Friday Talking Points [38] -- Whiners And Cheeseheads

Welcome back to Friday Talking Points, after a one-week hiatus!

While plenty has happened in the past two weeks which bears close and careful analysis, I'd like to begin by focusing on one event. Barack Obama announced a masterstroke of political tactics last week, and I don't think everyone has appreciated fully what it is going to mean. I say this not as an "Obamamaniac," or as some starry-eyed follower who has been caught up in his "personality cult," but rather as a political observer (with an admitted left-wing bias) applauding a Democratic candidate on a monumentally brilliant decision.

I speak of Obama's acceptance speech. Which will be seen -- live -- by over 80,000 people in the stadium where the Denver Broncos play football.

That is just stunning.

Think about it: could John McCain even raise such an audience in Minnesota for the Republican convention? My humble guess is that McCain would have to bus them in to fill the seats.

I must admit, I had been a bit worried about the convention season, since the Democrats decided to schedule theirs first, meaning that a week later the Republicans may have stolen their spotlight... and (more importantly) the "bump" in the polls which traditionally follows the conventions for both parties. But I am worried no more.

Because America will get the following images in quick succession. First, Barack Obama accepts his party's nomination in front of a teeming throng of people (the biggest crowd to ever see such a speech in America's history) -- and all types of people at that: young people, ethnically diverse people, people from all walks of life, people who look like America -- and he does so on the forty-fifth anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech. The networks will fall all over themselves drawing the obvious parallels, and my guess is that whatever "roving reporters" they have covering the speech "live" will have to fight to be heard over the roar of the crowd.

The cable news video montage, which will be replayed over and over again will go thusly: King's "I have a dream..." / Obama accepting nomination / eighty thousand people yelling their heads off in absolute joy.

Then, about a week later, John McCain will give his acceptance speech in front of a group of old, white people -- the same old, white people we've seen at every Republican convention for the past three or four decades. And remember, McCain will have to read his speech off of a TelePrompTer -- something he's notoriously bad at doing. And he'll have to follow a speech by (assumably) President Bush, and (if we're really lucky) Vice President Darth Cheney as well.

The only thing Obama has to avoid is getting too Leni-Riefenstahl-ish over the presentation. As long as none of the television talking heads says the words "Nuremberg rally," Obama will be golden.

As I said, I had been a little concerned about the convention season, and thought Obama would balance it with wiping the floor with McCain during a few national debates, but now I think he's got a good shot of gaining an insurmountable lead in the polls following convention season.

One can only hope...

 

There were a few strong candidates for MIDOTW this week, I'm happy to report. Senator Russ Feingold showed (once again) why he should really have run for president this time around, by leading the fight on defeating the new FISA bill. Unfortunately for him (and for us) he wasn't successful, but that doesn't mean he didn't fight the good fight and give it the ol' college try. So Senator Feingold deserves an honorable mention this week for his efforts to protect the Constitution.

Likewise Dennis Kucinich. He has been fighting tooth and nail (against Nancy Pelosi, among other Democrats) to move forward articles of impeachment against George Bush. Due to some backroom deals (and arm-twisting, no doubt), his bill may actually be taken up by the House Judiciary Committee next week. This is indeed progress, but his award will have to wait until it actually happens. But, again, he deserves mention here for his efforts nonetheless.

But the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week was Senator Edward (Teddy) Kennedy, for making an appearance on the Senate floor in support of the Medicare bill which went through this week.

Not only did Teddy appear in the midst of chemotherapy for his brain tumor, but his presence meant the deciding vote would be cast in favor of the bill. As if this weren't enough, his vote convinced nine Republican Senators to hastily change their vote at the last minute, to side with the Democrats.

That's pretty impressive, I have to say.

The "Lion of the Senate" appears to have a few more roars left in him. More power to him! Get well soon, Teddy, we need your voice in the Senate now more than ever.

[Congratulate Senator Edward Kennedy on his Senate contact page to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Sad to say, we also had a few contenders for the prize of Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award this time around. First, there was every single Democrat who voted for the FISA overhaul demanded by George Bush. Since you guys can't seem to find a clue with both hands, a flashlight, and a map, allow me to enlighten you: you voted for this abomination the same week that Congress' approval rating dropped to a new low in all of history -- only nine percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing. You think maybe the two are somehow related? Nine percent... that's pretty bad. That means you have disgusted not only the Republican opposition, but also virtually your entire political base. Like I said, you think the two might somehow be related to each other?

Runner up this week for MDDOTW was Jesse Jackson, who proved what a nutjob (nutlessjob?) he truly is this week on FOX News. Or maybe not... how many thousands of interviews has Jesse done? Maybe he knew his microphone was on? Who knows... it'll end up helping Obama, that's for sure, but it still was a pretty embarassing thing for a Democrat to be caught saying.

But I can't dump on ol' Jesse too much. Anyone who has read "Green Eggs And Ham" on Saturday Night Live can't be all bad.

And, just as an aside, can we please call it what it is, rather than a "Sister Soulja moment" -- "disavowing black radicals to appear 'safe' to white voters moment," perhaps. I'm just saying... it'd be more honest.

Anyway, even Jesse Jackson couldn't sink to the level of our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week, since the (dis)honor goes to... Barack Obama. Here is Obama, back in January (Talking Points Memo has the whole timeline of quotes):

I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill.

Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.

The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.

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 is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd's amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy 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.

And here he is in June, just before he voted for exactly what he said he was going to support a filibuster in order to block:

It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives -- and the liberty -- of the American people.

It's not so much that he voted with Bush. It's that he said he wasn't going to, and then he did. Now, I have been in the trenches for Obama fighting off charges of "flip-flopping" because I think John McCain flips and flops about ten times for every time Obama does, so nobody can accuse me of jumping all over Barack here. But there's just no excuse for giving the opposition some ammo to use against you, especially on a vote where it would not have even mattered which way Obama voted (it would have passed anyway).

So for such flip-flopitude I must in all conscience award the MDDOTW award to Barack Obama this week. For shame, Senator Obama.

[Contact Barack Obama on his Senate contact page to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Volume 38 (7/11/08)

In the continuing battle to get the mainstream media to pay attention to John McCain's inconsistencies, gaffes, and other flip-flops, Steve Benen over at The Carpetbagger Report has done a bang-up job of assembling the ultimate McCain flip-flop list. He is currently up to sixty-one major reversals for McCain -- almost none of them addressed whatsoever in the mainstream media at large. Benen has come up with a new title for McCain as well -- "Jukebox John" -- for changing his tune every few minutes.

Over at Huffington Post, Max Bergmann has an impressive list of idiocies from McCain from the past week alone which is also worth a look.

But there may be some good news on the horizon... or, to put it more accurately, some bad news in the press for McCain. John McCain has relied on "his base" (the media) for lots of feel-good stories because he cultivates a close relationship with the reporters covering his campaign. But that all may be changing. His new campaign head, Steve Schmidt, is of the Karl Rove "the media is the enemy" school of thought, which may signal a sea change in the relationship between the candidate and the (up until now) sycophantic press who is supposed to be covering him. Perhaps the feeling of being jilted will wake a few reporters up enough to actually examine McCain's record.

Hopefully, we'll begin to see signs of this in the coming weeks, so keep your eyes peeled. Onward to this week's talking points, provided (as always) as a courtesy for any Democrat getting interviewed this weekend.

 

   Whiners?

John McCain's campaign co-chairman Phil Gramm has singlehandedly counteracted Obama's perceived blue-collar voter "cling to religion" gaffe in one fell swoop. Obama, and Obama surrogates, should beat this drum as hard as possible in the next few weeks, especially since Gramm is John McCain's top economic advisor, and not some peripheral person to his campaign. And most especially since Graham is apparently standing by his comments.

"John McCain this week labeled Social Security 'an absolute disgrace.' Then John McCain's top economic advisor -- someone you would expect to see on McCain's Cabinet if he gets elected, and who now runs a Swiss bank -- just called the American people 'whiners' for seeing the reality of the Republican economic policies on their pocketbooks. The elitist attitude dripping from their words is just astounding. People in America are hurting because of what George Bush and the Republicans have done to our economy. People are not 'whining,' they are crying for help. These cries obviously fall on the deaf ears of John McCain, and the deaf ears of the man he trusts to give him economic advice. After all, Phil Gramm and John McCain don't have to worry about mortgages, gas prices, or student loans. They are millionaires. The GOP should just change its name to the 'Millionaire Party' -- it certainly would be a lot more honest."

 

   How many houses do you own, Senator McCain?

There are a number of ways to point out the elitism inherent in John McCain, but the best way is to focus on his own (and his heiress wife's) vast wealth as a way to show voters who he really is.

"No wonder John McCain doesn't 'get it' about the effects of the Bush economic policies on average Americans. It was just reported that his wife spent three quarters of a million dollars -- in just one month -- on her credit cards. This isn't exactly an 'average American family.' I keep wondering why the media doesn't ask very simple questions to show what an out-of-touch elitist John McCain really is -- questions like: 'So how many houses do you and your wife own, Senator McCain?' The average voter would be astonished at the answers to easy questions like that. If, of course, they were ever asked."

 

   Mental recession?

But Phil Gramm didn't stop at just labeling Americans as "whiners" -- he also told the country that we were in a "mental recession." Here's the quote: "You've heard of mental depression. This is a mental recession. We have sort of become a nation of whiners. ... You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline."

Barack Obama has already jumped on this one, and I can't improve on his words, which should be repeated by Democrats everywhere this weekend:

"I guess what he meant, is that it's a figment of your imagination, these high gas prices. America already has one Dr. Phil. We don't need another one when it comes to the economy. It's not just a figment of your imagination. It's not only in your head."

 

   Where's John?

John McCain has the worst attendance record in the United States Senate. He is running for president, but the media keeps letting him get away with criticizing Barack Obama's votes on issues, when McCain himself refuses to even show up to vote. It has now been over three months since McCain cast a single vote (his last one was April 8th -- he has now missed over 75 votes in a row). This needs to be pointed out.

"Where's John? Senator McCain has been using his opponent's votes as fodder on the campaign trail, but at least Barack Obama shows up for important votes. John McCain didn't even show up for the vote on the new GI Bill, and then later tried to take credit for it -- even though he opposed it. So the next time you hear John McCain talking about the way Obama just voted, the next question should be: 'Where's John?' If McCain can't even be bothered to take time from fundraising with fat cats to do his duty in the United States Senate, then he shouldn't be given a free pass when it comes to speaking of voting records. I say again: 'Where's John?'"

 

   Iraqis demanding timetables for U.S. withdrawal.

Iraqi leaders are now signaling in no uncertain terms that they want a timetable for American troops to leave their country. This threatens to derail Bush's efforts to tie the hands of his successor with a new Status Of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that he wanted to sign without the benefit of congressional approval. But apparently Prime Minister Maliki is now looking over his own domestic political landscape and has come to the conclusion that it's time to ask the Americans to go. This paints George Bush and John McCain into the same corner.

"Both George Bush and John McCain have previously said that if the Iraqis were to ask us to leave, then we would, since they are a sovereign country. Now that the Iraqis are apparently ready to do just that, Bush and McCain are scrambling for some way to explain this. It seems that the Iraqis themselves are closer in their thinking to Barack Obama's plan for Iraq than to the 'we'll be there for 100 years' thinking of John McCain. I look forward to McCain 'refining' his plan to accept this 'fact on the ground' in the very near future, as his plan moves closer to what Obama has proposed."

 

   Is John McCain a cheesehead or not?

John McCain just raised the bar (or lowered it, depending on your outlook) on political pandering. He said, in an interview with a local television station, that when a prisoner of war in Vietnam, he gave his captors false information. He's told this story before, but the problem is he conveniently changed a key part of it in an effort to appeal to local voters. Here's what he said: "When I was first interrogated and really had to give some information because of the pressures, physical pressures on me, I named the starting lineup, defensive line of the Pittsburgh Steelers as my squadron mates."

The only problem is, every other time McCain has told this story, he said it was the Green Bay Packers. The local station he gave this interview to is, naturally, in Pittsburgh.

"John McCain says he is reluctant to talk about his time as a prisoner of war, which is amusing because he brings it up every chance he gets. Just look at his campaign ads. But he just took political exploitation of his POW experience to a new level. In Pittsburgh, he told a POW story and substituted the 'Pittsburgh Steelers' for what he used to say was the 'Green Bay Packers.' Now, I would believe those who say he just had a 'senior moment' on the campaign trail if he had said this in San Diego, or Jacksonville, or Chicago. But he was clearly trying to appeal to local voters with this charmingly false story. How can we believe anything McCain says about his war experiences if he'll lie about details in a cheap effort to get votes? Will McCain stop at nothing in his effort to say anything to get elected? If he were here right now, I'd have to ask him: Sir, are you now or have you ever been a cheesehead?"

 

   GOP desperately seeking a platform.

The Republican National Committee has apparently discovered the internets. They now have a web page up soliciting ideas for the party platform. I provide this link for informational purposes only, and definitely not to encourage people to rush on over there and add spurious suggestions along the lines of: "Give a full pardon to Voldemort." Ahem.

But while this could be interpreted as an actual grassroots effort, a quick glance at the campaign calendar makes you wonder whether it isn't too little, too late for the RNC.

"It's kind of sad, really, to see that the Republicans are less than two months away from their national convention, and they don't know where they stand as a party, as evidenced by their beginning to solicit ideas for their platform online. Perhaps Americans will visit their online platform ideas page and tell them there are two reasons why they're not going to do very well in this election: their disastrous domestic policies, and their disastrous foreign policies."

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

Cross-posted at Democratic Underground

 

Comments

[Michale32086]

Again, all I ask is that someone point to the section and/or subsection of HR6304 that is unconstitutional..

Hint... Section 702 doesn't apply to US Citizens, excepting insofar as it provides for specificity of the 4th Amendment protections that Americans have.

In fact, Section 702(a)(5) specifically states that anything done within HR6304 must adhere to the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution.

So, please... Someone.. ANYONE... Point to the section and/or subsection of HR6304 that violates the US Constitution.

{{{chirp}}} {{{chirp}}} {{{chirp}}}

That's what I thought. Cricket city...

Michale.....

[tommybones]

The usual obfuscation by Michale. He never actually responds to the points presented to him. Instead he jumps onto the double-talk express...

For example, his constant demand that we list "THE section and/or subsection of HR6304 that violates the US Constitution," ignores the fact that the violations in the bill are the sum of NUMEROUS provisions found in various "sections" and "sub-sections," which are scattered throughout the bill. It erroneously (and quite purposely) implies that the Constitutional violations are listed quite neatly and simply in some specific section or subsection. As if we could simply point to the "section" titled, "Constitutional Violations" and call it a day. Absurd. The initial ACLU suit answering this question is 13 pages long.

Essentially, his question is nothing more than a dodge.

[BlaineKinsey]

You are wrong. You keep citing the title rather than the language of Section 702 of Title VII in the new FISA legislation. Section 702(b) has been amended to state that the government "may not intentionally target" a U.S. person or a person inside the the U.S., and Section 702(c)(4) has been amended to state: "Nothing in title I shall be construed to require an application for a court order under such title for an acquisition that is targeted in accordance with this section at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States." Section 702(d)(1) has been amended to state that the AG shall adopt targeting procedures that are "reasonably designed" to ensure that any authorized acquisition "is limited to targeting persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; and prevent the intentional acquisition of any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States." There are several other subsections with similar weasel words that are crafted to allow the government to engage in electronic surveillance, without specific targets and without warrants and without probable cause, in many situations that would require warrants under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Either you do not understand the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution or you do not understand the new FISA legislation (or you do not understand anything you read).

[bgregs]

Hint, section 702 DOES apply to American citizens since there is no oversight to prohibit abuses of Americans by the intelligence agencies applying it to Americans!

[Michale32086]

@tommybones

So, you finally concede to your Anti-Obama stance... I thought as much.

}}}}}
Additionally, Obama's stated reasons for backing this bill have several misleading and outright deceptive points. Why is that? Is he ignorant? Or lying to you? In either case, why would he deserve a free pass?
}}}}}

Please point out Senator Obama's "misleading" and "outright deceptive" points and provide proof of your claims.

Michale.....

[tommybones]

Obama: "I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise." VERDICT: MISLEADING

On what planet is this a "compromise"? A single GOP "no" vote in the House? Less than half the Democratic members of the house voting "yea"? Not a single GOP 'no' vote in the Senate? With 28 'No' votes among the Dems? The White House doing cartwheels in joy? GOP representatives gloating? I have news for Obama, when one side of an issue gets "more than they even asked for," it"s a capitulation, not a "compromise."

Obama: "The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court." VERDICT: FLATLY FALSE

The current FISA law, still in effect, was ALREADY the legal authority on eavesdropping. This was reaffirmed in a court ruling only a few days ago. Obama"s insistence that the new law somehow closes an exclusivity loophole is flat-out FALSE. Bush IGNORED the fact that FISA was already the legal authority on eavesdropping. The new bill does nothing to stop him, or anyone else, from ignoring the NEW FISA bill.

Deception? Without a doubt.

[tommybones]

Michale? *chirp* *chirp* *chirp*

Thought so....

[BlaineKinsey]

Although I still plan to vote for Senator Obama because the alternative is so dismal, he knew that the reasons he gave for his qualified support of the new FISA legislation were false (including his false statement about restoring FISA as the exclusive means to conduct foreign surveillance, his false statement about restoring oversight of the FISC, and his misleading statement comparing the new FISA legislation to the defunct Protect America Act of 2007). He was also less than honest about his pledge to "work" in the Senate to remove the grant of immunity to the affected telecommunication providers. His "work" consisted merely of casting votes for amendments that would have improved the legislation, but he also voted to close debate on the new FISA legislation (and of course he voted for the new FISA legislation). Let us have the audacity to hope that he works harder when he becomes President.

[PatCroft]

Great article pointing out that the Left is way more together than the Right.

I don't think FISA is constitutionally correct, but not too worried about it seeing that this government has been circumventing the constitution all of my adult lifetime. So why the big deal regarding Baracks FISA vote. I think what he said about FISA in January is relevent to his style and he will likely legislate corrections when he is elected.

Hence I have never seen any elected official protect and defend the constitution, so perhaps we should change their oath that they take to get into office.

Any realistic suggestions would be welcomed.

[Michale32086]

Those who are relentlessly attacking Senator Obama over this can easily be categorized into two groups.

Group one consists of your Clinton (PUMA) supporters who have made it their mission in life to derail Senator Obama's presidential campaign. In a sparkling burst of irony, this group also consists of your GOP types who (here's the irony) have the same goal that the PUMA people have..

Group two consists of those irrational and hysterical types who simply hate Bush. Their attacks stem from the completely illogical and irrational premise that ANYTHING Bush is for is inherently evil and should be countered at ANY and ALL cost. This group's illogic is blatantly manifested by one simple fact. By relentlessly attacking Obama, they are going to insure that McCain is president, thereby giving them at least another 4 years of more hysteria... They are well and truly stepping on their own wee wees by their actions.

Michale......

[tommybones]

Yeah, there couldn't possibly be a third category of Obama supporters who believed his rhetoric and were greatly disappointed at his utter failure in his first big challenge as the nominee. Nope, couldn't be those crazy folks who actually think the 4th amendment is kind of important. Nah, that couldn't be it...

[Michale32086]

Yer right.

It couldn't be it because there is no 4th Amendment violation in HR6304.. As I have already proven as fact.

Michale.....

[bgregs]

And group three (the one that almost everyone is in!) are the ones who simply look at what Senator Obama has done, and decided to chastise him, but still do our utmost to ensure that he gets elected President in November!!

[Michale32086]

CONT

However, in a 3rd case, the special review court for FISA, the equivalent of a Circuit Court Of Appeals, opined differently should FISA limit the President's inherent authority for warrantless searches in the foreign intelligence area. In In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002) the special court stated "[A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information . . . . We take for granted the President does have that authority &, assuming that is so, FISA can't encroach on President"s constitutional power."

OK, as I have established as fact, it IS perfectly legal for US intelligence to monitor foreign communications without a warrant¦

That's established as fact..

OK Let's take a look at domestic laws..

Cops get a warrant for Joe Blow's phone for illegal narcotics. During the course of this LEGAL monitoring, Jon Public calls Joe Blow and says something about having illegal guns for sale.

Using this NEW information, cops can now get a warrant to monitor Jon Public's phone¦

A textbook example of how one legal warrant provides PC (probable cause) for a SECOND legal warrant on a totally unrelated crime.

Everyone with me so far???

OK, so what have we learned??

It is perfectly legal for US intelligence services to monitor foreign communications without a warrant..

CONT

[BlaineKinsey]

In a decision released July 2, 2008 by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the President did not have the authority to contravene FISA. Although a decision issued on November 18, 2002 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FIS) Court of Review states that the FIS Court of Review lakes it for granted that the President has the inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence, the FIS Court of Review did not attempt to determine that the President could engage in electronic surveillance outside of the boundaries of FISA, and the FIS Court of Review did not attempt to establish the constitutional boundaries of the President's alleged inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence. If the FIS Court of Review had decided those issues in favor of the President, it would have eliminated the need to decide whether the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) had interpreted FISA correctly. If FISA is only an optional method for the government to obtain foreign intelligence, the FIS Court of Review did not need to concern itself with the issue of whether the government violated the provisions of FISA. On March 27, 2008, OpEdNews.com printed an article I wrote titled "The Fog of FISA", which includes a detailed discussion of the extent to which the President's power is significantly limited by the Constitution.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_blaine_k_080327_the_fog_of_fisa.htm

[Michale32086]

On the domestic side, if evidence of a crime is learned during the execution of a legal warrant then this new information can be utilized as PC (probable cause) to obtain a NEW warrant to monitor the subject of the NEW crime¦
OK, so how does this all tie in to HR6304??

Simple¦

We have legal authority for US intelligence services to monitor foreign communications.

Interspersed with foreign communications is American communications..

During the execution of legal monitoring, evidence of crime is flagged. Anything else is NIV'ed..

Once the flagged item is analyzed, it is determined that it either originated or destinated in US Soil or it involves a US Citizen. One this information is learned, a warrant is obtained based on PC (probable cause) from a legal and constitutional monitoring.

I'll be here all week. Be sure and tip your waitresses¦.

Michale¦¦

[BlaineKinsey]

Because they cannot target suspects effectively at the source of the electronic communications, intelligence agencies engage in massive surveillance without targets to detect possible suspicious communications. You cannot "monitor" the content of a communication without searching the content of that communication, and it is not constitutional to direct the search of the communication of a U.S. citizen or legal U.S. resident without probable cause. It is not constitutional to search all international communications, without warrants and without probable cause, as the means to determine if probable cause exists to search the communications. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is clear: "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." The government must have some reasonable basis for directing a search at a particular target, and although a reasonable search does not always require a warrant, probable cause is a prerequisite for any reasonable search of the communication of a U.S. citizen or legal U.S. resident.

[Michale32086]

NOTE: This is a repost from www.chrisweigant.com. References to persons in this post reference discussions on that. If you are curious as to the context, please visit Chris Weigant's site.
=======================================

Since FISA seems to be the soup de jour, allow me to do a repost from down under¦.

As an aside to David.. I'll address the points you made down there, up here.. Since this commentary does have a bearing on the FISA questions¦.

FISA provides authority for warrantless monitoring of foreign communications.

There have been very few cases involving the constitutionality of FISA. 2 lower court decisions, the courts found FISA constitutional. US v. Duggan, defendants were members of the IRA 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir., 1984). They were convicted for various violations regarding the shipment of explosives & firearms. Court held that their compelling considerations of national security in the distinction between the treatment of US citizens and non-resident aliens.

In US v. Nicholson, defendant moved to suppress all evidence gathered under a FISA order. 955 F.Supp. 588 (Va. 1997). The court affirmed the denial of the motion. There the court flatly rejected claims that FISA violated Due process clause of the 5th Amendment, Equal protection, Separation of powers, nor the Right to counsel provided by the 6th Amendment.

CONT

[Dap]

Dear Chris,

If I've said it once, I've said it twenty times, from when I stated commenting here over three years ago now, One must learn to choose their battles wisely, just as Senator Obama has done.

I don't think you listened very well to what Senator Obama said in response to why He voted Yea, on the FISA bill, he said He will take it up in the furture. Retreat... is not defeat, and at this given time it was, and beyond any doubt the better part of valor, for all you HOT headed amatures out there watch...
and learn. :-p TeeHeehe. Agape.

[Michale32086]

You can mark this day as the day Hell froze over..

I agree with DAP. Granted for different reasons, but there is agreement.

I don't believe that Obama was pandering or playing politics. I think he made the best decision for the country based on the facts that HR6304 IS needed..

But I agree with DAP that the most important goal is to insure that in Jan of 2009 we can say hello to President Obama.

Michale.....

Michale.....

[standard]

Exactly right: passing the FISA bill was a strategic retreat, not a meaningful loss.

During the American Revolution, Washington set a reasonably instructive precedent on that score. He led his troops in a retreat from Long Island, across the East River and north, the full length of Manahattan. He thereby ceded the city of New York to the British for the duration of the war. As New York and New England have been under American jurisdiction now for about 220 years, that particular retreat worked out reasonably well, strategically.

Ceding CIVIL prosecution of the telecoms, which this bill did, is ugly BUT it isn't necessarily permanent (the newly-elected Congress can alter the FISA law as early as next spring, if it cares to) and doesn't limit the possibility of CRIMINAL prosecution of the telecoms under an Obama administration (something that wasn't about to occur under Bush).

Obama's vote was no different from a football team ceding the short yardage to their opponents, to cut off their opponents' passing game.

Calling the FISA vote "shameful" is every bit as as wrong-headed as calling withdrawal from Iraq "surrender".

[tommybones]

I'd love for someone who thinks this was a "strategic retreat" to provide a coherent reason why Obama couldn't have stuck to his guns on this one.

Every post in Obama's defense is wrought with errors or misconceptions. Take your post, standard, it contains a fatal flaw:

George W. Bush will grant a blanket CRIMINAL immunity to the telecoms (and therefore to himself) prior to leaving office. Why wouldn't he? Criminal prosecutions weren't a part of this legislation for a reason... because none of the lawbreakers were worried about it, for this obvious reason.

Meanwhile, keeping criminal liability out of the legislation serves a second purpose, it allows for deceptive rumors about "Obama's secret plan to start criminal investigations" to flourish, which provide additional political cover among his own followers, who he sold out in cowardly Washington-Style insider politics.

Additionally, Obama's stated reasons for backing this bill have several misleading and outright deceptive points. Why is that? Is he ignorant? Or lying to you? In either case, why would he deserve a free pass?

[tommybones]

Except he had no reason to retreat at all. Other than that, you've got it.

[bgregs]

The fact of the matter is that Obama didn't have to agree with bush on this one. This would be the same as him deciding that perhaps bush and McBush were right, and we needed to stay in Iraq to keep us safe from the "turrists!" The fact is that this is a battle that he LOST, since the people are TIRED of the bush rhetoric!

[Dap]

Bottom line, the fact of the matter is... when (if ever) ya learn to play Chess in three dimensions, instead of tic, tac, toe, in two, then we may be able to have a well reasoned discourse, ya just don't get it and due to the "Curse of Knowledge" you most likely never will. Oh, and BTW take a chill-pill, sit back, watch and learn as the Masters of the Art do their thing.

[Desiderata]

Due to word-count limitations, this is in two parts.

Those who voted to trash the 4th Amendment, both in the House and the Senate, betrayed this nation.
They are traitors__and St Barack is no exception. The only conceivable reason for Obama to abandon his January pledge to support a fillibuster and spit on the sacred rights of every American is that he wants to retain those spying powers for himself should he become the President of the United States.

An examination of comments archived on my profile page demonstrates my fervent dislike for Hillary Clinton and my equally fervent praise of Obama. But I am no fool, nor am I a lemming so mesmerized that I can't see at last just what great oratory hid from all of us:

We now must recognize that Barack is a liar.

[Michale32086]

Please provide supporting documentation from within HR6304 that justifies your statement that the 4th Amendment has been "trashed"..

I can point to several sections that actually STRENGTHEN the 4th Amendment protections that all Americans have..

I would like to see your cites that support your position.

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

{{{chirp}}} {{{chirp}}} {{{chirp}}}

That's what I thought. Cricket city...

Michale.....

[bgregs]

Really? You can point to provisions that strengthen the 4th? I would LOVE to see that, since you've claimed it for WEEKS now without EVER presenting the "proof"! Please do so, and then we can rip THAT argument to shreds too!!

[Desiderata]

We must now recognize, therefore, that he will treat as just words, as has Bush, the Presidential Oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. If Obama refused to abide by that oath taken as a senator, only a fool can believe he will as President.

We must recognize the grandeur of his arrogance: not yet President, yet set to go to Berlin to address what he believes will be fawning masses. He will do the same in a Billy Graham-like crusade in a hugh stadium of adoring fans who swoon and forgive his every wrong.

'The only thing Obama has to avoid is getting too Leni-Riefenstahl-ish over the presentation."

Think, Mr. Weigant, about your own whispered thought.

A vote for fascism to be forgiven and continued. Addressing the masses of foreign nations. A stadium here to address not just 80,000, but, through global media, the entire world. He is still a senator, not the most powerful man in the world. His image of himself has inflated to that of the meglamanical.

He now frightens me.

[vallon]

No one is a bigger supporter of 'St. Barack' than I am. While I don't like his vote on FISA, I understand it. It was a political calculation, but the bill was going to pass anyway, and he would have given the corporate socialists (also known as Republicans) ammunition to attack him (Obama is trying to get Independent and disaffected Conservative voters on board, after all). As President, with a solid Democrat Congress, he can alter FISA as he sees fit---but he has to win first...

[Desiderata]

Would you now be defending Hillary Clinton had she become the Dem nominee and voted aye to this bill? I would have eagerly.

What evidence does anyone here have that Obama will rectify any of this once he becomes President?

So far, since we got him nominated, he has reversed all his positions. What's next? Iraq?

He used us then discarded us. He lied to us then. He is lying to us now.

[ObserverinVancouver]

Here's ampther article on Sen. McCain's contributions (heh, heh) to GI Bill and the Prez's praise of his contributions:

http://sensico.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/bush-gives-mccain-credit-4-gi-bill-he-opposed/

Gag me with a spoon.

People should keep talking about this. Even if it's a little old it is still gobsmackingly outrageous.

[ObserverinVancouver]

Sorry. Typo. should be "another". Also sorry for double comment. I thought the first one got lost in space. My bad.

[Dap]

We'll let it go... this time, but don't let it happen again! TeeHeehe >:-)

[ObserverinVancouver]

I was away so I don't know how much attention Sen. McCain got for taking credit for the GI Bill and how much attention the Prez got when he praised Sen. McCain's contributions (kudos for total obstruction). See the following:

http://sensico.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/bush-gives-mccain-credit-4-gi-bill-he-opposed/

Even if this has already been hashed to death, it deserves attention.

[anon004]

Chris- Spot on, as usual. I must, with sadness, agree that Senator Obama was the biggest disappointment this week with his FISA vote. I hope for better in the future (and look forward with great anticipation to his speech in Denver). I am also tremendously encouraged by Senator Clinton's vote. Now that she's not running for president any more (and has hopefully jettisoned all those awful DLC advisors), could we have a "Lioness of the Senate" in the making?

[kevinem2]

I enjoyed this very much, but since you implied this is the latest in an ongoing series, how does one get to read previous posts?

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

kevinem2 -

Thanks for the kind words. You can either click the "full archives" link at the bottom of the article, or just type into your browser: www.fridaytalkingpoints.com

That will take you to a full archives of these columns.

-CW