Sorry folks. It isn't OKAY that Obama failed us on FISA.

[debbierlus]

It isn't.

It doesn't mean that we should sit out the election or vote McCain. It DOES mean that we have our work cut out for us. Obama isn't a progressive nor did he really ever pretend to be. And, I don't agree with the analysis that he is 'gravatiting center'. I think he is center. He basically mirrors the policy of Clinton, and he leans more conservative then her on health care.

So, what is a progressive democrat to do?

Keep on keeping on. Keep working to get in as many REAL progressives in Senate and Congressional seats as humanly possible. Keep educating the public. Keep protesting. Keep speaking out. And, speak out to OUR leadership when they fail us. It truly is the only thing that seperates us from the Republicans. Silence in the face of such a big failure in our party is a slippery slope into becoming just what we despise.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Sure it is.

He's one senator among some 85 who voted for it. And one of far fewer who tried to remove the immunity section. And none of the people making a big deal about Obama and FISA now are going to have a problem when it comes to re-electing their senator who voted for it, and was against removing the immunity.

[chimpymustgo]

2. He's the LEADER of our party. It is most certainly NOT all right to sell us out and

give away OUR rights.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[debbierlus]

7. The insult was uncalled for...and I strongly beg to differ

THIS is incredibly important.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. If you're going to dish out criticism, you ought be able to take it.

IT'S VERY IMPORTANT1!!1! ZOMG!

[charlyvi]

118. You lumped her in a category-- "Naderesque knee-jerk crybabies"

That was an insult. She has a right to be offended. You can criticize her position without the sarcastic name calling. You know that. She did not call you a name or lump you in an insulting category. What you said went beyond criticizing her on an issue, and she was right to call you on it.

[mkultra]

120. well

here views are naderesque and she does seem to be whining.

[charlyvi]

142. then say that, without name calling.

There's contructive criticism and then there's ad hominum attacking. And I don't think she was whining. As a bleeding heart liberal going back to McGovern, there are ways to disagree without name-calling and stereotyping. The OP's statement is sincerely felt, whether you disagree with it or not. As such, it deserves some respect. Many people think the same way she does. They are not naderesque cry babies. A response that serves no purpose other than to denigrate the opinions of the person you disagree with is not a serious one. It is, in fact, insulting. And useless in bringing anyone around to your point of view.

[mkultra]

182. its speaks more to the general nature of the concern trolls that haunt these boards

perhaps many simply grow tired of the constant bashing of the democratic nominee here.

[charlyvi]

185. I understand. But I don't understand how the OP

was bashing Obama. She disagrees with him, but I don't see the bashing. In my opinion, the reaction was over the top. Don't mean to offend you, but I just don't see it.

[mkultra]

249. perhaps you should read it with a critical eye

"Keep working to get in as many REAL progressives " This is just bashing, not critique or debate.

[Name removed]

177. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[charlyvi]

181. And since you were speaking directly to her post....

which disagrees with Obama's stance, the implication is that she's a naderesque knee-jerk crybaby. Anyone reading your post would infer that. Good try, but no cigar. Your overreactive, very rude, and hyperbolic post style is most definitely your problem.

[charlyvi]

146. Your post is not criticism.

It is hyperbolic ridicule. Her post was a serious one; it did not deserve this response.

[apocalypsehow]

238. I didn't get a gander at the deleted post, but if it was "hyperbolic ridicule" it was spot-on

whatever it said, because that is exactly what this OP deserves: hyperbolic ridicule.

[Joe Fields]

150. Honest differences of opinion are one thing. Withering insults are

a different matter. Surely you know the difference.

[Name removed]

210. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Joe Fields]

220. It's plain to see that you don't care about anything except insulting people.

[Windy]

12. You need to actually read the language of the new bill. It does not give retroactive immunity

and forces the government to get a warrant to surveil both us citizens and home and abroad and further, forces the government to go to the fisa court before surveiling foreign nationals.

You have no right to get so irate when you haven't actually read the bill.

[jgraz]

28. Wow, what bill did you read?

We're talking about H.R. 6304: FISA Amendments Act of 2008, right? Are you sure that's the one you read?

I'm asking because I've read it and it looks like a fucking disaster, both on Telco immunity and (more importantly) on the 4th amendment. Judicial review is no longer required for a wiretap. The Attorney General or the freaking Director of National Intelligence simply have to issue an "authorization" that they are "targeting people reasonably believed to be located outside the United States." They do not need to reveal the target of their surveillance, and the NSA is the sole arbiter of who ends up being spied upon.

Judicial review is limited to simply confirming that the authorization "contains all the required elements." There is no required disclosure of individuals being targeted or the information that is being sought.

Does that sound like the Fourth Amendment that you and I grew up with?


Here's a link to the text of the bill. You may want to take a few minutes to review it.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6304


As far as immunity is concerned, any case against the telecoms "shall be promptly dismissed" if they can show that the president directed them in writing to break the law. In other words: as long as the president gave them a permission slip (which we already know is the case), the companies cannot be sued. Judicial review is not even required for this tissue-thin gimmick: as long as the Attorney General certifies to the court that the companies received the proper authorization under this bill, they have de facto immunity.

Tell me again how this is not retroactive immunity. Here's the EFF's analysis if you need a bit more assistance: http://www.eff.org/files/AnalysisHR6304-v5.pdf

[dailykoff]

69. ^ GOOD SUMMARY ^

How anyone can get on here and claim it's NOT a terrible piece of shit is really hard to fathom.

[Windy]

101. I have read the bill and your summary is not an accurate interpretation.

"targeting people reasonably believed to be located outside the United States" You do realize that in the previous version of the bill and the earlier FISA legislation, there was NO oversight if targeting people living outside of the US don't you?

A warrant is required for wiretapping US citizens. Bush has been conveniently ignoring this requirement. Now that cannot happen.

The immunity granted is based upon the law to be enacted. There is no RETROACTIVE immunity for the telecoms under the Bush administration.
The president must obey the new law as enacted. If he orders a telecom to break the law, they should refuse to comply in the future. Of course, I am not thrilled with this provision either and neither is Obama. The immunity granted in this bill (again it only applies to the bills enactment forward) is for civil immunity only. They can still be criminally prosecuted for violating the law!

FYI... I was informed that Obama will vote yes to the Dodd amendment to attempt to strip that immunity.

[dailykoff]

109. Um, you're flat wrong on all points.

The point of this bill is to (a) make all that illegal spying on citizens legal, (b) make the warrant requirements a joke (now it's a "certificate" requirement), and (c) you're just making shit up about the immunity. Read section 802, the sole purpose of which is to give the AG power to dismiss STANDING lawsuits against the telcos.

[jgraz]

131. Why are you doing this?

Your statements are wrong on their face. They have no bearing on the reality of what is being debated in the Senate today. I've given you a point-by-point rebuttal yet still you insist on toeing the Republican line on this bill, even though, truth be told, the Repugs and the pResident are DELIGHTED with this so-called compromise, stating baldly that they got everything they wanted.

And, if there is no retroactive immunity, why is Bush -- once again-- threatening a veto if the "non-existent" immunity is stricken from the bill?

I just don't what motivates people to come on this board and spread these kinds of falsehoods. :wtf:

[AZ Criminal JD]

153. You are wrong

They can't be criminally prosecuted. To have a criminal case a prosecutor must show intent to break the law. Since the government asked them to do this, that showing can not happen. There will be no criminal prosecution.

[Runcible Spoon]

175. Bush thanks you for such enthusiastic support of his fascist policies!

:eyes:

[RaleighNCDUer]

174. It's not about permission slips - it's about blackmail.

The telecoms were directed to do this - and faced repercussions from the government if they did not comply - like Qwest.

Do you blame the bank teller who hands the money to the bank robber for the robbery?

Telecom immunity is a distraction - a side issue. The real problem is, as you said, the 4th amendment - lack of judicial review.

[AlbertCat]

140. I haven't read it...

....but John Dean has and says it's a lousy bill, poorly written. I'll bet he's right.

[AlbertCat]

143. I would also just like to say....

....have you noticed how the People's take on all this is moot? No one cares what We think or is representing Us or even pretending to. It's like this is an internal affair the "parents" are hatching out and the "children" can butt out because....I dunno?...like we won't "get" it?

The whole thing and many other examples are insulting and disingenuous to the max.

[John Q. Citizen]

167. Obama claims it gives retroactive immunity. Are you accusing him of failing to read the bill?

[shellinaya]

192. Wrong

Gee, I've read the bill. What part of the portion on retroactive immunity takes it back and says, "just kidding!"?

[timzi]

224. NOT TRUE

It forces NOTHING. "W" has successfully demonstrated that he can ignore laws with impunity. So passing another law is an exceptionally lame response. You are wasting your time reading the bill, the wording is not the point.

[jgraz]

16. But... you're in favor of preserving the CONSTITUTION, you Naderesque crybaby,

I suppose next you'll expect us to stop torturing and restore habeas corpus. When will you far-left whiners ever learn?

(Sadly, this now needs the :sarcasm: tag on DU).

[JoFerret]

36. Truth is important.

and not an insult when used in context.

[charlyvi]

169. Labeling someone as a naderesque crybaby is truth?

I would disagree. I would call it a subjective opinion. And an insulting one, at that.

[JoFerret]

217. Blah. Blah

Blah.
(take that as an insult if you wish)

[charlyvi]

233. How articulate.

And childish. I won't take it any way at all, since it's complete jibberish.

[JoFerret]

235. Thank you

Did you mean gibberish?

[charlyvi]

236. Not at all.

Thank you for correcting my spelling, sincerely. By the way, which part are you thanking me for? The articulate part, or the childish part? I think it's probably the childish part.

[JoFerret]

237. I do thank you for your

childishness (it is rather amusing in a limited way) but it's not a big deal.

[paulk]

22. "junior Senator from Illinois"

Get real.

He's our party's presumptive nominee for President and what he does matters.

And I see, as usual with the Obama goon squad, you have to resort to insults in lieu of an argument.

[JoFerret]

38. Is he not also

the junior senator? And does that not sometimes have relevance? Like when he makes callow decisions?

[paulk]

105. it's an easy excuse, I suppose

he's only the junior Senator, afterall...

It's not an excuse that looks so good, though - it kind of fits right in with the "not experienced" attack the republicans will use against him.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

44. Get real yourself, he's been the presumptive nominee for all of 4 weeks

Yeah, more then enough time to organize the House and Senate to fight against this. I guess instead you'd like to see him fall on the sword, and take the hit for our weaksauce Dem. congressional leadership...

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PurityOfEssence]

23. Yeah, well he's gonna learn soon that he can't have it both ways

He's either special and powerful, or he's just some back-bencher; he can't be the former when the sun shines and shrug his shoulders and claim to be the latter when things aren't so rosy.

Some of his supporters seem to think he's god: responsible for all that is good, but not at fault for anything bad. Whether they like it or not, some of us aren't going to just nod and yell out affirmations and "amens" to his every ringing pronouncement, and that's not some proof of our defeatism or treachery. When he makes mistakes, he should be called on it, and we should attempt to influence him on some things. If we just cave in and give away civil rights, secularism, financial fairness and dangerous foreign policy, that'

This truly worries me: he's gotten away with this kind of thing for SO long that I think he thinks he's immune to scrutiny. That could lead to a great big unholy mess.

[jgraz]

31. Here's hoping he learns it quickly.

The Obullies can whine all they want about backing the nominee, but if the young people say "fuck this" and stay home there's going to be very little we can do to avoid President Grampy McSame.

Except, of course, blame the loony left for the fact that another weak-ass centrist got rejected by the voters. :eyes:

[PurityOfEssence]

45. Ya got that right.

The blame cycle here if it goes south will be as outrageous as it will be emphatic: the same zealots who hammered any resistance into the floor with their absolute certainty in this candidate will blame racism and lefties and everyone who didn't quit his/her job and labor 168 hours a week to win the election. That'll be galling enough, but the pityfests from certain stalwarts seeking soothing for the cruel disillusionment at the hands of the rest of us unfeeling dross will be hard to bear. The Kerry candidacy was a similar arc, but the fervor can't compete with this display.

Hey, I was in the Bay Area over the weekend, but I couldn't track you down due to the block you put on your mailbox. Drop me a line so we can talk.

Sorry to see your trajectory of late, and I hope this guy and his advisers get their collective acts together, but it's heartening that you're still here as a voice of reason.

[jgraz]

56. Sorry I missed you.

I'm not sure what trajectory you're talking about, but my line on Obama has been the same since he started the primaries. He was always my second-to-last choice (guess who was last), but his campaigning ability impressed me and gave me (dare I say it) *hope* that he would turn into a good leader.

I still think that's possible, but I now know that it will not happen without strong, unrelenting pressure from the left. We cannot afford a repeat of the Clinton years.

[OwnedByFerrets]

103. Boy, you hit the nail on the head there.....

that was spot on. ^5

www.wearableartnow.com

[fascisthunter]

114. yeah but blaming the "left" is Getting Old

they'll need another boogey man.

[jgraz]

134. Maybe they can finally start blaming "the right" like the rest of us

Oh, whoops. They're actually PART OF the right.

Nevermind.

[bertman]

148. AMEN, PurityOfEssence, AMEN!! TELL IT LIKE IT IS!!

If you're the leader of the Party in the form of its NOMINEE FOR THE HIGHEST POSITION IN THE LAND and you can't take a stand, then there's something really really wrong.

Failure of leadership. No Change. Same old shit from a Democrat.

[pokercat999]

201. The one thing they all know.....you got no place to go.

SUCKER :rofl:

[Growler]

77. Totally agree! n/t

[Two Americas]

94. ROFL

Yeah, that's the spirit.

"Naderesque knee-jerk crybabies..."

That statement will come back to haunt us some day. I wouldn't want it attributed to me.

[mix]

107. apologist w/o principle

eom

[mix]

108. ..

[QueenOfCalifornia]

126. Bullying

Is just a way to infantilize the OP. Calling names and dismissing a legitimate concern is what bullies do. Not nice Bornagainhooligan.

[FredfromSpace]

137. Uncalled for personal attack.

Try and keep it to the issues maybe?

[elkston]

6. Damn dude, you don't let up, do you?

Why don't you just let it go for now. We've got an election to win.

[Levgreee]

75. No rights were given away, people just got away with civil suits

where in the constitution does it give the right, that guarantees pursuit of prosecution for any people who break the law?

[polmaven]

100. And, actually,

this bill does not stop any criminal prosecutions, just civil suits. I understand this is a BIG compromise, but it is just that..a compromise. That's what happens when two sides with differences of opinion need to craft a bill that can be passed.

Once the progressives get REAL control of congress, and are able to pass more on their own, without the help of the neocons, things WILL change. I have NOT heard Senator Obama say he is il love with the provisions, just that it is the best compromise available right now.

[George II]

219. The amazing thing is....

people here use cliches "he sold us out", "he failed us", "he gave away our right", but I'll bet very few tossing those things around haven't even read the legislation he voted for!

[peacetalksforall]

229. chimpy He is the leader & NOT all right to sell us out. You wrote two sentences that say it all.

[debbierlus]

4. HE IS THE LEADER OF THE PARTY

Certainly, NO democrat should vote for this insanity. However, it IS different for Obama. He is the leader of the party now, and it is for HIM to LEAD the party on issues of such incredible importance.

[NattPang]

10. He doesn't lead anything in congress

till he has power in control
rather than in name only.
He doesn't have power over
what the Majority Senate Leader does.

His is only one vote.

He will have power
November 4th, 2008.

Getting ahead of ourselves
is not going to provide
a magic bullet.

[jgraz]

29. Pure crap. You don't think Pelosi and Reid ran this by him before submitting it?

If you believe that, I've got some "Patriots 19-0" t-shirts to sell you. I can get you a great deal.

[Hippo_Tron]

85. I'm sure they ran it by him, but for a heads up not to ask his approval

From what I've read they brought this to a vote because the blue dogs would've voted with the GOP on a discharge petition and it would've come to a vote whether they wanted it to or not.

[jgraz]

86. And you know this... how?

[Hippo_Tron]

84. Leader of the party does not = dictator of the party

The Democratic Party has a separation of powers just like the US Government does. Obama has control over the DNC and all of its political functions. He does not have control over the House or Senate Dem caucus' legislative agenda or the DSCC or the DCCC. When he gets to the White House he will have more control over legislation due to the powers of he presidency.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

170. Thank you! Amazing how that same people who are appalled by this admin.

Suddenly want Obama (who isn't even President yet BTW) to assume the same autocratic demeanor as Bush and want the Dems in Congress to be a politicized at the Repubs are. Mind boggling.

[ProSense]

5. They haven't voted yet.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Expecting any surprises?

I'm not.

[MasonJar]

42. I wouldn't vote for my Senator if he was running for a fishing license--

but then he is Mitch McConnell.

[rucognizant]

144. Mr Obama just voted Aye!

cspan 2, they are doing ays & nays to the Feingold Dodd amendment.
I really can't make any sense out of this. The expected response of the known Senators...is not forthcoming.
But Obama, CLinton, voted aye. Collins & Snow voted no, Menendez aye so I guess aye is the vote WE want. Sununu of NH confused me by voting aye!
( but he is up for relection)
OK Liarman no, so I guess that's the bad result!
Lautenberg aye...........
Byrd aye!
My head hurts! WHy am I NOT earning $1868,000 per year? I work as hard as they do!

[rucognizant]

145. Correction......

That should be $168,000!
F/D amendment failed 37 - 66! Obama & Clinton BOTH VOTED AYE!
37 is a lot more than the 14 that were supporting the amenedment yesterday

[CoffeeCat]

11. What bothers me the most...

...is that ANY politician in this country is voting for this Fascist nonsense.

Since WHEN is immunity for companies that help a corrupt President--spy on Americans--some kind
of conservative or "centrist" idea?

This is unConstitutional, Fascist, criminal activity--happening in our own government.

I don't like it when people excuse Obama's behavior as "moving to the center." Center of what?

Excuse me, but illegally spying on Americans and helping companies--who were accessories to
these crimes--escape accountability is not "conservative", "centrist" nor "liberal."

These are sick, radical actions of the neocons. This behavior is off the charts.

I'm mortified and very saddened that Obama has gone along with this.

Someone needs to stand up to these neocon thugs. I thought that person was Barack Obama.

I'm taking a wait-and-see attitude--but I'm not happy.

[NorthCarolina]

17. Well said. I think many of us feel as you do.

eom

[Me.]

33. As Turley Pointed Out

* has committed 38 felonies with all of this and Congress is giving him a pass.

[Joe Fields]

41. Well said, and I could not agree more.

This is not a Dem or Repub issue. It is an American issue, with far reaching consequences.

[Doremus]

46. Well said and so true. n/t

[Steely_Dan]

64. Well Stated!

I saw this coming a long time ago. I'm sure that I wasn't the only one. Pretty words like "hope" and "change" have been uttered by EVERY politician who has ever run for office. Welcome the new boss...same as the old boss.

-P

[SeaLyons]

115. Well said...

I feel exactly the same way, and I can't believe this happening. It is completely fascist, and there is no excuse for Congress allowing this to happen.

[librechik]

226. exactly right

and I don't know about the wait and see--but what choice do we have?

Our beliefs are not being represented.

Democracy my ass.

[Supersedeas]

228. at least he should have the guts to tell us WHY he switched his primary stance

[CoffeeCat]

232. You're telling me...

That's what I'm concerned about.

During the run-up to the Iowa caucuses, I was "undecided" but getting a lot of correspondence
from the Obama campaign. He called me. He asked me why I was undecided. I told him that
I liked his agenda, but I also liked John Edwards.

We discussed my major issues--which were the erosion of our civil rights and the fact that
we have a government that seems to ignore the Constitution. I expressed great concern
about illegal wiretapping and I specifically asked Obama if he was for or against immunity
for the telcos. He said he was NOT for giving the telcos retroactive immunity.

So, I heard it straight from his mouth, during a phone conversation.

He also told me that he was a Constitutional Scholar, and that he taught Con Law at
at the University of Chicago. I discussed how that was extremely appealing to me, and
I knew that someone who knew the Constitution inside and out would follow it to the letter.
Obama said he does not believe in Bush's' "unitary executive" mindset.

I'm not self centered enough to believe that I was lied to, but I am wondering WTF is going on.

[NYC_SKP]

13. Barack Obama gets a 100% pass on FISA

Until after he's inaugurated.

Why? Because I have no idea what it's like to run for president and neither does a single bloody member on this board.

These next several of weeks are like microseconds in the span of years of our democracy. To not consider the consequences of this bellyaching is to be dangerously shortsighted.

Why is this concept so hard to grasp, hmm?

:patriot:

After the inauguration, however, there will be hell to pay if he doesn't remove retroactive immunity for telcoms.

I have no problem badgering the rest of congress, and I have.

:hi:

[tmoore411]

37. Just so I understand the shift....

doing "anything to win" is now acceptable right ???

Curiously, not too long ago, that was a negative...again, I'm just trying to keep up with the continuous justification and vacillation present.

And, in case you didn't know, there is no recall election for POTUS, so if you don't speak out now and hold people accountable for their actions, what makes you think they are gonna give a rats ass what you think after they are in power ?? Poor way to run a democracy me thinks.

[NYC_SKP]

47. The reason your argument is pointless...

...is that the candidate could just as easily lie to you now, then do whatever he wants later.

He's the nominee, let's let him do what he needs to do to win.

He's not interested in what you think, sorry, don't blame him.

[Two Americas]

95. true

You are right, the politicians do not care what we think. So we should shut up, I guess.

How can we tell if they are lying or not, so why question them? Damn people need to get out of the way and shut up. How can we run a democracy if the people keep interfering with the leaders?

[LSK]

129. ummm we are down to 2 choices

:shrug:

[ut oh]

149. Fine.... Vote for McCain then...

VOTE McCAIN!!!!!!!!!

That's what a lot of people on this board want apparently...

Let's just fuck the country into 2nd or 3rd world despotism.. C'mon it'll be fun!!!!!!

Fuck the USA!!!!

VOTE McCAIN!!!

[vaberella]

14. Obama HAS NOT let us down!!! Who here has read FISA in detail and understand it?

Here are some debates on DU people should look at and see what the FISA really has to say.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3570855

I've seen many anti posts made by arguments by people hearing from other people's understanding but only the ones supporting FISA use it's direct language. I wonder why those who oppose don't use the language. And when I say use language, use the language in all cases. Becasue one line of FISA has several points added to it in order to minimize abuse.

I have read FISA myself and read what MERH has to say and even visited the links provided because I wanted to know what people were in an uproar about. Based on what Obama has said about what he's fighting against, based on the language within the FISA, and based on alternative bills that are going through legislation; this is not perfect. However, it's better than other choices. That is why I am holding Obama up to his claim that he will fight against changes in FISA when he's President.

[skooooo]

15. Does anyone know what happened today re: FISA??

Debate or ?

[Windy]

24. THANK YOU!!! A VOICE OF SANITY!! PEOPLE NEED TO ACTUALLY READ THE BILL!!

see my earlier post above.


There is a lot of knee jerk from people here who haven't read the bill and don't know a damn thing about it. Ignorance is NOT BLISS people!!! You are hurting our candidate when you fail to get the facts!!!

[Mojorabbit]

76. I read the bill

and it is an awful bill. I cannot believe you read it and came to a different conclusion.

[Windy]

102. You clearly don't understand the meat of the bill.

I'm not for the civil immunity granted to the telecoms from the bills enactment date forward, however, there is no retroactive immunity.

The telecoms can be prosecuted criminally.

See my earlier response.

[AZ Criminal JD]

154. No they cannot be prosecuted criminally

See my earlier post.

[Pyrzqxgl]

207. How about a national boycott of the telecoms.

When you get one of those phone calls trying to sell you crap, tell them they ought to be happy to
keep the business you do give them, and if they are going to continue to destroy what we have left
of The Constitution, we might take our business elsewhere

[Skittles]

222. I read it too - it STINKS

it looks UTTERLY FOOLISH when so-called progressives try to spin this shit :puke:

[tomp]

116. yeah, people like feingold and dodd.

let's hear the debate between feingold and obama on this. is this debate about the merits of the bill or about election year politics?

[shellinaya]

193. and your point is . . . ?

Read the bill, by all means. I have, and it's a big fat give away to the Bush administration.

[Political Heretic]

26. The ACLU has

And I'm with them.

Sorry I've defended Obama's decision in a lot of different ways, because I'm a pragmatist and I think this is best for him politically.

But I'm not going to spin this into saying its a good bill when it isn't.

[Connie_Corleone]

30. No one has said it's a good bill. Just that people should read it first.

[Political Heretic]

32. Actually, several people on this thread have said its a good bill.

[Connie_Corleone]

39. I just read thru the comments. Who said it was a "good" bill?

[Political Heretic]

168. My apologies - I've been away, and was looking in the wrong thread, I'll try to find it

There have been several defenses of the bill itself, saying that we haven't actually read it, and that it provides sufficient protection, etc. Honestly, there have been bill defenders. I'll be at work in the next hour and when things lighten up I'll try to go search and find some examples.

[vaberella]

43. I haven't read where people have said it's a good bill.

Even those that have defended it on this board have never said it was a good bill. However it's the one that protects us out of many of the bills going through the house now. I won't deny that fear mongers are out there and coming from NYC, I'm extremely weary of another potential attack. That being said, I also am not willing to risk my civil liberties.

What appals me by many of the people here is that they are jumping up all in arms when I would doubt Obama would support any bill that would directly smack the constitution in the face and rip us of our civil liberties. Look at his statement when the courts opted in favor of the detainnees...Obama said that was the courts working at their best and understood the language to providing even prisoner's with rights. Why then would he take away our own? Hence the reason I'm surprised that people are willing to think the worst.

[jgraz]

55. I don't understand the motive behind that.

If you define the 4th Amendment as "good", then this bill is incontrovertibly terrible. Slimey politicians might spin this as some sort of "compromise", but I'd like to think that most DUers are above such intellectual dishonesty -- especially when it comes to basic civil rights.

[grantcart]

57. It's not a good bill but it isn't a major attack on the constitution

and in addition to the flaws that have been well reported we gained a couple of important points

1) The overall question of FISA/PAA will now have congressional oversight - which it did not have before

2) Americans overseas will now be protected against Warrantless survelliance.


Not a good bill - but not the end of the constitution either.



I believe that your defense of Senator Obama was sound and the fact that Senator Obama carries an 86% ACLU approval rating does not get him many votes. Despite having what will be, by far, the highest ACLU rating of anybody in the White House, the ACLU will exagerrate every problem with the legislation and ignore any advancement. If Obama was 100% ACLU there would still be complaints from those that do not have to actually win elections.

[dailykoff]

60. Wrong. It's devastating. The FISC and congress will review certification, period.

They will not review probable cause. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly for weeks and yet still you and others are openly deceiving posters here. I have to wonder why.

[jgraz]

40. I have read it, and it's a fucking disaster.

Just sticking to immunity for the moment (by far not the worst part of the bill), here is the problem with your argument:

MERH claims that immunity doesn't apply if the surveillance was illegal. That may be so (the bill is so poorly written that it's hard to keep all the loopholes straight). But the Congress has conveniently redefined "legal" to be whatever the president says is legal. All the telcos have to do is show that they got written authorization from the president to violate the 4th amendment and the lawsuits “shall be promptly dismissed”. And since we already know that the president gave written authorization, this is de facto retroactive immunity.

Even the review of the authorization is handled extra-judicially. The AG is the one who certifies that the president gave the proper authorization. Any guesses on how Mukasey will rule?


Here is the EFF's analysis of the immunity provision, which I trust a lot more than anyone's on this board. http://www.eff.org/files/AnalysisHR6304-v5.pdf

[chimpymustgo]

49. I think I'll go with Jonathan Turley, Russ Feingold, the ACLU - that crowd - rather than some

anonymous DU ignoramus.

The bill is a disaster, regardless of the lies and spin folks try to dress it with.

[grantcart]

58. I would rather go with Obama with his 86% ACLU rating

than with you.

[jgraz]

62. Um... this one's in that 14% we don't like to talk about.

Go read the bill for yourself. Then tell me how this isn't a disaster for the Fourth Amendment and rule of law in this country.

[grantcart]

87. I have and instead of only reading the critics I have also read Civil Rights experts

who indicate that it is in fact not the capitulation that the ACLU and others have indicated but that it in fact extends warrant protection to Americans Overseas and also establishes for the first time Congressional oversight for FISA/PAA activity.

My authority is Halperin a well known expert in both national security and civil rights - and also a victim of Nixon's illegal taping as a result of his work with Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers.


Here is my authority for the two points I raised Mr Morton Halperin a National expert on national security and civil rights
who was targeting as one of the top "Nixon enemies on Nixon's enemy list" - in the top 10 and was actually taped illegally by the FBI at the time

Here is his Wikipedia backround http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton_Halperin

Halperin holds a Ph.D. in International Relations from Yale University. He received his B.A. from Columbia College. With his first wife Ina Weinstein Young, he has three sons--David, Gary, and Mark Halperin, political analyst for ABC News, Time magazine and Time.com. He is married to Diane Orentlicher, professor of Law at American University. He is the brother of Daniel Halperin, the Stanley S. Surrey Professor of Law at Harvard.

A member of the Harvard Center for International Affairs, he authored the book Contemporary Military Strategy in 1967, where he defended "large-scale American bombing in South Vietnam" on the grounds that although it "may have antagonized a number of people" it nonetheless "demonstrated to these people that the Vietcong could not guarantee their security" -- thus "illustrat the fact that most people tend to be motivated, not by abstract appeals, but rather by their perception of the course of action that is most likely to lead to their own personal security". (141, qtd. in APNM, 56)

Halperin served in the Department of Defense in the 1960s as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, and was dovish on the Vietnam War, calling for a halt to bombing Vietnam. When Nixon became president in 1969, Henry Kissinger, his new National Security Advisor announced Halperin would join the staff of the National Security Council. The appointment of Halperin, a colleague of Kissinger's at Harvard University in the 1960s, was immediately criticized by General Earle G. Wheeler, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; FBI director J. Edgar Hoover; and Senator Barry Goldwater.

Kissinger soon lost faith in Halperin. A front page story in The New York Times on May 9, 1969, stated the United States had been bombing Cambodia, a neutral country. Kissinger immediately called Hoover to find out who might have leaked this information to the press. Hoover suggested Halperin and Kissinger agreed that was likely. That very day, the FBI began tapping Halperin's phones at Kissinger's direction. (Kissinger says nothing of this in his memoirs and mentions Halperin in passing about four times.) Halperin left the NSC in September 1969 after only nine months but the tapping continued until February 1971. Halperin was also placed on Nixon's Enemies List.

He was a friend of Daniel Ellsberg. When Ellsberg was investigated in connection with the Pentagon Papers, suspicion fell on Halperin, who some Nixon aides believed had kept classified documents when he left government service. John Dean claimed that Jack Caulfield had told him of a plan to fire-bomb the Brookings Institution, Halperin's employer, to destroy Halperin's files.



Here is an excerpt of his statement of support for the legislation that was reported in depth in an earlier thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

The fact is that the alternative to Congress passing this bill is Congress enacting far worse legislation that the Senate had already passed by a filibuster-proof margin, and which a majority of House members were on record as supporting.

What’s more, this bill provides important safeguards for civil liberties. It includes effective mechanisms for oversight of the new surveillance authorities by the FISA court, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and now the Judiciary Committees. It mandates reports by inspectors general of the Justice Department, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies that will provide the committees with the information they need to conduct this oversight. (The reports by the inspectors general will also provide accountability for the potential unlawful misconduct that occurred during the Bush administration.) Finally, the bill for the first time requires FISA court warrants for surveillance of Americans overseas.

As someone whose civil liberties were violated by the government, I understand this legislation isn’t perfect. But I also believe — and here I am speaking only for myself — that it represents our best chance to protect both our national security and our civil liberties. For that reason, it has my personal support.




Now you can continue to pretend that this is an absolutely clear cut case where the ACLU (which has never had to face an election and actually prides itself in being unpopular)is the only arbriter of truth - but that view requires the assumption that Senator Obama is a completely unscrupulous sell out.

Or it could be that it is a confusing bill, that is liked by know one that does increase warrantless interceptions of domestic to foreign communications on the one hand but does give Americans protection of warrants on the other. This view would also see that giving the telecom a second bite of the apple for immunity (one that the could and should have had if they had followed the appropriate procedures in the begining) on the one hand but does give Congress oversight responsibilities for the first time on the other.

Your view that it is a disaster for the fourth ammendment requires that Senator Obama be considered criminally irresponsible and I don't know how you can continue to support him if that is your position. Frankly I consider the internment of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans a real factual disaster of the 4th ammendment.

I consider Nixon's enemies list a real life and factual disaster of the 4th ammendment. I consider Nixon's assault on Daniel Ellsberg and his spying on Morton Halperin an assault on the 4th ammendment.

Morton Halperin an expert on Civil Rights and National Security does not agree with you. I imagine that he also supports Senator Obama.

[jgraz]

88. Bush also went to Yale and Harvard. You'll have to do a bit better than that.

In fact, why don't you actually refer to the bill and tell me what you think of it, instead of simply appealing to (a single) authority? In particular, I'd love for you to tell me how your vaunted warrants for overseas Americans can't be wiped aside by a simple penstroke from the AG.

‘(d) Emergency Authorization-

‘(1) AUTHORITY FOR EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATION- Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, if the Attorney General reasonably determines that--

‘(A) an emergency situation exists with respect to the acquisition of foreign intelligence information for which an order may be obtained under subsection (c) before an order under that subsection can, with due diligence, be obtained, and

‘(B) the factual basis for the issuance of an order under this section exists,

the Attorney General may authorize the emergency acquisition if a judge having jurisdiction under subsection (a)(1) is informed by the Attorney General or a designee of the Attorney General at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to conduct such acquisition and if an application in accordance with this section is made to a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as soon as practicable, but not more than 7 days after the Attorney General authorizes such acquisition.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6304

[grantcart]

90. Halperin was also the head of the ACLU office in Washington DC

Halperin also has a long record as a Washington advocate on national and international issues. He spent many years at the American Civil Liberties Union, serving as the Director of the Washington Office from 1984 to 1992, where he was responsible for the national legislative program as well as the activities of the ACLU Foundation based in the Washington Office. Halperin also served as the Director of the Center for National Security Studies from 1975 to 1992, where he focused on issues affecting both civil liberties and national security

He also defended the publishing

Halperin, as Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) office in Washington, defended the right of the The Progressive magazine to publish details on how to construct an atomic bomb.


and so on and so on

just not as black and white as you want to paint it.

[jgraz]

92. My point was that you're engaging in a classic appeal to authority, rather than arguing specifics.

Let's stick to the merits of the bill and not Halperin's C.V.

[grantcart]

93. this whole sub thread was based on the altar of ACLU being the definitive authority on the FISA bill

Now that a major civil rights and national security expert who also has ACLU bona fides has come out for the compromise the

"ACLU is good enough for me" argument is no longer enough fine. Halperin's substantive remarks were in two threads today in which he outlined his objections but I don't people realized that he was head of an ACLU office and had been the source for Ellsberg to get the Pentagon papers and had been one of the first to testify against both Bush and the earlier FISA/PAA legislation.

Halperin's arguments are that while not perfect it infact is a major improvement over the previous legislation - in which he was a major critic and testified before the committee. The full bona fides and Halperins previous testimony against Bush's illegal wire tapping and on the previous FISA legislation which he opposed can be found here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6473419&mesg_id=6473419

Question 2) Why is he supporting the FISA compromise

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/370010_wiretap09.html

a) There is another piece of legislation that is much worse that already has the necessary votes

The fact is that the alternative to Congress passing this bill is Congress enacting far worse legislation that the Senate already had passed by a filibuster-proof margin, and which a majority of House members were on record as supporting.

b) It creates Congressional oversight (where it used to be exclusively the territory of the Executive branch)

What's more, this bill provides important safeguards for civil liberties. It includes effective mechanisms for oversight of the new surveillance authorities by the FISA court, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and now the Judiciary Committees. It mandates reports by inspectors general of the Justice Department, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies that will provide the committees with the information they need to conduct this oversight. (The reports by the inspectors general will also provide accountability for the potential unlawful misconduct that occurred during the Bush administration.)

c) It expands protections for Americans overseas

Finally, the bill for the first time requires FISA court warrants for surveillance of Americans overseas.

Concluding sentiments by Halperin


The compromise legislation that will come to the Senate floor this week is not the legislation that I would have liked to see, but I disagree with those who suggest that the Democrats (including Barack Obama) are giving in by backing this bill.

As someone whose civil liberties were violated by the government, I understand this legislation isn't perfect. But I also believe -- and here I am speaking only for myself -- that it represents our best chance to protect both our national security and our civil liberties. For that reason it has my support.
Morton H. Halperin is the executive director of the Open Society Policy Center. Copyright 2008 The New York Times.

[jgraz]

125. Except for that inconvenient post at the top of the subthread

You know, the one where I use my own reading of the bill and accompanying material to respond to another DU who claims to have read the bill and accompanying material.

[Mojorabbit]

139. Perhaps why he is for the compromise?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x370252

[disndat]

199. Halperin, like the Washington Post

was very anti-Nixon but very much pro Bush.

[jgraz]

68. One more point: how disingenuous of you to invoke the ACLU as support for Obama here.

You know as well as I do what the ACLU's position is on this bill. Are they right about Obama or are they right about this bill? You can't have it both ways.

[chimpymustgo]

73. I'll go with the ACLU and its 100% ACLU rating.

And the FISA bill stands alone as a hallmark of constitutional tests.

[jgraz]

89. I really hate it when we agree

:P

[chimpymustgo]

99. I like it!

[grantcart]

91. Well Morton Halperin former target of illegal wire tap and head of ACLU Washington office disagrees

Morton H. Halperin. McNaughton’s deputy had general supervisory authority over the project. In 1969, he moved from the Pentagon to Henry Kissinger’s National Security Council staff. The FBI, acting without a court order, wiretapped numerous conversations between Halperin and Ellsberg. (AP/ Wide World Photos)

Hunt and Liddy were, of course, “the plumbers,” who had been recruited by the White House to stop leaks in the Pentagon Papers case. They had burglarized the psychiatrist’s office in September 1971, prior to their break-in at the Watergate in June 1972.

Nor was that all. Without a court order, the FBI had wiretapped telephone conversations between Morton Halperin and Ellsberg. The tapes and logs of the wiretaps had “disappeared” from the files of both the FBI and the Justice Department.


http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb2007/0207pentagon.asp

Question 1) Who is Morton Halperin

a) Close Friend of Daniel Ellsberg

He was a friend of Daniel Ellsberg. When Ellsberg was investigated in connection with the Pentagon Papers, suspicion fell on Halperin, who some Nixon aides believed had kept classified documents when he left government service. John Dean claimed that Jack Caulfield had told him of a plan to fire-bomb the Brookings Institution, Halperin's employer, to destroy Halperin's files.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton_Halperin

b)Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense

Halperin served in the Department of Defense in the 1960s as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, and was dovish on the Vietnam War, calling for a halt to bombing Vietnam. When Nixon became president in 1969, Henry Kissinger, his new National Security Advisor announced Halperin would join the staff of the National Security Council. The appointment of Halperin, a colleague of Kissinger's at Harvard University in the 1960s, was immediately criticized by General Earle G. Wheeler, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; FBI director J. Edgar Hoover; and Senator Barry Goldwater.

Kissinger soon lost faith in Halperin. A front page story in The New York Times on May 9, 1969, stated the United States had been bombing Cambodia, a neutral country. Kissinger immediately called Hoover to find out who might have leaked this information to the press. Hoover suggested Halperin and Kissinger agreed that was likely. That very day, the FBI began tapping Halperin's phones at Kissinger's direction. (Kissinger says nothing of this in his memoirs and mentions Halperin in passing about four times.) Halperin left the NSC in September 1969 after only nine months but the tapping continued until February 1971. Halperin was also placed on Nixon's Enemies List.

c) Number 8 on Nixon's enemies list

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/370010_wiretap09.html

I was No. 8 on Richard Nixon's "enemies list" -- a strange assemblage of 20 people who had incurred the White House's wrath because they had disagreed with administration policy. As the presidential counsel John Dean explained it in 1971, the list was part of a plan to "use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies." My guess is that I earned this dubious distinction because of my opposition to the Vietnam War, though no one ever said for sure.

d) long time critic of Bush's illegal wire tapping

Two years ago, I stated my belief that the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program and disregard for domestic and international law poses a direct challenge to our constitutional order, and "constitutes a far greater threat than the lawlessness of Richard Nixon."

That was not a casual comparison. When I was on the staff of the National Security Council, my home phone was tapped by the Nixon administration -- without a warrant -- beginning in 1969. The wiretap stayed on for 21 months. The reason? My boss, Henry Kissinger, and the director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, believed that . . .

e) a target of illegal government wiretaps

. . . I might have leaked information to The New York Times. Even after I left government, and went to work on Edmund Muskie's presidential campaign, the FBI continued to listen in and made periodic reports to the president.


f) major academic and Director of U.S. Advocacy Open Society Institute

Halperin holds a Ph.D. in International Relations from Yale University. He received his B.A. from Columbia College
The recipient of numerous awards, Halperin also serves as the Senior Vice President and Director of Fellows at the Center for American Progress. He is Chairman of the Board of the Democracy Coalition Project. He is also the Chairman of the Board of the Health Privacy Project at Georgetown University. He serves on the boards of DATA and the Constitution Project (where he is also a member of the Liberty and Security Committee)<1>, and is the chair of the Advisory Board of the Center for National Security Studies

g) Director of the ACLU Washington office

He spent many years at the American Civil Liberties Union, serving as the Director of the Washington Office from 1984 to 1992, where he was responsible for the national legislative program as well as the activities of the ACLU Foundation based in the Washington Office. Halperin also served as the Director of the Center for National Security Studies from 1975 to 1992, where he focused on issues affecting both civil liberties and national security.Halperin, as Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) office in Washington, defended the right of the The Progressive magazine to publish details on how to construct an atomic bomb.

Question 2) Why is he supporting the FISA compromise

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/370010_wiretap09.html

a) There is another piece of legislation that is much worse that already has the necessary votes

The fact is that the alternative to Congress passing this bill is Congress enacting far worse legislation that the Senate already had passed by a filibuster-proof margin, and which a majority of House members were on record as supporting.

b) It creates Congressional oversight (where it used to be exclusively the territory of the Executive branch)

What's more, this bill provides important safeguards for civil liberties. It includes effective mechanisms for oversight of the new surveillance authorities by the FISA court, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and now the Judiciary Committees. It mandates reports by inspectors general of the Justice Department, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies that will provide the committees with the information they need to conduct this oversight. (The reports by the inspectors general will also provide accountability for the potential unlawful misconduct that occurred during the Bush administration.)

c) It expands protections for Americans overseas

Finally, the bill for the first time requires FISA court warrants for surveillance of Americans overseas.

Concluding sentiments by Halperin


The compromise legislation that will come to the Senate floor this week is not the legislation that I would have liked to see, but I disagree with those who suggest that the Democrats (including Barack Obama) are giving in by backing this bill.

As someone whose civil liberties were violated by the government, I understand this legislation isn't perfect. But I also believe -- and here I am speaking only for myself -- that it represents our best chance to protect both our national security and our civil liberties. For that reason it has my support.
Morton H. Halperin is the executive director of the Open Society Policy Center. Copyright 2008 The New York Times.




Here are Halperin's previous testimony before the House Committee of the Judiciary as the Director of U.S. Advocacy
Open Society Institute


http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2007_hr/090507halperin.pdf

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/03/b1507441.html

http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/nsa_surveillance.pdf

[vaberella]

59. Uh huh, I see my point of posting the links was lost on you. FORM YOUR OWN VIEW ON READING FISA,

not something based on the opinions of others. Sit there and focus on the language, dissect the language. Don't sit there and eat up what everyone else is saying because they are littered with qualifications.

McCain has plenty of qualifications under his belt, shoot, even Cheney does, but that doesn't mean we agree with their non-sense. This should go with those even in our own sect.

[dailykoff]

63. I have and yes, it's a disaster. It's an attack on the Constitution

and totally, completely, sickeningly WRONG.

[jgraz]

66. Even worse, it's an attack on the *idea* of a Constitution

It's an attack on the idea that we can have laws that apply equally to all people, and that these laws cannot just be changed on a whim to protect those in power. It's an attack on the idea that leaders have to answer to the people and that these people have a right to fight for their own liberty and civil rights.

This may sound overly dramatic, but read the bill. I've never seen any piece of legislation that shows more contempt for democracy.

And it's being rammed through by OUR PARTY, and supported by OUR NOMINEE. It's almost too much to believe.

[Breeze54]

18. He hasn't voted yet but has said he won't vote against it.

I guess he just is to worried about looking like a PATRIOT!?! :grr:

I mean, the turncoats might not vote for him! :sarcasm: (like they would've anyway) :eyes:

Good post, debbierlus !

Thanks, and I will keep speaking out! You bettcha! ;)

K&R

[TechBear_Seattle]

19. Careful there, you will be branded as a "disruptor"

Then will come the accusations of you endorsing John McCain and questions about your personal hygiene.

[Skittles]

225. that's a sick pattern around here, TechBear

I absolutely agree

[charlyvi]

234. Don't forget the classic

blah, blah, blah.

[AllentownJake]

20. I'm so sick of this

After the vote tommorow and a two day grace period anyone bitching about this will be on ignore.

I'm interested in helping him win let the GOP attack their candidate for idealogical purity this year.

[davidpdx]

74. I hear you Jake...

Enough of this Obama is evil crap for his stance on FISA crap. If people are just going to spew hate all the time, they can do it on my ignore list.

Three more for the ignore list...

[Growler]

79. Good plan!

[latebloomer]

21. K & R

Heartily agree!

[windoe]

25. I see awake people

more and more, this is good....

[emilyg]

27. k/r

[JoFerret]

34. Bob Herbert was good today

in the NYTimes.

[Duder]

51. So was Morton H. Halperin

The compromise legislation that will come to the Senate floor this week is not the legislation that I would have liked to see, but I disagree with those who suggest that senators are giving in by backing this bill.

The fact is that the alternative to Congress passing this bill is Congress enacting far worse legislation that the Senate had already passed by a filibuster-proof margin, and which a majority of House members were on record as supporting.

What’s more, this bill provides important safeguards for civil liberties. It includes effective mechanisms for oversight of the new surveillance authorities by the FISA court, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and now the Judiciary Committees. It mandates reports by inspectors general of the Justice Department, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies that will provide the committees with the information they need to conduct this oversight. (The reports by the inspectors general will also provide accountability for the potential unlawful misconduct that occurred during the Bush administration.) Finally, the bill for the first time requires FISA court warrants for surveillance of Americans overseas.

As someone whose civil liberties were violated by the government, I understand this legislation isn’t perfect. But I also believe — and here I am speaking only for myself — that it represents our best chance to protect both our national security and our civil liberties. For that reason, it has my personal support.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08halperin.html?_r=3&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin">NY Times

[MarjorieG]

54. Bob Herbert complained about issues that are not shifts, following other NYT hits.

NYT has written two editorials and one news story about the public financing, without mention of back door McCain tricks.

[JoFerret]

104. Bob Herbert made many excellent points.

he is not a hit man. But then neither is he a groupie.

[Duder]

122. Not really, MSM framing...

http://stephencrosehome.blogspot.com/2008/07/can-bob-herbert-read.html">Can Bob Herbert Read?

[JoFerret]

215. Wake up

Bob Herbert is a friend of progress.
Wake up.

[Duder]

242. Herbert was wrong...

Bob's good but not infallible. In 2000 he compared Gore to Eddie Haskell. Give him credit though for admitting he was wrong about the war being over quick.

I agree about waking up, some need to stop dreaming.

[JoFerret]

247. I am sure

he has made another mistake since 2000.

His column was good because he gave a context for the air escaping from the bubble.He is clearly able to see the alternatives on offer this election cycle but he is also not in blinkers and blinders. the particular quotation he gave went to a heart of the issue of the galvanizing excitement of the primary campaign. I think he wants to hear that Obama back on message.

[Canuckistanian]

35. Real progressives are vastly under-represented

They had a chance with John Edwards. Or Kucinich.

But apparently, those two were considered "too radical" for public consumption.

It's about time the average voter realized that "the center" means heavily leaning to the RIGHT in America.

Please, I beg you. Move those goalposts back to where they belong.

[Breeze54]

48. More like "too radical" for the M$M... I blame them for driving this BS!

The Progressive's/Left Wing Liberals are to radical meme. :eyes:

What a crock and I agree.... move it back Now to the left!

Before it's to late!! :scared:

[LittleClarkie]

50. But the question is: Is that a deal breaker for you?

Or not.

[MarjorieG]

52. How long will you keep up the vocal disappointment on this issue? Perhaps damaging chances.

[jgraz]

61. As long as necessary to keep him from caving on the NEXT issue

This one is a lost cause, but there are still plenty of issues that could arise -- especially if the Repugs sense fear. Holding Obama's feet to the fire is the only way we have to prevent him from becoming yet another weak-ass centrist (read: losing) candidate.

[cherokeeprogressive]

53. Randi says it is. n/t

[dailykoff]

65. No it isn't. The Constitution is not optional, advisory, decorative, or "quaint."

It's the basis of our system of government and we've allowed it to be desecrated by monsters for eight years. Hope or no hope Obama CANNOT be allowed to continue destroying us and that's much, much bigger than who wins what election.

[NorthCarolina]

157. But these basic principles CAN and WILL be sacrificed for potential political gain

I think that at least is pretty evident here.

[Steely_Dan]

67. Well Put....

I remember the line from JFK that went something like this:

"Let the truth be told, though the heavens fall."

I am not interested in political expediency. I'm interested in what's right. That used to mean something in this country. Win at all costs...not when it sacrifices our Constitutional rights.

....and there is no way to spin this. It is either right or wrong.

-P

[BigBearJohn]

70. Anybody know what Hillary's position is on this bill?

[juajen]

78. From what I've heard, she is voting NO on FISA. NT

[LVjinx]

80. Good for her. If Obama's not careful, he could still screw up the convention vote for himself

[skooooo]

81. Don't count on that happening.

:hi:

[mkultra]

123. keep dreaming

[vaberella]

82. Last I heard Clinton is "undecided" on FISA.

Check out this link and the newsday article posted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6472544

[saracat]

183. Clinton voted NO.

[barack the house]

71. OK, the reality they have us over barrel. Who you gonna vote for what is the way out ...

FISA is not ideal but it is more ideal than no oversight which is what is the case right this second it has had no FISA oversight since august.

[barack the house]

72. You make valid points but so much on the line, I will compromise till November.

[dailykoff]

83. If you don't stick up for your own civil rights,

you will lose them. Unfortunately big business has more money than you do. All you have is a vote, and if you're willing to give it away for nothing, you'll get nothing in return.

[TheKentuckian]

98. I'll make no defense of the bill

it's awful and clearly unconstitutional.

The problem remains that the options on the table are minimal, to be Pollanna about it.

I also have yet to get why anyone thinks from a political standpoint that Obama wants this bill on the floor, even if he wants the powers. It's hyper-stupid strategy. Leadership pushed this and if you believe anything else you're high as gas.

If you believe he should stand against it, I can buy that argument while disagreeing but thinking Obama would proactively put himself on the defensive from all sides questions his intellect more than his character. Why would you think he wants to deal with this issue.

Obama would stop this from pure expediency if he had the option. If you believe otherwise then say hello to Mr. Roarke and Tattoo for me, because you're on Fantasy Island.

Pelosi and Reid are garbage. The rabbit hole is deeper than most are willing to accept and we have to fight for every crack of daylight.

Bottom line.

[NorthCarolina]

158. "He who would give up a little liberty to gain a little security

will lose both and deserve neither." -- Benjamin Franklin

[vaberella]

176. Give me a break. We lost our rights with the Patriot Act I&II, the FISA is not as evil.

[Two Americas]

96. no compromise on compromising!

We cannot compromise on the need to compromise. When the stakes are high and there are serious moral issues, it's time for expediency, I say.

We must have the moral fortitude to compromise our morals when needed! We have the courage to be cowards as appropriate! We must never compromise on our right to compromise!

Now, could all of you people please shut up and get in line? You are interfering with democracy.

[merh]

97. I wish you folks would stop spreading the smears that are not

true.

FISA does not protect telecoms (or anyone else) for the monitoring that began before 9/11.

It also does not automatically protect anyone for any monitoring that was not legal - any monitoring of US citizens without probable cause and lawful order or warrant. Yes, the AG can certify that the monitoring was legal and proper but that certification must be supported by substantial evidence provided to the courts.

This FISA bill provides that the laws be followed, that the 1st and 4th amendment rights of US citizens be protected. To say it doesn't is to repeat a lie.

[natrat]

110. doesn't it allow warrantless spying for a period with no penalty for misuse?

basically free reign

[dailykoff]

112. Of course it does.

That's the point. Link to an actual analysis:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/fisa.html

[mkultra]

124. the current laws provide for that already

an investigative body can tap a call that originates or terminates overseas providing they submit a request to a FISA judge withing 24 hours. The have a 72 limit on this tap before they are granted a warrant by a FISA judge.

[dailykoff]

111. Total nonsense as usual.

Shameful that you would keep repeating this crap, even though dozens of people have patiently explained that you're completely deluded.

Link to an accurate analysis:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/fisa.html

[mkultra]

127. this link doesnt talk about the current bill

it discusses the previous FISA laws and abuses.

[merh]

244. I've told you, I don't need the ACLU to tell me how to think.

Shame you do. But since you are so big on adopting the opinion of others maybe you should check out the article/op ed piece in this OP.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6473419

[nolabels]

113. Yea, some appointed bureaucrat is going to rap the executives hand and tell em no no..........

My civil rights feel so much more protected now, thanks for the good news :spray:

[still_one]

117. Obama IS A PROGRESSIVE. Look at his voting record. You disagree with him on this

as I do, but to come out and say he isn't a progressive is a gross misrepresenation of his record

[LWolf]

133. Obama is "progressive."

He is not "liberal."

Let's not confuse the two.

He is still a centrist.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/LWolf

[sui generis]

164. a progressive is someone who upholds civil rights

and the right to not be treated as with probable cause for unreasonable search and seizure, and everything that implies, is a pretty big one.

In this case, saying you are FOR women's rights unless they're Asian (generic Asian :P) would not qualify someone to title themselves progressive.

Granted, there is a bit of overreaction to what is clearly a dunderhead political strategy, but we're starting to see wisps of smoke here and there.

Hopefully it's not a sign of a fire . . . but we'd best keep our eyes open.

[redqueen]

119. Great post.

Silence is absolutely unacceptable.

[katandmoon]

121. Sing it! Obama went back on his word. That's not a leader, that's a weathervane

Whose only conviction is to get elected. The electorate wants a LEADER. Somebody who does what's right because it's right, who makes the electorate SEE that it's right, not someone who caves on an issue he previously promised to fight for, but now that he must actually cast a vote one way or another, fears republicans will use his vote against him. A REAL leader would use his vote that he originally promised to make against THEM and their attempt to gut the Constitution.

Obama isn't a real leader. He's just another politician.

[bertman]

160. Well said, katandmoon

[still_one]

187. and what are you going to do in November? /nt

[katandmoon]

211. I am so fucking sick of that unoriginal "GOTCHA" question. Is that ALL you got?

I'm really tempted not to vote at all as I've come to outright despise Obama almost as much as I despise McCain. Byt MOST UNFORTUNATELY, I'm stuck with voting for that flipflopping weaselly empty suit of meaningless written-by-somebody-else rhetoric, Obama. As bad as I think he is he's not as bad as McCain. But I do think Obama's bad and I only wish I had some other alternative.

[kentuck]

128. But his vote for it would not have made any difference...

As far as the issue passing or failing. It is a no-win for him. If he voted with 25 or 30 other Senators in a losing vote, he would look weak and he would be charged as weak on national security. However, I still think he should put Robert Byrd's Constitution in his pocket and vote with that held high in the air...

[noobie2]

186. He would have been viewed as someone who keeps their word nt

[SeaLyons]

130. K&R

:kick:

[OneBlueSky]

132. just for the record . . . he's also dead wrong on impeachment . . .

which is troubling on several levels, not the least of which is that he is supposedly a Constitutional scholar and, as such, should recognize that impeachment in the case of GW Bush is not a Congressional prerogative, but a Congressional imperative . . .

further, by allowing Bush to get away with the myriad of crimes committed by him and his mal-administration, the Congress is pretty much giving carte blanche to future administrations (including, potentially, an Obama administration) to repeat those crimes with no fear of reprisal . . . in a legal system that relies strongly on judicial precedent to interpret the law, this is a huge blow to the concept of separation of powers and to protecting the nation from ever-encroaching fascism . . . that Obama doesn't recognize this -- or recognizes it and refuses to acknowledge it -- does not bode well for the future should he become president, imo . . .

I'll still vote for him, because I have no alternative . . . but the more I hear, the less I like . . .

[LynneSin]

135. Thank goodness, I really did want McCain as my president

:sarcasm:

Yes, hold him accountable but that doesn't mean we shouldn't vote for him. Sure, there are third-party options but ultimately in 2009 it's going to be McCain or Obama - whomever you vote for will help one of them get elected.

[debbierlus]

136. Wow. I touched a nerve with this post, and that after stating we need to support Obama

For President...

The ACLU, a organization I hold in very high esteem and the main challenger to all Bush's illegal covert policies, states this bill is unconstitutional. Reading the info on their site and watching Jonathon Turley (constitutional scholar) speak out against this bil has convinced me this is a CRUCIAL issue, and a GRAVE mistake.

ACLU Urges Senators to Oppose Unconstitutional Surveillance Bill (7/8/2008)


Congress should not rubberstamp executive power grab

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: ( 202) 675-2312, [e-mail]

Washington, DC – With the Senate debate continuing and a vote expected on the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 this Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union once again urged senators to vote against the unconstitutional bill, which will allow the government to monitor calls and emails without a warrant and without meaningful court review.

The following can be attributed to Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:

“After two and a half years of outrage over warrantless wiretapping and an ever-expanding executive branch, it’s untenable that Congress would be on the verge of sanctioning the lawless behavior of the Bush administration. The ramifications of this legislation are enormous. No president should have this power.

“Congress is poised to strip the courts of their authority and, in doing so, not only frustrate citizens but eviscerate the Fourth Amendment and the constitutionally mandated separation of powers. Americans have been making their voices heard by calling and emailing their senators. So our question to the Senate is: Are you listening? We do not want the government in our living rooms.

“Though there are several amendments being offered that would improve this bill, the most important vote cast will be that of final passage. There must be as many ‘no’ votes as possible. Senators need to remember that not only is America watching, but history is as well. The legacy of the 110th Congress should not be that of bowing to and granting vast spying powers to the executive branch. Senators must step back and either fix this unconstitutional bill or vote it down.”



To read the ACLU’s letter to the Senate, go to:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/35782leg20080625.html

For more information about the ACLU’s work on FISA, go to:
www.aclu.org/fisa

And to all the people who claim they are SICK of people coming down on 'our' candidate, let me say this:

The reason things have become so out of control is precisely because of the silence and acquiesence of the people. This IS a BIG thing. It is about key fundamental rights to privacy and government accountability. It is also about a cover-up of the scope of executive abuses. Do you really think Bush gives a rat's ass about the telecommunication industry? He is worried about his OWN sorry self and the legal consequences of his law breaking.

I will NOT remain silent in the face of the democrats failure to provide leadership/truth/accountability on this issue. Ever.

[Buzz Clik]

151. How are your representatives voting on this measure?

[bertman]

163. Thanks for the post, debbie. Thanks for the links, everyone. Interesting read.

[Occam Bandage]

138. Sure it is. He's the junior Senator from Illinois. Though I do agree with you that

Obama never claimed to be a progressive. Given that, why are you talking about him "failing you?" Why single him out over any other non-progressive?

[Jester Messiah]

141. Go start your own party then, Ralph. [nt]

[Buzz Clik]

147. So, Obama voted to strip immunity from the bill. You wanted him to vote the other way?

This is fucking amazing.

[mdmc]

152. Obama only needs to be a little better then McSame

that is all that progressives can reasonably expect. Bigdog taught me this.

[Kokonoe]

155. Your opinion is respectfully fucked up.

Obama is not McCain. Get your head straight.

[wildflowergardener]

156. vote

Has the vote already taken place? I thought it was today? (confused)

Meg

[sui generis]

159. yes we do have our "work cut out for us"

We don't need another George Bush and Bill Clinton had an ugly love child administration.

FISA is un American, and while being unAmerican is not a crime as a political strategy for Obama it will backfire.

MOST non-democrat Americans are easily convinced that if it's a "democrat" voting for FISA it must be bad for them. Ergo, his position on it can actually be used against him - and here's the biggest rub:

BARACK OBAMA by not condemning it, you condone it. If you wanted "out" from the onerous burden of having to potentially piss off the big boys, you should have offered to pursue individuals who assented the investigations rather than the company as a whole.

but that would be innovation.

I am disappointed, and I have a feeling it's only going to get worse. I wanted a progressive who would "change" things, not another DINO.

[katty]

161. No, Not OK - but he appears to be defending all his recent moves

[Danieljay]

162. My God! Debbie, you are making sense! Let it spread and spread... Thank you for common sense!

Muah!

I was telling my wife last night that the radical progressives are pissing me off as much as the radical right these days. At least the radical right comes together in the end to support their nominee.

[ProSense]

165. Roll call to strip immunity from the FISA bill

here

Statement McCain issued before the vote, here.

[navarth]

172. Looks like Barack voted the right way.

Good on him. And I'm very glad to see Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow didn't let Michigan down.

[vaberella]

178. He voted the way he said he was always going to vote.

[Peregrine Took]

180. Oh, so that makes it right? Its still a rotten vote.

[navarth]

248. Okay, somebody update me here.

I read that Barack voted YES for the Feingold amendment to strip immunity. That's all I know about the votes so far. (Hellish day at work yesterday)

So what did Barack do that was wrong? Don't yell. I'm just asking.

[pberq]

166. anybody who has any doubts on this bill, check out Jonathan Turley

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x155735

[WatchWhatISay]

171. It is dissappointing

I dont understand it.

[varelse]

173. Recommended

This is a mature, rational reaction to the Democratic surrender on FISA. Thank you for taking the time and having the courage to post it.

[Peregrine Took]

179. He is, was and always will be a DLC'r. I am amazed that so progressives

in great numbers fell for him. Now they have buyer's remorse but the deed is done.

[katty]

188. it's amazing, he was never a progressive

[shellinaya]

195. Suckas

Just that.

[noobie2]

184. I have to disagree somewhat

While Obama is more progressive than McCain, their positions are looking similar. McCain is still courting the religious right. Obama is going to the center and leaving us behind. We need less strategizing and more principles. We are his base, and I don't see how alienating your base will win elections. He is representing me less and less. Before you know it, he won't be representing me at all, then why should I vote.

[AliceWonderland]

189. Recommended. I read the ACLU statement on this and felt sick to my stomach. nt

[shellinaya]

190. I hate to break this to you . . .

It's not "center" to vote for this FISA compromise. It's right-wing.

Even Hillary voted against it. People should see Obama for what he is finally. At this point, I hope some super delegates are rethinking what they will do in Denver, considering that Hillary voted against this abomination.

[charlyvi]

197. Shellinaya, I sympathize with your point of view.

But, the superdelegates, or a good chunk of them, voted for FISA today. And if the supers should switch their votes to Clinton at the convention there would be a shitstorm of immense proportions. Then, hello President McCain. Not likely to happen, nor desirable imo.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

230. Welcome to DU!

What PUMA site did you come from?

Enjoy your stay.

[Alexander]

191. Obama voted for the Dodd Amendment, which would have stripped immunity from the bill.

Don't forget that.

[shellinaya]

194. So what?

He knew it wouldn't pass, and it didn't. IF Obama had lifted one finger to lead on this subject, the "compromise" would not have passed. He could have rallied everyone in the Senate. He didn't bother, it was too much work for him. He knew darn well the amendments wouldn't pass. Sorry, but just because you're on record voting for a doomed amendment, that doesn't give him a pass for his YES vote from me.

This sickens me. As of today, I cannot and will not support a Senator for higher office who does not respect my rights to privacy and protection from searches and seizures by my fascist government. Forget it. Obama blew it.

[merkins]

196. R.I.P. 4TH Amendment

thanks for the sell out obama .. just f'ng swell

[Thrill]

198. Obama is playing the game. That wins the election. Too bad some people can't see that

[madrchsod]

200. "dammed if you do..dammed if you don`t"

if he does`t vote for it the right wing will can him soft on terrorism and if he does the left will attack him for selling out the Constitution.....

[katty]

202. gotcha politics - same old stuff

[Xenocrates]

203. So much for change (nt)

[Thrill]

206. Oh it is change. Change from the losing ways of Democrats in the past

[HughMoran]

204. Why single out Obama? It took a lot of Dems to create a supermajority for the bill

He had no effect on it's passage either way - though I WISH he would have voted against it on principal.

[Skittles]

227. because he and his supporters have touted CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE

this changes NOTHING

[HughMoran]

239. Great - have fun piling on

Oh, joy :eyes:

[Skittles]

246. you don't get it, do you?

IT'S NOT FUN WITNESSING SUCH UTTER SHIT

[Seldona]

205. Exactly. You think the 'Moral Majority' took over overnight?

No, it took years before they had organized to the point where they got one of their doomsday cult kooks in the whitehouse.

My support has taken blow after blow with his capitulation of the new 'FISA Compromise,' his continuation of 'faith based insanities' that will somehow magically will remain secular, and a couple other issues I believe he is on the wrong side.

Still, what is the choice? McCain for god's sake? NEVER! I will vote straight Democratic ticket like I always do. That doesn't mean we have to act like republicans and lockstep behind every single policy initiative our leaders come up with either.

But it will take years before we can overcome the damage done to the word 'liberal' by the right wing spin machine and weak leadership that allowed the right to set the meme, and be able to have a platform that mainstream America will embrace. Even if it is the platform that is proven time and again to produce to best results for the most people. The numbers don't lie.

http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/20/cx_da_0720presidents.html

I do not feel any less a member of the Democratic Party for disagreeing with our candidate on these, or any other issues. In fact I feel it to be my patriotic duty. That being said I am going to go change my avatar to Obama's. Got to keep on keepin on is my moto. And we are going to wipe the floor with them. And they know it.

[davidwparker]

208. He will get my vote in 2008. No money. After this, Kucinich or someone

with proven progressive credentials -- even if I am the sole vote that swings it for (R). Don't like, f* you.

I'm tired of getting punked by politicians. Let Rome burn until the people get enough, rise up, and put a progressive in office.

Webb, kiss my as*.

[JoeDuck]

209. No, it isn't okay

I just sent an e-mail through Sen. Obama's web site expressing my disappointment to the point of anger on this vote. It's hard for me to retain enthusiasm for our party when our elected officials vote as if they were Republicans. I won't say they're all starting to look alike, but it certainly is getting increasingly difficult to tell the difference.

[Fovea]

212. Me,

I am moving to Canada.

[RedShoes]

213. k & r

[Jefferson23]

214. At my age I didn't think it was possible to be disillusioned anymore.

I was wrong.My e-mail to Obama was not a pleasant one.

[George II]

216. Fact is, Obama DIDN'T "fail us" on FISA!

[Mojorabbit]

231. I beg to differ. nt

[George II]

240. Brilliant! How???????

[Skittles]

218. it is indeed SICKENING watching some DUers try to spin this

SHAME ON THEM :puke:

[JoFerret]

221. Correct N/t

.

[invictus]

223. K&R

[Pale Blue Dot]

241. Agreed. nt

[bridgit]

243. Search it out, find my posts on the matter. 'new' Dems would be handed the early lessons...

of their lifetimes. Therefore: welcome to class.

While it is always graded, it is not always graded on a curve. It is, or can be when expedient; graded pass/fail. An understanding of the subject matter while important is not required in that, in either event, it is what it is. Efforts to spin the study-field into a rationale for a vote that may have been better considered in a timely manner is not encouraged in that the course has already begun, as such, withdrawals are to be denied without proof of personal, or family hardship. Voting 'present' is, however, even less encouraged.

Big Deals are in fact Big Deals. Though even Bigger Deals may be introduced into the evolving curricula without prior notice, unless you are able to view this as the notice itself.

Forward! :patriot:

[Imagevision]

245. If Obama voted against the Fisa bill, would he have made any difference, don't answer that!