home

A Response To Obama's Defense Of The FISA Capitulation

Yesterday, Barack Obama issued a defense of his support for the FISA Capitulation bill. I want to associate myself with the response of Glenn Greenwald:

The new FISA bill that Obama supports vests new categories of warrantless eavesdropping powers in the President (.pdf), and allows the Government, for the first time, to tap physically into U.S. telecommunications networks inside our country with no individual warrant requirement. To claim that this new bill creates "an independent monitor [to] watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people" is truly misleading, since the new FISA bill actually does the opposite -- it frees the Government from exactly that monitoring in all sorts of broad categories.

I also want to associate myself with the words of Justice Louis Brandeis on the subject of liberty:

The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect, that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. . . . Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

. . . Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face.

(Emphasis supplied.) In the Declaration of Independence, among the grievances listed against King George III were:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

. . . He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

. . . He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

. . . For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

. . . For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

The proposed FISA Capitulation suffers from many of the same faults. Glenn Greenwald points us to Joe Galloway's column today on the same subject:

[T]hese bad actors are prepared to set aside your right to privacy — written into the Constitution as a key part of our Bill of Rights — with hardly a nod in the direction of the true patriots who rebelled against an English king and his army to guarantee those rights.

That they will do this while the last empty phrases of the political windbags at the Fourth of July celebrations are still echoing across a thousand city parks and the bright red, white and blue bunting and blizzard of American flags still flap in the breeze is little short of breath-taking.

How dare they?

We can not remain silent to these abuses. As citizens, we must speak out against the FISA Capitulation. Those who would put candidate before principle here shame themselves.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Morning Holiday Music: Jimi Hendrix, Star Spangled Banner | Jesse Helms Is Dead >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Bravo (5.00 / 11) (#1)
    by nellre on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:52:12 AM EST
    To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.
    Abraham Lincoln



    Great post. To all of the people (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by zfran on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:56:00 AM EST
    who do not care that the gov't can spy on you without any cause, or any eye watching over them, and you excuse it because you say you have nothing to hide, perhaps need to re-read the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Also recommended reading is "1984." Big Brother is watching. I want a president who stands up for us, not him!!

    This post made me actually tear up--frustration at (5.00 / 8) (#33)
    by jawbone on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:20:51 AM EST
    Obama's attitudes and words. What is he thinking???

    I know, I know: Just words. But, wow, he throws things out without giving any indication of truly thinking things through. Or if he has, he hasn't made his underlying principles made known to us, his audience and voters. It is also similar to BushBoy's attitude: It's transparently false, or illogical, and he dares us to criticize him! Which he won't listen anyway.

    But his cavalier, sophomoric rationalizations, followed by Greenwald's clear laying down of facts and then Justice Brandeis's words--it was too much.  

    I don't want this jejeune senatorial newbie as my president. I also don't want McCain.

    How did we get into this terrible choice?Again, BTD, excellent post, good catches on both quotes, well put and all that. Thnx.

    Even if you did mess up my holiday mood....

    Parent

    Three Cheers for BTD and what an appropriate (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by athyrio on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:58:02 AM EST
    post for the 4th of July....As American citizens we cannot stand by and watch our constitution endangered any further no matter the candidate...Thanks for your post BTD...

    Don't forget to thank (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by talex on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:00:28 AM EST
    Glen Greenwald who wrote the post.

    Parent
    Glenn wrote a great post (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:03:58 AM EST
    But he did not write this one.

    Parent
    Ghost2 and zfran (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:05:25 AM EST
    Will it now be your practice to insult me in my posts as Talex does?

    Let me know so I can be sure to ignore you.

    In case, you missed it, Talex was insulting me.

    Parent

    I did not insult you (2.00 / 1) (#45)
    by talex on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:44:15 AM EST
    Sometimes readers misinterpret who writes what is in quotes. So I just gave props to Greenwald who you quote often.

    I'm saving a copy of this thread in case I have to show someone how you are trying to slime me unprovoked and how you are trying intimidate other posters by threatening to ignore them. What a fine example you set with such threats.

    Parent

    watch out, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:58:00 AM EST
    Looks like this is going in your permanent record.

    Parent
    Move on (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:57:05 AM EST
    The thread speaks for itself.

    It will not disappear.

    Move on to another thread.

    NOW.

    I have asked you to be more civil. You refuse. If this continues, I will ask Jeralyn to take action.

    Parent

    I have not been uncivil (none / 0) (#56)
    by talex on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:26:39 PM EST
    but you have. To the point of even threatening other posters who have said nothing to you. If you'd like Jeralyn to see that then by all means bring this thread up.

    I don't appreciate your threats and taunts. Nor do I think others do. No do I think Jeralyn will.

    I am simply responding to other posters posts with legitimate responses. This last one was in response to you chattering about me and accusing me of insulting you. I did not - and I have a right to respond to false accusations.

    You are the one who is making this personal for who knows why? I'm simply responding to what is posted. Id I were you I'd listen to  dws3665 below.

    Now leave me alone and please quit picking on me .

    Parent

    BTD, if you read my posts, they (none / 0) (#21)
    by zfran on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:08:40 AM EST
    usually agree with you. I find you fascinating and enlightening. It was not my intent to insult you, please do not ignore me. I may have misread what I was responding to, and I shall re-read. Please take me at my word.

    Parent
    You misread the comment you were responding to (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:12:05 AM EST
    I suggest you reread it.

    Parent
    ASDF (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by talex on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:58:18 AM EST
    "Those who would put candidate before principle here shame themselves."

    So are you off the Obama bandwagon and will not vote for him?

    If so, welcome to the club.

    If not, shame on you.

    Just what I wanted to ask BTD. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by ghost2 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:00:34 AM EST
    When is enough enough?

    Parent
    False Argunment (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by talex on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:10:00 AM EST
    I doubt that many here who will not vote for Obama are going to vote for McCain. Certainly you would never vote for McCain, nor would I.

    But the question to you still remains - as ghost2 put it...

    "When is enough enough [for you]?"

    Are you off the Obama bandwagon and will not vote for him? Or are you still putting candidate before principle?

    Parent

    Chattering is prohibited (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:11:28 AM EST
    Move on to another thread.

    Parent
    Is that the only argument (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by my opinion on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:29:27 AM EST
    left to support Obama? I have seen it a lot lately and that is an argument that allows Obama to say anything without consequence.

    Parent
    I was looking at (none / 0) (#71)
    by Grace on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:21:44 PM EST
    Vote-smart.org yesterday.  I don't look at that site very often unless it's an election year.  Anyway, there was a big huge list of people running for President.  I'm not sure if they are write-ins or what, but it was a long list of maybe 100 names.  (Albert Gore was even on it, though I think he was listed as "pending" or "possibly" or some "p" word like that.)

    There are other people we can vote for besides the ones who get all the publicity.  (Too bad we don't know who most of them are...)

    Democracy lives!  
     

    Parent

    Why? (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Lahdee on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:00:24 AM EST
    I read all the reasons stated for supporting this version of FISA, strength, National Security, etc., but I genuinely do not understand why Obama supports such a travesty?
    And could someone also tell me why his statement has engendered such a ho hum response? He tells his supporters, tough, get over it, too bad so sad and they just roll over. What the hay?  

    To Obama supporters: (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by my opinion on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:00:55 AM EST
    What are your limits to supporting him? Do you have limits? Have your limits changed?

    I'd really like the answer to this question (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:10:44 PM EST
    Serfs gave their lives iwhen their Lords (none / 0) (#66)
    by pluege on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:41:50 PM EST
    demanded, who in turn abused the Serfs mercilessly.

    Parent
    From what I have read (none / 0) (#80)
    by vigkat on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:37:45 PM EST
    around the blogs, the most alarming response is, to paraphrase: "I don't care about FISA, just forget about it, it's not important.  It's more important to get Obama elected first, and then worry about any FISA problem."  Shocking but true.

    But to be fair, I've also seen comments indicating this is THE deal breaker for erstwhile hardcore Obama supporters, and that if he fails to change his mind on this and does not join the fight against its passage, they no longer will be able to support him.  

    Parent

    I'm (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:01:47 AM EST
    old enough to remember watergate and the outrage that poured out of BOTH parties w/r/t spying on American citizens. What the heck has happened since then? If all it takes is one 9/11 to render civil liberties as tools for terrorists then what happens next time?

    I was watching Shampoo last night (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:07:35 PM EST
    And it takes place the day Nixon was elected President.  Nixon is giving an acceptance speech on the television in the background. And I am listening to his words. I could not believe it. They sound like the words of today. Promises for the people but no delivery.

    Parent
    Outrage at Watergate took years (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:18:27 PM EST
    to finally have impact on a sufficient, sizeable proportion of the public, though, so nothing new.

    Remember, the Watergate break-in happened in June, and despite the months of WaPo -- all by itself and dissed by other media for it -- disclosing story after story of other criminal actions and campaign dirty trick that had gone of for months before that . . . the voters re-elected Nixon in November.

    It took two years for a few brave souls in Congress to finally get sufficient support from colleagues to get Nixon out.  And that only came when those in Congress saw and heard sufficient outrage from the public that had put Nixon back in the White House.

    Just as, despite all that was known by 2004, Bush actually did get more votes and got re-elected, too.  (So I am not at all sanguine for this fall.)

    Parent

    I've been wondering lately (none / 0) (#72)
    by Grace on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:30:14 PM EST
    how people in other countries manage to overthrow their governments?  

    Sometimes, I wish we could just do that here...  Go to Washington and toss them all out and hold new elections for all the seats.  Really mix it up.  Get all new people in all the positions and see if we don't get something better than what we have now.  Get rid of the old "buddy buddy" system.  

    Unfortunately, change in the USA takes a long time.    

    Parent

    i believe there is a new poll out (none / 0) (#109)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:34:23 AM EST
    which says the number of dems supporting mccain has dropped but the support for obama has also dropped. i also wonder why some of the best reviews of american politics is written by foreign journalists. sad!

    Parent
    red face, head bowed! i actually stopped (none / 0) (#111)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:41:29 AM EST
    on my channel surfing last night to watch glenn beck for a few minutes and found myself agreeing with him. sad really! here i am agreeing with beck and wanting to yell at the cave in democrats. who would have thought? anyway he was commenting on how the politicans don't listen and just mouth responses with no real intention to help.

    Parent
    What will be enough? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by lmv on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:14:25 PM EST
    Civil liberties have become tools for the administration (whoever that might be).

    If Obama isn't opposed to this FISA debacle, WHAT WILL HE OPPOSE?  

    Everybody has a core somewhere deep, a set of principles that cannot be compromised.  It's the essence of who we are.  Where is that core for Obama?  Didn't most of the net/left think standing up for Constitution/Bill of Rights was part of Obama's core?  

    Now that we know it's not, we need to ask ourselves this.  What is?  What is a bridge too far for him?  

    Parent

    Marshal law? How about GWB (none / 0) (#13)
    by zfran on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:03:19 AM EST
    doesn't give up the presidency (if an attack is "timed" right)because it would be too dangerous to do so!

    Parent
    FYI (none / 0) (#95)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:39:55 PM EST
    It's martial law...

    Parent
    martial law (none / 0) (#104)
    by weltec2 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:12:04 PM EST
    When Gov. Orville Favis called out the National Guard to prevent Melva Beals and the Little Rock Nine from integrating Central High, President Eisenhauer called out the 101st Airborne to see to it that Brown vs Board of Education was enforced. The 101st poured into that town. It was the US Military defending a Supreme Court decision and it was very impressive.

    If George Bush were forced to declair martial law, he would call out Blackwater like he did in New Orleans. Blackwater is not bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It acknowledges no loyalty to any law. There would be bloodshed and it would be very ugly.

    I'm just glad that so far Bush seems willing to allow there to be an election this November... although Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein have helped the Repugs vote down a paper trail for this election. All Diebold has to do is make it look close.

    Parent

    Lyndon Johnson, 1959 (5.00 / 16) (#11)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:03:18 AM EST
    "You [should] not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered."

    Or, in the case of this bill, (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by tree on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:15:06 AM EST
    the harm it would do even if "properly administered".

    Parent
    Thnx for this quote! Going up on my computer. (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by jawbone on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:25:21 AM EST
    I'm going to use it in emails to our Dem senators. It might mean something to them--can't think of any R's who might fight this, altho' based on their reputations and "words" several ought to. Arlen, Hagel...the Nor'easterners. But, they won't, unless they're given permission to not vote for it due to so many Dems making up for their lost votes.

    Parent
    As the years go by, I (none / 0) (#108)
    by mikeyleigh on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:26:37 AM EST
    miss LBJ more and more.  As a Viet Nam war protestor, that's something I never thought I'd ever say.

    Parent
    It's the 4th of July. (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:08:45 AM EST
    Do you know where YOUR senator is?

    Obama's 1 of 100. The Bill can still be derailed, with 40, or 51, or 60 votes.

    Get on your Senators' pages, or Google, find out where they're appearing today, print out a copy of the bill, ask if they've read it, an df hand 'em a cop;y. Highlighted if there's time.

    It only takes one Senator to stop this bill... (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by jeffhas on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:21:50 AM EST
    There is no way the Dem Congress would put forth this bill without Obama on board.

    If he alone said he was against this bill, they could stall it another 6 months until we have a new President and Senate.... or scuttle it altogether.

    HE ALONE has the power because he is the nominee - who would go against him?... His Campaign?  His money machine?

    I will state clearly that I have been a non-supporter of Obama's.... but this issue is very  important to me.  Even though I felt betrayed by this candidate and my party long before this... if he stopped Telecom Immunity I would line up for him.

    His receding from this issue has just solidified my earlier fears.

    Parent

    Have you called YOUR Senators? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:26:11 AM EST
    If Obama were all-powerful, this wouldn't have come up. No way he wanted to deal with this hot potato.

    Pelosi and Reid weighed some other consideration over Obama's interests. My hunch, the deal with Bush on the Supplemental included linkage to the telco bailout.

    Parent

    For the record... (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by jeffhas on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:34:50 AM EST
    YES... I was all over Senator Feinstein who I have supported quite heavily in the past.

    I contacted her by phone and email to tell her my displeasure with her support of Immunity... I got the most pleasant brush off.... She'll not see my efforts in the future.

    As for Boxer - She was one of 15 that stood up to block it - and I Thank her for that.  I have not been her biggest fan, but she scored points with me on this one.

    Again... it is all well and good for us to contact our Senators and push them - but why should they risk anything? - the nominee has already spoken - he supports the bill... any Senator voting against it risks rebuke from the candidate and his money machine.

    It is all up to Obama now... he alone has the power to stop this - by supporting it - he seals it's passage.

    Parent

    If any of the Amendments gets attached (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:40:42 AM EST
    even Specter's weak one, it goes back to the House.

    My hunch, that Pelolsi rushed it because of bundling with the Supplemental, suggests that she, and the rest of the House Dems, would now feel less pressure to cave.

    Parent

    I don't get (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:17:03 PM EST
    why on current legislature in the Congress, Obama is being given so much power for his support and even his words on anything.

    I don't remember this ever happening before, where the candidate is perceived to be the president and can make or break legislation.
    He has not been inaugurated President and Congress is an independent body of government.  Why is he being given so much power?

    Parent

    He isn't. blogosphere myth. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:21:49 PM EST
    How about simple power of the people... (none / 0) (#69)
    by jeffhas on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:10:50 PM EST
    He got 17 million people to vote for him.  He has the largest Money Machine EVER in Politics.  He got the DNC to relocate to Chicago for God's sake (I bet he fought for that cause).  Do you really think for even one moment that if he came out STRONG against Telecom Immunity that ANYONE (Pelosi, Reid, et al) would go against his wishes?

    No, he is not the President, but he is the NEW LEADER of the Democratic Party, and he has Democratic Capital to expend... apparently he's decided to expend it by reversing his previous statements... isn't that telling?

    Parent

    I don't care for Obama's position (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:22:55 PM EST
    but when you say 17 million voters I think Hillary had about the same, and if she were to speak out and rally the other 17 million, would the party crumble?  Since Obama refuses to protect our right to privacy, I am hoping Hillary will stand up for the other half of the party.

    Parent
    she's not the nominee... (none / 0) (#107)
    by jeffhas on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:09:10 AM EST
    Reid, Pelosi, etc. would just love to stick their finger in her eye - they could care less...

    ... but THE ONE... the selectee - errr nominee... they would cave - they'd have to - he has all teh power now... it's his party now.

    Parent

    YO!! Charlie Schumer! (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by MsExPat on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:07:03 PM EST
    Senator Schumer lives in an apartment building down the street from me. So why mess with email--this morning I strolled down there and yelled up to the windows:

    "Yo Charlie! You better vote no on FISA!"

    And that's how we do things here in Brooklyn.

    Parent

    That's awesom (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:28:25 PM EST
    And what a perfectly appropriate thing to do on 4th of July.

    Parent
    LOL!~ Yeah, that is how we do things (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:11:04 PM EST
    here!

    He's already stated he's against it, thankfully.

    Parent

    Rights once lost are not easily recovered (5.00 / 12) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:12:09 AM EST
    Per Obama's letter yesterday, he has heard the voices speaking out against voting for FISA and has decided to back this legislation anyway. To add insult to injury, he distorts the truth to justify his actions.

    We are getting a very poor return on our investments from Obama and members of the Democratic Party.

    Question to Obama and the Democratic Party: If you will not stand firm to protect Constitutional rights, where will you stand firm? Is there any issue you are unwilling to barter away for perceived political or monetary gain?

     

    Distorting truth to make his rationalization is (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by jawbone on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:28:53 AM EST
    what made me cry, again from frustration, but also sadness that our Democratic standard bearer is such a obvious sophist. He uses words to mislead, besmear, as well as try to bring people to Hope and Change. (But, explain what the Change will be? Fuhgeddaboddit.)

    I expect a new WORM is short time. This WORM is too slimey and stinks too much.

    Parent

    Well said. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:18:59 AM EST
    Very well said.

    A Government of Laws (5.00 / 9) (#36)
    by The Maven on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:23:28 AM EST
    and not a government of men (or women, for that matter).  Galloway's column speaks of "bad actors" on this issue, and there can be no doubt that there are far too many of them.  Senator Obama has asked us, time and again, to trust his judgment, but that merely seeks for us have faith that he is a "good actor".  However, this misses the point entirely -- our civil liberties should not in any way be dependent upon the good intentions of the president or other members of the executive branch.  Rather, they must be self-sustaining, regardless of the views or positions of officeholders.

    No matter how well-intentioned Obama might be, I do not wish to entrust to him -- or to anyone else -- the preservation of our individual or collective liberties.  Personal government is precisely the nature of a king, as the Continental Congress so ably recognized 234 years ago today.  We would be wise to pay heed to their prescience.

    If this compromise bill is meant to (5.00 / 7) (#42)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:31:24 AM EST
    fix the even worse Protect America Act, the PAA was more of a constitutional disaster than we ever imagined.  Isn't PAA the one that got passed in a breathless hurry, right before the summer recess, because there was intelligence "chatter" about possible attacks on the Capitol - or was that another terrible piece of legislation the Dems got suckered into passing?

    The problem isn't just this bill - it's all the bad bills that came before it, and it all started in the days following the 9/11 attacks.

    The only bill that would have improved on the PAA would be one that repealed it altogether.  Okay, so that would never get through this Congress and if it did, would never get signed, so what were the options?

    How about something unusual - like the Democratic leadership, in full control over what comes to the floor and what doesn't, not bringing this sorry-a$$ed bill to the floor?  Maybe not even bringing it out of committee?  That might be a truly revolutionary thing to do, but it takes courage, so I guess it was never an option.

    As for Obama - his inability to grasp the issues at stake and the rights and privileges that hang in the balance make me wonder - and not in a snarky way - how he has any business calling himself a Democrat with a constitutional law background.

    I will not vote for him, and I will not vote for McCain; I will make no choice for president in November if McCain and Obama are the only options.

    i have made a decison. i won't vote (none / 0) (#112)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:44:43 AM EST
    for obama. no surprise there i am sure. will i vote for mccain? i haven't decided. i have actually tried to find reasons to vote for obama. i thought "well after he wins the nomination, we'll see some positions we can support." sadly no! my leaning is to look for a 3rd party candidate. i live in a red state.

    Parent
    I wrote (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:45:49 AM EST
    Both my Senators and informed them that I couldn't and wouldn't support any candidate that didn't uphold their oath of office, to defend the Constitution. Durbin responded that he wouldn't support the FISA bill. Obama didn't respond at all. Neither candidate is acceptable. For the first time in my life, I will not cast a vote in the presidential race.

    Reading through Greenwald's (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:07:09 PM EST
    entire post on the subject, it's impossible to avoid coming to the conclusion that Obama flat-out doesn't understand this bill, the FISA rules or the PAA.

    So who wrote his most recent statement?  Either somebody who also doesn't understand it or somebody who is quite deliberately trying to pull the wool over the public's, and possibly even Obama's, eyes.

    Greenwald convinces me the statement is false and preposterous on its face.

    Why?


    excellent post, thanks... and call to action (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:54:55 PM EST
    I'm writing all of my reps today. I though it would be a good day for it with a July 4 time stamp on the email. I hope everyone will do the same.

    Let us all know if anyone wants to protest in DC (I'm not too far away) or do anything else. I'm up for it. I recommend some sort of fixed post at the top here at TL, or maybe a banner above the posts representing some sort of protest and call to action. This issue is one of the biggest we have, and should be a show stopper for anyone out there who cares about our country and constitution.

    Thanks, BTD: Proud Liberals stand me in good stead (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Ellie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:24:12 PM EST
    ... today. It's good to be reminded of what a shining beacon Brandeis will always be in the fight for justice and progress.

    Fauxgressive poseurs won't win on this sham agenda which has no liberal qualities to it. No matter how finely Obama and crew filigree their bullsh!t to screw more and more people through deliberate fraud, it won't get this Hood Ornament on the Chicago Boss Machine enough votes to "win".

    (They might get into office but it will be dirty, transitory and impeachment WON'T be off the table, no matter who holds the majority.)

    What I don't understand is why (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by imhotep on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:40:55 PM EST
    Obama's supporters are rolling over and taking this.  Obama's position on the bill should be subject to change especially if his advisors have read Greenwald's excellent parsing of the bill.  Obama's advisors would be well advised to notice the firestorm that has broken out since he announced his decision based on very flawed reasoning.  Duped again by Obama is my reaction.  What will happen when he's elected and has to name a Supreme Court justice?  Will he cater to the right on that too?

    More than just telecom immunity (4.90 / 10) (#28)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:13:08 AM EST
    Thank you BTD and Glenn Greenwald for highlighting the 4th amendment issues beyond telecom immunity. You both speak for me as well.

    Since it is the day to quote founding fathers, I give you John Jay:

    Effrontery and arrogance, even in our virtuous and enlightened days, are giving rank and Importance to men whom Wisdom would have left in obscurity.


    I am begging you.... (4.75 / 12) (#15)
    by masslib on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:04:54 AM EST
    stop calling it "capitulation".  Capitulation is a surrender, implying giving up on a belief.  In this case, it seems Obama's belief is that the FISA bill is good law, therefore no surrender.

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:37:06 PM EST
    Seems to me his belief is that the bill is good politics, not necessarily good law.

    Parent
    The point stands. He's is support of the thing. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by masslib on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:48:40 PM EST
    He isn't surrendering.

    Parent
    You're right (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by shoephone on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:16:23 PM EST
    It is not capitulation. It is complicity.

    Parent
    And presumably (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:08:01 AM EST
    you will not for John McCain either as a result.

    at least with McCain... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jeffhas on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:26:36 AM EST
    You knew which way he was going to vote.

    Is there really any difference between the candidates anymore?

    Except for the War Hero, McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy, 'Maverick', 'Straight Talk', gang of 14, knows exactly where he stands parts.

    Parent

    That would be correct... (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:50:28 PM EST
    at least for me.

    I won't vote for either of them.

    Parent

    at this point... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:43:00 PM EST
    I'm not voting for either of them.

    I stepped into the primaries thinking that we had a really good chance.

    Now? I think the word that best describes my position on the GE? Despondent.

    Parent

    i live in a red state so my vote has no (none / 0) (#110)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:36:54 AM EST
    impact. i suppose i could argue that a third party protest vote is viable. i can't and won't vote for nader. i have a long memory about 2000.

    Parent
    7th Amendment question (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:21:56 AM EST
    In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

    Does the Bill's deferral of whether the spying was authorized to a DC Circuit judge violate Plaintiff's Right to trial of facts before a jury? Does it matter that we're looking at Statutory Wiretap Act claims rather than a common law tort?

    Most have focused on Obama in the FISA fight (none / 0) (#61)
    by Belswyn on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:08:20 PM EST
    but really the blame must fall squarely on the shoulders of the Dem leadership. WTF do they think they were doing? Don't they want to put a Dem in the  white house?

    By preserving the status quo ante, there was no issue. By bringing the issue up, they put Obama in a situation where he's got to alienate someone over this issue. The wise move would have been to have let this piece of legislation lie until it could be considered by the next administration.

    It's really hard to get excited about supporting any House Democrat who let things get this far.

    He now is the new leader of the Dem party (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:21:49 PM EST
    that's why.  He even moved the hq to Chicago.  So he ought to be able to move a few minds to filibustering.  But . . . nope.

    Parent
    I agree - I want him to filibuster - but (none / 0) (#73)
    by Belswyn on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:30:45 PM EST
    the point is that him filibustering will give ammunition to the Republicans. It's something of a
    lose-lose. Better for him if the bill had never come up.

    Parent
    That's the truth -- I have yet to see why (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 05:09:20 PM EST
    this bill was pushed now by Pelosi, Reid, et al., although a poster here gave a reason: to get big bucks from the telecom lobbyists.  

    More often, the problem is what our Dems in Congress don't do.  They don't seem to have a handle on anticipating public reaction to know when to hold 'em or know when to fold 'em.

    Parent

    take a look at who is paying a (none / 0) (#113)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:46:35 AM EST
    large part of the convention bill. that would be one hint at the possible reasons for this dissing of the democratic base and actually all americans.

    Parent
    Defending Sen. Obama's FISA support (none / 0) (#67)
    by wurman on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:50:02 PM EST
    "Who will watch the watchers?"

    Big Tent's post of Greenwald's paragraph has a reference: "vests new categories of warrantless eavesdropping powers in the President (.pdf)."  The pdf is not HR 6304; it's the ACLU's objections to the bill.  But . . . even with the ACLU partial explication of the law, a partial list of the watchers can be described.

    Using FISC for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court--ACLU notes (link)

    Under H.R. 6304 the FISC will be able to review three things: 1) the government's certification that it is not intentionally targeting Americans nor purely domestic calls; 2) targeting guidelines; and 3) minimization guidelines.

    The ACLU then states that this is not enough & farther along asserts that this is generalized review & not an "individual" judicial evaluation.

    Then the text points out that the AttyGen must submit "guidelines" to the FISC about the program.  And the AttyGen must also adopt "minimization" procedures.  The ACLU views all of this as inadequate because HR 6304 does not make these operations statutory.  They are developed at the Justice Dept & evaluated by FISC.

    Much farther away in text, the reader discovers that every 6 months the AttyGen must report to the Senate Judiciary & Intelligence Committees on compliance.  And the Inspector General is required to report annually on the number of US citizens both targeted or inadvertantly subjected to surveillance.  The ACLU then argues that all 535 members of congress should be informed.

    Left out of the ACLU objections is a further requirement that the AttyGen must certify to the FISC that each target is legally subject to surveillance & the Director of National Intelligence must also certify that the data sought is germane to US intelligence requirements.

    Who are the watchers then?

    1. The Forgeign Intelligence Surveillance Court
    2. The Attorney General
    3. The Director of National Intelligence
    4. The Senate Judiciary Committee, bi-annually
    5. The Senate Intelligence Committee, bi-annually
    6. The Inspector General of the Justice Dept., on-going with an annual report

    This seems not to be enough reviewing authority for the ACLU.  It is definitely not enough for Greenwald.

    Sen. Obama thinks it is enough "watching."

    As Obama has often said.... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Veracitor on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:00:44 PM EST
    ....he is not a perfect man, nor a perfect candidate.  And if he wins election, he will not be a perfect President.

    However, he's the only person since 1972 that promises to usher in a decade of progressive reform, so I can give him a great deal of leeway in maneuvering the political waters to reach that golden shore.

    The irrational bashing of Obama here is way over the top.

    A decade of progressive reform? (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:05:25 PM EST
    If I believed for a moment that was true I would never say a bad thing about him again.

    But I see no evidence of that whatsoever.

    Parent

    Fine (1.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Veracitor on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:03:29 PM EST
    Keep bashing him and vote for McCain.

    Parent
    That's stupid (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 05:08:55 PM EST
    You say he's going to bring about a decade of progressive politics, someone simply looks for evidence for that, and then just doing that, in and of itself, that's bashing Obama and helping McCain.

    Seems quite the conundrum for me.

    Parent

    This is stupid... (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:46:53 PM EST
    Being critical of the candidate and not having the utmost confidence in that candidate to actually do the "progressive" thing |= being a McCain Voter...nor a Bushlover.

    Your logic is...simplistic and over generalized at best.

    Parent

    What primary did you vote in? (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by lmv on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 05:23:58 PM EST
    Dennis Kucinich?  Chris Dodd?  John Edwards?  

    Oh, and She Who Can't Be Named, of course.

    I supported Hillary because she could have and would have brought a progressive agenda to this country.  Not a loony left agenda, thankfully.  

    Since when did being pro-choice, pro-union and pro-universal healthcare make someone a Republican?  

    Enough of this obsequiousness about Obama.  HE LIED.  YOU WERE DUPED.  HE STANDS FOR ONE THING = OBAMA.

    Parent

    Hillary positions pretty much match Obama's (none / 0) (#88)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 05:35:42 PM EST
    on the issues I care about.

    I don't trust that she would have ushered in a progressive agenda for the country.  Given Pres. Clinton's pardons that may have clinched her NY Senate seat, and given the lack of a progressive agenda in her respresentation of NY for eight years, I don't think she was honest in presenting herself as a presidential candidate.

    Many TL posters say Obama is dishonest or has duped his supporters, but there are as many Democrats who voted for Obama instead of Hillary because they could not trust her.

    So where does that leave us?  A split party forever?

    Parent

    He stands... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Veracitor on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 05:47:19 PM EST
    ...for a better future.  Vote for McCain if you wish.  Obama will be the next President, despite primary dead-enders.

    Parent
    It seems to me (none / 0) (#105)
    by weltec2 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:48:37 PM EST
    that we are here to look at the information that BTD has provided and to analyze and discuss it. I have no intention of voting for McCain, but I do want to keep my eyes open and pay attention to what Obama is doing because there is some chance that (if Diebold should allow it and there is a somewhat fair election) he is going to be the next president.

    I am not here to bash Obama. As with many of the people here, I am a Hillary supporter who may well vote for him. Many of us are divided on this. But I am here to examine his behavior beyond his rhetoric so that I can determine for myself what kind of president he might make.

    Nevertheless, when I see the kinds of things he does, there is frustration and this comes out. And I don't think it's helpful to come to a list like this and demand unquestioned loyalty to Obama. It takes time and energy away from the task at hand, that is to examine the very helpful material that BTD has provided and to analyze it and discuss it.

    Parent

    Excuse me..... (none / 0) (#115)
    by Veracitor on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:57:32 PM EST
    ....if I mistook you for one of the many irrational Obama-bashers here.

    Parent
    My concern with Dems not passing FISA (none / 0) (#77)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:52:02 PM EST
    is that it puts us at risk for a fake terrorist attack.  I don't trust the Bush Administration and/or the financial interests backing the Iraq occupation.  If FISA expires, a small dirty bomb smuggled into a port or small city somewhere in the U.S. would play into the Rovian strategy of blaming the Dems for dragging their feet on FISA and being soft on terror, undermining FSA, etc.  The result would be big losses in Congress and a Republican president.  

    If McCain didn't surge in the polls, Bush could still pull out his continuance of government act and just suspend the November elections.  

    FISA is NOT expiring. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:49:31 PM EST
    There was never anything wrong with the FISA law in place on 9/11, not a thing.

    All these bad bills - the Protect America Act and this lousy FISA compromise - are doing is opening doors and loopholes for the Bush administration - and all administrations that follow - by weakening the constitutional protections contained in the original law.

    If this is your understanding of the FISA issue, you are exactly the person the GOP can scare into accepting the erosion of your constitutionally guaranteed rights.  Given the vast resources at your disposal for finding out the truth on this, your comment is pretty sad.

    I consider what the Bush administration has done, with the complicity and sometimes active assistance of the Democrats, to be far more terrifying than any terrorist acts - real or fake.

    Parent

    Sorry, I should have been more specific (none / 0) (#86)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 05:20:38 PM EST
    If Protect America Act's revisions to FISA expire, the GOP will use the lack of action in Congress against the Dems, painting them as weak on terrorism.

    What about my concerns about a government sponsored attack on Americans with the intent of affecting or stopping the elections?

    Parent

    First post, so be gentle! (none / 0) (#81)
    by Steve Davis on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:41:33 PM EST
    "Those who would put candidate before principle here shame themselves."

    Fine. What is the remedy? Not voting for Obama because the House of Representatives, which he is not a member of, forced FISA up for a vote? Not vote for him because the senate had 81 members vote for cloture, meaning that Obama can't filibuster, nor can Dodd, nor can Biden, nor can Feingold, because the senate has used a parliamentary provision to limit debate?

    If this is your "line in the sand" moment, then your alternative is to vote for McCain, who not only agrees with the FISA provisions, but who has been utterly silent on the steps that HE would take as a president to rein in abuse through his attorney general. You say you would never vote for McCain? Fine. A vote for another candidate, other than Obama, is a vote for McCain. I wish it weren't, but we live in a two-party representative democracy. If you want to vote for the Christian Socialist, move to Germany. It ain't gonna happen here. Voting for Nader is as good as voting for McCain, and Nader's campaign in 2004 was built on Republican money, so even the Republicans--as stupidly cow-faced as Republican politicians are--have figured out that this is a two-party system.

    Don't want to vote for anybody? Hey, that's great. You know what not voting for anyone is called? Slavery. You have one right as a citizen that, as long as you aren't in jail, cannot be taken away from you--the right to vote, and to have your vote count. You don't vote, you voluntarily enter into servitude, because from that moment, no one cares what your opinion is, including the people in power. They know they don't owe you anything.


    You do realize that if McCain wins (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 05:13:46 PM EST
    (aside from who here might vote for him, might not vote at all, and all that usual stuff) -- if McCain wins, then Obama and the Dems will have invested another GOP president with the powers in this bill, the protections for corporate interests, etc.

    Good idea?

    Parent

    Excellent point! (none / 0) (#106)
    by MsExPat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:07:54 AM EST
    Obama's FISA position is based on his assumption that he's going to be the next president.

    That's not what law is about. A constitutional law scholar should know better.

    Parent

    I find that line of thought pretty frightening. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by cigan on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:13:22 PM EST
    It is my right not to vote for anyone if I so choose.  To vote for someone party over country, because you follow the strict party line without a thorough examination of the candidate(s)is also your right, but I would think that is more like slavery.  To exercise your right not to vote for someone or not to vote for anyone is just that, a right, not slavery.

    Parent
    Very well said, Steve (none / 0) (#116)
    by Veracitor on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:22:58 PM EST
    I don't believe most of the anti-Obamas here are really concerned with perfection and purity.  They just use every opportunity they can to vent their anger about the nomination.  If FISA were not an issue, they'd find something else to latch onto - and they do with regularity.  

    Well-intentioned purists are understood as such, and issues of political maneuvering are always up for legitimate analysis.  However, as a newcomer you have to understand that this blog was once a Clinton bastion, and there is still a small, vocal number of denizens that harbor ill will towards Obama simply because they didn't get the candidate of their choice.

    Parent

    and you continue to (none / 0) (#90)
    by cpinva on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 06:25:08 PM EST
    support sen. obama why, exactly, BTD?

    thank goodness va has a write-in option on its ballot, i can vote with a clear conscience.

    "False"? "Misleading"? (none / 0) (#92)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 06:48:09 PM EST
    Greenwald is too polite this time, imo.

    cigan, what is frightening about it? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Steve Davis on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:18:25 PM EST
    You are technically free to live anywhere in this country you wish to, but "technically" and "practically" are two entirely different things. You are being given two practical choices. McCain: avidly supports FISA, the concept of the unitarian president, Guantanamo, torture (voted against forcing the CIA to abide by the Armed Service's field manual in regards to torture), eavesdropping. Believes the SC's decision in regards to habeus corpus for detainees to be the "worst decision in the court's history since Dred Scott," if I remember that right. It might have been Plessy v. Ferguson. Regardless, it pretty much sums up the generally anti-intellectual package that McCain brings to basically every debate.

    Or, you can vote for Obama: grudgingly indicates he'll vote for the FISA bill, though a close reading of his statement indicates that he plans to have his attorney general see if he can't bring administration officials to justice on criminal charges, rather than the telecom industry on civil charges. Frankly, which of those doors would YOU rather see get left open? I personally would happily trade telecom immunity in order to get criminal prosecution of Bush and Cheney. Keep in mind, if the telecom suits move forward, their lawyers will keep a civil suit bottled up so long that it will be a decade before any of this even makes it to trial. The telecoms and the justice department will be getting together every six months or so in order to have the lawyers for AT&T ask for continuances, motions to suppress, motions of this, motions of that. Trust me--I own stock in a company currently being run by a corrupt CEO, and the litigation the company is in with a former partner has been ongoing for four years now.

    Well, sorry. This is long-winded, but there are just so many angles to all of this that I really wish folks worrying about the "death of the fourth amendment" would step back for a moment and try to see that Obama, I think, is trying to set up a scenario where he lets the greased pigs run by him so that he can keep both hands ready for the fat geese waddling by behind them.

    You take on Obama... (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:00:40 PM EST
    appears to be subjective with regards to your interpretations of his positions on this.

    And since you aren't going to get the criminal prosecution of Bush and Cheney from a Congress that took impeachment off the table before the 2006 elections, your giving up telecomm immunity for your fellow citizens is, in my opinion, giving away the farm.

    Parent

    FISA Capitulation (none / 0) (#102)
    by imhotep on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:42:57 PM EST


    Obama and Mccain are two sides of the same coin (none / 0) (#103)
    by NYC26 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:53:29 PM EST
    , and the obama fans continue drinking the Koolaid. The two of them are owned and paid by the Bank elite (NWO), the rockefellers, roschilds, morgans ect. you people better get informed on what's going on here.

    dang i wish finegold had made the run. (none / 0) (#114)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:50:42 AM EST
    now there is a a politcan i could happily support.