Turley on Countdown: " I am completely astonished by Sen. Obama's stance on FISA"

[chimpymustgo]

Turley says the Dems INSULT us by calling it a compromise that is nothing but a CAVE-IN. He likened it to when a person gets attacked in broad daylight, but no one comes to their defense. Adds, we will lose something very imporanat tomorrow - a part of the 4th Amendment.

This is a shameful time in our history.

[fascisthunter]

1. People in this Country Gave Away their Rights

out of fear

[chimpymustgo]

2. It's not fear. It's complacency. Our leaders have sold us down the river. What can we do?

[redstate_democrat]

4. I didn't give away my rights. They are being taken from me in broad daylight.

[fascisthunter]

6. true

I was being too general.

[debbierlus]

9. But, where are we. Where are the throngs in the street?

e-mail petitions & phone calls apparently are meaningless given the MILLIONS who have expressed their opposition.

[fascisthunter]

12. we are at a cross roads...

tough decisions for everyone to make...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. Disregard

Posted in the wrong spot.

[Doctor_J]

57. We were at the cross roads in Dec 2000.

when Delay's terrorists in Palm Beach were not machine-gunned or hauled off to prison when they stormed the recount, the game was over, or, in your words, we went down the road to fascism. We'll never get the country back now without WW III.

[rucognizant]

47. My street..........

Has a population of about 6 nearby!
The Town has only 1,200! State Capital & Biggest town are 3 hours drive away.....
Washington DC is 700 miles away!
My 25 year old car needs some critical repairs before I can use it!
That's why I am not in the street!
( just read in the local paper this AM our county, Wash. CO Maine, has 16.1 unemployment! And the life expectancy for WOman is dropping!)

[MarjorieG]

3. I expect all the people who focus on this to descend here. Steny Hoyer probably made deals.

We can blame him for preventing election reform with his disability lobby connection, the leadreship of which is in league with the vendors.

This is what we're up against, and empowering Obama, and with electing a more responsive Congress is paramount.

I add that I've heard pro FISA comments from people who are not in the pocket, or in politics. That having a court is better than not.

[RedLetterRev]

62. According to OpenSecrets.org

Hoyer is the second highest recipient of telecommunications bounty. Of course he made deals and lined his pocket with him. Given his prior record, the instant he became majority leader it was clear that House for Sale would continue much as it had under the Republics. The Constitution? As the Monkey King said, "it's just a g/d piece of paper". QED, the Pelosi House agrees.

Throughout history, one truth has amply been demonstrated time and time over: once a right has been rescinded or given away, it is never returned without a bloody fight. I do think that the only thing slowing down the onslaught of an overt, all-at-once overthrow of the Constitution is the fact that we still have an armed populace. At the rate at which the integuments of the Bill of Rights are falling, it won't be long until that, too, will be a thing of the past. I do often wonder, however, how long the Second Amendment shell-game is going to last. What good is a handgun against the promise that they'll nuke a city a day until the rest of us succumb?

As much as I hate to sound like a pessimest, given the demonstrations of the last 7 years, I absolutely would not put it past BushCo and I would not put it past certain DINOs to cheer them on.

[Peregrine Took]

5. I really respect Turley's opinion. Houston, I think we have a problem. n/t

[TBF]

18. Yes, Houston agrees.

Well, at least this dem in Houston agrees. Turley is a well-respected constitutional lawyer and he has a problem with it. That should make everyone on this board nervous.

[glitch]

34. Ground Control to Major Tom...

we're on our own.

[midnight]

7. I can't agree more.

"Astonished by Sen. Obama's stance on FISA"

[debbierlus]

8. I agree with Turley wholeheartedly.

This was a VERY important test for Obama, and I am extremely disappointed in his complete lack of leadership on this crucial issue.

[chimpymustgo]

11. That's what is so baffling and infuriating. Stand up and lead, man! This is a HOMERUN

as a issue. It's not about left and right - it's about right an WRONG! The Constitution! Show us some CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!

[MissDeeds]

45. Exactly right

Words are meaningless unless they are backed up by action. Obama has made a pretty hard case for "change" - now is the time to implement it, if he is truly committed to it. He can take a stand. He can back up his words with actions. Or not.

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. It all points to the same thing.

They're hiding something.

[Canuckistanian]

13. B..But Randi Rhodes said this wasn't a big deal!

She said that Obama was forced to accept the deal because it gets the FISA Court back to issuing warrants because certain deadlines in the PAA are due to expire this summer.

And it only grants immunity to civil lawsuits, not CRIMINAL charges, so no biggie.

Does anyone else think it's no big deal?

[Donna Zen]

14. Obama voted "no" on the bill that produced those PAAs

They were collected without protection. Let them expire.

[Canuckistanian]

20. That's what I've been saying all along, DO NOTHING

If PAA expires, then it GOES BACK to the original FISA statutes.

And as bad as they were in the first place, the FISA statutes at least provided full judicial oversight, however minimum. They protected 4th Amendment rights from total oblivion.

[MarjorieG]

15. I know there is a lot of heated rhetoric and ACLU purity, but Smith on Abrams says bill better.

Telecoms has always had court immunity, for years, so retroactive immunity not an issue. Rules of the court an improvement and necessary.

I wish the left would begin understanding issues fully and politically before causing one commotion after another.

[chimpymustgo]

17. Adam Smith was AWFUL - so clearly selling snake oil. He didn't pass the smell test.

[Canuckistanian]

19. Your post makes no sense to me

"Court has always had immunity" - :wtf: COURTS RULE on crimes, they aren't the accused here.

"Rules of the court an improvement and necessary." - How is this bill an improvement on the original FISA Act? Be specific.

"I wish the left would begin understanding issues fully and politically before causing one commotion after another." - 'Scuse me? Are you in the wrong place here?

[MarjorieG]

21. just edited, wrote quickly

Really tired of the fixation on this, if a minor step forward and leadership made this choice. He's not president yet.

People other than Smith and not in government-that guy in NYT today and a former Nixon enemy-had a different take.

[TBF]

23. You're tired of the fixation on the 4th amendment? Well no worries, dearie, looks

like Congress is going to take that little burden off your shoulders. *presto* Amendment gone.

[MarjorieG]

25. Just sayin' that not all fights are possible, and come out the way we want them.

I'm more substantial than a dearie'

[Canuckistanian]

27. So, Just give up, then?

Go home, pet the dog, kiss the spouse and hope for the best? How's that working out for you?

America wasn't built on "compromises", especially when that "compromise" is complete capitulation to the opponent.

[MarjorieG]

29. This isn't a one to one fight or without consequences for others.

[Bake]

66. I guess the Dems are "keeping their powder dry" ... AGAIN.

Sigh.

Bake

[MarjorieG]

24. No, very much belong here, a vet of many Dem wars. Disagreement doesn't mean I don't belong here.

[Breeze54]

30. WRONG!!!!! -- It's "Compromising the Constitution" !

Compromising the Constitution

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08tue1.html?hp

Published: July 8, 2008

Congress has been far too compliant as President Bush undermined the Bill of Rights and the balance of powers. It now has a chance to undo some of that damage — if it has the courage and good sense to stand up to the White House and for the Constitution.

The Senate should reject a bill this week that would needlessly expand the government’s ability to spy on Americans and ensure that the country never learns the full extent of President Bush’s unlawful wiretapping.

The bill dangerously weakens the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. Adopted after the abuses of the Watergate and Vietnam eras, the law requires the government to get a warrant to intercept communications between anyone in this country and anyone outside it — and show that it is investigating a foreign power, or the agent of a foreign power, that plans to harm America.

The FISA law created a court to issue those warrants quickly, and over 30 years, the court has approved nearly 20,000 while rejecting perhaps a half-dozen. In any case, the government can wiretap first and get permission later in moments of crisis.

Lawmakers are already justifying their votes for making major changes to that proven regime by saying that the bill is a reasonable compromise that updates FISA technologically and will make it somewhat harder to spy on Americans abroad. But none of that mitigates the bill’s much larger damage. It would make it much easier to spy on Americans at home, reduce the courts’ powers and grant immunity to the companies that turned over Americans’ private communications without a warrant.

It would allow the government to bypass the FISA court and collect large amounts of Americans’ communications without a warrant simply by declaring that it is doing so for reasons of national security. It cuts the vital “foreign power” provision from FISA, never mentions counterterrorism and defines national security so broadly that experts think the term could mean almost anything a president wants it to mean.

Supporters will argue that the new bill still requires a warrant for eavesdropping that “targets” an American. That’s a smokescreen. There is no requirement that the government name any target. The purpose of warrantless eavesdropping could be as vague as listening to all calls to a particular area code in any other country.

The real reason this bill exists is because Mr. Bush decided after 9/11 that he was above the law. When The Times disclosed his warrantless eavesdropping, Mr. Bush demanded that Congress legalize it after the fact. The White House scared Congress into doing that last year, with a one-year bill that shredded FISA’s protections. Democratic lawmakers promised to fix it this year.

Democratic Senators Patrick Leahy, Russ Feingold, Christopher Dodd and Jeff Bingaman plan to offer amendments to do that, but there is little chance they will pass. The Senate should reject this bill and start over with modest legislation that makes the small needed changes and preserves Americans’ fundamental protections.

Senator John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee for president, has supported the weakening of FISA.

Senator Barack Obama vowed in January (when he was still fighting for the Democratic nomination) that he would filibuster against immunity. Now he says he will vote for an “imperfect” bill and fix it if he wins.

Sound familiar?

Proponents of the FISA deal say companies should not be “punished” for cooperating with the government. That’s Washington-speak for a cover-up. The purpose of withholding immunity is not to punish but to preserve the only chance of unearthing the details of Mr. Bush’s outlaw eavesdropping. Only a few senators, by the way, know just what those companies did.

Restoring some of the protections taken away by an earlier law while creating new loopholes in the Constitution is not a compromise.

It is a failure of leadership.

[AntiFascist]

39. I listened to the Senators on the floor of the Senate who were arguing against telecom immunity...

and it is a VERY big deal and sets a very bad precedent. In the words of Senator Dodd, "Where the rule of law ends the rule of tyranny begins," and he was quoting Margarat Thatcher of all people.

[retread]

42. ACLU purity!!!!! (Alarm bells go off.) n/t

[katandmoon]

61. I go by what Glenn Greenwald says

[Canuckistanian]

73. So do I.

It's required daily reading for me.

[OwnedByFerrets]

51. She isnt always right, and I would listen to

a constitutional scholar before I would a talk show host.

[Canuckistanian]

53. I respect her knowledge of subjects

But I DON'T always respect her analysis.

And in this case, she's dead wrong.

[bertman]

59. Canuckistanian, Turley said that is pure and simple bullshit obfuscation.

FISA provides everything we need. PAA can expire and have no negative effect whatsoever.

We are being bullshitted on a megascale by our so-called Democratic representatives and Senators.

What's worse is that they're trying to tell us it holds Bush to a higher standard, when, in fact, it gives him more freedom for warrantless searches with NO OVERSIGHT whatsoever.


This is beyond belief. As someone said earlier, this would have been a home run for Obama. He could have knocked McAnus' anus out of the race with this one. But he caved.

Change..!!?? My ASS!! This is the same old shit.

I like the take to the streets meme.

[katandmoon]

63. LOL - remember what Randi Rhodes called Hillary Clinton?

Then let's say Hillary Clinton was now the presumptive nominee and that she flipflopped on FISA as Obama has.

Rhodes would eviscerate her.

[NorthCarolina]

22. I agree with Turley, but apparently protecting our rights are secondary to political expedience

during a political campaign season.

[MarjorieG]

26. Seems like a righteous and noble stand. Could we please get to electing the man first

[depakid]

41. So what's the political expedience- ESPECIALLY in an election year

of betraying the constitution and the oathes they swore to defend it in order to hand a victory to a profoundly unpopular pResident and his far right supporters?

From every angle I can see (oher than blackmail or the promise of corrupt money) this move has ZERO politcal benefit to either Obama or the Democratic party.

Congress is already at SINGLE DIGIT approval ratings for their cowardice and complicity over the last year- yet apparently, that's not low enough for this bunch.

[mod mom]

28. Please post this video when it becomes available. I am an active Obama volunteer but am SICK

over this stance.

ALL I WANT IS RULE OF LAW AND TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION! :mad:

[Marie26]

32. Here you go:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dotDveXReM8

[mod mom]

44. thank you!

[Catherina]

31. I'm just as astonishied and very disappointed.

I knew Obama was going to disappoint us but I had no idea he'd move this fast.

All the Bush crimes will become established precedent and the example is set that future US administrations may regard obeying the Constitution as optional.

The constitution specifically forbids retroactive legislation (Article 1, Section 9). This bill is yet another violation of the constitution.

[MasonJar]

33. I wish everyone could have seen Turley on Countdown, especially

our Congress. Jonathan Turley is a Constitutional scholar and law professor and he thinks that the FISA bill is giving away a chunk of the Fourth Amendment. We never get anything back. How can we expect to this time with the majority of dems and our own presidential candidate voting for it? If this bill is challenged all the way to the Supreme Court, look who we have there to consider its legitimacy. I am disgusted with the dems right NOW.

[inna]

35. LINK?? please??? nt

[Blue_In_AK]

36. Here you go.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dotDveXReM8

[inna]

37. thank you, thank you! (for the great link)

as far as i'm concerned, KO should retire and have Rachel permanently replace him.

she F*CKING ROCKS, and i think she's more brilliant, talented, brave, and professional, any way. (and more progressive, too. imo.)

[Blue_In_AK]

38. I like Rachel a lot, too.

I got a little burnt out on Keith during the primaries, but Rachel is always a breath of fresh air.

[Justitia]

40. Refresh my memory - why again did Turley support the impeachment of Bill Clinton? On what basis?

I'm trying to remember the constitutional arguments he made in favor of impeachment at the time.

[merh]

43. LOL

:thumbsup:

[H2O Man]

49. Thank you.

Very important point.

[mod mom]

58. Lying REPEATEDLY under oath (here is Turley's own words):

Bill Clinton and the Blanche DeBois Defense
Published 1, August 22, 2007
Published March 18, 2002

Like Blanche DuBois in A Streetcar Named Desire, former President William Jefferson Clinton is someone that has “always depended on the kindness of strangers.” This certainly seems to be the case with Independent Counsel Robert Ray who, back in January 2001, cut Clinton a deal to avoid criminal charges in the Lewinsky matter. Now, with the release of his final report, it turns out that career prosecutors in the Ray’s office concluded that Clinton could not only be charged on the evidence but could have been convicted on the basis of that evidence. What is most troubling is that the report seems to confirm Clinton’s belief that his position, and not the evidence, would dictate the outcome of any criminal investigation.

For most every felon, there is a certain calculus of risk. With the exception of crimes of passion or insanity, most criminals balance the likelihood of detection and the severity of punishment in any criminal act. For Clinton, this basic formula was different from the outset. Clinton knew that it was not simply the likelihood of detection but the likelihood of prosecution that was most relevant in any criminal investigation. From the outset, Clinton appeared too popular to impeach or to indict. Given the evidence in Ray’s report, Clinton appears entirely in that calculation.

The basis of criminal charges against Clinton is widely known. There is no question that Clinton lied under oath a fact that he ultimately admitted to in his deal with Ray. Even before this admission, however, the record was abundantly clear. Judge Susan Webber Wright in the Paula Jones case found Clinton in contempt on the basis that he intentionally lied under oath and obstructed a federal case. The Arkansas Supreme Court stripped Clinton of his license based on this misconduct.

It hardly took Oliver Wendell Holmes to see the basis for such decisions. Clinton lied repeatedly under oath about never being alone with Lewinsky; he lied when he stated that he did not have a sexual affair or relations with Lewinsky; and he lied when swore that her affidavit denying any sexual relationship was true. He then repeated false testimony before a federal grand jury and later lied about his efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses like Betty Curry.

-snip

http://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/22/bill-clinton-and-the-blanche-debois-defense/

NOTE: all though this doesn't appear to equal the crimes of the current administration, it is no less a serious offense.

[H2O Man]

68. Actually, it is far

"less a serious offense." The best explanation of the difference between lying under oath in a manner that should result in a charge of perjury, versus what most courts tend to overlook, is found in Vincent Bugliosi's "The Betrayal of America." It has to do with the motive for lying: if a person lies to cover up a crime, or to avoid legal responsibilities in civil court, it should result in perjury. When a person lies about something that isn't criminal, and has no actual bearing on a civil case, Bugliosi notes he is only aware of one other time in US history (besides Clinton) when it resulted in a perjury charge.

I am not saying that I think Bill Clinton is an upstanding fellow in his personal life. But his "crime" was to engage in behavior that thousands of common citizens do, and lie about it the same way thousands of people lie about it. Bush and Cheney, on the other hand, have told lies that have led to the death of thousands of common citizens. I think that this is far more serious.

[guruoo]

72. Only offense here is Clinton choosing not to envoke executive privilege - n/t

[Ghost of Tom Joad]

46. Turley fascinates me

Would he be a good supreme court justice? I'm not sure of his politics but every time I hear him he seems to know his Constitution.

[slinkerwink]

48. we already lost the 4th amendment under the Patriot Act

[bunnies]

52. Nobody cares.

Back to ridiculing Obama! :eyes:

[dionysus]

56. there's a lot of not so subtle hiding behind the constructive criticism clause, isn't there?

this is very concerning.

[OwnedByFerrets]

50. It is Truly a Shameful time to be American....

;(

[SeaLyons]

54. I'm astonished too, and it is

indeed SHAMEFUL!!!!

[dionysus]

55. FISA, the last refuge for those who are concerned...

:eyes:

[Skittles]

78. it kills me how you can say something that stupid

and have RJK as your avatar - it's a fucking DISGRACE :thumsdown:

[dionysus]

79. gee, thanks. to center this election on FISA would be a monumentally dumb political move.

and you have bashed Obama and his DU supporters ad nauseum so forgive me if i can't take you seriously...

[Freddie Stubbs]

60. Even Constitutional scholars can disagree

[MarjorieG]

69. And scholars can be ivory tower academics. Turley doesn't see the best we can get attitude.

[katty]

64. Luv Turley - calling it like it IS

[Kokonoe]

65. If you do not support Obama, you supportMcCain.

My tooth aches, but I'm starving.

Support Obama and you can fix your tooth.

[shagsak]

67. True

but that doesn't mean that peoples concerns can be swept under the rug. I have the feeling that if a loud enough noise is made, Obama will hear it.

[Skittles]

77. do you even KNOW how fucking foolish you sound? n/t

[Kokonoe]

80. Yes, but unless Obama is president, his positions

will not be so concerning. lets just get him elected.

[disndat]

70. What awful next for Obama?

He made noises during the campaign that he would follow the Reagan model, then he backs down on this Fisa promise, now he 'promises' never to use his children for campaign purposes. Very troubling It just looks to me that he is going to cave in to big money. There is no guarantee that he will choose the liberal or moderate people for Supreme Court either. The problem is he is a shoo-in to the WH and may turn out to be another stooge for big corporations..

[Seabiscuit]

71. This immunity bill is for crooks, forget the nation of laws b.s. our dems today

have "Caved IN". I'm not surprised about Obama voting for it, he's seriously confused about what he wants.

[Towlie]

74. I can sense something beginning to fade.

[emald]

75. shameful is not a strong enough word

I can't find the words to state how ugly this is. Our once vaunted constitution has been reduced to toilet paper for bushits underside. Looks like institutional greed just might win out over personal freedom. Fuck.

[Skittles]

76. anyone who is astonished by this vote has not been paying attention n/t