Back-Talking Barack: The Influence of MyBO FISA Group & Netroots Nation

In this week's Wilshire & Washington show, Dr. Karen North, Director of the Annenberg Program on Online Communities at the University of Southern California, stops by to talk about online engagement in this election and how the user-made anti-FISA group on My.BarackObama.com is the way of the future. The day's news items include: this week's controversial New Yorker cover, Newsweek's cover on Obama's faith, and the buzz coming out of Austin from this year's Netroots Nation.

Wilshire & Washington, the weekly Blog Talk Radio program that explores the intersection of politics, entertainment, and new media, features co-hosts Ted Johnson, Managing Editor of Variety; conservative blogger Teresa Valdez Klein (www.teresacentric.com), and liberal blogger Maegan Carberry (www.maegancarberry.com). The show airs every Wednesday at 7:30am PST on BlogTalkRadio.com.

Comments

[UnknownSoldier]

Its funny how people talk about the 4th Amendment, but haven't read it. The 4th Amendment is not a right to privacy. If the gov't gets a warrant it can listen to your private conversations if they are criminal in nature. Bush was not getting the warrant, the new FISA law forces Bush to get a warrant, and Obama voted for that.

[BlaineKinsey]

I have read the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and you are wrong about the applicability and effect of the amendments to Section 702 of Title VII in the new FISA legislation. Section 702(b) states that the government "may not intentionally target" a U.S. person or a person inside the the U.S., and Section 702(c)(4) states: "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) states that the Attorney General 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." Subsection 702(g)(4) states: "A certification made under this subsection is not required to identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property at which an acquisition authorized under subsection (a) will be directed or conducted." These sections are crafted to allow the government to engage in electronic surveillance (without specific targets and without warrants and without probable cause) of most international communications of U.S. citizens and legal U.S. residents in many situations that require warrants under the Fourth Amendment.

[WWWexler]

Barack Obama's big problem is that he talks the "change" talk but he walks the "same" walk.

FISA should have NEVER been made law in the first place. It provides a mechanism to allow the government to violate the 4th Amendment.

Obama knows that. Why isn't he saying it?

It's because he's the same, not change. It's for the same reason he laments about health care but opposes universal care, he just wants to make the current system more "affordable". He'll take money out of your left pocket and give it to you so you can put it in your right pocket and then go downtown to buy health insurance... from the same, dirty, scheming health insurance companies that are skimming billions off the top for... what? So they can tell doctors how to treat their patients?

How about Iraq? He says he has to talk to the commanders on the ground before he can make any policy decisions about Iraq. Where have we heard that before? (Hint: GWB).

Or the middle east. His speech to AIPAC should be a national embarrassment. No change there, he's the same as Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, and all the rest. The US government won't deal with the peaceful elements in Gaza and Israel, who are the majority, they only deal with the 25% of Israelis who are hardliners and want to maintain a military solution to everything. NO CHANGE THERE.

-Wexler

[Heaphy]

You sound just like those folks who argued in 2000 that George W. Bush and Al Gore were exactly the same. Then, they voted for Ralph Nader and helped hand the presidency to W. Wait, maybe you WERE one of those folks. You are a halfway decent writer, but I'm sorry, you haven't convinced me that Barack Obama is just like John McCain. Luckily, you won't convince the American people either.
- Jim Heaphy

[Titonwan]

Better think that one over again. I'm not going on cheap talk. Action speaks louder than words and Barack (and the rest of the Democrats except a lousy 15) failed miserably on FISA. He was just covering for crooks, but still. Talk is CHEAP.

[tjntn]

Karen North spends much of the FISA discussion time, after admitting she is not an expert on FISA, speculating that there might be some less than obvious part of the bill that explains the democrats support it and there may be behind the scenes negotiations or nuances that we are not privy to. Well, the bill is out there for everyone to read (and yes, I've read it) and its pretty straight-forward as these things go. If there are negotiations that we aren't privy to, why aren't we? A little transparency in our government is long overdue.

If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, there is a high probability its a duck. Obama is simply trying to look tough on terrorism by supporting a bill he once opposed so he will appeal to the undecided moderate right. Flip-flops for strictly political reasons are nothing new but a lot of us had hoped for more from Obama. He has my vote but no longer will he get my money.

[egal]

Actually, Obama opposed the previous versions for very specific and explicit reasons. The newer version still has its foibles, and if we had any other president, it might not be so dangerous to let FISA lapse entirely for a few months. But, imagine our current president, with all he's done just by ignoring FISA, and how he would act if we let the old FISA lapse without a replacement.

He would do all he has done illegally, but there would be no law to hold him responsible for breaking, no court to challenge or judge him, no guidelines to limit his actions, and no recourse for stopping or punishing him and those (telecoms) who have abetted his unlawful actions and merit punishment we would have no way of dealing without FISA's court.

Hopefully, this FISA will yet be stripped of the immunity; but at least we have a version of FISA with minimal objectionable content so there will be some framework by which to restrict Bush's endterm "short-timer's" damage-dealing. With the slim Democratic majority, it's likely they wouldn't be able to get a better version passed for the interim before Bush is out of office.

At worst, when we bring legal case against him, we should override the immunity to make the point that unlawful orders for criminal acts must be rejected, or punished if followed--especially given by a megalomaniac who desires to destroy the checks and balances and Constitution integral to our nation.

[nippersdad]

FISA itself was not due to lapse, but a previously passed and dubiously protective amendment to the law. We were in no danger.

[SpoxLogic]

My question to all the newly formed anti-FISA groups is:

Where were you before Sen Obama came onto the scene? Where was all the outrage for the otehr versions of FISA?

Are you also pressuring all the other Dem and GOP senators tah voted for FISA? Are you also holding them to the same high standards as you seem to be placing on Sen Obama?

Now all of a sudden you are holding Sen Obama responsible for FISA!? Seems you are putting WAY too much on the man's shoulders.

Question you have to ask yourselves - is it fair. Considering your lack of vehemence with the other Congress people and lack of vehemence on the other versions of FISA.

[Lemeritus]

Just a reminder: This man upon whose shoulders it seems to you that "WAY too much" is being put is running to be President of the United States.

No one is holding Obama responsible for FISA, SpoxLogic; many of us are just holding him responsible to his commitment to oppose FISA -- a commitment he felt important enough to make because so many of us have been working to oppose any FISA amendment that would confer retroactive immunity and give the government more power without more accountabili

I think you do an injustice to those who have called and written their Congress people, donated time and money to organizations and office holders who promised to work against this assault on the 4th Amendment long before Obama became a viable candidate. Thanks to Obama, more people than ever are awake and aware of their power in the political process. This would seem to be a double-edged sword, but I'm glad to see a new commitment not just to bumber-sticker politics but to real engagement on issues.

[DuPageDem]

Because Pelosi and Reid have proved themselves worthless, on everything. The '06 election changed nothing.

Because Obama, as presumptive nominee, is leader of the party, and said he was about "Change." The FISA vote was his time and place to lead. Instead, he proved himself just as worthless as Pelosi and Reid.

The Obama Kool-aid drinkers may find that peachy, but many others do not.

[egal]

It was there. The outrage--all along, never hidden, but also never given any due. But we finally have an audience we believe both CAN and IS WILLING to listen and make changes. It's not particularly productive to do things like only express outrage toward the spineless actions of the Dems without ranting so much about the Reps, yes. But the truth is that we KNOW the Republicans will not do what is best for this nation, will not follow the people's will, and don't have any qualms burning the Constitution in effigy.

There was at least--once upon a time, in our minds--a chance the Dems would (when they could) act on behalf of their nation, weren't too selfish and stupid to see how bad it is to let private corporations own our government. And now that they've proven they can't and/or won't, many of us have turned to petitioning Obama, who at this point still maintains an appearance of transpareny and responsiveness thatenables hope he will serve the nation's needs.

For some, this form of expression is action taken, because they send their discontent to someone who may listen and may consider such things in his decision-making. For others, it's simply a way to add to the voices so there is some grasp of how important the issues are. And for still others, Obama represents the tenuous hope thatour country can be a better democracy and republic, but only if we raise our voices.

[BassMonk]

FISA was perfectly adequate before W decided he would ignore it. There was no need to revise it.