicate our own responsibility of vigorous oversight, merely out of fear that we will be punished by "higher prices" for phone calls is cowardice dressed up as pragmatism.

Additionally, you keep hanging your hat on the idea that criminal prosecutions are still on the table. This ignores the fact that Bush can (and no doubt will) grant a blanket criminal immunity to the phone companies (and therefore himself) prior to leaving office. Why wouldn't he?

More to come...

[Titonwan]

If you check "Michale32086"'s see profile, you will see that the ONLY time he's posting is when it has to do with FISA. The profile doesn't lie. MIchale lies. He is a Telecom troll!

[booksnmore4you]

Politics is not about idealism first and foremost. It is the art of doing the possible according to ideals within constraints that come from multiple angles and sources, including the constraint of doing what it takes to obtain, consolidate, and keep power. That requires looking at things from a cold, calculating, realist and amoral stance, not the idealist myopia and utopia of the wrong end of the binoculars. People who find this shocking or difficult to believe show only that they are naive and have a great deal yet to learn in the journey of their political awakening.

[HumeSkeptic]

Thank you for that great lecture on politics.

So, by your argument, a vote by any politician on any issue is justified. People who voted for the Iraq war were just as correct as those who voted against it, because they were all practicing the "art of doing the possible according to ideals within constraints that come from multiple angles and sources, including the constraint of doing what it takes to obtain, consolidate, and keep power"

And if we dare disagree with the vote of any politician, we are "naive and have a great deal yet to learn in the journey of their political awakening.­"

Did I learn my lesson correctly?

[lainey]

man up hume and say that you support mccain. really, it is ok. he needs all the help he can get because it is going to be tough in november, but good thing he has you. neither one "will ever surrender.­"

[booksnmore4you]

No Hume, you are plainly constructing a straw man and tearing that down, not what I said.

For more see

Obama’s cunning capture of the centre ground
Slowly and subtly, Barack Obama is wiping out every reason to vote for McCain
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article4275040.ece

[tommybones]

I'd love to debate this with you, Michale, but the moderator for some reason keeps rejecting half of my posts. It's getting pretty irritating at this point. There's no justification for it, as far as I can tell...

I'll try to tackle one point at a time. First, you keep asking for those criticizing this bill to prove it violated the 4th amendment, even if those critics never made that assertion. It's a classic way to control debate. Demand an answer to a point that was never made. Brilliant. But pointless. There are many who feel the new FISA law does, indeed, violate the 4th amendment, by allowing "mass untargeted surveillance of all communications coming in or out of the U.S., without individualized review and without any finding of wrongdoing" (ACLU), but I will leave that to the lawsuits that will no doubt happen should this bill go forward. My point has been that the violations of the 4th amendment happened already, when the Bush administration, partly with the help of the telecom companies, violated the existing FISA laws and spied without warrants on American citizens. The fact that this occurred is not even in dispute. Last week, a judge ruled against the Bush administration, finding that the original FISA law had jurisdiction over all eavesdropping. Since Bush already admitted it had eavesdropped without a warrant, there is no dispute that the 4th amendment was violated.

More to follow... (if this actually gets posted this time)

[HumeSkeptic]

As I understand it, Michale's final argument in support of his position was: "I trust Obama's judgment..­"

That was in response to my post (see below) asking him to answer two very simple questions.

As you know, when debate reaches a point where "trust me" or "trust someone" is presented as an argument, no further debate is possible or necessary.

Michale was trying to defend the indefensible. Once you resort to "trust" and 'faith", logic no longer applies.

But thank you for your very thoghtful post. It was a pleasure reading it.

.

[3arthling]

A fair number of my posts appear to be getting rejected as well, despite clearly being within guidelines. I wonder, does anyone watch the watchers? Coincidentally, this is the same question that irritates us with FISA.

[racom]

Debating this with michael reminds me of the story of the old man who daily, faithfully stood before the wall praying. Never missed a day. When asked, 'how does it make you feel to pray here every day' he answered, 'It feels like talking to a wall'!
Continue at your own frustration!

[Titonwan]

Look at his profile. It will make sense then. AT&T is paying "Michale32086". FISA issues are the ONLY time he posts. Figure it out.