Why FISA doesn't matter if Obama is elected

[kpominville]

A lot of people are in a full panic about the FISA vote, but I think as we saw with Habeus Corpus there is still hope that this will be overturned in the courts.

If Obama is elected, he will get to appoint 4-5 new supreme court justices, and the new supreme court is not going to allow telco immunity to stand anyway.

So in my opinion this issue is being used by the conservative corporate media as a wedge they are trying to drive into the Democratic base. They know we are united behind our mutual dislike of the Bush Republicans and that they need to do something to divide us, so they are trumpeting these wedge issues to make Obama's supporters turn against him.

All this does is help John McSame, which is what the corporate media wants, because then they get to cover a "War" for the next 100 years.

[madokie]

1. By jove I think you may be on to something here

Howdy to a new DU'er :hi:

[robinlynne]

34. Unfortunatley not. I have been reading a lot about this. The immunity is poison and cannot be

undone.

[hisownpetard]

2. You are making a lot of assumptions, none of which are guaranteed.

[Marrah_G]

3. .............

[VP505]

4. So the next 6 months plus the

the time it takes to get up to the Supreme Court don't matter? Booo$hCo can do a lot of damage in the next 6 months.

[kpominville]

8. We got through 8 years of Bush

We will get through the next 6 months.

[Beausoleil]

17. A man falling from a 30-storey window

passes the first 29 floors just fine, too.

Just sayin'.

:shrug:

[Fire Walk With Me]

49. An astonishing, horrifying amount of negative change is possible if we do not remove them now.

In every complex system, there comes a point of no return. They could bankrupt the country (profiting while doing it, of course), initiate an invasion of Iran (devastating consequences), initiate another 9/11 and the subsequent imprimatur of martial law/election negation, etc.

Look at Enron's damage to the California political system, the October Surprise, Iran/Contra, the Patriot Act, unrepentant torture, rendition, and imprisonment, among other things, and extrapolate.

These people are Machiavellian. They are sadists. They are perfect capitalists who create conditions in which to profit wildly. "What is driving the ANWR push is not facts but pure shock doctrine strategy--the oil crisis has created the conditions in which it is possible to sell a previously unsellable (but highly profitable) policy." http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080721/lookout

Do not allow them to take their agenda to its fulfillment. Look back and see what it would contain, for America and the world.

[Robbien]

5. The media isn't touching the issue

And you are promoting the killing of our rights of privacy by counting on these congresscritters to give back lobbyist money and kill the FISA bill some cloudy day far in the future.

Stop whining you say. Hey its only your rights you say. You demand we count on Democrats some day in the future to make a complete about face and go against the money men and give you back the rights they are so greedily taking away today.

[MadHound]

6. No guarantees with Obama in the WH

The best time to fight this FISA mess is now, but sadly, Obama and the Dems are once again caving.

There is no guarantee that this will be revisited by the courts. There is no guarantee that Obama, if elected, will appoint four or five new Supremes, in fact it is highly unlikely he will appoint two or more.

And no, this is not a wedge issue, this is an issue that cuts to the core of upholding our Constitution, and sadly it seems that many Dems are willing to forego their sworn oath and let our Constitution be ripped to shreds.

Sorry, but there is no spin that you can put on this that will cover up what this FISA bill is about, a direct assault on the Constitution and a betrayal of the American people.

[kpominville]

9. There IS a guarentee this will be revisited by the courts

Because citizens like ourselves will challenge it and force the issue, just like we did with habeus corpus.

[MadHound]

11. Good luck with that, do you have the money to pony up for the court case?

No, neither do I, and quite frankly with FISA having withstood thirty years of judicial scrutiny, it is quite possible that people will simply move on. After all, the most controversial part of this FISA bill is the retroactive immunity. Other than that it is pretty much cut and dried, and similar to the original authorization for FISA thirty years ago.

Sorry, but the FISA cave could just as easily be swept under the rug, much like the Dems are doing with a lot of Bush excesses.

Besides, what would motivate the Dems to take this to court? If Obama gets in, he now gets to play with all these shiny new unconstitutional powers that Bush has been playing with, and quite frankly the Dem leadership has been salivating to do just that for the past seven years.

[kpominville]

13. Pessimism isn't helping

It wasn't one person who successfully fought for habeus corpus. It was a lot of us all pooling our money and working together.

http://ccrjustice.org/

Don't give in to pessimism because that doesn't do anybody any good.

[MadHound]

15. Sorry, but after being very active in politics for almost forty years, I prefer to deal in reality

Not some pumped up, rose colored glasses, overly optimistic brand of fantasy that spouts off the claim that once a Dem is in the WH all will be well. Hell, Clinton and LBJ both put an end to that notion years ago, and the 2006 Democratic Congress has been handing us a refresher course on almost a daily basis.

This current two party system is beyond broken, and trying to continuously patch up our problems as you suggest isn't going to take care of the problem, and barely touch the symptoms. I would rather work on curing the problems, not the symptoms.

[kpominville]

20. So what is your solution?

You said you deal in solutions, so lets hear it.

[MadHound]

23. Like I've said time and again,

We need to work towards complete and fully funded publicly funded elections. Every candidate for office, no matter the office, gets X amount of dollars to run on, X amount of free radio and TV air time(after all, the airwaves are owned by the public), and X amount of time to conduct their campaign in(no more two-four year election campaigns). This would take corporate money and corporate influence out of government and allow the voice of real people to be heard, and heeded, once again.

Arizona, Vermont and Maine have all applied this to their own state offices, and it seems to be doing quite well. However for publicly funded elections to be truly effective we need to apply them nationwide for every office in the land.

Until then, corporations will just continue doing what they're doing, buying off the candidates of both parties in order to insure that their voices will be heard while we the people remain silent.

[kpominville]

25. Public Financing of Elections

In my opinion, public financing of elections is our #1 priority, but it has to be approached strategically and we can't afford to fall into the trap of pessimism over one or two issues.

That is the problem with Democrats, we cannot agree to disagree on the small stuff so we can come together over the larger issues.

[MadHound]

28. Until we secure publicly funded elections in this country

None of this other stuff, large or small, really matters, because we already know how the future of our country is mapped out, for the benefit of the corporations and the rich.

I actually think that publicly funded elections is a winner of an idea if the Democratic leadership would get behind it. I've talked to literally thousands of people on this topic, during the course of my political activities, and without an exception, be they Dem or 'Pug, there isn't one person who was opposed to publicly funded elections. The trouble is our so called leaders, the ones who vote on these matters and whose opinion trumps ours everytime, are highly opposed to publicly funded elections, they like all that money and power, so the issue is never heard about, period.

The only ones who have been consistently speaking of instituting PFE's are the Greens, it has been part of their platform for years. With that out front, and the Dems and 'Pugs merging into the two party/same corporate master system of government, the Greens are looking more and more attractive all the time.

[kpominville]

29. Agreed, so long as we don't implode over FISA

We need to learn to agree to disagree on the small stuff so we can come together over these larger issues.

[MadHound]

46. Sorry, but I don't consider tearing down our Constitution to be small stuff

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

[niyad]

54. the evisceration of our constitutional rights is NOT "small stuff"! sorry, I value that

document too much for that.

[blindpig]

41. That might work, but

how the hell are you going to get those who benefit from this graft to shut the tap? Anyone in the game is already corrupted, they're not gonna kill the cash cow.

I'm afraid that correcting the system within the system is no longer possible, the system must be corrected from without.

[MadHound]

48. Sadly I have to agree with you

The only question left is where that correction from, the people, other people, nature:shrug: Ah, to live during the fall of an empire.

[Bake]

18. But no guarantee the Court will grant cert

And no guarantee that the makeup of the Court would change prior to potentially hearing the case.

Bake

[librechik]

38. Citizens like ourselves are challenging it now. And getting tossed to the curb.

This means citizens like ourselves can no longer sue the companies. The only action possible is from the Justice Department. And they will never bring criminal charges (which BTW are far harder to prove.)

You may choose to live in a delusional world of hoping Obama will do the right thing. Today he has proved he will not--and also, with a phony show of doing the right thing (voted for the amendments he promised--guess that makes upo for his failure to support a filibuster "no matter what."

[bryant69]

7. I think his actions now reflect what kind of President he will be

Will he be better than McCain? No doubt about it? Will he be a Clinton like sell out, throwing the party base over regularly? Quite possibly.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[EFerrari]

10. The law matters more than any one man. n/t

[kpominville]

12. America still suffering PTSD from 9-11

Especially in Congress, which is an extremely insular world, where they are constantly barraged with false information about the "threats to American security" from the "loyal Bushies" who infest all branches of our government.

We, as a society, have been trained and conditioned to live in fear and we now passively accept a lot more than we used to. It is worse in Congress which is why we keep seeing stuff like this.

Washington needs to be purged of all the partisans Bush put in there, but that won't happen unless a Democrat gets elected.

[MadHound]

14. No, America isn't suffering from PTSD, at least not the America I know

Americans started waking up two-three years ago, looked around and realized what had been wrought. That's one of the reasons there was a huge surge for Dems in the 2006 election. The trouble is that once again the Dems are complacent in the shredding of our Constitution, government and country, and frankly I think that the reason that they're not opposing this ongoing destruction of the Constitution is because they think that now they'll have the chance to play with all those new, unconstitutional powers.

Frankly what is becoming more and more obvious to more and more people is that Nader's description of the two parties, not a dime's worth of difference, is sadly becoming our reality.

We're operating under the two party/same corporate master system of government, and frankly that won't change until we take corporate money out of politics via publicly funded elections. Until then, the Dems and 'Pugs will continue to play good cop/bad cop with the American people, all the while both parties continue to sell our country down the river.

[kpominville]

19. No, Problem Isn't System, the Problem is Apathy

The real problem in this country is that we, the people stopped getting involved in politics. We allowed the corporations to take over both parties and now we are whining because the Dems aren't doing what we want. Well, guess what, we are reaping what we have sowed from 3 decades of thinking that all you have to do in order to claim you are politically active is vote. Voting is not enough. Voting is the LEAST we should be doing.

The two party system is not the product of some conspiracy, it is the way our Constitution is set up. We have a winner take all system and an electoral college that naturally leads to two party dominance. If you want to change that, it will take a constitutional amendment.

The best alternative for now is to get involved and take back the Democratic party from the conservative "blue dogs" and DLC.

[MadHound]

21. And why did people become apathetic?

Oh, yeah, because increasing numbers of them, especially the poor and minorities, realized that this two party system had nothing to do with them, that no matter who was elected, they would still be poor, and they would still be getting screwed(reference Clinton's welfare "reform" and NAFTA outsourcing for the latest Dem examples of this policy in action).

I'm not wanting to change our two party system, I fully realize that is how it works. What I'm wanting is fully funded, publicly funded elections for every office from dog catcher to president. Take corporate money out of the equation and out of our government. Until that happens, there is going to be no real progress made in this country.

As far as taking the Democratic party back from the corporations and DLC, good luck with that. I've been there, done that, more times than I can count, and have the scars to show for it. But hey, if you want to go beat your head against that wall, good luck. But who in the hell do you think the party is going to listen to, you and a relatively small group of poor activists, or to the mega billion dollar corporations waving money in their face. Oh, yeah, that's right, money trumps, every time.

[kpominville]

24. Instead of giving in to pessimism

Why not take advantage of the momentum we have right now to take over the Democratic party at your local level and push for public financing of elections?

If you are that old and tired then by all means retire from politics and let those with more energy and passion have a go at it.

[Bobbie Jo]

60. Actually, I think we're suffering PTSD from BushCo and his gang of thug legislators...nt

[Nite Owl]

16. If he is elected

therein is the problem. We have no guarantees about that at all. In 2000 how many really believed that W could win when the previous two dems terms were prosperous and peaceful? Sure it was stolen as it was in '04 but that doesn't mean that won't happen in November either. These supreme court justices aren't all about to retire either, not the right wingers at any rate.

[wryter2000]

22. Just curious

Which SC Justices do you think will retire? 4 - 5 seems high to me. Certainly, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts aren't going anywhere. Right now, they only have to get one more Justice to go along with their lunacy.

It's imperative Obama become President so McCain can't install insanity permanently in the SC, but I don't see that we're going to get a very different Court for a long, long time.

[kpominville]

27. Everyone except Roberts, Alito and Thomas

They will all be in their 80s and any of them could retire or, god forbid, die during the next President's term.

[wryter2000]

37. Scalia looks healthy to me

And that bastard is too damned mean to leave before he dies.

[Eric J in MN]

26. I am not expecting the Supreme Court to rule that the "retroactive immunity"

...for phone companies is unconstitutional, regardless of who the next president is.

[mdmc]

30. I wouldn't mind if Obama spied on me

Although I didn't dig the Bigdog's continued war on drugs.

[Leopolds Ghost]

43. Bigdog started the domestic warrantless spying program. Read the expose articles in Harpers, etc.

It was Bush I's baby. Bush II inherited it from Clinton.

He merely broadened the targets. What, you think that he
was able to install listening devices in switching stations
across the US in the first two months of his Presidency??

That was all installed under Clinton.

You'll be happy to know it was Clinton's idea to burn up
our sole mole on a failed politically-timed "Wag the Dog"
bombing raid directed by the electronic surveillance wing,
who felt human intelligence was not needed anymore since we
could listen in on the any potential enemy's conversations,
foreign or domestic.

After the failed attempt, our mole had to flee and
the enemy ditched his phone. Smooth move, Ex-Lax.

Thus we had no forewarning of 9-11 or at least none
that Bush could not deliberately ignore in hopes the enemy
would strike first.

[niyad]

56. you wouldn't mind if obama spied on you? may one ask why you are so willing to give up your

constitutional rights to this person, or any person:? how bizarre.

I don't care WHO it is, I don't want anyone spying on me.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. To avoid the problem all Obama has to do is vote against the bill.

We'll see if he lives up to his rhetoric about "change". Politics as usual isn't "change".

[FreepFryer]

32. Obama must stack the court to appoint that many justices. Not at all a bad idea...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/opinion/26smith.html

[robinlynne]

33. You are simply WRONG. The immunity cannot be undone ever. And the cases

against the gov't were all thrown out of court lready. Those against the teleocms were the ones which were succeeding in court.

[Ian_rd]

35. Wow. You are breathtakingly wrong.

The media are not dividing us over this, Obama is - with his opinion on the issue. It is his decision to grant immunity to well-connected corporate criminals who violate the Bill of Rights, it is not an invention of the media. They are only able to exploit it because Obama opened the door for them with his opinion.

And what a pathetic and weak reasoning to think that the FISA vote doesn't matter because an Obama court would overturn it. Bush's own court has overturned a few of his unconstitutional crimes. Does that mean Bush's infringements on our rights don't matter either?

[kpominville]

45. If the media wasn't obsessing about this

You wouldn't be either.

[Ian_rd]

50. This is the Constitution of the United States

... not some Brangelina bullshit. The fact that you can't tell the difference is astonishing.

You just lost your right against unwarranted searches, and you think it's all just another media distraction like a flag pin.

[kpominville]

57. lost that a long time ago

We lost that after the patriot act and their secret "sneak and peek" searches.

[Larkspur]

36. Power corrupts everyone

Obama is not immune to corruption.

[Fumesucker]

40. I'm not sure that is entirely true...

"The mistakes (of leaders) are amplified by the numbers who follow them without question. Charismatic leaders tend to build up followings, power structures and these power structures tend to be taken over by people who are corruptible. I don't think that the old saw about 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely' is accurate: I think power attracts the corruptible."

- Frank Herbert, BBC interview promoting the Dune

[AntiFascist]

39. You have been brainwashed by the media...

Obama supported those Senators who were trying to remove telecom immunity from the bill, unfortunately GEM$NBC, who is named in one of the telecom lawsuits btw, left out this important fact.

We can hope that courts will overturn the legislation or that Obama will fix this legislation when he is in office, but the outrage we feel now will likely diminish by then.

Also, the Supreme Court replacement issue is one reason corrupt Republicans will try as hard as possible to steal the next election. IT IS NOT OUR OUTRAGE THAT IS HELPING MCCAIN, that is a ridiculous argument, it will be those who don't care enough to give a damn that may put him in office.

[Leopolds Ghost]

42. I thought Obama SUPPORTS the FISA bill. Why would he appoint SCOTUS likely to overturn it?

He wouldn't, that's why.

He's a constitutional scolar, supposedly a civil rights expert.

It used to be one of his main qualifications for being elected.

He'll appoint judges who share his interpretation of the 4th Amendment precisely.

[JHB]

44. You're assuming Obama will actively work to reverse this.

That's a mistake.


MAKE him actively work against it. Leave him no choice.

Obama is a politician. Once upon a time that would have been "a (**ptui**) politician", but we've learned to our loss that there are worse things.

That said, only fools "have faith" in politicians. The only ones you can really trust are those whose arms you're twisting to nearly the breaking point.

[lumberjack_jeff]

47. Bullshit. Authoritarianism sucks. n/t

[FredfromSpace]

51. Obama has no credibility on this issue

"Senator Obama will support a filibuster."

But then he voted against it.

What we need is civil activism, not misplaced "hope" in the promises of politicians.

[lame54]

52. So, you're saying that Obama's voting yes on FISA will help John McCain?...

Then I guess he should have voted no

[niyad]

53. ask any constitutional law scholar--the 4th amendment was killed yesterday, and I am heartsick

saying this crap will get fixed come january is delusional, at best, I am sick and tired of "oh, everything will be okay once bush is out of office" our democrats in congress have proved that they are little better than the repukes, so I don't see a lot of hope.

and just where did you figure that obama can appoint 4 or 5 new justices? you think all the repukes on the court are going to step down, or handily die off or something?

[kpominville]

55. Obviously Unconstitutional

Hense my point about the Supreme Court overturning that part of it anyway.

[niyad]

58. the current court is unlikely to do anything of the kind, as it is a repuke majority, and

your vision of a different court is not going to happen for years. are you seriously willing to have your rights overturned for that long?

[kpominville]

62. No choice in the matter

Getting outraged to the point of physical and emotional exhaustion, like some people I know, isn't going to change anything.

I am just as outraged as anyone but I don't hold any illusions about this being a quick battle.

I am in this for the long haul.

[niyad]

59. since it is obviously unconstitutional, WHY did obama vote for it, or any of the other dems?

kindly explain that. obama is praised as a constitutional scholar, so why in the hell did he vote for it?

[kpominville]

61. What happened with Habeus Corpus?

It was restored by the courts.

I believe the same thing will happen with this.
Especially if Obama is elected and gets to appoint the next 4 supreme court justices.

[librechik]

63. that is the key question that this thread does not answer. n/t

[Bjorn Against]

64. The first Supreme Court justices to resign will likely be the liberal ones

Obama can replace a liberal with another liberal, but the right-wing judges on the Supreme Court tend to be younger and they are unlikely to resign within Obama's first term. In fact they will probably hold on through his second. The Supreme Court is going to be a problem for us for some time, Obama can keep it from getting any worse but we probably won't be able to make it better until sometime after Obama has left office.