« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Forgiving the FISA Cave
The blogosphere and the solid left is in an uproar over Senator Obama's vote for the amended FISA bill. As progressives, we deplore the Bush Administration's illegal spying on Americans, violations of due process, civil liberties, habeas corpus, and turning America toward being an evidently free country with a twist of police state thrown in. I would have voted against FISA. The vote for it was wrong. But is the vote about FISA the be-all-end-all of future civil liberties in this area? Is it a reason to lose heart in Obama, or withhold your vote from him, as some suggest? I say no, and suggest you do too. Five reasons:
1. The Argument That Civil Suits Against Telcos Are the Way To Hold the Administration Accountable Is Bullshit. Mirroring much discussion in the blogosphere, Senator Clinton's statement about her vote against FISA stresses the importance of defeating immunity, because civil litigation against the telecommunications companies (private persons' lawsuits for damages) is a "critical" way to hold the administration accountable. She writes:
"There is little disagreement that the legislation effectively grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies. In my judgment, immunity under these circumstances has the practical effect of shutting down a critical avenue for holding the administration accountable for its conduct."
She's right that the legislation confers retroactive immunity. But immunity from what? Civil lawsuits for damages. We don't leave chasing the Bush Administration's sorry abuse of civil rights to the civil discovery process in lawsuits filed by private persons for cash, in which discovery is logically limited to the facts of their case and not the programmatic abuse of civil liberties fostered by the Bushies (and in which a majority of judges deciding what is discoverable are Republican appointees, by the way). What utter, responsibility-shifting crap. If you've ever done civil discovery, you know how dumb the idea of leaving public policy to it, and to private persons' efforts in it, is. That's not what the courts are for. That's what _Congress_ is for. That's what the House and Senate are for, and our party controls them now, not the Executive. That's why Pelosi, Reid, and their colleagues either need to investigate use and abuse of FISA powers in their oversight role, or the netroots need to hold _them_ accountable. This festering sore over immunity from civil lawsuits is every bit as stupid as the contretemps over impeaching Bush for what he was elected to do. The time for that accountability was 2003-04. The place for telco accountability is the oversight function. Not civil litigation. Anyone in the Congress telling you otherwise doesn't want to do their own job. Voting that FISA is bad, but not oversighting like FISA is bad, is bullshit.
2. The Health of Our Civil Libertarian Culture Depends Much More Upon Who Appoints Judges For the Next Four To Eight Years Than Upon the Existence of Not of Private Suits Against Telcos for Bush Administration Abuses.
Helpful stat for you: Democrats confirmed 86% of Bush's judicial nominees, after Republicans confirmed 75% of Clinton's. So the same genuises who aren't doing oversight but want you to believe that civil litigation is a panacea for checking conservatism's excesses are giving Bush more of what he wants on the bench. Again, think about what is wrong with that picture. Partly as a result, ten of the thirteen federal circuits have Republican-appointed majorities. The Supreme Court is 7-2 Republican, with Reagan appointee _Anthony Kennedy_ the civil liberty-preserving swing justice. Seriously.
So what's more important to your civil liberties, or anyone's? Whether a lawyer can get damages and discovery from a telco for what Bush did four or six years ago? Or whether the Courts of Appeal that determine most significant federal legal questions (fewer than 100 are resolved by the Supremes each year) return to balance, or even a Democratic-appointed tinge? If you can't tell, then by all means, sit this election out. If you care, support Obama. He's the Democrat. Judges he appoints will be much closer to your worldview than those appointed by McCain. And Democrats in the Senate will confirm whomever McCain puts up, making it more important he not win.
3. Voters Read This As Obama Moving Toward the Center, and We Don't Need Another Mondale/Dukakis/Gore/Kerry Loss, Where We're Tagged As Too Liberal To Govern. Rasmussen Reports says that voters (correctly) see Obama moving toward the center. According to a July 8 poll, while in June 67% of Americans thought of Obama as liberal, now 56% do. While 22% thought him moderate, now 27% do. While we are liberal, and would love to elect a President who campaigns as a more unabashed liberal, even now, with Democratic voter identification at a recent high in relation to Republican voter identification, there are fewer self-identified liberals than conservatives. Like it or not, Obama wins the election by holding the left and winning the middle, which presently, he is. Obama could be tagged with Wright, with Ayers, with distortions of his voting record to appear too far left for swing voters. He's playing defense. It's pissing you off, but he's playing defense. It may not be the right play, but it's only decisively wrong if we, the left, bail on him in meaningful numbers.
4. The Law of Unintended But Obvious Consequences To Disunity on the Left (The Nader-Iraq War Rule).
If you ask Ralph Nader, he probably would not have voted to authorize the war in Iraq. Nor would he, as our executive, have committed our nation to it, and to the years of occupation that followed. Nader ran in part because the left felt taken for granted. Many of his votes reflected the left's fat and happy satisfaction with eight years of a Democratic President, as if that were normal somehow.
It isn't. Nader ran, people for whom Al Gore was insufficiently pure were one group that swung the election, and the Iraq War (and the abuses of civil liberties that spurred the FISA debate) flowed from it. Don't you think we on the left can sully ourselves enough to win a friggin' election? I'm not suggesting you don't express your views over FISA. But the view that anyone should not support Obama as a consequence is doing McCain's work, and is the same thinking that launched George Bush into abuse of our civil liberties and into war and occupation. Half a loaf is a hell of a lot better than none.
No matter how disillusioned you are, if you don't vote Obama, don't support Obama, you're the Pottery Barn rule voter. Whatever McCain breaks, you buy. History suggests you'd better have his bankroll and more. Bad shit will happen if he wins. Unless you fell into a coma in January 2001, you know this.
5. Obama Doesn't Have 20 Votes in the Senate.
FISA won 69-30. Obama would need to have 20 votes to have changed anything, not one.
Vote your conscience, fundraise your conscience. Mine says do both for Barack, and while I'd have voted with the 30, I'm not missing a step with him. I hope you don't either.
Comments (185)
Excerpts from Feingold's speech on FISA
“If Congress short-circuits these lawsuits, we will have lost a prime opportunity to finally achieve accountability for these years of law-breaking. That’s why the administration has been fighting so hard for this immunity. It knows that the cases that have been brought directly against the government face much more difficult procedural barriers, and are unlikely to result in rulings on the merits.”
“I sit on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, and I am one of the few members of this body who has been fully briefed on the warrantless wiretapping program. And, based on what I know, I can promise that if more information is declassified about the program in the future, as is likely to happen either due to the Inspector General report, the election of a new President, or simply the passage of time, members of this body will regret that we passed this legislation. I am also familiar with the collection activities that have been conducted under the Protect America Act and will continue under this bill. I invite any of my colleagues who wish to know more about those activities to come speak to me in a classified setting. Publicly, all I can say is that I have serious concerns about how those activities may have impacted the civil liberties of Americans. If we grant these new powers to the government and the effects become known to the American people, we will realize what a mistake it was, of that I am sure.”
July 10, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The telecoms are likely to get legal immunity anyway, even if the cases do go forward.
It sounds like what we really need, as per the original post, is more Congressional oversight (and a few well-placed whistleblowers, which Feingold is basically calling for, to alert us to the scope of what is happening).
July 11, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Articleman, you're typecasting like a Republican. Are there as many democrats on the far left as the Republicans would lead everyone to believe? Every Democrat, not even liberal democrats are considered the far left to the Republicans. And while there are outspoken bloggers who are admittedly, more left than center, remember, the center is relative.
Conservative and progressive democrats alike are outraged about the FISA cave-in. True, there are a good share of them that don't know the details of the FISA bill, or maybe don't even know what FISA is, but the larger problem, more widespread problem isn't entirely grounded in the FISA issue.
It is grounded in the all too common democratic cave-in issue.
Folding like lawn chairs since 2006.
I'm a democrat and it's humiliating to see a democratic congress tagged with this reputation. Humiliating because it's a reputation well-earned.
Many of us are without question, still voting for Obama.
There may be some people that claim they won't vote for Obama after this.
But ultimately, not as many as it may seem.
It's okay to be engaged in politics. We're not just democrats that vote for President and tune out for another four or eight years.
Don't let the few of us represent the many of us. The Republicans do that already.
July 10, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gary, we haven't been folding like lawnchairs since 2006. You forget the Iraq War. Folding like lawnchairs since September 11. Agree with your general point on it.
In fact, there are many rank and file Repubs against FISA. There are self-defined Repub libertarians, and they have deep problems with Bush. I think that's part of why Obama's play was incorrect politically. This issue has more appeal across the aisle than some think.
My wife just made the point that she's just tired of hearing about FISA and that the left is not nearly sufficiently engaged about the Fair Pay Act. That's a better argument than mine.
July 10, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, it goes back to the AUMF vote in 2002. But the folding seems especially egregious after they became the majority in 2006.
I'm glad you mentioned the Fair Pay Act. I'll have to get more up to speed on that.
July 10, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
My wife just made the point that she's just tired of hearing about FISA and that the left is not nearly sufficiently engaged about the Fair Pay Act. That's a better argument than mine.
Your wife has a point, at least now that Bush has signed the bill into law. Coming from me, who's blogged about almost nothing else here since the legislation first hit the House, that may come as surprising.
Here, though, is where I think your wife misses the bigger picture.
1) While the fight was even at least nominally on, it was important to keep fighting and making as much noise as possible. Some Senators, like Obama because of his special status as the presumptive nominee, could really have made a difference by making a stand, and not only did they not do so, their "explanations" were, frankly, insulting to the intelligence of those who were paying attention to what the bill does.
2) The even bigger, and I think more important point, is that warrantless spying on Americans by this or any other Administration is pernicious to the entire project of getting reforms such as the Fair Pay Act, or any other progressive reforms, enacted into law. The record is clear that Administrations from Harding to Nixon, and certainly Bush, have spied on
That's Julian Sanchez in the LA Times from March of this year: Wiretapping's true danger: History says we should worry less about privacy and more about political spying."> I'm quoting it nearly in full, because it lends an important perspective to the debate.
Sanchez continues the history:
So every American who wants to be active on any cause -- right or left, Fair Pay Act or Second Amendment rights, whatever it may be -- needs to be concerned about the ability of the government to tap into their communications, and the rules under which those taps will occur. And, as we will learn to our sorrow, the "compromise" struck in the FISA amendments bill is no compromise at all.
oceankat's quote from Senator Feingold's speech upthread is precisely on point. A short re-quote:
If you care about your freedom to work for the Fair Pay Act, card check, universal health care free of corporate influence, reproductive rights, religious freedom, or any other cause you care to name, it is crucial to recognize how that freedom is threatened when the government is granted powers to spy on your activities and those of your colleagues. History has also shown that the mere knowledge that such spying is going on chills the speech and organizing activities of political activists. And political activism is the bedrock and sine qua non of all other reforms.
July 11, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, I wish TPTB would at least implement a Preview function for blog posts and comments. Jeebus. It's done at DKos very effectively, it just can't be that hard.
So I put in the wrong bracket, or forgot to close a href or something... so not only did most of the text come out as a link, but there's no link to the Sanchez piece. Here it is, without any fancy tags:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-sanchez16mar16,0,4039194.story
July 11, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
gharlane: meth or crack?
July 11, 2008 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your thoughtful, carefully reasoned contribution. Your insights, here as always, have furthered the discussion in new and relevant ways.
July 11, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gary, we haven't been folding like lawnchairs since 2006. You forget the Iraq War. Folding like lawnchairs since September 11. Agree with your general point on it.
Agreed in general, but you miss a crucial point: The Dems, since January 2007, have had the majority. Sure, razor-thin in the Senate and none too great in the House, but it's been there. And that, in particular, gave the Democratic leadership -- Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid et al -- important tools in terms of controlling the agenda that they could have used if they wanted to. It was pointed out -- I don't remember where -- that the FISA "reforms" couldn't even pass the 109th Republican-led Congress. Bush had to wait for the 110th Congress to make that happen.
There are, unfortunately, numerous other examples. The "we don't have the votes" excuse just doesn't wash. Reid has failed to use the most basic tools at his disposal, such as forcing a minority to have a real filibuster on popular issues they have blocked because Reid has quietly, meekly pulled bills from consideration if cloture isn't invoked -- sometimes before. The Republicans would never have allowed that to happen -- and, in fact, they didn't. The Democratic leadership could have done that, and would have been perceived as fighting rather than caving. So they try to appear Strong on Terrorism, and get headlines like:
And this from Eric Lichtblau in the NY Times:
(h/t Greenwald.)
Pelosi did worse than just allow the FISA bill to hit the floor. She greased the skids, allowing the bill to come to a vote less than 24 hours after it was introduced, bypassing normal committee review. That's right. Judiciary never saw this bill. Homeland Security never saw this bill. For such a far-reaching piece of legislation, this is simply unconscionable. It stinks.
Beyond FISA, as already noted, the leaders of the "majority" have had plenty of tools to prevent bad bills from reaching the floor and to expose Republican obstruction on good bills. It's almost as if... they didn't want to.
July 11, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any Democratic compromise will always be covered as a "cave."
Your original comment doesn't mention telecom immunity, which is what I thought everyone was up in arms about. If you are opposed to FISA altogether, that's not an opinion anyone running for president shared with you. If it's about a specific provision in the current bill, then you should be more specific in discussing it.
July 11, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an issue that should be beyond partisan politics as it goes against the very core values on the Bill of Rights.
Immunity for the telecoms from either or both civil or criminal suits is an absolute and despicable sham as is the failure to impeach for impeachable offenses:
First, these immunities are retroactive and are thus ex post facto on top of being arbitrary and capricious to shield a deliberate scheme to deprive of civil rights and of equal protection.
Second, FISA was specifically enacted because of the abuses of the Nixon administration’s black-bag break-ins, arbitrary searches and wire taps and other surveillance of private individuals which alienated and deprived of fundamental civil rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. At best that law served as a reminder of the already existing absolute requisites of court oversight of law enforcement and the paramount need for a warrant secured under Oath and probable cause to permit any search or seizure of any thing or any person. Furthermore, the telecoms are no better and served the same purpose and function as the Watergate burglars did who were prosecuted and convicted. Moreover, the telecoms are not authorized or recognized arms of the government with any legitimate law enforcement function and no public servant has the authority or capacity to independently alter government by appointing the telecoms to any government position or function. The telecoms are no more than common carriers (like any other common carrier or warehouseman) and have a well-established fiduciary obligation dating far back into common law upon which American law is derived to those who entrust their goods and or communications to the telecoms to keep them safe and secure and to deliver those goods and or communications to the party it is addressed to by the quickest dispatch, and to no other.
Third, it is beyond the scope of jurisdiction, capacity, authority or any function of any public official (regardless of branch of government or state or federal) under the Supremacy Clause to make, implement or enforce any law, practice or procedure that is contrary to and inconsistent with the Constitution, laws and treaties of the United States – that includes the Bill of Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (The Bill of Rights applies to even foreign nationals in American sovereignty and jurisdictions).
Fourth, it is a Constitutional duty, obligation and responsibility of every public official and not open to discretion to not breach the public trust or their fiduciary obligation to the people to refuse or fail to take or abide by an Oath or Affirmation of office to protect, defend and preserve the Constitution and not to fail or refuse to abide by, or comply with the Supremacy of the Constitution, laws and treaties of the United States including and not limited to the constitutional mandate that Congress “execute” the Constitution of the United States to preserve and maintain its supremacy, the separation of powers and against insurrection and treason against the Constitution.
Fifth, the Constitution is clear that only Congress has the authority to make law, not the Executive whose purpose is the enforce the laws that Congress makes and not the Judicial Branch whose purpose is to implement the laws that Congress makes; and, that even Congress is restrained from making any law that is contrary to and is inconsistent with the already existing and controlling Constitution without an amendment through the process incurred to do so to permit it. Furthermore, there is no constitutional basis for Congress to have any authority or capacity to confer immunity from the law upon any individual or entity whatsoever to create super citizens or a nobility or aristocracy. The very idea that any government entity should claim any authority or jurisdiction to conduct blanket warrant less searches or seizures (Writs of Assistance) is clearly repugnant to the values and norms the people, is not with their consent, and is one of the specific tyrannies of the King that the founding fathers detested and protested being contrary to the common law and the Magna Carta. The Supreme Court itself has long held that both the abandonment of a jurisdiction given under the constitution and/or usurp of a jurisdiction prohibited under the constitution are both treason against the United States Constitution (See Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821) further cited, implemented and upheld in U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101, S. Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980)).
July 11, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kudos, well articulated.
Obama is for practical intent no longer the Senator from Illinois. As such, his vote is more symbolism in the precarious balance of the POTUS election cycle, the "defense" posit.
As you say, congressional mathematics will eventually rule the day with respect to protecting civil liberties, as it always should but has miserably failed for the past 8 years.
July 10, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Obama could not have influenced Evan Bayh? Obama could not have influenced Jim Webb? Feinstein? ...
If Obama can't influence 20 Democrats in the Senate, I look forward to Bush's third term no matter who is elected. What's going to change? Blue Dogs + Republicans = Republicans. Obama + Blue Dogs + Republicans = Republicans.
July 10, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . and Gore is no different from Bush. That's how the Naderites launched the second Gulf War.
July 10, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
That wasn't bluebell's point at all, and you know it. Not even close.
July 11, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nader: "Bush and Gore are the same."
Bluebell: "McCain and Obama are both running for Bush's third term."
Conclusion: No difference between the Democrat and Republican Presidential Candidate.
Huh.
July 11, 2008 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chrono: Absolutely nailed it.
Bluebell: get over it already.
If you truly think there is no difference between Obama and Bush, even on this FISA bill, then you have intentionally ignored Obama's explanation of his vote, and you simply want to pontificate from your delusional ivory tower to continually bash Obama for no reason other than to undermine his candidacy.
July 11, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect to BTFJN, ChronoSpark and Articleman, I believe you are missing the point Bluebell is trying to make. The comment is more a condemnation of the Democrats in Congress than it is a criticism of Obama.
There is no claim that Obama=Bush. The two equations are: "Blue Dogs + Republicans = Republicans" and "Obama + Blue Dogs + Republicans = Republicans", meaning that the influence of Obama is negligible.
I believe that what he is saying is that, in regard to this and many other issues, it's irrelevant who is in the white house if the Republicans control Congress. His frustration is that, even though they are now the minority, the Republicans continue to control Congress. The Republicans seem to have no difficulty in moving their agenda forward while the Democrats seem impotent in preventing them from doing so. Unless the Democrats in Congress can grow some spines, a President Obama will end up doing nothing but vetoing conservative legislation during his term. Your progressive agenda will not advance.
July 11, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, you said it better than I did. But it's even worse than that because by affirming and validating the Republican agenda, Democrats undermine themselves for the next vote on another issue.
My view is that this is a long, long fight against decades of movement conservatism and that it is just as important to change the argument as it is to win on specific issues. Americans have to be reeducated to the idea that there is the possibility of a different alternative not just another version of the Republican Party.
But I don't believe 90% of the Democrats in Congress give a damn. If they can get elected voting like Republicans, they don't care. But the outcome impacts the rest of us who don't have lifetime health care and pensions and protection from the real world. They vote like Republicans and nothing happens to THEM but it sure does happen to US.
July 11, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't give a tinker's dam why Obama voted for FISA, he voted for FISA. He gave Bush what Bush wanted. If he is going to govern like that then it makes no difference which party we elect.
I have learned to watch what they do and believe you me the Democrats don't DO diddly squat.
July 11, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
===Bluebell: "McCain and Obama are both running for Bush's third term."==
Except, of course, that's not what Bluebell said.
Textbook straw man argument.
July 11, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're kidding, right? Have you forgotten the last FISA vote? Here's what Webb had to say after he cast his vote for the revision:
You'll note he mentioned your other picks for malleable Senators in his statement. It's my guess they had more influence on Obama on this one than he could have had on them.
July 11, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh deliver me from the fearmongers. I was just hearing that the ACLU says they've now got 1,000,000 Americans on the terrorist watch list. And there is no difference between the two parties on this. We are becoming a police state with NO opposition.
July 11, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bluebell, how exactly is Obama to dictate, at this stage, to the superdelegates whose hands hold his nomination? I mean this very seriously.
Unlike recent nominees, had Obama seized the nomination with the pledged delegates, he would not find himself forced to court the supers all the way to the August convention.
July 11, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only reason I supported him was because I thought he'd fight the blue dogs. If I wanted a bluedog I'd have voted for Hillary.
July 11, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
I feel a little better.
5. Obama Doesn't Have 20 Votes in the Senate.
Very true. But the Democrats since they were put back in power in '06 have been given many opportunities to 'walk the walk' and all we've really got is 'talk the talk'. Sometimes you really need to make stands to show that you do believe in what you claim to believe. Even if they lose any specific battle(s) it would aid them a great deal in winning the war. Talk is cheap people and time is growing short for the D's to prove to the American people that they will actually change things.
July 10, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
5. Obama Doesn't Have 20 Votes in the Senate.
FISA won 69-30. Obama would need to have 20 votes to have changed anything, not one.
Holy shit! do you know anything about how the senate works? He only would have needed 9 votes to stop the bill. 40 votes allows you to filibuster. I'm sure if there had been a real desire to stop this bill it could have been done.
And besides Obama voted for it.
Also, it seems kind of disingenuous to say we should "forgive" Obama over FISA while at the same time claiming that the entire concept of telecom liability is "bullshit" to begin with.
July 11, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Until we elect more Dem Senators, it's kind of a moot point anyway. We don't have a filibuster-proof majority.
July 11, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't matter at all if we elect more Democrats if they vote with the Republicans.
July 11, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
While the Democrats may need a filibuster-proof majority to advance their political agenda, (especially with Bush still in office), they do not need this majority to prevent the Republicans from advancing theirs. All they need is a simple majority in order to control the committee chairs and thereby control the congressional agenda. They have this ability but seem unwilling to use it to impede the Republicans in any way.
July 11, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that, articleman. Be prepared for an onslaught against you, though. People are gonna be pissy for a long time to come. My hope is that they, like you, will find reason and logic and come to their senses and realize that FISA is not the end of the world. There are many other issues at stake here.
July 11, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I respectfully, but in no uncertain terms, disagree. Protecting the constitution trumps all. In fact that is what taking the 'oath of office' is supposedly all about. I am very dismayed to hear this kinda 'it doesn't really matter that much' talk coming from people I thought were fellow liberals.
July 11, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you disagree that FISA is not the end of the world?
July 11, 2008 4:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOLOLOLOLOL...you're a funny guy (or gal? (You never know with anonymous nature of blogs.) ;-) ) ChronoSpark.
Just maybe the end of the country as the framers envisioned. No big loss in your estimation? The outcome of a single election trumps all of that?
Bye, bye Miss American Pie. Drove my Chevy to the levy and the levy was dry...
July 11, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
You truly believe that it's "the end of the country as the framers envisioned it," because of this one single bill? Let me quote you,
"LOLOLOLOLOL...you're a funny guy (or gal? (You never know with anonymous nature of blogs.) ;-) ) Libertine."
I respectfully suggest that you stop thinking in such black and white, absolutist terms. It's not going to solve anything, and it helps no one. Such a statement is way off base, and if one is to actually believe that a single bill can equal the end of the country as the framers envisioned it, then that vision ended long ago, buddy.
July 11, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
When the end comes it won't be with a bang but with a whimper.......
Our constitutional rights, especially for the last 8 years, have been under constant attack. But it isn't being done in a spectacular, high profile way. It is more like drips from leaky faucet that are going down the drain. Our 1st amendment rights, in a couple areas, have been under attack by a government more interested in expanding its power than protecting the constitution. A line has to be drawn. Every time we hear of another right being under attack we hear 'no big deal' or 'its so we can better protect you'. No individual act can ever be deemed as 'the end of the world' but when taken in totality, well...
I guess you are not a 'big picture' type of thinker. Yep black and white...it won't end with a bang but with a whimper. A whimper of indifference.
July 11, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. I am a big picture thinker, which is why I know that Obama needs to get elected and McCain can't be elected if we don't want our Constitutional rights eroded more than they've already been these past eight years.
Although there are plenty of other reasons, one thing just keeps coming into my mind, "The Supreme Court."
I'm going to assume the Supreme Court means something to you. To protect our Constitution, I want justices appointed who will uphold our Constitutional rights. Justices appointed by McCain will do no such thing. He wants more Alitos and Scalias on the bench. Boy, that would do wonders for our rights, wouldn't it? Boy howdy!
July 11, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Historically speaking, Libertine, your assertion is incorrect.
Go read about the Alien & Sedition Acts after the founding, the suspension of Habeas Corpus by Lincoln during the Civil War, the various laws passed in the beginning of the 20th Century and in the WWI era as a reaction to the Communist scare, and the Japanese internment during WWII.
Taking the long view, these things usually sort themselves out eventually. Look how much faster the Guantanamo stuff moved than the historical norm (not that it's all sorted out yet, but 2 wins at the Supreme Court already). Also keep in mind that Obama supported that decision, despite the political risk.
July 11, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am aware of the history ohiomeister.
I am not sure any of it gave power to spy on every American citizen in their homes, without probable cause. I am not saying the examples you cited are excusable in any way. All I am saying that this isn't a specific group being unconstitutionally targeted...every single American can now be spied on. And most of the examples you cited were when we were at war with other sovereign nations. We are at war with any other nation at this time that would warrant that kind of extreme overreaction and blanket suspension of our constitutional rights.
July 11, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
CORRECTION:
My post should have read;
"We are not at war with any other nation"
July 11, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you really understand what the FISA bill did. And frankly a majority of the congress and the administration have frequently violated their oaths of office. Our country and the rule of law have become a joke because those who should be protecting it are either breaking the law openly or complicit with those who are consistently violating treaties, laws, etc. There is nothing about any of this to be taking lightly...
July 11, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kevin Drum has a post up over at his place that seems relevant to this discussion:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_07/014063.php
We need to get Obama into the White House, and boot out as many Blue Dogs as possible, and get involved in local races, and work on issues that we're in positions to influence.
This is politics, not church. I don't see any need for me to forgive or forget. But, considering that the risk of FISA being forgotten is now nearly nil, I'm willing to stomach my disappointment at the political realities/nastiness behind this particular defeat, and get on with doing whatever it is that I happen to be best-positioned to make happen.
That Greenwald and others will continue to do a good job on this issue does not let the rest of us off the hook, but I wonder if some of us aren't letting ourselves off the hook by spending our time bemoaning this particular outcome rather than getting back to work on so much else that remains to be done.
July 11, 2008 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personal sanity? I don't know if forgiving and forgetting are the right terms to use in regards to politics, but you've got to let go of this stuff after the votes have been cast. In a Democracy, everyone should feel somewhat vindicated and somewhat screwed most of the time. Otherwise the Democracy isn't working.
I mean, I'm still mad as hell at Swing and Johnson over that goddamn Hoover Dam deal, but what the hell are you going to do? Know what I mean?
July 11, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
So if we were going to get a centrist Democrat who was willing to capitulate (not compromise, because it sure doesn't seem like the other side gave anything much in return) on core principals for political expediency, couldn't we have gotten one with a thicker resume?
I seem to remember that Obama supporters kept saying that as voters got to know him, they would like him more and more. I, on the other hand, continue to be more dissapointed with him as time goes on, and I'm a frickin Democrat!!
And frankly, I'm less and less enamored with the Democratic party. The poster's basic argument--vote for the Democrats because the Republicans are worse--gave us the current bunch of gutless wonders that currently run the Congress. I don't see how that can continue to be a "winning" strategy given recent history.
July 11, 2008 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Most of us here agree with Obama on the overwhelming majority of issues, but not on every single issue. You move the party in your direction by funding primary challengers, not by complaining about how the nominee is not perfectly in sync with you. The nominee is the nominee, and if that person doesn't get elected, we are clearly not going to advance any of the big items on our agenda, like healthcare or the environment or appointing better Supreme Court justices.
If Congress would just insist on declassifying more of the documents at issue, we'd get the same information that people want to get from the lawsuits. That's EFF's goal, and the lawsuits are a sideways way of trying to do something that Congress could just do directly.
July 11, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Congress would just insist on declassifying more of the documents at issue, we'd get the same information that people want to get from the lawsuits.
Yeah, Congressional "insistence" has worked really really well to date, hasn't it? And that's assuming that Congress even wants this stuff disclosed.
That's EFF's goal, and the lawsuits are a sideways way of trying to do something that Congress could just do directly.
But they're not. And unfortunately, when the First and Second Branches block the direct path, sometimes the sideways path -- via the Third Branch -- is all you've got left.
July 23, 2008 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The following is simply wrong.
But immunity from what? Civil lawsuits for damages. We don't leave chasing the Bush Administration's sorry abuse of civil rights to the civil discovery process in lawsuits filed by private persons for cash, in which discovery is logically limited to the facts of their case and not the programmatic abuse of civil liberties fostered by the Bushies (and in which a majority of judges deciding what is discoverable are Republican appointees, by the way).
A whole lot of factual and logical flaws here.
The most important flaw is the oft-repeated Republican talking point that these are "lawsuits filed by private persons for cash." The lawsuits were in fact filed by a coalition of privacy and civil liberties watchdog groups, notably the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the Hepting v. AT&T case and is managing or co-lead counsel on several other cases.
The meme that these are "lawsuits filed by private persons for cash" conjures up a classic and toxicd Republican trope of greedy plaintiffs' lawyers out to shake down responsible businesses. It's curious that you would bring it up.
Moreover, it ignores the fact that defending privacy and liberty in the electronic world is the raison d'etre for the EFF and similar groups. The history of EFF's foundation is here. The crucial fact to note here is that EFF and similar groups are the most motivated actors possible in pursuing a resolution and factual record of the Bush Administration's spying. No other entity -- not Congress, and certainly not the Justice Department, comes close.
Certain state attorneys general and public utilities commissioners also showed some motivation when they discovered the feds' and the corporations' violations of the privacy of the state citizens. They subpoenaed records from the telcos to find out just how bad the privacy violations were. The Bush administration, predictably, sued to terminate those subpoenas. The EFF is handling those cases as well. General information on all the cases, with links to more specific details, can be found here. It's all publicly available. The EFF and its colleagues are plainly doing this for public, not private, benefit. You're simply wrong in your claims.
The Republican-appointed judge in the multidistrict cases, Vaughn R. Walker, has so far denied AT&T's motion to dismiss the case. He doesn't appear to be following the Republican party line.
What utter, responsibility-shifting crap. If you've ever done civil discovery, you know how dumb the idea of leaving public policy to it, and to private persons' efforts in it, is.
Actually, the idea of "private attorneys general" is firmly entrenched in American law, dating back at least as far as the first Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. section 1983. It's particularly useful where, as here, the government has shown little motivation to investigate or prosecute abuses by governmental and private actors.
That's not what the courts are for. That's what _Congress_ is for. That's what the House and Senate are for, and our party controls them now, not the Executive.
Yeah, and we've seen how effective and motivated they've been, right? They've been really good at issuing Sternly Worded Letters, and the occasional subpoena, which the targets (including former WH counsel Harriet Miers, Karl Rove, and EPA administrator Stephen Johnson, among others) routinely ignore with impunity. Congress (unless it chooses to invoke inherent contempt power, which it so far has failed to do), must rely on the USAG to prosecute failure to respond to a subpoena. USAG Mukasey has directed his subordinates not to prosecute any such contempt citations.
That's why Pelosi, Reid, and their colleagues either need to investigate use and abuse of FISA powers in their oversight role, or the netroots need to hold _them_ accountable.
How, exactly, do you expect the netroots to do that, beyond what they're already doing -- and, in the process, being accused of being "FISA zealots", hand-wringers, far-left idealists, and more? What probability of success do you give to their efforts in the near term?
July 11, 2008 5:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
More "lawering" from the Constitutional Lawyer Brigade. (Note:The CLB should not be confused for real attorneys or those qualified to practice and/or comment on Constitutional law.)
July 11, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, you are totally full of crap. On July 11, 2008, at 8:51 AM, you said this, when only seconds earlier, you had said this. But only a minute before, on a completely different thread, you said this.
Need I say more? Serial liars, trolls, and habitually rude people like you will be logged, documented and reported to the proper authorities.
Signed,
Der Fact Fuhrer
July 11, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am on the list? There goes my entertainment career!
July 11, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I were you, I'd be looking for a good attorney.
July 11, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sweet! Wonderful!
You both got completely pwned. Your lies, deceptions and evasions have now been documented and published. You can't even back up one simple fact when called on the obvious fact that you're Making Shit Up.
The denial is very thick in the Cafe this afternoon.
"Any number of Real Lawyers are out there posting these long detailed posts that show you're a fucking moron on FISA," right? Right? Riiiiiiiiight. Days drag past, you can't come up with a single one of those Numerous Lawyers with their Detailed Posts that are All Over Teh IntarTubes -- not a single one --- until... finally.... agonizingly.... you admit total, ignominious, humiliating defeat.
That's just one. Your claims about the "old FISA." About the "new FISA." About the District Court. About the Court of Appeal. About the Supreme Court. About Obama's electoral history -- even reeeeally simple stuff like when he actually started his POTUS run. About your sourcing. About imaginary "outright lies" that I and others been posting. About your equally imaginary "reason" and "logic." Poof! Borked. All of them.
You. Make. Shit. Up. All. The. Time. But you got nailed, and you hate that.
Defeat is agony, I know. But it's really much, much easier once you accept it. You're still in the first stage of grief, but it will pass. You'll be back. You'll post some empty self-pleasuring batshit reply about victim complexes, persecution, OCD, mama's basement, meds, "reason", "logic", and "common sense". Or you'll find some other rhetorical toy to distract yourselves with for a while. That'll be Stages Two and Three.
I hope you both pass quickly through Stages One, Two, Three and Four. Really, I do. I hate to see you suffer so, and the Fifth Stage is where you will find peace. Some say counseling helps.
Game over, boys. Remember, with your skills, Team McCain always h as a place for you. Phil Gramm may be on the way out, so there's an extra opening. You'd be perfect for his spot. Give 'em a call!
Cheers!
July 11, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi#Red_herring
Can't deal with what's in the argument, therefore change the subject and hope nobody notices.
Old, and tired, and transparent, and not gonna work, except for the MMS.
July 11, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once we elect Obama president, the investigations will commence. It's only a few months away. The telecoms are going to get immunity anyway. Surviving a motion to dismiss is only the first hurdle.
July 11, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama could have stopped this before it went to the House floor if he wanted to. Almost the only thing the Dem Party has been working on is regaining the WH. At this point, Pelosi, Reid, et al will do pretty much whatever the nominee asks.
In spite of the fact that Pelosi may let Kucinich present one article to the Judiciary committee to be buried, she has easily blocked all impeachment efforts for a year and a half. How can anyone contend that Dem leaders don’t control the agenda?
The whole torture, illegal war, surveillance state, government politicization and corruption is all of one piece. But we must forgive and forget these appalling crimes done in our name for political expediency? Give up your rights now and we'll fix it all later, when we have all the power. Gee, I remember the same kinds of promises in 2006: repeal the PAA and restore FISA oversight; repeal the MCA and restore habeas corpus; end the war. What about just standing up for what is right in the first place?
I know, I know. Obama had to move to the “center” and prove he is strong on national security. That’s kind of like what Hillary Clinton did when voting for the Iraq AUMF, isn’t it? I hope there isn’t some “incident” that forces Congress to vote on an Iran AUMF any time soon. Our leaders may feel the need to move to the center and look strong on national security.
July 11, 2008 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't really, though, is it? Because Hillary is an avowed hawk. She meant it. No matter what she says now, she thought the invasion was the right thing to do.
I don't buy the "Obama is moving to the center" argument. I think he's just a pragmatist who understands compromise and who didn't want to see his campaign consumed with this garbage for the next three months. The easiest way to get past it was to cast a vote, take his lumps and move on. There was no way this bill wasn't going to be signed into law.
July 11, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read my reply again. There is no way this bill was going to be signed into law, if the leaders didn’t want it to. I do not think Hoyer would have even negotiated this with admin and telecoms and rushed a House vote, if Obama and Pelosi, who also feigned knowing nothing about it, objected. Besides, this would not have been a political liability but an advantage if Obama had stood up for the rule of law. Think of how he could have portrayed McCain’s dodging a vote to restore the rule of law instead of protecting Bush. And to claim that Clinton’s AUMF vote was sincere and principled but his FISA was not isn’t exactly a promising endorsement.
Since holding office is now a permanent campaign, is this the kind of stand we can expect on important issues or will leopards change spots? I’m sorry, but the crouching Democrats do not have the right to “compromise” civil liberties under the First and Fourth Amendments much less immunize criminal corporations lobbying for it in the name of pragmatism.
You’re right that this was going to pass no matter what. But it’s because the Dem leadership wanted it. Immediately after getting this out of the way, they pretty much indicated they were closing shop for the year (budgets will be put off, impeachment will be buried, etc.). Again, power for its own sake is corrupt.
July 11, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except that, as I'm sure you'll remember, the House Blue Dogs were demanding a compromise bill. They said if they didn't get one, they were going to join with the Republicans to force a vote on the original Senate bill, which really sucked. This was a no-win situation.
July 11, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It’s an excuse. The blue dogs cannot force the House to do anything. They can only swing the vote and couldn’t even do that on the original House Judiciary bill. Only five blue dogs voted for the Rockefeller Senate Bill and just a few secretly conspired with Hoyer and admin and telecom reps to write the new one.
July 11, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's going to continue to be a no win situation until someone has the guts to face down the blue dogs. Make them pay for voting with the Republicans. It's not like they've helped accomplish anything. All they do is confuse the public who can't tell why we're supposedly different from Republicans. Americans elected a Democratic Congress and they got a Republican Congress.
Sure it takes 60 votes to pass a bill but it only takes 41 votes to defeat a bill! If Democrats would only stop passing the Republican bills it would be a major improvement. Until we stop passing THEIR bills they are NEVER going to compromise and allow passage of any of our bills.
Anyway, I hounded Senator Amy for months and at least she did cast her vote against the bill.
July 11, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you all the way on this, articleman. I just donated another 25 bucks to Obama a few days ago, and my support for him is 100%. I'm glad this FISA vote is past us. There will be some dead-enders who will whine about it until the end of time, but they nullify their own arguments with their inability to understand the even the basics of a representative Democracy. It's all about compromise. We compromised. Time to move on to the next crisis.
Great post.
July 11, 2008 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
We did not compromise. We surrendered. If we'd compromised, you'd have seen some Republicans voting against the bill. They loved the bill. They got what they wanted.
July 11, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep right on donating. Mine's going to Regina Thomas, Charlie Brown, the ACLU, EFF, MoveOn, and the moneybomb. But hey, it's your money.
July 11, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
While you were gone, articleman, this got hashed out ad infinitum (and I do mean infinitum) in reader blogs. Going by recs and past threads, the majority of Cafe readers probably agree with you. But (except for one guy whose avatar is a pencil sketch), we're tired of the argument. The doomsayers are still strongly motivated. So you'll mostly hear from them
But just for the sake of -- oh, something to do while I wake up . . .
There are actually three groups here.
1) People who think Obama's FISA vote was unforgivable.
2) People who think it was a forgivable mistake, motivated by understandable political calculation.
3) And people, like me, who think this bill was actually a decent-enough compromise on the merits.
A lot of the talk about "folding like lawn chairs" becomes less relevant when you realize that plenty of Democrats, and Democratic elected officials, fall into category 3, and don't actually dislike this compromise. We don't post on DKos or TPM in numbers proportionate to our presence in the electorate, but I assure you, there are a bunch of us.
I don't trust legislation to protect my civil liberties. I trust American civil society -- by which I mean journalists, elected officials, leakers inside the intelligence community, judges, bloggers, and the ACLU. That's the network that caught Bush when he violated the last FISA law, and it's the network I trust to catch any president who abuses the powers granted in this one.
I'm not going to go deep into the weeds of minimization procedures. I've read the legislation, and read about the legislation, and the truth is that we're arguing about rather subtle details. They don't feel subtle to the libertarian wing of the Party, because over the last few years "FISA" has become a synonym for "Bush's abuse of power." People are not jumping up and down and weeping because they're deeply concerned about minimization procedures. They're angry that once again, the Democrats seem to be "letting Bush get away scot-free" because we "don't have the guts to stand up for what we believe in."
I can assure you that that part is false. There are plenty of centrist Democrats who truly believe that this bill is an improvement on 2005. It grants certain new powers of foreign surveillance (powers that Bush attempted, but failed, simply to grab), while limiting and regulating those powers. (By which I don't mean that this bill itself will stop executive tyranny. That's up to us, and it has always been up to us.)
So, in short, my message to the libertarian left is this: there was a period in this decade when the issue really was "whether Dems would stand up to Bush." That was the issue with the AUMF. They didn't face him down, and should have.
That's not the issue with this bill. The problem with this bill is that communitarian democrats actually disagree with civil-liberties absolutists about the proper way to regulate collection of foreign intelligence. It's a division inside the Democratic coalition.
There are going to be more such divisions. They'll all feel apocalyptic. They won't be. This Party is not divided between true believers and people who just don't have the guts. It's a coalition of different interests: greens, economic populists, anti-war activists, civil rights activists, feminists, liberal evangelicals, and, yes, the ACLU. We disagree on a lot of things -- and where we disagree, we may not act as forcefully as some of us would like. (Personally, I'd like the party to adopt environmental policies that are much more radical than the rest of the coalition will buy right now.) But where we agree, we can act forcefully if we all hold onto the ball and run down the field with it together.
July 11, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am plenty tired of it, but I am not the type to let misinformation continue to flourish without comment. That's how we got here in the first place. You'll notice that I reference the Fourth Wall of Blogging when I explain why I don't let inane bullshit pass.
What I mean by that is a couple hundred bloggers aren't going to drive enough revenue to keep TPM's lights on. That means a bigger audience is hanging around and consuming what's written here.
I would imagine it is a diverse audience of those who are new to progressive political discussion (Obamicans) and those who have yet to make up their mind, but can't seem to get enough info on TV. Go figure.
That is the audience I have in mind when I respond to unreasonable hyperbole about this issue with providing a bigger-picture, more pragmatic progressive opinion.
Otherwise, everyone starts thinking the "left" is made up of a bunch of tools who want to burn republicans at the stake. They start thinking we want to burn the village down in an effort to save it.
Someone needs to counter that impression until November.
July 11, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't mean to dis you. I think the audience is pretty small, but it's a debate worth having anyway.
July 11, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't feel dissed, only misunderstood. :O)
July 11, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am plenty tired of it, but I am not the type to let misinformation continue to flourish without comment. That's how we got here in the first place. You'll notice that I reference the Fourth Wall of Blogging when I explain why I don't let inane bullshit pass.
....except, of course, you can't even back up your own claims. Even the remarkably easy to prove ones. If they were true. Which they aren't. Which is why you can't back them up.
July 11, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
articleman, you make a lot of good points, most of which are difficult to argue with as far as they go. Further, your tone is far superior to that of most of those on your side of the argument, and I'm sure I speak for many in expressing my appreciation for that.
However, you're missing an important point. One critical reason we have gotten to the point where Sen. Obama feels the need to slice the guts out of the Fourth Amendment is that the Dems have spent the last 20 years teaching America that the Wingnuts make a good point.
Dems keep moving to the right because they think they need to be Republicans to get elected. Then, in order to distinguish themselves from the Dems, the Republicans move further to the right and crank up the fear. The Dems see the Repbulicans' success with these tactics and move to emulate them again. And around and around we go until we arrive at our current situation where we have two rightist parties.
This paradigm will continue to operate, as far as I can tell, until the Dems are nominating Ben Campbell because he's SO much better than Rick Santorum.
Sorry, I can't support this not-so-gradual degradation of civil liberties. No can do. Sorry. I really like Obama on most issues, but I can't vote for a guy who knows the Constitution and ignores it.
July 11, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
At least you've dropped the pretense of being a supporter. A step in the right direction. Pun intended.
July 11, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yet you continue the pretense of having something to say.
July 11, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/forgiving-the-fisa-cave.php#comment-2959526
July 11, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was about to write yet another pissy comment about this endless repetitive debate, articleman's eloquence notwithstanding, when I saw this clear, interesting, and uncommon comment by Tankard. Well done.
For the all the hollering about the Fourth Amendment, I do not think that the FISA debate is, at it's core, about FISA at all. I think it goes to a question of whether the party should move right for political expedience or left to defend core principles. And that, I think is a very good question.
Tank's point, if I understand it, is that the centrism, originally presented by Bill Clinton as "triangulation", may be expedient in the short run but counterproductive in the long run, since it pushes the whole country towards the right.
I think that such an effect could be possible, but there's no evidence for it. Have we shifted right because of the political strategies of Reagan, Clinton, and G.W. or because the numerous other influences on political opinion? Impossible to know. I would hate to give an election to Republicans on the assumption that centrism is a cause rather than a response to the opinions of the electorate. While Obama could perhaps be more progressive and still win because of the strength of Democrats this year, I highly doubt that more left-leaning stands would have served Gore or Kerry well, and I don't blame Obama for being cautious.
Two things to note: Obama has pledged unity as a contrast to G.W. and recent Republican politics. As many of those opposed to him have noted in these pages, unity entails compromise. Obama is not a liberal version of Bush-Cheney. There will be more FISA's.
Second, even G.W. did not push a hard conservative line in his first election. He was the compassionate conservative who crossed parties lines to work with Texas Dems on social issues. He offered tokens to progressives while pushing hard line conservative policies. It's important for progressives to distinguish between core principles and tokens designed to appeal to a wider audience. FISA, at least, is an actual policy, though we may disagree about it's importance. Obama's comments on the death penalty, by contrast, were only only tokens which broaden his appeal without affecting policy.
July 11, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Temporarily, perhaps. I think what pushes the country to the right is having the Democrats in charge. And what pushes the country to the left is having the Republicans in charge. I'm convinced it's tidal, rather than rational.
July 11, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
A tidal effect is unavoidable, but political opinion isn't static like an ocean, it evolves over time in a two-steps-forward-one-step-back way. The tides that swept in FDR have never returned to the place they were under Hoover and never will.
The question is what is the extent to which the current of public opinion can be changed by the President. Do we hold out for a powerful progressive voice to return us to the left, or is the tide too strong for even a President's voice, in which case should we simply take what we can get and wait for the tide to turn?
July 11, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's the voice that matters so much. It might help to win you the election, but the proof's in the puddin'. Even Republicans concede that the economy sucks under the current Republican president, while it was great under Clinton. One more Democrat in the White House, presiding over a good economy, and Americans are going to start questioning the whole trickle down theory of economics that the Republicans have been pressing. Results talk. Bullshit walks. Obama had better be a damn great president, or we're gonna be on the losing end of things for a long, long time.
July 11, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tankard and Genghis are both right: the argument was never really about FISA. It was always about the broader question of how we deal with tensions within our coalition. Tankard says "if you move an inch to the right, they'll take a mile," and many people agree with him.
As we think about this issue, it would be helpful to remember that "left" and "right" are not metaphysical principles like pi, inscribed in the structure of reality. They're metaphors that describe a set of overlapping arguments, which (sometimes, sort of) can be made to line up along a single spectrum. But the metaphor is really a loose one, and we shouldn't let the metaphor drive all our political thinking.
Here's the weakness of the spectrum metaphor: If some Democrats were (always) closer to the Republicans, the Democrats who were (always) further away might rightly feel that the only way to achieve anything was to threaten to take their marbles and go home.
But that's really not the case. We're a coalition of different interests. On FISA, the civil liberties left saw eye-to-eye with the libertarian right, while the communitarian left shrugged and made a compromise with the nationalist right. I think that's why you saw Feinstein and Obama voting for the bill. Environmental issues are going to draw a different set of battle lines altogether.
I think this is a better mental model. It's not a question of moving an inch "right" or "left." We're a coalition, and no one part of the coalition gets to hold the rest hostage. We need to pick battles where most of us can line up on the same side -- battles, for instance, like universal healthcare.
July 11, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Well put as usual.
But I think that Tankard is arguing that we need to change the make-up of the coalition. FISA is only one example. There are too many other rightist elements in the Democratic coalition, some of which Obama has embraced, for Tankard to stomach. (Apologies, Tank, if I have put words in your formerly tooth-challenged mouth.)
July 11, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you DID put words in my mouth, but they were good words.
I think the "what to do so that we don't have to nominate conservatives to win" discussion is not one that the powers in the Democratic Party are eager to engage.
I also think that said discussion should not be held in this thread, but it will be a good stimulus for more dissention and vitriole in the not-distant future -- say shortly after the next conservative president takes office, which will be in early 2009.
July 11, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, if Obama wins, it will be interesting to see how the site evolves. I expect that it will become a place for criticism from the left. (And I will become a centrist "Republican" troll. Goody.)
July 11, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're a coalition, and no one part of the coalition gets to hold the rest hostage.
From my point of view, this is exactly what the DLCers, the Emanuels, and their co-conspirators have been doing.
July 11, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe they're just in the part of the Venn diagram where a lot of different agendas overlap.
Admittedly, it does kind of boil down to the same thing . . .
July 11, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Tankard and Alex. I've been looking for the right descriptor, and "hostage" is it. Tankard, you're spot on about the Emanuels and the Shrums and the rest of them. And they hold you hostage over and over again when they say "Who ya gonna vote for then, the Republican?"
July 11, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except the bluedogs. The bluedogs + Republicans get to hold us hostage.
There was no opposition from Republican office holders to this bill. Had it been a genuine compromise, you'd have seen equal dissatisfaction from the Republican side of the aisle. Instead they were all for it. The reality is in the vote. The Republicans won one the issue. Again. The Democrats lost the issue. Again.
July 11, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis: Although I think it is true that the Dems' behavior continues to push the country to the right, the point that I didn't make as well as I should have is that it keeps pushing the DEMS to the right.
I can't imagine how this can be denied. Here's just one of many examples:
The Dems gained control of the Senate in 2006 via the backing and electing of a number of very conservative Democrats. The one in particular with whom I am most familiar was Bob Casey in my home state of Pennsylvania. Bob Casey could easily have run on the Republican ticket with his views on reproductive choice (against). the USAPATRIOT Act (for), embryonic stem cell research (against), death penalty (for), and on and on. He had run every primary race as the conservative alternative for the Dems.
At the same time, Rick Santorum had ranted and foamed himself into oblivion. His ratings were dismal. The Democratic candidate could have been a solid, progressive guy or gal and could have walked away with the election. This was 2006 afterall.
But the Dems at the national and state levels decided they had to have Casey. They "won" with him, and Wed he voted in favor of the FISA bill.
One more example is Barack Obama himself. With regard to the Constitution, his positions on constitutional issues probably make him the most conservative Dem candidate since Wilson, even further to the right than Bill Clinton -- to repeat: WRT constitutional issues. (I confess I am not a scholar of early 20th Century politics, so feel free to correct me with the name of a presidential candidate who is more conservative than Obama.)
As for Sen. Obama's desire for unity, I perceive that he is sincere about this. Still, was it not Dubya who claimed to be a uniter and not a divider? That can easily mean, "I'm going to unite the country by making it difficult to disagree with me" as the current administration keeps attempting to do.
At the risk of boring everyone with my repetition, I have to stress this again:
So let me return the compliment and commend your response to my comment while I respectfully but firmly disagree.
July 11, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which is why he voted against the confirmation of both Roberts and Alito, citing his fear that they would side with corporate "bullies" rather than individuals.
http://www.scoop08.com/obama%2526%2523039%3Bs-academic-background-could-influence-court-picks
Always appreciate your unsupported assertions.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/forgiving-the-fisa-cave.php#comment-2959526
July 11, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will discuss this with you until your first insult.
The fact that Sen. Obama does SOME things right, constitutionally, is in his favor. The things he does right are a part of what make him vastly preferable to Sen. McCain -- who, BTW, also does SOME things right.
However, note Sen. Obama's words WRT Justice Roberts:
I am sorely tempted to vote for Judge Roberts based on my study of his resume, his conduct during the hearings, and a conversation I had with him yesterday afternoon.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view. It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn't have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law, and it became apparent to me in our conversation that he does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95 percent of the cases that come before the Federal court -- adherence to precedence, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system...
I will be voting against John Roberts' nomination...with considerable reticence
July 11, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
What insult? In regard to Constitutional issues, you accused Obama of being a "the most conservative Dem candidate since Wilson." That's not only ridiculously absurd, it's completely false. And you just said it, expecting everyone to take you at your word, without backing it up with any supporting evidence whatsoever. I called it an unsupported assertion. That's not an insult--it's just a fact.
July 11, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it unpleasant attempting to reason with you, and since I am too old to waste time doing things that are unpleasant, unprofitable, and unnecessary, I think ALL our conversations end with the period at the end of this sentence.
July 11, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not quite. I think they end with the smiley face at the end of this one. :)
July 11, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I accept your clarification and agree that Dems have shifted right. It was not only Bill Clinton and now Obama who have encouraged this approach; many Democrats have been working to broaden the party to deal with the "What's the Matter with Kansas" problem. This approach was a response to the growing popularity of Republican causes which pushed Democrats out of state governments as well as the White House, Senate, and Congress. The alternative, at least in the short term, was to continue to freeze out blue dogs like Bob Casey. Perhaps a more progressive candidate might have won PA, but hindsight is 20-20, and it's easy to take the 2006 landslide for granted in 2008. Had an alternative candidate lost to Santorum, we would still have a Republican Senate. I'm willing to tolerate Casey for that. I also doubt that we would have such a strong house majority without the blue dogs. Perhaps if the Democratic majority proves to be sustainable, you'll see more muscle flexing by progressives, but it was only four years ago that we were all afraid that we would not see a Democratic government for a very long time.
There is of course another approach to the Kansas problem, and that is to change public opinion. I don't think such an approach is inconsistent with centrism and big-tent politics, but you can't do it wholesale on the current party platform. The Democrats first need to reconstitute their mission, one (and only one) tenet of which is privacy rights. We can do that from outside the government while Republicans tear the country to shreds or within the government, as we tolerate dissent within the party and win public opinion back to the left. I'm for the latter.
This last issue points to a second area of disagreement, which is is how secure the political scene is to push hard on a progressive agenda. That is to say, do we still need the Bob Caseys, and can Obama afford to be less "unifying"? The disastrous Republican leadership is too fresh for me. I want to ensure that the next President is a Democrat, and I'm willing to grant the telcoms immunity and tolerate some faith-based programs for that end.
July 11, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand that you weren't here, so I understand your position. However, it is simply not the case that the choice of Bob Casey was made in ignorance of the viability -- verging on invincibilty -- of a progressive opponent for Rick Santorum.
I won't get into the details, but Sen. Santorum's two senatorial victories were over extremely weak, unknown opponents. He was simply dreadful as a campaigner despite his smarmy facility because he constantly exposed his tendencies as a true religious fanatic, a flaming anti-semite (of the arabic variety), and a homophobe.
You and I might or might not agree about whether or not it is proper for a party to nominate a defective candidate when no acceptable winner is available, but Sen. Casey was a defective candidate, knowingly anointed by the Democratic powers inside and outside the Commonwealth, where any of a dozen acceptable winners were waiting in the wings.
July 11, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I accept your clarification and agree that Dems have shifted right. It was not only Bill Clinton and now Obama who have encouraged this approach; many Democrats have been working to broaden the party to deal with the "What's the Matter with Kansas" problem. This approach was a response to the growing popularity of Republican causes which pushed Democrats out of state governments as well as the White House, Senate, and Congress. The alternative, at least in the short term, was to continue to freeze out blue dogs like Bob Casey. Perhaps a more progressive candidate might have won PA, but hindsight is 20-20, and it's easy to take the 2006 landslide for granted in 2008. Had an alternative candidate lost to Santorum, we would still have a Republican Senate. I'm willing to tolerate Casey for that. I also doubt that we would have such a strong house majority without the blue dogs. Perhaps if the Democratic majority proves to be sustainable, you'll see more muscle flexing by progressives, but it was only four years ago that we were all afraid that we would not see a Democratic government for a very long time.
There is of course another approach to the Kansas problem, and that is to change public opinion. I don't think such an approach is inconsistent with centrism and big-tent politics, but you can't do it wholesale on the current party platform. The Democrats first need to reconstitute their mission, one (and only one) tenet of which is privacy rights. We can do that from outside the government while Republicans tear the country to shreds or within the government, as we tolerate dissent within the party and win public opinion back to the left. I'm for the latter.
This last issue points to a second area of disagreement, which is is how secure the political scene is to push hard on a progressive agenda. That is to say, do we still need the Bob Caseys, and can Obama afford to be less "unifying"? The disastrous Republican leadership is too fresh for me. I want to ensure that the next President is a Democrat, and I'm willing to grant the telcoms immunity and tolerate some faith-based programs for that end.
July 11, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can say that again.
July 11, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that twice was sufficient to get my point across.
July 11, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
clear, interesting, and uncommon
These words are often used to describe the contents of my skull, but not so often to describe my prose.
July 11, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Practice what you preach, please...
vs.
July 11, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Insulting those who disagree with one is not the same thing as harsh characterization of a despicable act, but thank you for the advice.
July 11, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Granted, but the issue here is tone. Graphic and hyperbolic rhetoric serves only to stir the passions, not to inform. It can be an effective tool of persuasion, but can also stand in as a substitute for absent logic.
For the record, I'm rather ambivalent on this issue. I'm disappointed that my desire to see the Bush administration taken to task will go unsatisfied, but I can't really see much of a practical difference between last week and next week when it comes to government surveillance. That said, it does seem that most of the personal invective has been directed at defenders of the "compromise/cave-in/end-of-the-world/necessary-evil" FISA bill, not the other way around as you seem to feel.
July 11, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Granted, but the issue here is tone.
True.
Graphic and hyperbolic rhetoric serves only to stir the passions, not to inform.
This was not hyperbolic, but it was indeed intended to "stir the passions." It's purpose was not exactly to inform, but to illustrate.
It can be an effective tool of persuasion, but can also stand in as a substitute for absent logic.
It CAN stand in as a substitute for logic, but in this case it was used as a complement to logic.
July 11, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefully, we'll win and prove you wrong. Being centrist before the election doesn't mean you govern from the center. Compare Bush 2000 to Bush 2002. Hopefully, we're the reverse of that paradigm. Too bad more Naderites or FISA-concerned folks can't see it that way.
I appreciate that you were civil and saw my tone that way. Thanks.
July 11, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you win, too, to keep Sen. McCain out of the White House.
July 11, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can vote too, you know.
July 11, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't say it was a shining moment of courage for Obama, and I don't even think it was all that smart politically.
But I still support his bid for the presidency: the alternative is unthinkable.
July 11, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
==That's not the issue with this bill. The problem with this bill is that communitarian democrats actually disagree with civil-liberties absolutists about the proper way to regulate collection of foreign intelligence. It's a division inside the Democratic coalition.==
That is exactly the factually incorrect and self-defeating position that apparently led Obama advisors to recommend to him a drastic change of his position.
The truth here is the American people do not support warantless surveilance BY SIGNIFICANT MARGINS. This is not a disagreement within the democratic party - the strong and principled position to defend our freedom from warantless spying is actually the majority positon in the nation!
So Obama made both an error on principle and an error in tactics - he could have EASILY led and won the defeat of this travesty of a bill AND gained political advantage in doing this. Instead, he, like you, assumed that the only people he would disenfranchise is those weird lefties (you know who we are), so who cares?
In reality he committed a large error on both fronts, handicapping his true and only real asset in the general election - honesty, trustworthiness, enthusiasm, CHANGE.
July 11, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're going to have to provide your polling methodology on that one, I'm afraid.
July 11, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just google it. There are several polls, all show majorities against warantless surveilance.
One of them was commissioned by the ACLU, which is now viewed by many Obama supporters as a crazy left-wing treasonous organization, but they hired a proffessional polling firm to do this.
Hey, a question - why would anyone write on this subject at all without a minimum of research?
And why is it SO suprising that Americans are AGAINST warantless surveilance?
It may come as a suprise to a SPINELESS DEMOCRATIC "ELITE", but should not be shocking to any thinking person.
July 11, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say you were lying, but since when is it my responsibility to back up your argument?
July 11, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say you were lying, but since when is it my responsibility to back up your argument?
You might try telling that to Jason.
July 14, 2008 3:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everything depends on how you ask the question. If you asked,
"Should concerns about personal privacy outweigh the government's need to gather intelligence about communication with foreign countries?"
I'm pretty confident what the poll data would look like.
And let me assure you that that is how the question would have been put, in practice, to the electorate.
July 11, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or how about the Lou Dobbs approach?
"Do you agree that it is absolutely disgusting and unconscionable that the U.S. government, in complete violation of the law, common decency, and everything that America stands for, continues to invade the privacy of law-abiding U.S. citizens by tapping their telephones and reading their email communications for no good reason whatsoever?"
Cast your vote now at loudobbs.com.
July 11, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good thing this legislation doesn't authorize wiretaps without warrants. Whew. Missed a bullet on that one!
July 11, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me say this for the 10,000th time - FISA always did empower the president to authorize unwarranted searches. That was the purpose of the statute to start with and it's been on the books for 30 years.
I wish there wasn't so goddamn much ignorance about this circulating - but about 75% of the people who were outraged don't get this in the first place.
FISA always empowered the executive to conduct warrantless searches and not one fucking thing is different now than the way the law has been on the books for the 30 goddamn years.
July 11, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tena, please see here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/im-not-a-lawyer-but-i-play-one.php#comment-2959522
Interesting idea, no? Sort of the equivalent of trying to hammer a wooden peg into a concrete block, but probably better than no action at all...
July 11, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep.
O just shoot me.
It doesn't matter how many times someone tries to get through to people that they do not understand this situation - I can't take it.
Nothing about FISA changed. The problem wasn't the law - the problem was that Bush ignored it. And they have not broadened anything.
Bush would have vetoed the bill if immunity was in it. We do not have a veto-proof majority. The bill was always going to pass.
Here we go: Russ Feingold voted YES on both Roberts and Alito. Dennis Kucinich was a lifelong anti-choice advocate until he decided to run for president.
So where is your big-ass progressive hero, people? No one is perfect.
July 11, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely. The argument over whether this bill should pass was completely, totally and utterly moot. There was never any chance that it wouldn't.
July 11, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pudding!
July 11, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doh!
that was a response to your buddhism quote below.
July 11, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's the datamining...
The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, passed by Congress on Wednesday and signed by President Bush today, not only legalizes the secret warrantless surveillance program the president approved in late 2001, it gives the government new spying powers, including the power to conduct dragnet surveillance of Americans' international communications.
"Spying on Americans without warrants or judicial approval is an abuse of government power - and that's exactly what this law allows. The ACLU will not sit by and let this evisceration of the Fourth Amendment go unchallenged," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "Electronic surveillance must be conducted in a constitutional manner that affords the greatest possible protection for individual privacy and free speech rights. The new wiretapping law fails to provide fundamental safeguards that the Constitution unambiguously requires."
July 11, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
The real stupid part is that they were already doing everything this bill gives them the right to do, and they would continue doing it whether it was legal or not. This bill doesn't even make anything official. It just ratifies a position. It's more a set of recommendations to the president on how to stay out of trouble. No one's expecting anyone to actually obey this law.
Remember this little honey from a few years ago?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_bky_7nm0c
July 11, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
that is disheartening as it could possibly be, except the way you except it, that's pretty disheartening to me as well.
July 11, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
An old Zen saying: "In order to get up off the ground, you must use the ground."
July 11, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I meant was this law still doesn't allow for it because legally one must go to the court within 72 hours, so at some point in the surveillance process warrants are involved. That is what the CLB misses entirely in their idealogical illogic.
July 11, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Media Matters circa 2005 (Top 12 media FISA myths):
“Conservatives such as nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh and American Cause president Bay Buchanan have defended the administration by falsely claiming that the administration's authorization of domestic surveillance by the NSA without warrants is legal under FISA.”
It goes on to describe how warrants are required under FISA (seeing as that was the whole purpose of FISA to begin with). Rush Limbaugh may be arguing this, but I have yet to see one top constitutional lawyer making these assertions. Are you saying that this is Obama’s position?
July 11, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bay Buchanan and Rush Limbaugh are correct in a way. FISA allows for obtaining a warrant after a wiretap is already in place. According to what I've read, the FISA court has so far approved more than 20,000 warrants and rejected less than a dozen.
July 11, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe you guys won't move on, and yet feel compelled to constantly bring up the same tired points again and again.
Surely you know there are many who disagree with you. many who are lawyers as well, here I'm thinking about the ACLU, and many at the EFF. As well as pundits and other bloggers. So there it is.
Also, I can't forgive if your post goes on to tell me why I shouldn't be upset in the first place. To forgive is to pardon a offense. So, admit the offense, then I'll consider forgiving.
No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.
-see even Obama once agreed with me, before he became the presumptive nominee.
July 11, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
==Let me say this for the 10,000th time - FISA always did empower the president to authorize unwarranted searches. That was the purpose of the statute to start with and it's been on the books for 30 years.==
No, you are factually incorrect, except in the narrowed most technical sense - the statue allows a DELAYED warrant (72 hours) not NO warrant. To insist that these are one and the same and "it hath always been dat way", is a pretty shamelss attempt at lawyerly whitewashing. Overuled!
==I wish there wasn't so goddamn much ignorance about this circulating - but about 75% of the people who were outraged don't get this in the first place.==
Me too! There is much rationalizing bullshit coming from Obama sycophants, the air is thick with obfuscation.
==FISA always empowered the executive to conduct warrantless searches and not one fucking thing is different now than the way the law has been on the books for the 30 goddamn years.==
Now, just because you said it three times, it still doesn't make this true in any sense other than the fevered and stubborn part of your imagination.
It is an undisputed fact, that Obama's vote has made a small but tangible difference, facilitating a very bad law, most likely unconstitutional to be HAPPILY SIGNED by BUSH. We now need smart and persistent constitutional challenges to attempt to protect ourselves from the very kind of "general warrant" searches that the 4th Amendment was written to prevent. I find it outrageous that my Presidential candiadate has voted to strip me of my rihgts!
I am sorry this behavior is "jake" with you. You have a cute monicker but a very wrong position.
July 11, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
My imagination? You fucking idiot - have you ever read the original statute? Do you have clue 1? No, you don't.
It's not my imagination - I have read the legislation and I know what I'm talking about. Thirty years ago Congress enacted FISA and what it did right from the start was set out an exception to the 4th amendment for the executive and executive branch intelligence agencies. The statute established the secret FISA court which was supposed to be the protection for our rights that was supposedly built in. Presidents, including Clinton, have used that statute for 30 years to authorize unwarranted searches. What the statute required was that the executive report back to the FISA court after the search was already conducted, present the reasons and case to the court and the FISA judges would issue what amounted to after the fact warrants.
Dude, I'm a lawyer. I can read statutes. I was an appellate lawyer - I defended convicted felons' constitutional rights in appellate court.
You just made a fool of yourself accusing me of having a "fevered imagination."
July 11, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
according to the lawyers at the ACLU:
The FISA Amendments Act nearly eviscerates oversight of government surveillance by allowing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to review only general procedures for spying rather than individual warrants. The FISC will not be told any specifics about who will actually be wiretapped, thereby undercutting any meaningful role for the court and violating the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
The bill further trivializes court review by authorizing the government to continue a surveillance program even after the government’s general spying procedures are found insufficient or unconstitutional by the FISC. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever information was gathered in the meantime. A provision touted as a major “concession” by proponents of the bill calls for investigations by the inspectors general of four agencies overseeing spying activities. But members of Congress who do not sit on the Judiciary or Intelligence committees will not be guaranteed access to the agencies’ reports.
July 11, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think what Tena's suggesting is that you read the legislation itself and come to your own conclusions, rather than using the words of the ACLU as a substitute for real understanding and knowledge. Am I getting that anywhere close to right, Tena?
July 11, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
What?
What I'm saying is that there are lawyers who disagree with Tena.
July 11, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
And what I am saying is who gives a shit what some lawyer you've never heard of thinks? It's what you believe that matters. And you can't possibly know what you believe until you've thoroughly read and understood the legislation. Skip the footnotes. Go to the source. Always go to the source.
July 11, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
if you have never heard of the ACLU. They are well-known for winning constitutional arguments in the court, so they likely have some inkling as to the workings of the Constitution.
You ask who gives a shit about them. Everyone they have ever protected from government overreach. That would be some 300 million Americans -- or "over 300 Americans" if you're Pres. Bush.
July 11, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was replying to Indie Pro. My reply was specific to what Indie Pro had said. Your opinion has been duly noted.
July 11, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM ate my link! The above originally said:
This might help, if you have never heard of the ACLU.
July 11, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool. I dismiss Tena out right then.
July 11, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are two different ways that Bush broke the law in this instance: in the first place, FISA was intended to be applied to foreign intelligence sources, not domestic; Bush was wiretapping here - that's the first arguably (arguable because I do not think this statute has been interpreted by the SCOTUS, so what some things in it mean aren't quite established) criminal act. The second and more troubling illegality was that the FISA court refused to sign off on two of Bush's requests for after the fact warrants, and after that he ignored the statute altogether - never reported back to the FISA judges again, just started wiretapping whomever.
Bush violated Due Process. The 4th and 14th amendments are read together; the due process in the statute was the FISA court - that's how Congress was able to put the statute on the books in the first place - they tried to engineer due process into the statute to pass constitutional muster. Bush ignored it totally.
We really ought to impeach the bastard and his entire cabinet.
But the bottom line in America is that those of you who think warrantless searches are always forbidden are just terribly naive. There's a warrantless search every 2 seconds. If your city has cameras on the traffic lights, like Dallas does - that's a warrantless search. If you have ever been stopped and your car was searched - that was a warrantless search, but it's an exception to the 4th amendment: search incident to arrest. The SCOTUS has argued for years over what that means, but it almost always inures to the benefit of the authority. Every time you go through a metal detector or other security, that is a warrantless search.
And - o god, I can't remember how many years ago now - the SCOTUS starting moving toward recognizing a completely subjective exception to the 4th - "good faith." If the authority acted in good faith, that can remove the taint from evidence gathered in an otherwise illegal unwarranted search. The constitution is fluid and at any one time, an amendment means what the SCOTUS says it means, and it changes over time. That certainly goes for the 4th, which now has almost more exceptions than it does applications. Practicing criminal defense law got more difficult every year I practiced because rights kept getting squeezed harder and harder by the courts, more exceptions were getting carved out and more error was being held to be not dispositive of the verdict in a case. So even when error was recognized, it was dismissed as nothing more than procedural.
I guess I better stop here - but I could keep going.
July 11, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hell, I've got a friend who bought a box at Radio Shack that lets him listen in to wireless phone conversations in the neighborhood. I can download a free tool called ettercap that makes it easy to launch a man in the middle attack on my neighbor's LAN, allowing me to capture whatever is going over the network. People who are worried about privacy should avoid computers, telephones, mail and talking loud in public.
July 11, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
==Hell, I've got a friend who bought a box at Radio Shack that lets him listen in to wireless phone conversations in the neighborhood. I can download a free tool called ettercap that makes it easy to launch a man in the middle attack on my neighbor's LAN, allowing me to capture whatever is going over the network. People who are worried about privacy should avoid computers, telephones, mail and talking loud in public.==
I am not very concerned about my loss of privacy to a cat. Continuous 24/7 of the entire electronic communications stream regionally or even nationally is a clear recipe for state tyrrany.
July 11, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a cat. It's an avatar.
July 11, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, but I am my avatar (a beer ad circa 1952). I should say I suspect I was a product of the increasingly refined science of mass media public relations, lessons from semantics theory, post-war propaganda studies, and the consequential influence of the promotional advertising of alcoholic beverages to young couples in the mid twentieth century.
PS I applaud your Zen quote earlier (first time for everything).
July 11, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Voters Read This As Obama Moving Toward the Center, and We Don't Need Another Mondale/Dukakis/Gore/Kerry Loss, Where We're Tagged As Too Liberal To Govern.
Or They Read It As Yet Another Instance Of A Dem Trying To Cover Up Who He Really Is In A Desperate Effort To Trick Voters Into Voting For Him.
Voters respect spine, not political calculation.
This was a bonehead move by Obama. It may cost him my vote, and not just because of the telecom immunity thing. Also because of the way in which it greatly expands presidential eavesdropping powers. I don't want to live in a surveillance state, but it's apparently just fine with Obama.
July 11, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "spine" argument gets used over and over, but it never gets thought through fully. People tend to think you're showing spine and principle when you do things they already agree with.
For instance, was John McCain displaying "spine" when he attacked the RNC in 2000, or when he agrees with it now? We think in 2000, but I betcha Freepers don't feel the same way. Independents probably agree with us, because they think you're displaying "spine" whenever you buck your own party.
For the same reason, independents who are not civil-liberties activists are not going to see Obama's vote as an important sellout. They're more like see it as demonstrating independence from the "party line."
July 11, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
==For the same reason, independents who are not civil-liberties activists are not going to see Obama's vote as an important sellout. They're more like see it as demonstrating independence from the "party line."==
They will and he would have, had he voted AGAINST the this crazy legislation that majority of Americans oppose.
And check Obama campaign's revenue stream - I guess people are a lot less likely to donate to a candidate who says one thing and does another.
What a bone-headed decision!
July 11, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
These issues have been covered fully upthread, so I'll refrain from getting into a round of "did so! / did not! / did so!"
July 11, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
==There are two different ways that Bush broke the law in this instance: in the first place, FISA was intended to be applied to foreign intelligence sources, not domestic; Bush was wiretapping here - that's the first arguably (arguable because I do not think this statute has been interpreted by the SCOTUS, so what some things in it mean aren't quite established) criminal act. The second and more troubling illegality was that the FISA court refused to sign off on two of Bush's requests for after the fact warrants, and after that he ignored the statute altogether - never reported back to the FISA judges again, just started wiretapping whomever.==
Just started wiretapping whomever. Just plain ignored a clear requirement for a warrant...a felony.
So...the new law simply allows him to wiretap whomever. Nice. Not a felony. Also immunizes the private felons who helped him. Cool.
I can really see now why you are vociferously defending this law, against the completely unwarranted attacks by deluded liberal lawyers of the tresonous ACLU and EFF.
==But the bottom line in America is that those of you who think warrantless searches are always forbidden are just terribly naive. There's a warrantless search every 2 seconds. If your city has cameras on the traffic lights, like Dallas does - that's a warrantless search. If you have ever been stopped and your car was searched - that was a warrantless search, but it's an exception to the 4th amendment: search incident to arrest. The SCOTUS has argued for years over what that means, but it almost always inures to the benefit of the authority. Every time you go through a metal detector or other security, that is a warrantless search.==
I like this argument even better! Lets make all the exceptions to the 4th amendment THE RULE. After all, if things happen sometime, it is the same thing as if it happens all the time! See, no difference! You were searched by a metal detector in the airport - don't complain about all of your emails being scanned and your telephone records searched!
And most important - DONT'T BLAME OBAMA FOR ANY OF THIS! This is just the way things are, always have been and always will be!
Wait, if you want to blaim for this completely innocent thing - blame Bush! Now, go vote for Obama.
==My imagination? You fucking idiot - have you ever read the original statute? Do you have clue 1? No, you don't.==
Being a strong supporter of the ACLU, I generally trust their lawyers, who methinks have a tiny bit more experience than you in reading Constitutional law, to interpret this legislation for me.
==It's not my imagination - I have read the legislation and I know what I'm talking about. Thirty years ago Congress enacted FISA and what it did right from the start was set out an exception to the 4th amendment for the executive and executive branch intelligence agencies. The statute established the secret FISA court which was supposed to be the protection for our rights that was supposedly built in. Presidents, including Clinton, have used that statute for 30 years to authorize unwarranted searches. What the statute required was that the executive report back to the FISA court after the search was already conducted, present the reasons and case to the court and the FISA judges would issue what amounted to after the fact warrants.==
You are not reading anything I say, are you? Are you a math person? Here is another try:
1 not equal 1e6
A low occurance of event is not the same as continous occurance of event. A grudging toleration of delayed warrants is not the same is continuous acceptance of no warrants.
==Dude, I'm a lawyer. I can read statutes. I was an appellate lawyer - I defended convicted felons' constitutional rights in appellate court.==
You appear to be completely wrong on this statute and you are in deep disagreement on this issue with multiple civil rights lawyers, who can ostensibly also "read statutes".
==You just made a fool of yourself accusing me of having a "fevered imagination."==
I was being polite. You seem incompetent.
July 11, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh here we go again.
Dems like articleman still don't get it.
Obama made up LIES to support this FISA Bill all while purporting to be an agent of change.
This FISA Bill was the very referendum for the definition of what, "Change You Can Believe In" was suppose to be about, the undoing of corporate control.
We already have Bush representing corporate American so Obama was suppose to be the guy representing people as opposed to corporate control of American.
In vote for this FISA bill, Obama overwhelming showed Americans that he is ACTUALLY JUST like Bush when he voted to lie for the benefit of AT&T and Verizon, and NOT tell the truth to Americans. It has made a complete farce out of his whole damn campaign. Did Obama truly believe he could lie just the way Bush has been doing for 8 years now and than get away with it?
And now that the deed is done, it is there for all time.
July 11, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a funny thread. Tankard was very good in this thread, IMHO, and I appreciate T's engagement on this. Here's my response to the whole thread.
While everyone says the whole argument is tired, the first argument in my post and the last are the ones I care about.
No one has a persuasive response to the first. No one ever has. gharlane's point that it could be a civil suit not for damages is surpassingly irrelevant, a distinction with no difference.
How the blogosphere can be so narrowly exercised -- my post generally assumes critics are right in their analysis of the bill -- as to think civil litigation is the key, while not having taken on the Congress over the last many years for its failure of oversight on this point, is ridiculous.
That's all. So when people post pdfs of their 2004-dated letters to their favorite Senator on this, and links to their several year old posts, then I guess it's not a bunch of bullshit. Like Kucinich's articles he sat on for five years, and in precisely the same way, it is.
Consider the above comment:
"The crucial fact to note here is that EFF and similar groups are the most motivated actors possible in pursuing a resolution and factual record of the Bush Administration's spying. No other entity -- not Congress, and certainly not the Justice Department, comes close."
That's what's wrong with the contrary argument on my first point. You're yelling at Congress to take your position on the question of whether this stupid indirect process, civil litigation, will be oversight on FISA. If you had a majority for that, you'd have a majority for the more direct, correct, real, functional oversight that _Congress_ is constitutionally created to provide. The failing is with _Congress_ alone, which should do the oversight, rather than delegating it to civil lawyers chasing telcos through the rabbit hole to Wonderland. The quote underscores that without meaning to.
And Congress should be yelled at for not doing the oversight, the debate should not be dumped into this diversionary side-box about civil litigation.
July 11, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
2
July 11, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
But that has been Barack’s argument all along (even as he voted for this):
“It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses.” [my emphasis]
July 11, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been busy, so I didn't comment, but I want to do so now and thank you for your perspective, Articleman. I agree with you and support Obama 100%. I see no other choice. And I believe that Obama will work to correct the situation that allows FISA and other civil liberties abuses. McCain sure the hell will not.
July 11, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's a good take on the issue. We've become obsessed with legislative minutiae in part because it allows us to let the Democratic representatives on the intelligence committees off the hook -- and, maybe, let ourselves collectively off the hook.
July 11, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
==That's what's wrong with the contrary argument on my first point. You're yelling at Congress to take your position on the question of whether this stupid indirect process, civil litigation, will be oversight on FISA.==
I think you misunderstand the majority of the comments against this legislation, then.
The problem is with the core of the current FISA bill, immunity is bad too, but I would have gladly traded immunity for a strong bill that protects our rights and insures public disclosure of the past crimes.
I don't have a deep and abiding hate for the telecoms and their execs and really don't care very much if they ever get punished.
I want this process of erosion of our civil rights in the name of national security to stop right now. That is the main poison that this bill injects into our legal-political gestalt - a truly reprehensible, authoritarian meme that should be repudiated by freedom-loving politicians of every party.
By narrowly focusing on the trees, you are missing the forest that is growing from this very approach.
July 11, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate it when the other side of the argument does what I am doing here. It drives me nuts when they sit around congratulating each other.* It strikes me as mutual masturbation.
However, I would be remiss if I didn't give this comment my very highest commendation. Wonderfully said.
* But that's probably because we're right and they're wrong, so it's OK if we do it.
July 11, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh no. I hesitate to start another intra-party battle, but . . . I thought civil libertarians thought consenting adults could do whatever they wanted in the privacy of their own bedrooms.
July 11, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sleep in TPM Cafe?
Either way, the key phrase in your response is "in the privacy." Fora ain't private.
July 11, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, okay. Out of respect for community standards, I guess I'll get a room.
July 11, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
==I see no other choice. And I believe that Obama will work to correct the situation that allows FISA and other civil liberties abuses==
It's like a religion with you people.
Why would an agreeable approach to election be to abuse the Constition first, then present oneself as the only alternative at fixing it?
July 11, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish it were as simple and black and white as you paint it, dmitry, but to me it's far more complex, and I do believe that Obama can do something about this. I don't agree with his vote, but I do think it doesn't represent his real position on civil rights. And that's my opinion. Why do you demean it by calling it a "religion"? Really, what purpose does it serve simply to demean and belittle others?
Essentially, I thought we were on the same side, even if we go about things differently at times.
And for certain, we won't do better with McCain, or is that a religious doctrine, too?
July 11, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
==I do believe that Obama can do something about this.==
Why? He is part of creating this problem at this point.
==I don't agree with his vote, but I do think it doesn't represent his real position on civil rights.==
Well, that's depressing - he voted this way for electoral advantage. And to add insult to injury - he voted against the opinions of the American people, so he gets no advantage, either.
==And that's my opinion. Why do you demean it by calling it a "religion"? Really, what purpose does it serve simply to demean and belittle others?==
I call it religion, because you exhibit irrational expectations, even though facts suggest otherwise.
==Essentially, I thought we were on the same side, even if we go about things differently at times.==
I am on the same side, I am a Democrat.
==And for certain, we won't do better with McCain, or is that a religious doctrine, too?==
No, you are correct. It is trending toward a depressing, "better of two bad choices" election.
July 11, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, daddy! I hope I'm as smart as you when I grow up.
July 11, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was meant for one of Chronospark's sanctimonious comments early on in the thread.
July 11, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I don't know how I'm at all being sanctimonious, or even immature and insulting as you are, but thanks nonetheless. I appreciate your deep analysis.
July 11, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
So how many here are paid bloggers for the Obama campaign? Not that there is anything wrong with that per se. It is a vital job in properly promoting a candidate.
I was just curious if something like that pays well. I was thinking about a career move that is why I ask...
July 11, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please stop that. It's beneath you.
July 11, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This whole paranoid, the other guys are dupes/trolls/getting paid thing is a bit old and ridiculous. Obama gets my money, he doesn't give it, and to the best of my reasonably informed knowledge, none of his fans here are on the payroll.
July 11, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
FISA can join a whole barrel full of bad legislation the government has craft5ed. I don't get what the big deal is. Clearly Bush has screwed up the balance of powers, and it will take some time and much more effort than a single bill to correct.
While I agreed in principle with FISA opposition, I think their tone was extreme. I hate one-issue absolutist zealots. Essentially you become a special interest like gun nuts or anti-abortionists, and very unpleasant to be around.
I guess real progressives will continue to work for real progress, instead of just sitting around and hating people. Haters are tiresome.
July 11, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
ps. The debate is over. The vote lost. ACLU is suing. I still think we can roll this back next year and start investigations with a new AG.
Let's move on.
July 11, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Let's move on"! An appalling sell out of basic liberties has occurred and your reactions is "Let's move on"? When the police say this, don't they accompany it with "Nothing happened here, let's move on"? Is this what support for Obama has become?
July 11, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
These are not the drones you are looking for.
July 12, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
==Essentially you become a special interest like gun nuts or anti-abortionists, and very unpleasant to be around. ==
It is much better to compromise continuously and have no issues or positions at all which are considered important enough to keep.
Torture? Hey, lets talk...
Contitution? What do you have to offer?
Church and State? Sure lets mix it up a little.
Dem hatemongers who actually believe in stuff - sure are tiresome...
July 11, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not one issue. It's a range of issues that require the courage to stand up against the right. As to the gun nuts, you will note that the Republicans value their votes. They get what they want. The second amendment is sacred. They won't concede the principle. We might have tried getting them to join us in support of the 4th amendment. We might have tried to make an argument that every one of the Bill of Rights has a sacred purpose. We might have tried to stand for something.
We stand for nothing.
July 11, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm proud to say that I'm one of the most highly paid Obama trolls in the blogosphere. In the past, I have taken money from Hillary, the Republican Attack Machine, MSM, Osama Bin Laden, and Rick Astley. I also do pro-bono work for NAMBLA.
PS I have 86.7 avatars and often engage in troll wars with myself to increase my earning power.
http:/www.trollforhire.com
July 11, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Osama AND Obama? You have a lot of range! I have seen and admired your work for NAMBLA.
But I certainly hope you're ashamed of taking money from Astley -- the anti-Christ.
July 11, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. That troll for hire site is something else. In a way, I should have expected it . . .
July 11, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow...I am surprised my snarky little joke generated so many replies.
I think some took it in the spirit in which it was posted.
The next time I will use one of these >>> :-P just to be sure.
July 11, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We don't leave chasing the Bush Administration's sorry abuse of civil rights to the civil discovery process in lawsuits filed by private persons for cash, in which discovery is logically limited to the facts of their case . . . ."
BULLSHIT. The civil suit in CA and OR, by a non-profit charity which was illegally wiretapped -- and the only case in which there is hard evidence -- has the larger goal of demolishing the "Unitary Executive" "theory". And that larger goal is for ALL, not only for the plaintiffs in that case.
Warning: KNOW law and its functions before popping off about how injury to SOMEONE OTHER THAN YOU "doesn't matter" because it doesn't affect everyone else.
Moreover: a class action suit -- as is one of the "private civil actions" you disparage -- isn't only about the parties to it. It is about DISCOVERY, and exposing the Bushit criminal enterprise for what it is FOR ALL. THEN the prosecutions can begin.
Last but not least: law suits that result in convictions or penalties have a DETERRANT effect. It may not be all one wants it to be -- see SC's cutting of Exxon panalty -- but it is certainly better than NOTHING.
July 11, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's opposition as presumptive nominee would have encouraged and allowed others to vote no as well. I am confident that many of the yes votes on FISA were cast by people who would have willingly paid the political price (if any) to vote no - if their vote would have meant it's defeat.
Take a look at the Medicare Bill that passed the same day. IT was stalled,lacking the votes to pass until Ted Kennedy, that old warhorse, got up from his sickbed and cast the vote that broke the filibuster, then the dominoes fell and Republicans switched their votes to support and it passed overwhelmingly.
That is passed by 69 votes does not mean that 69 wanted to vote for it, but since they knew it would pass anyway, they figured why give the GOP something to hammer them on. The primaries are over so hammering from the left is meaningless.
July 11, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
". . . . That's what _Congress_ is for. . . ."
And when the gov't FAILS to act -- as has happened again and again, and is happening still -- that is what the JUDICIARY is for.
It was ONLY AFTER numerous private law suits, numerous deaths of private citizens, and considerable political organizing and activism that Congress enacted such as, as example, the 1964 "Civil Rights Act" and the 1965 "Voting Rights Act".
And, pray tell, what did Congress do about segregation BEFORE the "private party" civil suit Brown was decided by the SC? NOTHING -- which is why Brown was MADE NECESSARY.
July 11, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
" . . . . 2. The Health of Our Civil Libertarian Culture . . . ."
Our is not a "Civil Libertarian Culture," exactly as the Founders/Framers were not "LIBERTARIANS". "Libertarians" are OPPOSED to gov't interventions -- including those which protect the rights of some from the predations of others -- exactly as were the purposes of civil rights legislation.
But CONGRESS did NOTHING on the issue UNTIL numerous private civil LAW SUITS -- and numerous deaths to such as assassination and lynching -- culminated in sufficient public awareness to FORCE Congress -- with the help of a sympathetic Executive -- to act.
But leave it to a so-called "Libertarian" to assert the "wisdom" of "fuck everyone else"/"we need tort reform".
"Depends Much More Upon Who Appoints Judges For the Next Four To Eight Years Than Upon the Existence of Not of Private Suits Against Telcos for Bush Administration Abuses."
WHETHER elections are stolen by means of blackmailing, accomplished by means of illegal wiretappings, comes FIRST, jackass. And only hostility or blindness would reject one of the SEVERAL LEGITIMATE options to accomplishing the goals one sets out to accomplish. At least 90 per cent of PRIVATE law suits in Federal courts are Corporation v. Corporation -- about which we hear NOTHING as concerns "tort reform". It's only the law suits of the poor and powerless that are "tort reformed" out of the courts. NO cooperation with the latter effort is acceptable or tolerable, and that INCLUDES the "private civil suits" by such as ACLU and EFF concerning the Bushit criminal enterprise's violations of the Fourth Amendment and FISA.
But, to you, it's okay to compromise this or that prat of the Constitution based upon HORSESHIT premises.
July 11, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It may be that many of us still will vote for Obama after his appalling vote on FISA. But we shouldn't. He doesn't merit our votes after this. Only an argument about the lesser of the evils can bring me to vote for Obama now. Sorry, but what he did on this was appalling. The audacity of hopelessness is what he represents right now.
July 11, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The latest polling shows Independents moving AWAY from Obama, just as many predicted, based on his changed position of FISA and faith-based initiatives.
His strong and principled position on FISA, which is aligned with American majority on the subject, would have played EXCELLENTLY in the MSM news cycle, butressing his credentials as an agent of change and his independence. Instead, he opened himself to substantiated charges of pandering and flip-flopping and ticked of his base as well.
Who is advising him? Inside information I read suggest that his advisors did not view the FISA vote as a particularly serious matter, believing that it's nothing important to the electorate or the news. Wrong!
July 11, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The latest polling shows Independents moving AWAY from Obama
Wrong. Cite your sources. You spew nonsense with nothing to back it up and assume us to take it as fact.
July 12, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
You might take your own advice and do some citing, Chrono. This is a question that interests me greatly, and I haven't seen any polls yet.
It may be that Sen. Obama hurt both his karma and his chances. We'll see.
July 12, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment