Reality Time at MyBarackObama.com

It's reality time at MyBarackObama.com. The latent tension between a conventional top-down presidential campaign and the bottom-up social-networking Internet operation it launched has burst into the open in the form of a grassroots insurrection against Senator Obama's decision to support legislation granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administration's program of wiretapping without warrants.

The Obama campaign, by far the most Internet-savvy presidential campaign thus far, operates several web sites. BarackObama.com is a straight-forward campaign site, where visitors can see videos of speeches, read about issues, and or course donate money. MyBarackObama.com is a full-fledged social networking site built along the lines of Facebook. Once a visitor registers as a MyBarackObama member, he or she can post blogs, join discussion groups, send each other messages, organize events, and create networks of "friends," just as on Facebook or MySpace.

In fact, MyBarackObama.com is actually a Facebook knock-off, shepherded into reality over a year ago by Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes. The Obama campaign's early recruitment of Hughes, which enabled the campaign to pull a virtually bug-free social networking site out of its hat early on in the campaign, was one of the most pivotal yet least noted turning points in the presidential race.

MyBarackObama.com has been critical to the spectacular fundraising success of the Obama campaign. But what Senator Obama might do with this novel asset beyond simply raising money was an open question. And what MyBarackObama.com might do with Senator Obama was a question few even asked.

Noam Cohen wrote in the New York Times last month, "The receptiveness of the Obama campaign to such bottom-up influences raises a question: might the candidate actually model his approach to politics on the informal communal spirit the Internet encourages?"

Political commentator Andrew Sullivan thought the question had already been answered. "It's a new form of politics. It is likely to last beyond the Obama campaign and to change the shape of all campaigns to come."

Not so fast, argued Markos Moulitsas Zúniga of the DailyKos. "The Obama campaign is still very much a top-bottom operation. They've made it very easy for people to hop on the bandwagon, but those in the back of that wagon still get no say in where the campaign is going."

Well, this week it started to get really noisy in the back of the wagon. A new "group" started on MyBarackObama.com called "Senator Obama -- Please, No Telecom Immunity and Get FISA Right." By last night there were 7,000 members. At noon today there were 11435, just short of making it the largest group on the MyBarackObama site. During the time I wrote this column, more than 800 more signed up. By the time you read this, it will almost certainly be the largest. There is even a contest being organized to see who can predict how many members the group will have by the time of the FISA vote next week.

Note to the Obama campaign: even a cursory glance at the history of social networking on the Internet ( MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter for starters) shows that when content creation is put into the hands of the users who also have the ability to communicate and share with one another, the result becomes highly dynamic and unpredictable.

So here we are, balanced at the precise point where the bottom-up dynamics of Web 2.0 meets the top-down dynamics of an American presidential campaign. Depending on your take on Obama, you might imagine the Senator as railing in private against the power his Internet advisors have unwittingly given his base, or alternatively, as being secretly delighted at the unruly democratic spirit his campaign and its Web tools have unleashed.

In my most recent post, I wrote about the tension between Obama's Internet fundraising operation -- the 1.5 million small donors -- and his conventional fundraising. I wondered who would have the most influence with Obama, the small group of big donors who have faces and phone numbers the candidate knows, or the 1.5 million small donors.

It seems that the social networking tools of MyBarackObama.com may give some of those small donors a collective face and point of contact. At this moment, the contact is the "Senator Obama -- Please, No Telecom Immunity and Get FISA Right" group.

There is of course no guarantee how much real influence the members of this group will have with Obama. But they certainly have his attention. In fact, the good folks at Obama HQ are without doubt counting every new member. 12,261 and counting.

**

Some comments from "Senator Obama - Please, No Telecom Immunity and Get FISA Right":

After going through the long and difficult primary I truly believed that Senator Obama was the man we needed. It did not take long for him to prove me so wrong. The Senator from Chicago became an inside the Beltway wonder in such a short period of time. What I want, and I say want, not please, is to see him stand up and as the leader of the Demos and stop this FISA bill. The FISA part of the bill is just as wrong as the telecom immunity. But how can you condone the telecoms disregard of the law? Please tell me how? If he does not I am finished and I will not vote for him or any Demo. This is very difficult to say with McShame running on the GOP ticket. But if Senator Obama can't stand up for me and my right to privacy (4th Amendent) who the hell will?

this is a group that REFUSES to support a candidate that supports a measure that is _unconstitutional_. Playing that "it will get McCain elected" game doesn't fly here. We're concerned about the CONSTITUTION, remember that thing?

I'm done capitulating. If the contributors to the Obama campaign truly own it, as Obama likes to say, then it's time we started acting like it.

I have just contacted the Obama campaign and asked for my money back that I have contributed. They have agreed to refund it. If Senator Obama changes his mind and opposes FISA I will send all of my money back to the campaign.

etc.

Comments

[GiggidyGeshmoygen]

first of all, i have to say that i doubt very seriously if the telecoms ever had any real choice about whether or not to participate in Bushco's spying on American citizens - one can well imagine that it would have been made quite clear to them that the repercussions of "choosing" not to participate could be detrimental in the extreme

secondly, what is there to stop republican trolls and agitators from fanning the flames of division among Obama's supporters on this website? anybody remember when Oxy Limpballs exhorted his lame-brained dittoheads to go out and vote for Hillary? same principal

divide and conquer is a tried and true strategy which every Obama supporter must be aware of and take into account --- Obama has said repeatedly that he will revisit this and many other Bushco travesties after he takes office --- Obama's FISA vote may or may not be the right one for right now but when all is said and done, it comes down to a question of whether or not you have faith and trust in the candidate you've chosen to support

admittedly, having faith and trust in ANY politician today is an audacious thing to do, considering the broken and corrupted state of affairs in Washington DC that currently passes for a democracy, but Barack Obama has singlehandedly given back to America the hope that one day things can and will be better and, at least for now, that's good enough for me

[BadCompany]

So, what were the repercussions that Qwest endured for choosing not to partcipate?
Secondly, I love the post-partisan 0bamabot talking point about dissenters being republican trolls!

[Michale32086]

"So, what were the repercussions that Qwest endured for choosing not to partcipate?"

I would bet for one thing, the potential for government contracts sure dried up.. I would also imagine they took a hit in the PR department. Who wants to deal with a company that would assist terrorists over their own government.

Michale.....

[IslVoter]

Markos Moulitsas Zúniga is right--the back of the wagon has no power in this campaign. This group, now over 19,000 (minus me) has now become "moderated" --nothing goes out unless they approve.

I set up an Event in this Group on July 4th called "Undonate to Obama" for those people, like the one you mentioned, who feel betrayed and want the campaign to know they are no longer going to be donating or have donated to other places in order to fight this FISA iteration. Those who want to ask for their donation back were instructed to call or email the campaign and request that their donation be "Undonated"

Someone killed my Event, without notice, explanation. The group monitors denied knowledge (and didn't try to find out who had), and said that they had *asked* me already. I mistakenly thought ask implied a choice. They didn't want to attract any "negative press"--like this protest group itself hasn't already brought what some consider negative press.

I have inquired through the Obama campaign web support whether they brought it down, but have received no answer.

I have no way to contact those who signed up. Some only made $4000 a year and had donated and now felt betrayed. Others asked how they could stop their recurring donations. Many were precinct captains and had donated many hours.

Either because of fear of giving ammunition to the competition or Obama campaign crackdown, the result is not bottom-up activism.

[Michale32086]

@Lemeritus

>And, I suppose, should I be called upon
>to break the law for the greater good, I
>would also be willing to bear the legal
>consequences... for the greater good.
>Jack Bauer does... why shouldn't I?

OK, let's take that tact..

The important question is not "WOULD YOU??"

The important question is, "SHOULD YOU HAVE TO?"

The answer to the first, only you can answer..

The answer to the second is a resounding and emphatic "NO!"

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@BadCompany

>Your scenario is ridiculous.

Translation:

"Your argument completely derails my position and shows it for the fallacy that it is. So, I will respond in passive/aggressive mode completely illustrating my impotence in the ability to form a rational and logical argument."

Thank you for your concession...

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@Lemeritus

CALDER v BULL

Petitioners' Claim
That Connecticut legislation granting a rehearing of a probate dispute violated the Constitution's prohibition of ex post facto laws.

Decision
Connecticut's legislation was not a constitutional violation because the ex post facto provision applies only to criminal cases.

Significance
The Supreme Court's decision in Calder v. Bull changed the course of American jurisprudence by eliminating consideration of ex post facto violations in civil cases.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/13565/Calder-v-Bull.html

I keep telling you people and telling you people and telling you people.

But you simply WILL NOT listen.

Don't bring a knife to a gun fight...

Michale.....

[Lemeritus]

Michale: "Exactly! The "immunity" only covers civil liability...."

Come back when you get your story straight, Michale.

[Michale32086]

EXACTLY...

So, there IS no Ex Post Facto violation.....

Which is what you claimed..

Do I have to dig up your post??

Or will you be mature about and simply admit you were wrong??

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

My stories have always been straight. I pride myself on my consistency..

You, on the other hand, are all over the map...

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@Lemeterius

"The Calders unsuccessfully appealed the probate court"s decision to the superior court and the Supreme Court of Errors. The Calders sued, claiming that the Connecticut law was void because it violated the Article I, § 10 of the Constitution, which prohibited states from enacting ex post facto laws. The Court issued seriatim opinions, upheld the decisions approving the will, and discussed the nature of judicial review.]"

The claim of EX POST FACTO was not upheld..

Michale.....

[Jazzcomedian]

If you think that you're strong enough, and principled enough to refuse a demand from the White House to wiretap in a time of war, then start your own telecom company, and/or run for president cause you are one supertough person, and I'm sure you've quit over, or objected publicly to everything you've observed that's unethical at your job. Prosecuting the telecoms for caving in to the White House is pointless. I have no problem with the telecom immunity, it's Bush/Cheney who needs their asses kicked. What's obvious is that if Obama is president he won't employ warrantless wiretapping--which is all that matters to me.

Obama should keep doing what he's doing. I know every blogger, and many posters on this site thinks that they're Obama's campaign managers, but they aren't. He's never been far left, which you'd know if you've closely followed his political career, but he is left of center in his Senate voting and most of his policies. If that's not enough for the super left patriots they can vote Nader, Kucinich, Clinton, McCain, ythemselves, or sit it out.

I'm not emotionally involved, as I seen far too many disappointing presidents over the years to have great expectations, but I trust Obama more than I trust anyone on this site to know what can and should be done in the political realm, to try and get this country out of the mess we're in.

[SamiNJ]

But the National Journal called him the most liberal senator in the country??

(in case you coudln't tell - sarcasm... I agree wholeheartedly with you) :)

[Lemeritus]

The National Journal based their judgment on the ratio between number of votes cast on issues ranging from conservative to liberal. The few votes Senator Obama cast during his short career in the Senate have been liberal, but the statistics are skewed because of -- well -- his short career in the Senate.

[KillTheMessenger]

Completely agree. This is reality, people. If you can't stand it, Senator Obama is not your man. You need a knock off of John McCain on the left who will cater to your every whims and say everything the non-religious left wants him to. That you can't win the presidential election with such a man (or woman) should be a given.

America needs a GOOD president. Senator Obama is the only choice if we apply that criterion.

[Titonwan]

I am the wrong person to throw out that challenge, bucko, as I DID quit AT&T (seven years) for JUST THAT REASON. I'll go you one further, as I was a drafter of the central office (CO) in California where the patriotic CO tech spilled the beans to the New York Times! Enough of your apologist drivel. I just donated to Act Blue, Glen Greenwald, Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd. Not only do I put my money where my mouth is, I ACT UPON WHAT I BELIEVE. Not merely hammer on a keyboard like a chimp (chump, you pick). God I love you, Arianna!

[Jazzcomedian]

I respect your convictions and ability to truly act on them.

[Spinobobot]

How is it "obvious" that "if Obama is president he won't employ warrantless wiretapping"? I mean, I think he's a good person, but how easy would it be for him to rationalize and say, "Well, as long as we do it only sometimes and only with the right intentions, it's really not that bad"?

The genius of the founders lies in their realization that no human being is perfect, and that power can corrupt just about anyone. Thus, they distributed it, putting more power into the laws and the system, and offsetting each branch of government with checks and balances (etc., etc.; we should all know this stuff).

To me, keeping the system in tact--and reinstating the centrality of the rule of law--are far more important than having my preferred presidential candidate win. The constitution has been around for nearly two and a quarter centuries, far longer than the 4 or 8 years we'd get of Barack. Please, just think long-term for a moment.

(And, incidentally, one of the Telcos, Qwest, actually did take a principled stand refusing "a demand from the White House to wiretap in a time of war". It is by no means unheard of.)

[Lemeritus]

Ahhh, but as KillTheMessenger points out below, "it's the only game in town." I think now we must concentrate on the down ticket candidates. Once again, politics is local.

[Vern58]

I will again say what i have so often said. Barack Obama is one of the brainiest politicians on planet earth and we as democrats need to trust him- he knows exactly what he is doing. If the goal is to get him elected( and i assume it is) just let him lead. We will soon have a left of center President in the White House. I understand the doubts- but for pity's sake- just put them aside.

[Michale32086]

@BadCompany

>No. As a matter of fact, that is
> what *you* have done multiple times.

Actually, no... I define "can't think for yourself" as someone who makes a claim about something but whose SOLE evidence of this claim is because someone else told them..

And THAT is what we have here...

>No. In case you haven't noticed, I hold
>the Dims in very low regard. Barely
>better than the GOP. They are spineless
>and corrupt.

You must have a lot of fun on election day...

>No. I think this is a bad move for him
>to make. The "faith-based" gravy train
>is even worse.

If you cannot even concede you are wrong, then that is not principles talking.. That is ego..

On the other hand, I agree with you completely about the "faith based" crap.. Religion doesn't belong in politics..

Michale.....

[onegandolf1]

So, I'm not a real wiz when it comes to this "facebook" type of thing. I just signed up on MyBarakObama, but I can't figgure out how to get to the place where you participate in the discussion. Can someone explain it to me?

[WMichaelTenery]

The discussion they are talking about is blogs and responses to blogs as well as groups and group emails.

Signup for MyBarakObama and fill out your profile.
Join some groups that look interesting by clicking on groups and doing keyword searches.
Write a blog post and/or look for "View all blogs"
Do responses on any of the other blogs that seem interesting.
Send an email to any of the groups you joined to send to their list (unless they are moderated).

[Mayoyo]

Wheb they want to win an election, they let Barack know

[kellygrrrl]

regardless of whether some of these people are actually tro//s
or whether some of them don't completely understand the Bill

0bama needs to address the issue

period

[Michale32086]

Obama HAS addressed the issue..

Succinctly, logically and completely...

It's just that there are those who refuse to accept his reasoning, logical and rational though it is..

Michale....

[cleveyucks]

Yes he has, Succinctly, logically and completely:

"The American people must be able to trust that their president values principle over politics, and justice over unchecked power. I've been proud to stand with Senator Dodd in his fight against retroactive immunity for the telecommunications industry. Secrecy and special interests must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens -- and set an example to the world -- that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient. Because in America "- no one is above the law."

"No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people -- not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed. . . . "

That was before he sold out.

[onegandolf1]

Just which part of an ex post facto law is it that is logical and reasonable.

Can I now stick up a 7/11 and expect immunity ? I'm thinking of not paying taxes this year (as there is no provision for the existance of an Internal Revenue Service to collect it. I expect immunity for this under the conditions which will exist under the new legislation.

[LyricalLexicon]

Since you are such a smart guy tell me how exactly does the new FISA bill protect my rights if I have no way of proving that my privacy rights were violated? Even if they were, who would get prosecuted for it? Let's say the government eaves dropped on my conversations illegally, how would I be able to prove it happened other than getting some sort of log of all the calls the government has monitored? You claim to be a former intelligence/FSO person so we both know that we never happen, the government will scream "national security" and not produce any documentation or provide some doctored up documents. So those constitutional protections you speak of are pretty much window dressing to give people a false sense of security.

[tbone99]

Thats right - "I was for it before I was against it "

-Dem presidential mantra

[BadCompany]

Yep, if Obama is for for it and we're against it, we *must* be troles or nitwits.

[meanguy]

absolutely-there is only one position...that of the obamessiah...all else is blashphemy, punishable by really snarky replies

[kellygrrrl]

obviously you realize that is not at all what I said

I have read comments where people are of the opinion that many people in the group are tro//s

I personally am a member of the group, so I know that is not the case

I have been against this vote from the beginning

all I said was that no matter what, 0bama needs to address to issue with the voters

[Titonwan]

Where have you been kellygrrrl? Usually you are helping to inform those that don't know. Read of Vincent's book yet? I got mine today. Good to see you back.

[kellygrrrl]

hola!
half way through Bugliosi -- def worth the read

amazing it's number 10 on bestseller list and not one MSM outlet will review it or interview the author

summer's crazy this year -- all good stuff, just busy

[Abysmal]

It's interesting that in the US the controversy over the FISA bill has stirred up so much more controversy than Obama's stance on expanding the death penalty. The expansion of the death penalty in an imperfect justice system pretty much guarantees that the state will be resposible for killing innocent citizens who were wrongly convicted of a crime.
I guess the intricacies of telecom law and the 4th amendment are more important than state sanctioned homicide.
That's just so unbelievably depressing.

[Michale32086]

Based on all available evidence, the Anti FISA crowd can be broken down into 3 groups.

1. The Hillary/PUMA crowd. This group's committed goal is to sabotage Obama's candidacy in any way possible. This is simply another manifestation of that.

2. The Bush Bashing crowd. This group opposes the new FISA measures simply because the Bush Administration supports the new FISA measures.

3. The Ignorant/Follow The Herd crowd. This group simply has other people dictate their opinions for them. They are averse to actually learning for themselves and are content to go with crowd...

That pretty much sums things up...

Michale.....

[TheOneironaut]

Thats so true! A lot of people dont even know what they are mad about because from what i gathered from reading the legislation myself the Telecom Immunity is way over blown! With that being said, everyone is angry about the Telecom immunity but the president has had immunity since he started this crap! In my opinion going after the telecoms for FISA is like bombing Iraq for Ben Laden! Once again in my opinion we are being distracted from the real target - B U S H

[Michale32086]

I should probably add that there is a sub-group of the #2 group.

Those are the ones who were REALLY looking forward to having a nice shiny new baseball bat in which to beat the Bush Administration over the head with...

The funny thing is, they can still have their bat under these new FISA measures. They are just going to have to work a little harder to do it and won't be able to get rich or bankrupt the Telecomms when they do it...

Regardless of all that, the Telecomm Civil Liability Immunity is NOT a Constitutional issue. Ergo, they wrapping themselves up in the Constitution is disingenuous at best...

Michale.....

[iLogos]

Yes and no.

Is the FISA bill in need of updating? I would say yes, there are simply way more ways for communication, money raising, money laundering, and more sophisticated tools at the disposal of both terrorists and the government that the bill fails to consider. Does this bill adequately address some or all of those... eh, it tries, and trying is better than not.

Telecom immunity is a hard pill to swallow, but the reality is courts have already ruled that without being able to prove specific damage done to an individual no lawsuits can be brought forth. Going after the Telecoms is not the way to end this travesty, nor is it the best way to punish them. Going after the government, IOW Bush is the best way to enure this doesn't happen. The companies despite their having broken the law were operating under executive order, doing what they thought was correct. Bush and his administration knowingly broke the law and convinced the Telecoms that the requests and filling the requests was legal.

The civil lawsuits are attempts at discovering how pervasive the tapping has been. I still doubt this is the best way to find this out. Subpoenas for documents in a court case against Bush et. al. is likely to be more satisfying and more likely to prevent such future abuses.

[BadCompany]

Based on all available evidence, the Pro FISA crowd can be broken down into 3 groups.

1. Republicans.
2. Blue Dogs.
3. Obamabots.

That pretty much sums things up...

BC

[Michale32086]

"That pretty much sums things up..."

Actually, it doesn't..

There's a 4th group that you did not mention..

That is the group who are independents in the true sense of the word. This group thinks for themselves and when they come to a conclusion, it is based on logic and facts, not hysteria and political bigotry. They don't have political pundits giving them their opinions.. They don't take the word of cowardly pandering politicians who are only out to score political points.

That's the group that I belong in.

Michale.....

[LyricalLexicon]

Since you are such a smart guy tell me how exactly does the new FISA bill protect my rights if I have no way of proving that my privacy rights were violated? Even if they were, who would get prosecuted for it? Let's say the government eaves dropped on my conversations illegally, how would I be able to prove it happened other than getting some sort of log of all the calls the government has monitored? You claim to be a former intelligence/FSO person so we both know that we never happen, the government will scream "national security" and not produce any documentation or provide some doctored up documents. So those constitutional protections you speak of are pretty much window dressing to give people a false sense of security.

[SamiNJ]

I tried to post a response and it told me I already posted it! so here it goes again, sorry if it is repetative.

In what you say to start your post... I actually think the civil suits are irrelevant at this point anyway. But criminal prosecution needs to only meet procedural proof limits, meaning they have to show steps were taken, routes were taken to circumvent the system.
Nuance is everything. The details are what matters. The main goal is to reinstate the use of the FISA court. It is imperative. To avoid the goal over something that cannot be gained anyway is ridiculous.

[Michale32086]

So, you are concerned what might/maybe/possibly/could happen??

Well, one sure way to mitigate that it WON'T happen is to not consort with terrorists.. Granted, it's no guarantee, but it's nearly so...

Little hint for you.. There are so many things in your life that are "window dressing" you would truly be amazed...

We give cops guns. There is absolutely NO guarantee that one cop won't run amok and shoot you dead. Or there is no guarantee that the same cop won't mistake you for a suspect and shoot you dead. Or there is no guarantee that the same cop won't shoot you dead as collateral. Of all the afore is true and factual...

Does that mean we should NOT give cops guns???

Your afraid that, if these new FISA measures pass, that the government will be able to listen to your calls and you will never know..

Guess what, cupcake... That would be true even if the new FISA measures don't pass... It would be true, even if we put the ACLU in charge of all surveillance!!

There is a old Vulcan philosophy called MASTERY OF THE UNAVOIDABLE

You should learn it..

Michale.....

[Welfred]

Bob you and your so called progressives refuse to face the facts that Obama can not run on your agenda and get elected. The Repukes whole fall plan is to paint Obama as the most liberal and progessive member of congress because they know this is the only way they can defeat him. Instead you are willing to let McCain continue the disaster for the next 4 years because of your displeasure about one issue. The democrats have managed to elect 2 presidents in 40 years and they both went running to the center in order to get elected. As much as I hate it this is a very conservative country and they will still not elect a progressive.

[Michale32086]

@MaryInMontCoPA

>No one is above the law. Not Bush.
>Not the telecoms. That law is treasonous.

Ignoring for a moment the inherent hysterical nature of your accusation, consider this:

Let's say you are driving down the road, merrily on your way. You stop at a traffic light and suddenly this strange man jumps into your car. He shoves a badge in your face and orders you to run the light and follow that green car ahead. He tells you that there is a very bad man in that car and that, if you don't help the cop catch him, many people will die..

So you, being the civic (no, not Honda!! :D) minded person you are, step on the gas, blow the light and proceed to follow the evil man in the green car.. You race down at breakneck speeds and somehow, miraculously, get the car stopped. The cop in your car jumps out and arrests the evil man and all is good and right in the world. The cop from your car comes up to you and says, "You did a fine job. THank you for helping me. I know you probably burned a lot of gas doing that, so here's a hundred bucks for your time and trouble.."¦.

CONT

[Michale32086]

CONT

Now, up roars a uniformed cop in a marked patrol unit. He jumps out of his car and approaches you. You look at him, expecting more praise, when he suddenly grabs you, throws you up on the hood of your car and cuffs you.

"I have been following you since you blew that red light! You're under arrest for speeding, reckless driving and endangerment..", he yells!

"But I was helping!!!" you state¦

As the uniformed cop snatches the $100 bill from your hand, he says, "Helping, eh?? Looks like to me, you just did it for the money!!"

You turn to the undercover cop you helped and say, "Do something!!"¦

The undercover cop says, "Sorry, you broke the law. I know it was a good reason and all, but.. hay.. The law is the law¦"

Now, how would you feel NOW about your "no one is above the law" statement???

Michale

[wheresthebeef]

Nice analogy, Michale. My bet is that, the next time someone jumped in your car waving a badge and demanding that you roar off in a high-speed chase, you'd ask to consult with your attorney first. Then, discovering that the chase would be illegal, you'd decline to participate.

[Michale32086]

Yea, that's what the Anti FISA/Immunity folks would do.

Me?? I would ask if I can bring my own weapons.. :D

Michale.....

[LyricalLexicon]

I seriously doubt I would risk my life in a high speed chase that I know none of the reasons for. Why doesn't this cop have his own car? How come he didn't call the station for back up? How do I know the badge is not a fake one that was purchased somewhere?

[Michale32086]

So, when lives are at stake, your first response is to ask for specifics???

Well, ooookkaaaayyy.....

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

Let me clarify it for you ..

There is absolutely NO REASON to believe that things are not exactly as stated..

Lives are at stake and you are the only hope, Obi Wan..

Now do you do the right thing??

Or do you call your attorney first??

Michale.....

[rinpochet]

BTW, can't think of its name but one telcom company did refuse to go along unless they were given a search warrant. Seems that is forgotten in all of this. ONE stood up for the law.

[BadCompany]

It was Qwest.