Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditU.S. Senators Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, and Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, will take steps to filibuster a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) reform proposal that provides retroactive immunity to telecommunications corporations that violate the privacy rights of customers by sharing information with illegal spying programs.
Feingold and Dodd, longtime critics of the immunity provision, made their move after members of groups such as TrueMajority.org and Democracy for America urged senators to use procedural strategies to try and block the rapid progress of Bush administration-backed legislation that would bar consumer lawsuits against telephone companies that are guilty of spying on Americans.
"This is a deeply flawed bill, which does nothing more than offer retroactive immunity by another name. We strongly urge our colleagues to reject this so-called ‘compromise' legislation and oppose any efforts to consider this bill in its current form. We will oppose efforts to end debate on this bill as long as it provides retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that may have participated in the President's warrantless wiretapping program, and as long as it fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans," declared Feingold and Dodd.
"If the Senate does proceed to this legislation, our immediate response will be to offer an amendment that strips the retroactive immunity provision out of the bill. We hope our colleagues will join us in supporting Americans' civil liberties by opposing retroactive immunity and rejecting this so-called ‘compromise' legislation."
Speaking with Amy Goodman on the radio program Democracy Now, Feingold elaborated on the plan to fight the immunity scheme. "We are going to resist this bill," he said. "We are going to make sure that the procedural votes are gone through. In other words, a filibuster is requiring sixty votes to proceed to the bill, sixty votes to get cloture on the legislation. We will also --- Senator Dodd and I and others -- will be taking some time to talk about this on the floor. We're not just going to let it be rubber-stamped."
Goodman pressed Feingold, specifically asking him to confirm that he would attempt a filibuster.
"That's what I just described," said the Wisconsinite, who chairs the Constitution subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
To be maintained, a filibuster must be supported by more than two fifths of the 100 senators. If opponents of a filibuster can muster 60 votes, Feingold and Dodd will fail -- a distinct possibility, as key Democrats in the Senate have made moves to compromise with the Republican White House on this issue. (Dodd's attempt to filibuster an earlier version of the legislation in February gained only 29 supporters, far less than the 41 required to prevent a bill from advancing.)
But the news that a filibuster effort would be made was cause for celebration among activists who were worried that no senators would be willing to take extraordinary steps to battle an extraordinary assault on the 4th amendment to the Constitution.
"We spoke; they listened," TrueMajority online director Matt Holland said of the decision to filibuster. "Senators Dodd and Feingold understand that we don't have to break the law to keep America safe. It doesn't take secret surveillance to understand that the greatest threat to our liberty comes not from foreign elements but rather from those would undermine the basic principles and values that keep our nation strong."
Holland explained that, "The White House guarding our right to privacy is like the fox guarding the hen house. We're pleased that Senators Dodds and Feingold are standing up to this inanity. Now it's time for others in the Senate to join them and remove the immunity provision. Americans just don't like being spied on."
TrueMajority had urged Feingold, Dood and U.S. Senator Barack Obama, D-Illinois -- all past champions of efforts to block the immunity provision and related assaults on the ability of citizens to challenge corporate and governmental abuses.
Abandoning a previous commitment to lead the fight to protect privacy rights, Obama has indicated that he will vote with the Bush administration to undermine those rights.
Feingold describes Obama's choice as a "wrong vote" and "regrettable."
Instead of aiding George Bush's attack on the 4th Amendment, Feingold said of Democrats in the Senate: "We should be standing up for the Constitution."
Finally, Mr Nichols and I can agree on something...
giving major props to Russ Feingold!
And Obama was disappointing. What did he think that the 527s will go "light" on him for supporting this or heavier if he didn't???
Posted by Mask at 06/24/2008 @ 10:38pm
This just proves the phone companies are not as smart as banks. They should have sent Dodd more money.
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 06/24/2008 @ 10:43pm
OBAMA is voting to help tear up the Fourth Amendment? What is going on? He is a Constitutional Law professor for God's sake! Police may only conduct a search if pursuant to a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate upon probable cause. This part of the PATRIOT Act has been unconstitutional from day one. God damn, Obama knows better. I've spent my hard earned money and harder-earned time helping him get elected. What the hell is he doing. Someone please wake up Pelosi, Reid and Obama. This is the U.S. Constitution they are voting to tear up. Again.
Posted by guanabana at 06/24/2008 @ 10:48pm
And where is that exemplar for all of progressive humanity, Barak Oschlocka, on this one? Just where you'd guess a poseur like him would be: On the wrong side of the issue. Its time for progressives to pull the chain on this clown and line up behind Nader.
Posted by john lowell at 06/24/2008 @ 11:01pm
Posted by guanabana
"I've spent my hard earned money and harder-earned time helping him get elected. What the hell is he doing. Someone please wake up Pelosi, Reid and Obama."
With all due respect, sounds like its you that needs to wake up. Vote Nader.
Posted by john lowell at 06/24/2008 @ 11:04pm
john lowell - I desperately wanted some politician to believe in; I am very frightened for the future my two kids will face in this shell of a representative democracy. I bought into Obama and "hope." If Obama votes to shred the 4th Amendment, he can go to hell. I will vote for Nader. You are absolutely right.
Nothing - certainly not political expedience - provides a worthy excuse for Obama or Pelosi or Reid to knowingly violate the U.S. Constitution. We place our trust in these people - and they piss on us like the ants we are. Go to hell Barack. Thanks for nothing.
Posted by guanabana at 06/24/2008 @ 11:20pm
Its time for progressives to pull the chain on this clown and line up behind Nader.
Posted by john lowell at 06/24/2008 @ 11:01pm
Sooo you want McCain to be elected?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:23am
Vote Nader.
Posted by john lowell at 06/24/2008 @ 11:04pm
You must be asleep. Because Nader will only ever get enough votes to be President in a dream.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:24am
John Lowell + Guanabana = Republican Operatives.
Posted by Benchrest at 06/25/2008 @ 12:26am
Relax.
This thread is fast accumulating Nader shills... advertising with the sole purpose of obfuscating Obama's latent credibility. Who would want to do that?...:^) Of course the American people don't wish to be 'spied on'... and this remains self evident, as it vividly conjures up remembrances of Nixon's Watergate no-nos...
But terrorism is a real issue... not just some neo-con extremist's excuse for martial law... and must be addressed in a way that impinges upon American freedoms to the smallest degree possible. Mistakes were made, and IMHO, it is best if we don't let them get the better of us.
That we have witnessed the irksome excesses of the post 9/11 'Bush Doctrine' with an increasingly cynical dismay... may be causing unreasonable doubt to surface at an untimely moment like this.
At this critical 'tipping point' in America's 'self analysis'... don't throw the baby out with the bath water... Look around you and witness the situation we must leave. It is from this place... with these political and economic realities... with these broken progressives, and those spent neo-cons... that we must rebuild our fabulous heritage... the one that was built upon "Freedom and Justice for All".
Stop your barking... it's time to leave the doghouse... all you beautiful and innovatingly intelligent American people... we need you. We're gonna have to work together on this.
Posted by ttr at 06/25/2008 @ 12:56am
I will not vote for McCain either. I will not vote for any candidate who willingly votes to shred the 4th Amendment or any other part of the U.S. Constitution. However, citizens of a representative democracy are indeed able to gradually vote their own democracy out of existence - it's an option inherent in the democratic system. Let's hear from you folks who will support Obama or McCain in spite of each man's decision to violate the 4th Amendment. Your responses will likely will be based on variants of the "lesser of two evils" theory.
Posted by guanabana at 06/25/2008 @ 01:09am
"But terrorism is a real issue... not just some neo-con extremist's excuse for martial law... and must be addressed in a way that impinges upon American freedoms to the smallest degree possible"
nevertheless, very serious federal laws were broken. there is simply no doubt about that.
second, if this bill represents an evisceration of the 4th amendment, which many constitutional scholars have proven to be true, then how can any reasonable patriot (and i use this term literally) support it?
is it patriotic to support the ability of government to spy on its own citizens, without any oversight or accountability?
this issue is very clear cut to me, and that we are even discussing it proves that we, as a country, have become at least minimally fascist.
Posted by darladoon at 06/25/2008 @ 01:30am
Obama put himself up for sale, and now we're seeing the results.
He wants power & glory, and these he'll get.
What he'll do with his power, we're now learning. And it's rather inglorious.
Obama is as signed on to the imperial project as McCain, the difference is more one of style & cosmetics than substance.
If you enjoy empire abroad, you better learn to love fascism at home, as the 2 are inseparable.
Posted by sloper at 06/25/2008 @ 01:55am
by darladoon
--is it patriotic to support the ability of government to spy on its own citizens, without any oversight or accountability?--
No. I appreciate and indeed share your concerns, but it is alleged that the (FISA) reform proposal has in fact added some real accountability while allowing retroactive immunity to the telecoms... saying in a sense that we can't change history but we can learn from it... and improve on it.
Posted by ttr at 06/25/2008 @ 02:00am
what the new fisa bill asks of americans is this:
"just trust us (the US government) to do the right thing"
"we would never, ever abuse your constitutional right to privacy. "
how many people in this forum support warrantless sureviellance?
Posted by darladoon at 06/25/2008 @ 02:01am
ttr, let's put aside the not-so-insignificant issue of telecom immunity for a second....and ask whether it is constitutional to permit a group of individuals (the executive branch) to spy on americans without any oversight.
what is your understanding?
second, on the issue of telecom immunity: the telecoms broke a very serious federal law at the request of the president.
and yet they are seeking to rewrite the law.
again, i have to ask, what is your understanding?
to me, it seems clear: if you break the law, you pay the price. bush broke the law, and the telecoms broke the law. if they don't pay the price, then what, i must ask, is the entire point of having laws?
or a constitution?
Posted by darladoon at 06/25/2008 @ 02:05am
The vote in the senate will be Friday (as I'm hearing it). I have sent an email to my Senator Bingaman asking him to vote NO and also support the efforts of Senator Feingold to filibuster this bill. Senator Bingaman on the radio today says he will vote NO. I urge you to contact your senators and express your views. It will take many people to stop this and it starts with you and I.
Posted by manyearss at 06/25/2008 @ 02:08am
Heard that the bill's sloppy language would grant civil immunity but not criminal? An Obama-administration AG might be able to bring criminal prosecutions against the phone companies later? And that Obama has vowed to work to remove the immunity provision in the Senate? Nichols hasn't told you any of that. Maybe any effort to strip the provision will come up short and the bill will quietly be let through, but the story doesn't end there.
Posted by scottbp at 06/25/2008 @ 03:26am
[John Lowell + Guanabana = Republican Operatives] = Benchrest is a simple minded Fool
By the way, it is damned encouraging to see sharply intelligent posters on this thread vigorously speaking out on the FISA fiasco, and Obama's deeply disturbing complicity with the White House's agenda.
I've been sounding the alarm on Obama's multiple shocking recent capitulations for the last couple of weeks here at The Nation.
I know that Obama seems like a nice guy and all, but Jezus Kryst people, wake up and smell the concrete already.
This is no time for pussy footing around, wringing our hands, or lamely spouting "What about McCain?".
Let's apply maximum pressure on Obama NOW.
The credible threat of lost votes to Ralph Nader's campaign is absolutely a surefire and effective way to signal our anger and dismay with Obama's conduct thus far.
With McCain looking more and more like the road kill he surely is, we have little to lose, and possibly our Republic to regain if we act in full throated unison.
By the grace of Carlin, let's get crackin'!
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/25/2008 @ 04:03am
Oh, and by the way, the Capitol Switchboard number is:
(202)224-3121
Please take the time today to call both of your Senators and urge them to vote NO on this shitty FISA/telecom immunity bill --and if you are certain that your Senators are already hopeless, call someone else's Senators that may be on the fence to get them moving in the right direction.
Make no mistake folks, this is a big one.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/25/2008 @ 04:15am
<b>Bolds</b>
<i>Italics</i>
I see we have time stamps now, how about getting html tags working too?
Anyone?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/25/2008 @ 04:29am
I liked Obama. I was glad Obama defeated Hillary Clinton. I thought Obama was a few degrees to the left of Gore and Kerry.
But alas, I'm wrong. Obama is the twin brother of that other DLC loser, Harold Ford.
Every four years Nader keeps asking us, "What is the fail standard for this party?" And every four years, those who would enable the Democratic Party to enable loony right-wing elements like Bush & Cheney justify things as they are.
I say fuck 'em. I'm voting for Nader.
"But do you want McCain to be president?"
Yes, if that's what it takes to destroy the Democratic Party.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/25/2008 @ 06:05am
Yes, if that's what it takes to destroy the Democratic Party.----Posted by KSP556 at 06/25/2008 @ 06:05am
And the rest of us with it???
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2008 @ 08:44am
Yes, if that's what it takes to destroy the Democratic Party.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/25/2008 @ 06:05am | ignore this person | warn this person
Obama must have been seated next to and sharing notes with John Yoo during his constitutional law class in law school.
Voters should be thinking about how to check and balance this big Democratic Party party anticipated for this fall. A Republican executive branch versus a Democratic legislative branch is worthy of discussion.
Posted by OneVote at 06/25/2008 @ 09:12am
OneVote, it's really disappointing that Obama has moved so far right so soon (on Israel, Cuba, NAFTA, FISA/spying issue, etc.), especially when you consider, from a strictly political-pragmatic perspective, he hasn't needed to.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/25/2008 @ 09:17am
Make no mistake folks, this is a big one.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/25/2008 @ 04:15am | ignore this person | warn this person
Indeed it is. We are not only talking about the 4th Amendment, but the 1st Amendment as well. The chilling effect on the 1st Amendment will be an inevitable result. Politicians have proved time and time again they can't be trusted to serve the best interest of the people.
Posted by OneVote at 06/25/2008 @ 09:24am
[John Lowell + Guanabana = Republican Operatives] = Benchrest is a simple minded Fool
Let's apply maximum pressure on Obama NOW
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/25/2008 @ 04:03am
Simple minded for simple scenarios.
It will be Obama or it will be McCain. Period.
You work to get one elected or you work to get the other elected. Period.
If this offends your delicate progressive sensibilities, I don't care.
The man has his plate full right now trying to win. Try applying maximum pressure AFTER he wins.
Posted by Benchrest at 06/25/2008 @ 09:28am
OneVote, it's really disappointing that Obama has moved so far right so soon (on Israel, Cuba, NAFTA, FISA/spying issue, etc.), especially when you consider, from a strictly political-pragmatic perspective, he hasn't needed to.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/25/2008 @ 09:17am | ignore this person | warn this person
I totally agree. His "left leaning and progressive" message was selling just fine, even to many true conservative voters who are disgusted with the criminals that call themselves the Republican party. His polling numbers and campaign war chest indicate absolutely no need to abandon his platform for a move to the right. What we are getting is the "insider" push to right, and this ought to be yet another wake up call that the puppet masters control the shots, not the voters.
I didn't like Obama initially because I didn't trust that his oratory would match his conviction and unfortunately, it appears that my fears are confirmed. My support for him came more from distaste for Clinton and the DNC establishment. Now, it looks like we are getting another wolf dressed in sheep's clothing.
Posted by OneVote at 06/25/2008 @ 09:34am
IMHO, all this jumping up and down about the FISA bill is all smoke and mirrors. The government has no intention of going after the entire telecom industry because a few of you think the 4th amendment got pissed on in the process. The government knows pretty much that any legal intanglement with Ma Bell will have disasterous consiquences.
Communication, Transportation and the Military are the industries this government relies on most.
Posted by ACook at 06/25/2008 @ 09:43am
And the latest obscenity are the impending, AIPAC sponsored House and Senate resolutions on war with Iran coming up next week. Does any serious person believe that after his recent full court grovel at the AIPAC congress a couple of weeks ago Barak Obama is likely to vote against the Senate version? Think now, this is a war authorizing resolution and its coming up next week and 90% of Democrats are more concerned about Michelle's dress or McCain's flip flops. Here's a prediction written on the wind for you: With our manufacturing industries utterly gone, the dollar about to be abandoned as the world's reserve currency, our financial and credit systems approaching ruin, unemployment and inflation rising, and with our Middle Eastern fortunes determined by the captivity of our political institutions to a lobby acting for all intents and purposes as an agent of a foreign power, the United States faces calamity of unimaginable proportions. And with a people pleasing empty suit as President, that calamity is certain to be realized. Progressives need to vote for Nader for the sake of sanity. Please, bring an end to this silly illusion of Democratic Party reliability, please.
Posted by john lowell at 06/25/2008 @ 09:55am
Whoever is going to be the President is going to keep all the powers he can get. Constitution? Sure, but we're talking IMPERIUM here, and executive power is its own law (privi - lege = private law).
What could possibly have made anyone think that the pretty one would do any different from the wrinkly one?
The Dems don't have it, the Reps are slightly worse. At base they are ONE THING.
Don't vote Nader. Go out and organize some REAL politics. Link up with others who can see the swindle. Create a mass movement. It will take years of your life. But the once-great US of A deserves it. Meanwhile it may be strategic to vote Obama... but it won't make all that much difference, will it?
Posted by mikecope at 06/25/2008 @ 10:03am
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:35pm
Under your rationale, what laws or constitutional protections, then, are worth fighting for if the government is capable of breaking any law it wants?
With your attitude the sucessful fight to restore habeas should never have been fought because the government can violate it whenever it want to do so.
Although suits against the telecoms had hurdles, how can you be so sure none would have been sucessful? Many think it is quite clear that they violated the law. Shouldn't there be a day in court? Granting immunity ensures nobody will win a case.
You are not being practical, you are capitulating.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 10:16am
Yeah, voting for Nader sure will teach those dems a lesson, just like it did in the last 3 right?
Posted by agentweez at 06/25/2008 @ 10:17am
Interesting...
"In any case, its progressives that I've urged to support Nader."----Posted by john lowell at 06/25/2008 @ 12:48pm
Why aren't you urging that EVERYBODY vote for Ralph Nader, not just "progressives"?!??!?
(BTW, addendum to my original assessement...it IS possible lowell is a Naderite cultist, but I'm still betting GOP plant!)
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2008 @ 10:18am
Interview with Jake Tapper of ABC News, 16 June 2008:
TAPPER: OK, last one, and that is same-sex marriage is now going on in California.
OBAMA: Right.
TAPPER: You oppose same-sex marriage.
OBAMA: Yes. ...You know, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I also think that same-sex partners should be able to visit each other in hospitals, they should be able to transfer property, they should be able to get the same federal rights and benefits that are conferred onto married couples.
Posted by HonestLiberal at 06/25/2008 @ 10:20am
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 1:48pm
None of your examples support a conclusion that a roving wiretap would have been helpful. The Maryland instance had nothing to do with the lack of a wiretap. It was a lack of information concerning visa status. Neither did the Minnesota investigation. It was an FBI decision not to seek a warrant to search the computer.
"You are asking me to prove what is somewhat the unprovable, . . ."
I believe the burden is on you. You are the one arguing for a limitation of constituional protections.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 10:22am
I don't think you can prove that they have been of no benefit now or that the lack of security measures were harmful prior to 9/11. All you can do is make your case based on your logic, and I am doing the same with my logic.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 1:48pm
Ahh but that's the the problem here SJ. The burden of proof is on you to show that these measures have actually made us more secure. We are arguing that there has been no need for this protection because it has not actually protected us. It is not based on hypotheticals it is based on the fact that there have been no terror attacks.
In order for you to prove that it has protected us you have to prove that it has stopped an attack. That's the problem here. If we gave all of our rights up due to hypotheticals then we would have no rights because you can make hypotheticals for any situation. I can say the right to freedom of speech could end up causing a violent overthrow of the government. I could say that the right to assemble could cause people to come together in radical groups meant to destroy America.
Hypotheticals are not good enough to curtail the rights of Americans and to tear up the Constitution. The burden of proof is on those who are attempting to subvert the Constitution and since it can't be proven that the destruction of the Constitution is actually keeping us safer then it only follows that it should not be changed.
By the logic you are using the only way to be safe is for military law to rule. They could then stop every crime all the time. Haebas Corpus should be thrown out because occasionally people who get off for crimes are actually guilty. I know the examples I am using are extreme but that is the potential of where this logic based on hypotheticals can take us.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 10:23am
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 1:48pm
I also think you are being purposefull vague when you refer to "security measures."
We are talking about warrantless wiretaps here.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 10:23am
Paging METTEYYA!!! Paging METTEYYA!!!
We need our resident Obama backer to give us the explanation for his disgraceful capitulation.
I am looking forward to reading his post on this one.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 10:28am
The Constitution doesn't permit Congress to pass Ex Post Facto Laws. Here is what I pulled from the Constitution: Section 9 - Limits on Congress
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
The bill is unconstitutional and these people who are suppose to uphold the Constitution and took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution from all enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC should know this. I think they all need a kids copy of the Constitution so they know what they can and CAN'T PASS!!! Here's the site I found this on:http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html PASS IT ON!!! LET YOUR SENATORS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! IF NECESSARY READ THE PART IN THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF.
BTW EX POST FACTO MEANS AFTER THE FACT: SO THEY CAN'T PASS A LAW THAT MAKES A CRIMINAL OFFENSE(WIRETAPPING...)LEGAL WHEN THEY WERE DOING IT. THAT IS BASICALLY THE RETROIMMUNITY CLAUSE IN THE FISA BILL. THEY DON'T HAVE A CONSTITUTION TO STAND THIS BILL ON.!!!
Posted by rommey38 at 06/25/2008 @ 10:28am
Democrats in Congress are pathetic. Democrats are the majority, yet Congress gets higher approval ratings from Republican voters.
Go figure.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 10:30am
>>>Abandoning a previous commitment to lead the fight to protect privacy rights, Obama has indicated that he will vote with the Bush administration to undermine those rights.<<<
I do not know where John Nichols is getting his information, but it is obviously NOT from Obama!
June 21, 2008, 12:20 PM Obama: I'll Fight To Strip Telecom Immunity From FISA Posted by David S Morgan|
(CBS/AP) - Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., issued a statement in support of the House's update of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but said he would try to strip a provision granting immunity to telecommunication companies when the bill comes to a vote in the Senate next week.
Obama said there is "little doubt" that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, "has abused [its] authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders."
"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program.
"[The bill] does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."
Posted by Metteyya at 06/25/2008 @ 10:32am
""since"???? what kinda of Superior Intellect spelling is that.....I bring up your degree because you think your a 3rd rate Dr.Phil....what a fucking joke of a lib"
Hmm funny you insulting my intelligence when you have proven that you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of punctuation. I'll correct your sentence for you since you seem to want to get into an argument about typos.
"Since!?" What kind of(kinda is not a word) spelling(A. superior intellect should not be capitalized. B. superior intellect spelling doesn't even begin to make sense.) is that? I bring up your degree because you think you're(your is possessive, you're is you are.) a third(I would use the word here instead of the number) rate Dr. Phil. What a fucking joke of a liberal.
Learn English before you start insulting people you moron.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 10:37am
Progressives to vote for Nader is insanity.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/25/2008 @ 10:42am
Posted by emile duBois at 06/25/2008 @ 10:42am
They do not seem to get it.
Posted by Benchrest at 06/25/2008 @ 10:43am
"Apparently there was information on a computer in Minnesota that if the authorities had been given the right to search the machine they might have uncovered information that would have pointed to the possibility of 9/11. "
The authorities chose not to go to FISA. Their failure to even take that step is at fault, not the FISA law.
"The Maryland trooper did not have access to information about this individuals visa status and how he was in violation of reporting in as required, all the person got was a speeding ticket, which was found in the rental car at Newark after 9/11."
Which has nothing to do with warrantless wiretapping.
"I am making a hypothetical case, and I know I am, but it seems to me from what I have come across that the security measures may have prevented 9/11, people have made this case, and that they perhaps have prevented another 9/11."
In short, you are, again, copping out when it comes to actually substantiating your case.
"I don't think you can prove that they have been of no benefit now or that the lack of security measures were harmful prior to 9/11. All you can do is make your case based on your logic, and I am doing the same with my logic."
Except, by that logic, there is no need to give the government that type of power since there is no proof that it is needed.
Rommey38
The ban on ex post facto laws refers to criminalizing conduct that took place before the law took effect; it has no effect on civil suits.
Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 10:46am
Under your rationale, what laws or constitutional protections, then, are worth fighting for if the government is capable of breaking any law it wants?
With your attitude the sucessful fight to restore habeas should never have been fought because the government can violate it whenever it want to do so.
Although suits against the telecoms had hurdles, how can you be so sure none would have been sucessful? Many think it is quite clear that they violated the law. Shouldn't there be a day in court? Granting immunity ensures nobody will win a case.
You are not being practical, you are capitulating.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 10:16am
No. Here is my rationale Hman. I am against warrant-less wiretapping. But let's work on stopping that. Not telecom immunity. The problem is this, even if you win, you lose. Why? No one will ever investigate these companies thoroughly. This will turn out to be exactly like the Bush administration investigations, oil company investigations and many others that have been lodged but never followed through on. It's not capitulating if you realize a fight can't be won so you turn your energy to another. The first thing you learn to do when you learn to fight is you learn to fight smart, without emotion. You pick your fights carefully and if a fight can't be won you learn when to back down in order to attack another point and bring down your opponent that way. If you are fighting someone bigger than you, you don't attempt to have a battle of strength because you will always lose. In this case you are fighting a group of companies that an intricate part of the workings of the United States.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 10:49am
I made a typo on my post above,
When I said "I don't think you can prove that they have been of no benefit now or that the lack of security measures were harmful prior to 9/11. All you can do is make your case based on your logic, and I am doing the same with my logic."
I meant "lack of security measures were NOT harmful"
To Hman23 - When I refer to security measures I am talking about the whole mix of having information, not just wiretaps, as was the case with the Maryland traffic stop where visa status information was not available. And in the Minnesota computer the warrant could not be granted in a timely manner.
To Hman23 and Cccomfo1 - if security measures prevent terrorists from even planning a terrorist attack, then you can't prove that a specific attack was stopped because it may have never been planned or the idea hatched in the first place. If we have to set limits so you have to prove specific terror attacks were stopped, then you are allowing terrorists to go too far down the road.
I certainly have seen no sizeable reference or outcry in the public media of specific U.S. citizens minding their own business and not engaged in terrorist activities who are complaining their rights were infringed upon as a result of these security measures.
The complaints have been that these actions were taken, and not complaints from large numbers of people with specific cases where they believe wrong has been done to them.
If this was the case, I believe the media would be spotlighting them 24/7 instead of reporting (negatively) on gas prices and the economy.
Abraham Lincoln suspended Haebas Corpus during the War Between the States and he said the Constitution was not a death sentence.
You have the need to protect civil liberties and you have the need to protect our country from massive attack here at home, and it is not an easy balancing act, but one that the U.S. over the years has navigated through a lot better than a lot of other countries in the world.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 10:51am
>>>Abandoning a previous commitment to lead the fight to protect privacy rights, Obama has indicated that he will vote with the Bush administration to undermine those rights.<<<
I do not know where John Nichols is getting his information, but it is obviously NOT from Obama!
June 21, 2008, 12:20 PM Obama: I'll Fight To Strip Telecom Immunity From FISA Posted by David S Morgan|
Posted by Metteyya at 06/25/2008 @ 10:32am | ignore this person | warn this person
That doesn't mean a damn thing. He'll vote to strip telecom immunity but will he vote for or against it the bill if that amendment doesn't pass?
Further, telecom immunity isn't the only problem with the bill, as hman's post indicates. Obama is clearly willing to ignore all those other shortcomings in support of a bill that does undermine privacy rights. Nichol's statement is well-founded.
Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 10:53am
>>>Paging METTEYYA!!! Paging METTEYYA!!!
We need our resident Obama backer to give us the explanation for his disgraceful capitulation.
I am looking forward to reading his post on this one.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 10:28am<<<
HMAN23,
My post a couple of entires above speaks for itself!
Obama has NOT CAPITULATED ON ANYTHING, and will be the KEY player in the senate in removing telecom immunity from the bill.
Nichols and some so-called "progressives" have decided that they are going to bash Obama at even the slightest hint of centrism no matter how specious the claim or tenuous the logic.
These Obama-bashing efforts are calculated to split the progressive vote and bolster Ralph Nader's ill-advised presidential run, and this ONLY helps Republicans retain the White House. Why would these so-called progressives want to do that given our experience in 2000 with Gore? Gore certainly would have won the presidency had progressives united behind him instead of backing Nader.
These short-sighted progressives need to WAKE THE F..K UP! This is serious business, and the more we waste time on Obama-bashing, the more we create the prospect of another 4-8 years of Republican rule!
I don't know about you, but I am tired of these Republicans in the White House. If another Republican wins because of the shortsightedness of "progressives" like John Nichols, I am out of here!
Posted by Metteyya at 06/25/2008 @ 10:55am
I really hate this bill - I don't want telcos facilitating a phone/internet vacuum cleaner operation by the NSA - I also do not want "retroactive immunity" for telcos that engaged in deeply criminal conduct. I really hate far worse the Democrat cave-in on the bill in the HoR.
I guess we can be genuinely grateful that, on an issue of real importance (say it again: "NSA conducting vacuum cleaner operation on the internet") we have these two figures (Dodd and Feingold) who are willing to step up to bat for us.
Posted by Zero at 06/25/2008 @ 10:56am
"of specific U.S. citizens minding their own business and not engaged in terrorist activities who are complaining their rights were infringed upon as a result of these security measures. "
Since the administration uses the "state secrets privilege" to block any information on that, the fact that you haven't heard of any cases proves nothing.
Further, there is a huge difference between a large chunk of the country being in open, armed rebellion and a gang of criminal conspirators, so your Civil War analogy is ludicrous.
You also have offered no argument as to why warrantless wiretapping which preserve the executive branch from any oversight is necessary.
Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 10:58am
libzr-You are the only one who is anti American with your desire to see your fellow Americans killed and,no,the authorities do not agree with your hope that Americans are killed in another attack,which is fortunate for all Americans.Personally,I don't mind if they listen in on my 900 sex line calls because I get off on that so my thing is about freedom because I don't like fear to be a reason to tighten up on freedom.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/25/2008 @ 11:00am
"These Obama-bashing efforts are calculated to split the progressive vote and bolster Ralph Nader's ill-advised presidential run, and this ONLY helps Republicans retain the White House. Why would these so-called progressives want to do that given our experience in 2000 with Gore?"
Now you've gone off into tin-foil hat land.
Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 11:05am
I certainly have seen no sizeable reference or outcry in the public media of specific U.S. citizens minding their own business and not engaged in terrorist activities who are complaining their rights were infringed upon as a result of these security measures.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 10:51am
That's because these complaints will never be reported. I know a guy from Pakistan. Who got his door kicked in by the FBI and his house raided. They never found anything and he was never accused of a crime.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 11:06am
This is issue is slightly moot sadly. Bush has already found ways around this bill to begin with. The NSA bill is classified so we can't possibly know what it gives them the power to do. However if there truly is a suspected terrorist living in the US the government is just going to take them anyway and then make the evidence later. It's the sad truth but they don't give a damn about red tape or the Constitution. The CIA or FBI will pick them up and no one will ever know what happened to them. This isn't a conspiracy theory either. This is entirely within the bounds of the government to do.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 11:14am
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 10:51am
SJ. I mean this in the nicest of ways, you need to think before you actually give up your rights. You are throwing away rights at the specter of a ghost. As brunowe pointed out Civil War is a little different than a few people in another country. When half of the country at war with he country then I understand the suspension of Habeas Corpus. When there are a couple of people in another country you can't support giving up rights. There have been people attempting to destroy America since it's birth and it's the same for ever country. Does that mean every single country should be in military law all the time? Why didn't Reagan do warrantless wiretapping when we were at war with Russia? The threat of nuclear obliteration is much more poignant than a smaller terrorist attack.
You have given very few strong arguments for why we should rip up the Constitution. You have given hypotheticals alone. If hypotheticals is enough for you to give up on everything America stands for just to afford yourself a little peace of mind then fine I can't stop you however I wish you would stop and think and say to yourself, "If a terrorist attack 7 years ago has caused me to have a willingness to give up all of my rights to the specter of an enemy then didn't the terrorists win?"
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 11:15am
>>>Now you've gone off into tin-foil hat land.
Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 11:05am <<<
Tin-foil-hat land? Did you read the posts on this thread? Here are a few samples:
>>>Progressive need to support Ralph Nader so that an end can be brought to this awful agony.
Posted by john lowell at 06/25/2008 @ 11:36am
I say fuck 'em. I'm voting for Nader.
"But do you want McCain to be president?"
Yes, if that's what it takes to destroy the Democratic Party.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/25/2008 @ 06:05am
The credible threat of lost votes to Ralph Nader's campaign is absolutely a surefire and effective way to signal our anger and dismay with Obama's conduct thus far.
With McCain looking more and more like the road kill he surely is, we have little to lose, and possibly our Republic to regain if we act in full throated unison.
By the grace of Carlin, let's get crackin'!
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/25/2008 @ 04:03am |<<<
A VOTE FOR NADER IS A VOTE FOR THE CONTINUATION OF GEORGE BUSH!
And Obama-bashing by progressives CREATES MORE VOTES FOR NADER!
When will we LEARN?
Posted by Metteyya at 06/25/2008 @ 11:16am
Now you've gone off into tin-foil hat land.
Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 11:05am
He is as bad as Frankgrits.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 11:16am
Obama seems to combine idealism with pragmatism. we could all do with that.
any TV commentator who "confuses" Obama with Osama should be immediately fired.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/25/2008 @ 11:17am
What about Hillary?
Will she be joining the fillibuster? She has lots of time & energy on her hands these days.
Or will she be on the same side as CheneyBush, again.
Might not have been much differrence between her & Obama after all.
Posted by sloper at 06/25/2008 @ 11:18am
Yes, tin-foil hat land. Nader's campaign isn't going anywhere, and you still haven't answered my questions re Obama--
1) Will he vote for the bill if the telecom immunity provision isn't removed?
2) Why does he praise a bill that has so many objctionable provisions in addition to telecom immunity?
Substantive objections aren't Obama-bashing, except to an Obama-bot.
Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 11:18am
Also the FISA bill ends up, as ACook said, to be nothing but smoke and mirrors. They will NEVER go after our entire telecommunications network. Hell they won't even go after George Bush and his group of law breakers that forced the telecom companies to allow them wiretaps. Why then do you think they would go after an infrastructure that is much much more important to us than a President who is about to be out of office? That's the the reason that many Senators who were against the FISA bill to begin with are now for it. They realize, unlike many of the American people, that A. the government will never ever attack telecom companies and B. if they really wanted to take someone without a warrant there is no one to stop them. All you gotta do is take the person, make up some evidence, bribe or blackmail a judge and boom you have your case won.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 11:18am
I think ALL progressives should take the advice of one of the posters above and save your Obama-bashing for AFTER he gets elected; otherwise, he may NEVER get elected!
Posted by Metteyya at 06/25/2008 @ 11:19am
"My vote isn't about self-respect ..."
Well that's certainly clear enough, isn't it. How then are we to describe your vote, then, as a act of self-hatred?
"... it is about the preservation and protection of the country I love."
You wouldn't mind if I reach for the dramamine and a suitably large bag would you?
"I would rather see my country slowly change into what I want it to be with less than perfect candidates doing the work, than see my country turn into a fascist nation because I voted to make myself feel good."
Yeah, the changes likely will be slow in coming alright, so slow, in fact, that I haven't seen any arrive at all since the Democrats took control of the Congress in 2006. But to conclude that the country isn't already fascist with the connivence of those very "less than perfect" candidates you intend to support, even though you hate yourself for it, is the very definition of naivete. Not much "realism" there, I'd say.
"Don't get me wrong. I would love to have many many different parties"
Somehow, I'd doubt that. In any case, we already have many different parties, its just that some are suppressed by those you're inclined to support.
"Basically would you are saying is that your self-respect is more important to you than the future of this nation ... " to protect our children from people like George Bush ... "
I see no distinction between self-respect and the good of the country. As a matter of fact, the good of the country is in large part dependent on the self-respect of voters.
" ... to protect our children from people like George Bush ... "
... and Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, and Hitlery Clinton, and Barak Obama and Steny Hoyer and ...
"If Nader actually ever stood a chance of winning I would vote for him ... "
Sure you would, you just keep believing that, son. If a candidates winning - or, if in 1948, Harry Truman's, for that matter - were conditioned on people believing he was going to win, Tom Dewey would have been President.
"I am an independent Progressive. One who realizes that in order to actually win the fight I have to let my own ego lose sometimes."
I know, I know, you're losing yourself to find yourself. And I'd thought Christ died 2000 years ago.
Posted by john lowell at 06/25/2008 @ 11:21am
libzr-I told you what the problem was in the rest of the post.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/25/2008 @ 11:30am
Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 11:18am
Q:Will he vote for the bill if telecom immunity is NOT removed? A: I certainly hope not.
Q: Why does he praise a bill that has so many objectionable provisions in addition to telecom immunity? A: I don't think Obama's actual comments, which were omitted by Nichols in his story, could be construed as "praise".
Does this sound like praise?:
>>>Obama said there is "little doubt" that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, "has abused [its] authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders."<<<
FISA succeeds or fails based on WHO is president and how rigorous the oversight. Obama has indicated that as president, he will have "very rigorous" oversight of the FISA program to prevent abuse. Either you believe in his commitment to preventing privacy abuse or you don't.
I know I have a LOT more confidence in Obama over-seeing FISA than any Republican. And the pending FISA statute requires court oversight, which was missing with Bush, and where court orders are not available because of time constraints, these court orders must be received within a "reasonable" time after the wiretaps begin. Whether you accept this or not, this is a HUGE change from the Bush implementation of FISA in which court orders were never sought.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/25/2008 @ 11:30am
Here's an example of what I had mentioned earlier of the vacuity with which most Democrats concern themselves. A war resolution in prospect at the moment and The Nation's, David Corn, writes about McCain not being qualified for the presidency because he doesn't use a computer!
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/davidcorn/
Caught up in the imbecile enthusiasms associated with the contentless candidacy of Barak Obama, Corn hasn't managed meaningful commentary in months. It requires little to satisfy some it would seem. Progressive need to support Ralph Nader so that an end can be brought to this awful agony.
Posted by john lowell at 06/25/2008 @ 11:36am
Let's not deceive ourselves here folks. If you are a suspected terrorist the Constitution will protect about as well as the paper it is written on will protect you from a fire.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 11:39am
Why do I feel that this verifies that the corrupt corporate new con pervy repubs have a solid hold on the SCOTUS:
"The Supreme Court on Wednesday also cut the $2.5 billion punitive damages award in the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster to $500 million.
The court ruled that victims of the worst oil spill in U.S. history may collect punitive damages from Exxon Mobil Corp., but not as much as a federal appeals court determined.
...
A jury decided Exxon should pay $5 billion in punitive damages. A federal appeals court cut that verdict in half."
http://tinyurl.com/6jgwxj
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2008 @ 11:39am
Progressive need to support Ralph Nader so that an end can be brought to this awful agony.
Posted by john lowell at 06/25/2008 @ 11:36am
Ahhh. I love your enthsiasm to support a man who never has, doesn't and never will have a chance of being President. He could have 3 lifetimes worth of time to run and he would still never make it into office. Good times.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 11:42am
This vote is a litmus test.
retroactive immunity=fascism
Posted by ROBinDALLAS at 06/25/2008 @ 11:45am
Thanks, Mettayya...
This obnoxious and sinister doubting... like a creature finally released from punitive internment... is toxic and corrosive to the very 'movement' that spawns it. Just look at all the negativity that has been thrown about on this issue in the last few days... Most of it misspent transferral nonsense.
Wiretapping is wrong... but this administration is on the way out. Let it go, and start the 'new world process' rolling forward.
Don't waste your energy on Dinosaurs...;^)
Posted by ttr at 06/25/2008 @ 11:46am
Posted by john lowell at 06/25/2008 @ 09:55am
"I'm John McCain, and I endorsed this ad"
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2008 @ 11:51am
So George W. Bush is proclaimed wrong for not having these measures in place prior to September 11, 2001 and he is also wrong for putting them in place after September 11, 2001.
As you can see, the real problem here is that the left sees George W. Bush as always wrong, no matter what he does.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 12:23pm
Nice try. Bush sat on his ass and ignored intelligence of a possible attack against the United States. This is documented. It's not this 20/20 hindsight bullshit. I believe he told one of the intelligence officials, "consider your ass covered" after the intelligence official tried to warn him of possible attacks.
So, W is guilty at a minimum of being a lazy arrogant asshole who did nothing before Sept 11th. After Sept. 11th, he's been guilty of plotting an attack against Iraq and using Sept 11th and Osama Bin Laden as a fear trump card to dupe the American people and congress into giving him what he wants.
I notice that Afghanistan is still in shambles and Bin Laden, the guy from Saudi Arabia, is alive and well and will eventually die from his kidney problems, not W's devotion to bringing him to justice.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/25/2008 @ 11:52am
The hsuB/cHeney admin, like most criminals, aren't all that interested in going after other criminals, as they're pretty busy securing their own crimes to be that distracted...
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2008 @ 12:01pm
"FISA succeeds or fails based on WHO is president and how rigorous the oversight. Obama has indicated that as president, he will have "very rigorous" oversight of the FISA program to prevent abuse. Either you believe in his commitment to preventing privacy abuse or you don't."
That is simply incorrect. We are a government of laws and not men. If he opposed to the abuse of wiretapping, he should be opposed to this law. You act like a true cultist in basing your argument on Obama's virtues.
Further, the statue allows the administration to bypass the warrant requirement for seven days if they claim exigent circumstances; there is no review of individual warrant applications, only the general procedures; the government can continue a wiretap even if the application is denied as long as the ruling is under appellate review. There is no reason for the Executive Branch to have this authority; not even a blind faith in the virtues of a President Obama.
Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 12:05pm
Posted by john lowell at 06/25/2008 @ 11:21am
Look, guys, as with CRABWALK....don't fret too much about these either (A) die-hard cultists of Ralph or (B) GOP posers trying to stir up a little Election 2000 action to save McCain.
Nader got 2.7% of the vote in 2000 (2,882,955 votes)...
in 2004, after seeing just FOUR years of "there is no difference between Gore and Bush"....he got 0.38% of the vote (465,650 votes).
after EIGHT years of Bush, McCain promising more of the same, and THE most exciting Democratic nominee in 40 years...
what do you figure Ralph will pull? Especially since he is running AGAIN as an Independent and was soundly rejected by the Greens?
So, have some fun with john lowell, if you want....but he's either crazy or an agent provocateur....but not relevant.
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2008 @ 12:09pm
Posted by ROBinDALLAS
"retroactive immunity=fascism"
Precisely. What we need isn't a return to the earlier FISA arrangements, what we need is a denazification program of the type the Soviets instituted in their zone of occupation in Germany in 1945-46.
Posted by john lowell at 06/25/2008 @ 12:14pm
" Somehow, I'd doubt that. In any case, we already have many different parties, its just that some are suppressed by those you're inclined to support."
For one you know nothing about me. So what information do you have to doubt that? I have said multiple times that if a candidate is viable and carries my beliefs then I would vote for them yet you have gone against everything I said with absolutely nothing more than an assumption. They are not suppressed by anything more than a lack of voters. If third parties could actually get votes they would get votes. People know who they are and know they exist they just don't vote for them. Nader is the most famous of them and he still can barely get enough votes to get on 6 state ballots.
"Well that's certainly clear enough, isn't it. How then are we to describe your vote, then, as a act of self-hatred?"
Like I said before it's about practicality. I gain self-respect from knowing that my vote is actually helping me and not hurting me.
"You wouldn't mind if I reach for the dramamine and a suitably large bag would you?"
Grow up.
"I see no distinction between self-respect and the good of the country. As a matter of fact, the good of the country is in large part dependent on the self-respect of voters."
Bush does things out of self respect that are not for the good of the country. What you think is respectful of yourself is not neccesarily good for the country. I guarantee you most everything Bush has done he has done because he thinks it's right and that gives him self respect however what gives you self-respect to fight for is a lot different than what gives him self-respect so according to you argument which one is right?
"Sure you would, you just keep believing that, son. If a candidates winning - or, if in 1948, Harry Truman's, for that matter - were conditioned on people believing he was going to win, Tom Dewey would have been President."
Again you attack me while knowing nothing about me. You build straw-man arguments. Truman was obviously viable because he got enough votes to run against Dewey. Nader is not because he can't even get enough votes to run on all the state ballots.
"I know, I know, you're losing yourself to find yourself. And I'd thought Christ died 2000 years ago."
No where did I say that you have to lose yourself to find yourself again you make an ass out of yourself because you have to resort to BS tactics instead of addressing my main point. I have to be willing to compromise in order to get what I want because anyone who knows anything about politics knows that the only way to get what you want is through compromise. I never claimed to be a martyr so what is the Christ reference?
You based you entire argument on breaking up my argument into simple part so you didn't have to address the main point. This is typical of someone who doesn't actually have a response to the main point of what you are saying. I did it to you because you set up the rules. However I will now address your main point and then give my main point.
Your main point is that a vote for Nader IS the best thing for this country.
Here is why you are wrong in my eyes. Like I said before. If Obama dropped out of the race. Nader would never collect more than 20-30% of the vote. Not because people are voting against him because he is independent like you like to think in order to prop up your ego. It is solely because he is too extreme to net independents, moderate demos and moderate Repubs. You HAVE to get these groups in order to win an election. Nader can not get these groups therefore he can not win. Which means McCain wins and we get 4 more years of Bush.
My main point is that a vote for Nader does not get us any closer to fixing the damage done by Bush, because Nader no matter how stacked in his favor things are, can never win. He can't win independents and they make up about 20% of the electorate. So why not vote in order to see SOME of what you want passed rather than voting to stroke your ego and then seeing McCain win and have more of your rights taken away and more money thrown into these wars?
Nader has run 4 times now and every time has gotten shot down. At this point you have to concede that if you have run 4 times and none of those netted you more than 6% of the electorate then your chances aren't too good to get a Presidency. Hell everyone knows who Nader is and everyone knows his politics yet he still hasn't even netted enough votes for him to make it on the ballots for all 50 states. If you have that kind of notoriety and yet you still fail to make it on that many ballots then you are never going to stand a chance.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:14pm
I don't know about you, but I am tired of these Republicans in the White House. If another Republican wins because of the shortsightedness of "progressives" like John Nichols, I am out of here!
Posted by Metteyya at 06/25/2008 @ 10:55am
Metteyya, Look at what is really going down versus what you want to have going on. Obama is presently catering to the right and pretty much ignoring HIS BASE.
Why is it that the dems feel that they have to cater to the religious bigots and rednecks of this country? Why not just stand for what they stand for, run an honest platform that the majority of dems want and let the chips fall where they may?!
If 8 years of Bush's policies, and McCain's guarantee of following in W's footsteps aren't enough to get McCain voted down, this country deserves exactly what it gets.
Obama needs to look at himself in the mirror and decide who he wants to be when he grows up. Being president means he'll have to eventually pony up and stand for something other than people with a lot of money, or he's no democrat. At least not the democratic party that I used to know.
His other option is to become another piece of crap, bought off, middle of the road, rethug in the hip pockets of AIPAC and bowing to the likes of these religious fanatics who are no better than the religious fanatics in the ME strapping bombs to themselves.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:15pm
What I can't fathom is the lame ass dems compromising with the ever uncompromising White House. W and Cheney think the word compromise means to do exactly what they want or nothing. The dems need grow a friggin spine, and tell the W and the telecommunications companies what they can do with their retroactive immunity clause. Good for Feinghold and Dodd. Look to see the rethug spin machine to go into full gear on this one though.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:18pm
full gear on this one though...Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:18pm
Sorry, meant to say, full B.S. gear on this one.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:20pm
The hsuB/cHeney admin, like most criminals, aren't all that interested in going after other criminals, as they're pretty busy securing their own crimes to be that distracted...
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2008 @ 12:01pm
hsuBfools, It's professional courtesy. You know one criminal not ratting out another one. That's why they want to ram this FISA immunity bill.
This is what kills me. If they grant immunity to the telecommunications companies, then if someone tries to get to the bottom of what happened and who broke what laws, they won't have any teeth in the law to require the telecommunications companies to talk.
If, however, there are no immunities granted, then Joe Bob working for company X can cut a deal with the fed to sing like a bird to the justice department (of the future hopefully) which may in fact land W and Cheney and the boys in some really hot water.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:22pm
Phew!
Dammed if you do and dammed if you dont!
No civil liberties destruction or constituion shredding has taken place as a result of the changes in our security approach since September 11, 2001.
What has occurred is no further terrorist attacks here at home.
One of the reasons September 11 may have happened is because these measures were not in place before then. Stuff such as the "wall" (Jamie Goerlick's wall keeping law enforcement and Justice Department from communicating) were dismantled.
Now, of course, many on the left condemn George W. Bush from allowing September 11 to happen. And since the reason it happened is because security measures were not in place, you would think putting them in place would be the right thing to do and everybody would agree.
You would thing wrong! It was the right thing to do but many on the left condemn George W. Bush and John Ashcroft, etc. (Probably Karl Rove and the "neocons", too) for putting these measures in place.
So George W. Bush is proclaimed wrong for not having these measures in place prior to September 11, 2001 and he is also wrong for putting them in place after September 11, 2001.
As you can see, the real problem here is that the left sees George W. Bush as always wrong, no matter what he does.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 12:23pm
Obama seems to combine idealism with pragmatism. we could all do with that.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/25/2008 @ 11:17am
So legalizing the Bush administration's past illegal and unconstitutional eavesdropping activities, ignoring the Fourth Amendment, dismantling FISA, and immunizing telecoms from blatantly illegal activity is pragmatic?
I cannot agree.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:30pm
Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 12:05pm
I think this "automatic stay" of denied FISA applications pending appellate review will not survive senate scrutiny. Like most stays pending appeal, it should be the appellate court or the lower court that grants a stay based on meeting the legal requirements for a stay.
And you are wrong - we are a government of men and women, not laws. I do not know what your experience is, but a law is only as good as the person interpreting and enforcing it. Many great laws are undermined by bad interpretations by men with bad intentions, and many poor laws have been limited in their effect by very good men whose interpretations or enforcement decisions have produced the correct result.
FISA was essentially a good law that was supposed to be a tool used to prevent terrorists attacks, but was interpreted by bad men with bad intentions who simply wanted to invade the privacy of others.
Improving FISA to prevent privacy abuses is something the senate will now take up, but we should all be mindful that there really are terrorists out there that want to harm America and Americans, and we therefore need the proper tools to prevent such harm without abusing our constitutional rights.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/25/2008 @ 12:30pm
As you can see, the real problem here is that the left sees George W. Bush as always wrong, no matter what he does. ----Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 12:23pm
Or the right who sees George Bush as always right, no matter what he does.
Also..."the measures" weren't in place in the 90s and we got the 1st WTC bombing in 1993...and nothing more at home until 2001.....explanation?
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2008 @ 12:34pm
Hman23
I was speaking in more general terms.
on this issue I'm with you.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/25/2008 @ 12:34pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 12:23pm
Nonsense. There were security measures in place before 9/11. FISA has existed since 1978. If the administration had information and a need for a wiretap that could have possibly thwarted the attack (hypothetically), they could have easily gotten a warrant through the FISA framework.
I am also not aware of a single potential attack that was uncovered through the use of warrantless roving wiretaps on the broad scale that was done.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:40pm
As you can see, the real problem here is that the left sees George W. Bush as always wrong, no matter what he does.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 12:23pm
Actually there are holes in your post. First of all there is no proof that any of that is the reason 9/11 happened. In fact there is more proof to say that they knew it was coming and stood by and didn't act. Which means that the security we had at the time was more than ample it's just the government didn't bother to activate it. They then used their lack of action as a platform to launch their curtailing of the rights of Americans.
It has nothing to do with political bias it's just that some on the right like to believe that the reason we have had no terrorist attacks is because of the shredding of the Constitution even though there are no facts to support that claim. I would like you to give me the proof that terrorists have attacked the United States post-911 and failed due to illegal wiretaps and warrant-less searches. If you can give me that evidence I will concede to the superiority of this plan. However what I will not do is submit to to your bear repellant method of thinking. By that I mean, if you lived in LA and I told you I would sell you bear repellant to keep the bears away and you bought it and no bears came near does it mean that the repellant worked, or is it because there are no bears in LA? The intelligent person would say it is because there are no bears in LA.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:41pm
Posted by emile duBois
Then . . . peace be with you.
:)
Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:41pm
So legalizing the Bush administration's past illegal and unconstitutional eavesdropping activities, ignoring the Fourth Amendment, dismantling FISA, and immunizing telecoms from blatantly illegal activity is pragmatic?
I cannot agree.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:30pm
The reason Emily is right is for the reasons stated before. They will never ever be investigated. So ought as well get limits put in place now.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:42pm
"Like most stays pending appeal, it should be the appellate court or the lower court that grants a stay based on meeting the legal requirements for a stay."
It the Senate strikes it, it certainly won't be thanks to Obama, who hasn't made any statement of opposition to it.
I am not wrong on us being a government of laws. We are supposed to rely in enforced limits on what people in power can do; not on their self-imposed limits. This is why we have a checks-and-balances system. The idea that we can accept a bad law just because it's going to be Obama administering it is antithetical to our very idea of constitutional government.
"and we therefore need the proper tools to prevent such harm without abusing our constitutional rights."
We already have the proper tools. None of what is in the version of FISA that passed the House is necessary to improve it. Again, Obama hasn't made any statement on "improving" FISA except on telecom immunity.
Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 12:43pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 11:42am
"Ahhh. I love your enthsiasm to support a man who never has, doesn't and never will have a chance of being President. He could have 3 lifetimes worth of time to run and he would still never make it into office."
Yes, Cccomfol, never one to accept the usual presupposition that one need not disembowel oneself spiritually by supporting the unprincipled, I've chosen authenticity over power. You may wish to consult yourself along these same lines. In any case, its progressives that I've urged to support Nader.
Posted by john lowell at 06/25/2008 @ 12:48pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 12:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person
As usual, there are gaps you could drive a truck through.
First, to impute the lack of attacks in the US to warrantless wiretapping overlooks the damage done to al-Qaida in Afghanistan, a more likely factor.
Second, unless you have a list of people the NSA has listened too, you have no basis for gauging whose rights were violated. We do know that such a program is an illegal violation of the FISA law.
Third, there was nothing in the commission report that said that the FISA warrant requirement was a factor. The problem inhered to a large extent in the institutional strike between the FBI and the CIA and the Bush administration's relative indifference to stateless terror groups.
Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 12:51pm
This is one of the faults of idealists. You don't know which battles are worth fighting. This is a losing battle. No one will ever be investigated. In an ideal world law breakers would be dragged in and prosecuted. This is not an ideal world. It is more practical to get this out of the way now than to keep fighting a losing battle.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:59pm
Yes, Cccomfol, never one to accept the usual presupposition that one need not disembowel oneself spiritually by supporting the unprincipled, I've chosen authenticity over power. You may wish to consult yourself along these same lines. In any case, its progressives that I've urged to support Nader.
Posted by john lowell at 06/25/2008 @ 12:48pm
I am a progressive but I am a realist as well. I realize that best chance I have of getting my policies in front of Congress is to support the people who can win. You go ahead and vote for Nader. You are doing a lot less for the progressive cause than I am because you are working o give Republicans the power. It may make you feel all tingly inside but votes cast for Nader are part of the reason we are in this mess to begin with. Al only needed a couple hundred more votes in order to win outright but Nader had those votes.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:02pm
It might be helpful for them to explain in detail why this compromise is such a bad bill. The only specific that is mentioned is that it basically provides the retroactive immunity -- and it is not at all clear that they would be held liable in the cases at hand-- but nothing else.
How about some hard facts to go along with all the silly shrieking.
Posted by J. Saxon at 06/25/2008 @ 1:04pm
Posted by libzRfreaks at 06/25/2008 @ 1:02pm
You are an idiot. Please go away. Anyone who starts a post with "You stupid fucking libz are so ego-centric you think the govt wants to listen in on you having phone sex and making 900 calls...." Needs some electro shock therapy and anti-aggression classes.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:05pm
Haven't seen this on the NYTimes site yet, but the BBC reports that Bill Clinton today at long last endorses Obama.
And the Obama campaign today announces that it's asking its fundraisers to give $10M to help pay off the Clinton debt, of which at least $12M comes out of the Clintons' pocket ... & they're worth over $100M net.
Is this what Obama supporters donated for? A $10M payoff to Bill Clinton in exchange for his grudging endorsement?
Worth it?
Obama increasingly reveals himself as offering too little substantive change.
Posted by sloper at 06/25/2008 @ 1:09pm
They will never ever be investigated. So ought as well get limits put in place now.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:42pm
You realize that you are using circular logic, right?
Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:13pm
METTEYYA -
You say we should refuse to speak critically of Obama before the election? I don't think so. If he doesn't hear the opinion, what would you expect him to do?
As to your answers to BRUNOWE's good questions, I have some follow-up:
Q:Will he vote for the bill if telecom immunity is NOT removed? A: I certainly hope not.
Will you say anything critical if he does vote for it?
Q: Why does he praise a bill that has so many objectionable provisions in addition to telecom immunity? A: I don't think Obama's actual comments, which were omitted by Nichols in his story, could be construed as "praise".
Who cares what he SAYS. It is how he votes.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:16pm
How about some hard facts to go along with all the silly shrieking.
Posted by J. Saxon at 06/25/2008 @ 1:04pm
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/35731res20080619.html
• H.R. 6304 permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing.
• H.R. 6304 permits only minimal court oversight. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what or where will actually be tapped.
• H.R. 6304 contains a general ban on reverse targeting. However, it lacks stronger language that was contained in prior House bills that included clear statutory directives about when the government should return to the FISA court and obtain an individualized order if it wants to continue listening to a US person's communications.
• H.R.6304 contains an "exigent" circumstance loophole that thwarts the prior judicial review requirement. The bill permits the government to start a spying program and wait to go to court for up to 7 days every time "intelligence important to the national security of the US may be lost or not timely acquired." By definition, court applications take time and will delay the collection of information. It is highly unlikely there is a situation where this exception doesn't swallow the rule.
• H.R. 6304 further trivializes court review by explicitly permitting the government to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever it gathered in the meantime.
• H.R. 6304 ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping programs over the last 7 years. The test in the bill is not whether the government certifications were actually legal – only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that they were, all the cases seeking to find out what these companies and the government did with our communications will be killed.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:18pm
The current Democratic Congress is more popular with registered Republicans than registered Democrats.
This says it all.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:18pm
Hello Cccomfo1
I do not see the threat we face as a few people in a different country.
Radical Islam is a very widespread problem. I would recommend reading the book "America Alone: The End of the World as We Know it" By Mark Steyn
Radical Islam is integrating itself into a lot of the world. This is not the same as the threat from Soviet Russia. The Soviets had spies, some undercover in the U.S., some in our own agencies such as the FBI or CIA, but the movements and actions in our country of the Soviets were a lot more well known.
If someone was from the Soviet Union they were known to be a security risk to begin with.
As Mr. Steyn points out in his book, Radical Islam is not associated with one country. There have been terrorists, for example, those who bombed the London Underground, who were native to the country (the UK) they committed the terror act against. These British citizens became converts to Radical Islam and then adopted the goal of jihad afterwards. They did not immigrate into the UK nor were they just visiting.
Thus, it is much harder to define and identify the threat to specific individuals who can be watched or even restricted because they are from the country of "the enemy"
Our country needs more ability to battle this, not less. And this threat, from a worldwide perspective, is very real.
People who adhere to these same principles of jihad and death and destruction killed 150 kids in Beslan in Russia in 2004. So the principles of jihad are not aimed just at the United States.
Up until recently, except for isolated people here and there, the people who were out to destroy the United States were specific countries we were at war against at certain points in time, or that we were in the "Cold War" against, in the case of the Soviets.
The threat now is a whole different kind of threat comprised of an ideology but not localized to a country or a region. This threat is real, big time, and not just towards us, and will get worse if we let it.
I just do not agree that I am giving up all my rights, and I think the threat is significant enough (it is very serious) that provisions be made for our country to effectively deal with it, to save the lives of innocent Americans and others.
And as far as ripping the Constitution, I need to step back and talk here in an overall perspective, which includes all the issues of the day, not just this.
By and large (but not absolutely, I know) most of the people who are upset on the security issue are people on the political left. In other venues and on other issues, the political left advocates a different view of the Constitution and on the role of the judiciary then I do. It (the Constitution) is looked upon as a flexible thing, open to interpretion, by a judiciary who has many times since the Warren court acted beyond their charter as the Constitution specifies.
As a result, there is more and more encroachment by Government on people's lives and personal freedom, and law has come into being without the people themselves having a say.
These things are done supposedly to help people, improve their lives, and correct past injustices, but others can claim that they have done no good and have made things worse for all (including those who are "helped") as a result, and that the way to improve peoples lives is not through more government control over all of our lives.
On one of the "third rails" of issues, the subject of abortion, there are legal scholars who are pro-choice but admit now that Roe v Wade was "bad law"
This whole subject (domestic policy) is off the subject of this particular "thread" but I bring it up to point out how many who are concerned about the Constitution and power and rights and freedom in the case of security measures and the need to fight our modern-day enemies have no problem advocating policy that results in taking power and rights and freedom away from the people in many other cases.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 1:19pm
You realize that you are using circular logic, right?
Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:13pm
I am saying they will never get investigated so there is no point in yelling about this.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:25pm
Libzr-Your calling for another terrorist attack in order to kill Americans who have views you disagree with is,by definition,treason.Your post is being saved and forwarded to the proper authorities.Derangement syndromes are named after the people who have them so why do you support a POTUS that you admit is deranged?
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/25/2008 @ 1:26pm
By and large (but not absolutely, I know) most of the people who are upset on the security issue are people on the political left.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 1:19pm
Really???
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/24106leg20060208.html
Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:26pm
if security measures prevent terrorists from even planning a terrorist attack, then you can't prove that a specific attack was stopped because it may have never been planned or the idea hatched in the first place. If we have to set limits so you have to prove specific terror attacks were stopped, then you are allowing terrorists to go too far down the road.
I certainly have seen no sizeable reference or outcry in the public media of specific U.S. citizens minding their own business and not engaged in terrorist activities who are complaining their rights were infringed upon as a result of these security measures.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 10:51am
SJ, when people loudly trumpet the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks since 9/11, I always reply "Yes, and there have been no Martian attacks, either." Correlation does not equal causation.
I know that when TSA confiscated my half-used 6 oz tube of toothpaste last week, it did nothing to increase the security of the country, yet somehow this "security measure" is part and parcel of why you feel we are so secure. Correlation does not equal causation.
Let's change a few words to see how untenable your "no terrorist attacks since 9/11" logic is...
If security measures prevent Martians from even planning a Martian attack, then you can't prove that a specific attack was stopped because it may have never been planned or the idea hatched in the first place. If we have to set limits so you have to prove specific Martian attacks were stopped, then you are allowing Martians to go too far down the road.
I certainly have seen no sizeable reference or outcry in the public media of specific U.S. citizens minding their own business and not engaged in Martian activities who are complaining their rights were infringed upon as a result of these security measures.
Posted by Balrog at 06/25/2008 @ 1:28pm
Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:16pm
We will see how he votes. Obama has been a consistent advocate for protecting civil rights abuses and I know that FISA is no exception.
The Republicans are trying to put Obama in a position of allowing conversations from terrorists to go unmonitored so they can continue their scare tactic in this campaign that "Obama will not keep America safe".
You guys really need to view this in terms of this election cycle and campaign, and what is required to win; and trust that Obama is not interested in violating anyone's civil rights and will prevent such abuse as president.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/25/2008 @ 1:28pm
Where did you get your degree nitwit...Kmart???
Posted by libzRfreaks at 06/25/2008 @ 1:10pm
That doesn't even begin to make since Libz. When was my degree ever brought up? Or where I went to school at all? Also although I do have a dgeree it shows your lack of intelligence in believing that a college degree is what makes or proves you intelligence. Anyone who has been to college has seen some idiots graduate. Anyone who has participated in life has seen some very intelligent people with no college degree, Spieldberg, Bill Gates etc.
Trying thinking before you type it may get you a little farther.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:29pm