-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/07/obama-responds-to-fisa-critics/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
That would promt more layoffs in these already distressing times.
I wish we would all think a little more macro than micro.
Here in Atlanta the telecoms employ thousands of black people.
So I've told all these activists that if they want to wage war on Barack for compromising the 4th Amendment, they need to wage war everywhere otherwise they're the hypocrites.
I know just enough about the technology to be able to tell you with confidence that hundreds of execs and techies knew about this stuff. As far as I know, only one or two have surfaced as whislteblowers, at the risk of losing their careers. Those are courageous, public spirited people who took this risk for all of us. These are the only people in this scenario who are "thinking macro", kenyaw.
Barack and the Congresspeople who voted for this crushed them, and crushed all our rights by making impossible any future investigation that might reveal the scope of this illegaility. You simply cannot justify this on any grounds, any grounds at all.. Most of the American people do not agree with this, so he didn't do it to get votes either. And it's the exact opposite of what he promised to do. He promised to filibuster any immunity provision.
And most of all, it would embolden people of conscience who work for the telecoms to say "No, I won't do that. It's illegal and I know
When people break promises, they break them for reasons. And as you said, he's not breaking this promise to get votes.
I'm still playing wait and see on this, but I'm not that bent out of shape about it.
There's more here than meets the eye. Of that, I'm sure.
The PATRIOT Act and the FISA legislation have all provided the benefit of keeping terrorist attacks off our soil. The evidence to support that fact may not all be available to the American public, but it is fact nonetheless.
Now, I do recognize some provisions of those laws could be used against American citizens. That is an unfortunate reality. In my opinion, though, when it comes to dealing with an enemy such as al-Qaeda, we must use every tool available to defend our citizens. If that requires us to take steps that we would not normally take as a nation, so be it. This is not a normal conflict.
The Obamaists will-probably-get what they want; I fully believe that Obama will roll back this legislation if he is elected. I just wonder how many of our citizens will be killed as a result.
There is no proof that the Patriot Act and FISA have prevented anything. You are making that up, pure and simple.
Barack has endorsed a get out of jail free card for any telecom that cooperated with ILLEGAL federal government wiretapping.
That is not an "attack from the left". It's an attack UPON the constitution by the Congresscreatures who pass this abomination, and Obama himself.
Also, it "legalizes" the criminal behavior in the future.
Our lawless government officials from Bush on down solved this "difficulty" by skipping the judge and going straight to the phone companies. The legislation, as Obama and the other sellouts approve it blocks any future investigation of exactly what the illegal acts were, who knew, who participated. It isolates the handful of heroic employees who blew the whistle on this, and leaves the door open for the phone companies to cooperate the feds the next time they want to violate the Constitution again, say, under a new administration.
I'd say he addressed all the "difficulties" quite neatly.
When I was consulting and/or campaigning for a candidate you can bet that I might tell you anything it took to get that candidate elected. But that's not the hat I am wearing this season, or in this discussion.
You do realize that every government including local and state, has the authority to ask the courts for a warrant for wire tapping, where there is reasonable cause for suspicion?????????
Is there some reason why you think that the local police should have that ability and not the United States Government? With oversight of course.
It's FISA 2008 and all other versions set in place by George W. Bush that I cannot abide. There is no meaningful oversight. And as a rule of thumb, I don't trust any policy that lacks transparency as so many of Bush's policies unfortunately do.
I don't like living in a surveillance state and not knowing exactly what they are surveilling or why, or who sees it and what "they" are doing with it. I am old enough to remember not just Nixon, but also the invasive paranoia of men like J. Edgar Hoover and Joe McCarthy. There has got to be a reason why all these headcases were and are Republicans!
The government willfully and lawlessly disregarded the legal requirement of reasonable suspicion. Telecom execs who knew better and could have stopped them cold became co-conspirators in what is clearly a federal crime.
Barack's (and let's be clear--- the entire Democratic Party establishment's) FISA "compromise" prohibits investigation of the crime in any court, sheilds the criminals in government and out from prosecution, and leaves the door open for the whole thing to happen again.
Three member of his policy staff answered questions from bloggers at his website for 90 minutes. There are over 1,000 comments. There's actually a photo on the site of the staffers reading and responding to the comments.
This dude listened to the concerns of his supporters, responded, and had members of his staff to answer questions. Impressive.
A week later, I heard him defend his position and he did not waiver and in his demeanor, I saw the same passion in him that I had for my position. It taught me something more about him.
On FISA, I am not versed in the matters of foreign policy or the laws surrounding this issue. While I have been disappointned in something he said once before, I have always trusted him and his abilitilies to lead. That said, we are not all privy to the information surrounding this issue and cannot adequately make demands from the sidelines. I personally will continue to trust that SBO knows what he is doing and will do the best thing for all concerned.
I find this really heartening, Ms. Martin. I was attending to your perspective very closely in all those discussions (though my public and commenting attention was on the FISA stuff at that time) and no matter what, I feel that that you don't come to conclusions lightly or carelessly.
It's not my own breaking point. Not by a long shot.
There are a lot of angles of analysis for me on this one, but right at this exact moment this one is on my mind and in my heart .... I feel that that things are going to get really increasingly bad and confusing with the planet's ecosystems in the coming years. I am hoping whoever is the US president will have a level head and won't be easy/quick to freak out or panic.
*sigh ... I'm just having a moment of ... I get this way late at night pretty often these days*
I appreciate and encourage people knowing what decisions they can't accept. Best to be clear.
Barack has great passion and a huge intellect. That alone makes him the best choice for president in this election cycle, no matter how his politics may leave me questioning what's going on from time to time.
OK, here's the primer. To get a wiretap you go to a judge. You tell the judge who you want to tap and why. The judge agrees and you get the tap, or not.
Although since 1979 practically every request for a wiretap under FISA since 1979 was approved, the Dept of Justice knew what they wanted was so far out of bounds, so they skipped the judge and went straight to the telecoms. At that point it became a conspiracy to violate federal law, and the telecom execs joined the conspiracy.
One telecom company protested the illegaility, and was punished. A handful of whistleblowers emerged, their fate is unknown. Back in February Obama promised to filibuster any attempt to grant immunity to conspirators in this crime.
Now Barack, Pelosi, Reid and others want to (1) block investigation of the precise nature of the crime against the Constitution (2) let the conspirators in govt and telecoms off w/o prosecution, and (3) legalize it in the future, as if it were at all compatible with the Constitution. They say it's for our own good, to protect us.
I understand what the JD and the Telecoms did and I even understand why so many want immunity for the telecoms, I understand the crimes that occurred and who was responsible.
What I don't know is the language of FISA or the proposed changes to the Act and what that will mean. I understand that there is immunity from civil prosecution but not criminal prosecution.
Seriously though, will one or two or even three men be able to right this wrong when so many of the participants are in positions of power or had power used as a sword against them. Power is not in words, rather in actions. Barack could vote against the legislation and remain in a position where he has no real control over how FISA is used or he can compromise now and exercise his authority in a far different manner than Bush has.
1. It showed a sign of respect and a willingness to listen to opposing points of views and an understanding that for some this is deciding issue and not waving off their support.
On the other hand,
2. I can't help but think that if this was another candidate say Hilary Clinton for instance, there would have been no response at all. I can actually see the campaign being more hardnose on it you know "with us or against us" or "who else ya gonna vote for".
I just wish that more people realized the difference in approach and gave Obama the benefit of the doubt in that regard.
The fact that Obama has issued a press release written in the first person to explain why he has switched his position on FISA may be a laudable exception to what politicians invariably do in these circumstances but it should not cause us to ignore reality. What he has done is to sign off on the very same policies of this criminal administration that he has promised to oppose. He is being dishonest.
And I have to say, even though people are really upset about Obama's position, I think this is great. People are engaged in a way that I haven't seen before, and the fact that people have contributed to Obama makes them feel they have invested something in him, and expect accountability.
That's the best damn line in this whole thing. I wonder, though, how much this newly acquired "boldness" might hurt him.....
That's all his ultraliberal base cares about. He's compromised on one....
That's weak
Listening to the MSM, he already backtracked on Iraq, no?
"I'll be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in."
There's nothing to backtrack about.
out would be contigent on the circumstances on the ground
at the current time. But we would leave as expeditiously and carefully as possible.
Nothing is new on his stance. Google it or YouTube it.
You can add all the modifiers you want, but to this day, that policy remains unchanged. Hell, it's the only policy of his I can quote verbatim.
My question is that when he has to modify that timeline-which I think will happen soon-what will happen to his base, which is already pissed about FISA.
I think John McCain better worry about his base.
Does he even have a base outside of the media at this point?
I just watched in last night and became convinced in order for Barack to be elected and live to tell about it, he'll have to feed this monster for at least a few years before doing anything to try to dismantle it.
But it's decades old, so...
For me, this FISA capitulation is a part of feeding that monster.
We know what happened to the last president who waged war on the Military Industrial Complex.
And Barack isn't even in the Oval Office yet.
"By the way, did anybody here see the documentary "Why We Fight" that begins with Eisenhower warning the nation about the abuses of power that would come with the rise of the Military Industrial Complex?"
I liked it so much that I bought the dvd and put in our family library.
If you feed the monster then you will be powerless to dismantle it because it will grow stronger. Obama will not do anything to leash this beast. It is up to us.
BTW, which president are you referring to here?
What are we going to do to leash it?
As for the president I'm referring to, I don't want to type it. Something tells me you know who it is. Unless I'm overlooking someone since.
As for the beast. It might die of gluttony.
Empires fall.
I honestly do not know which president you are referring to unless it is Eisenhower. And he only spoke out as his presidency was coming to a close.
I still think that Eisenhower's critique was more open and pointed. Kennedy's experiences made him more wary of the geopolitical advice given him by the civilian intelligence agencies and the Pentagon. Nonetheless, he still bought into overthrowing the South Vietnamese government in order to achieve U.S. objectives.
However, we're stuck with the military-industrial complex. It's not going anywhere. Hell, what would we do without it? Make weapons/weapon systems on an "as needed" basis?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/...
I'm thinking Obama is smarter than we give him credit. And a reminder, that the only president to be elected 3 times was FDR and from what I read he managed to be criticized alot by his base but he also accomplished the most for middle class Americans........and he ran as a "change agent."
Barack Obama and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments: In Pledging to Work to Remove Retroactive Immunity for FISA Violations, What Kind of Action Is Obama Contemplating?
thought I answered ......maybe not....anyway, yes that is the article.
Angela
FDR's policies did not do very much to improve the aggregate lot of black Americans because of the deals and compromises he struck with southern senators and representatives. In exchange for their support, FDR allowed them to control the implementation of various programs and policies in ways that largely excluded blacks. See, for example, Ira Katznelson's book "When Affirmative Action Was White."
Guess I'm getting old!!
I was speaking to Obama's political smartness more than his overall IQ.
Also, I recognize the 24/7 news cycle that Obama has to contend with now vs
what was in place in FDR's time. FDR didn't have to respond to viral
emails and his base lodging instant complaints on a website which makes me
wonder if those "thousands" of attacks on Obama are all part of his base as
the pundits claim or are republicans helping to fuel the fires (i.e. just as
republicans voted for Clinton to create chaos in the primaries).
In bringing up FDR I was trying to remind people that you can make
compromises to get elected and afterwards and still have a successful
Presidency that addresses problems for the greater good of all Americans.
Not to mention that one of Obama's claims is that he can work with both
sides of the aisle and how does he do that by camping out with the far left?
The Republicans are trying to frame him as too liberal and out of the
mainstream. Because of Obama's ethnicity we shouldn't forget he's already
got that to continuously handle. I'm concerned that some think Obama has a
lot more leeway in how he presents himself because he doesn't. David
Gerson said that Obama will be held to a higher standard than McCain.
Angela
Thanks for your thoughtful response. The issue for me and others is not Obama's intelligence or political astuteness. We understand that success in politics is a process of straining for symmetry, i.e., trying to bring irregular halves together. Obama, his advisors, supporters among the pundit class and in the electorate want to frame the controversy about his reversal on FISA as being indicative of our political naivete or cultish left ideology. Nothing could be further from the truth. The issue is about Obama's reversal of position and our concern for the continuing infringement and erosion of our Constitutional protections as citizens of a democratic republic.
We are not comforted or reassured by promises that Obama can more successfully address these concerns once he is elected president. The reality is that once he or anybody is elected president there is no need and seldom, if ever, the desire to address issues that the president and the president's advisors would prefer not to revisit. The press of new and evolving issues and the reelection campaign is what invariably occupies their agenda.
How the Republicans may or not attempt to describe Obama is a legitimate concern. The Republicans, however, are going to scream that Obama is too liberal even if evidence is uncovered that he has been secretly a member of the John Birch Society since his days at Occidental College. The Republicans' view of Obama cannot seriously be offered as an excuse to justify his reversing his position on FISA. Obama and his supporters can try but I can hear the opening bars of Ray Charles' great song "I've News for You" playing in the background. Their story just don't sound true.
David Gergen is quite correct in declaring that Obama will be held to a higher standard than Obama but Gergen was not referring to Obama's supporters or people who will vote for Obama when he made this statement. Those of us who fall into the latter two categories but who object to his current position on FISA are most emphatically not holding him to a higher standard. We are insisting that he adhere to the standards that he swore to uphold last year before he secured the nomination. Our concerns are reasonable, appropriate and keeping in the tradition of protest and dissent that the Bill of Rights was written to protect.
Yes, that is the John Dean article I referenced.
Angela
I'm currently reading a scifi book that includes AI (Artificial intelligence) characters and maybe that is why I am smiling so hard about this. Jack: your machine has decided to join the discussion! And it's funny!