truth, freedom and independence is now the enemy of getting elected. Welcome to the terror dome.

He's a tough guy, he can take it.

You know, I agree with you. But whether he can take it or not -- whether it helps or hurts him -- stifle debate? Libs? Cheesh!

Hmmm....I had a little disturbulation over similar things a while ago, if you remember, and well...hasn't gotten better and it will probably get worse.

Now, you know, I'm not much of an optimist but I don't worry too much about how that Tuesday in November will play out. Despite it all I expect we'll be seeing a new day dawning with Obama as Prez.

Meantime...never shut up.

Cheers.

We don't like the way every decision Barack makes is characterized as Lying to The Democratic Faithful and Betraying the American Way of Life. We really take exception to the notion that the Evil Obama Raped and Plundered Our Fourth Amendment Rights.

Those are our objections, regardless of caricature or hyperbole.

You seem to dismiss the fact that these on-line soap operas get carried into the corporate media as: "Ruin in Obamaland - How can Barack win the general election if the democratic base thinks he betrayed his oath of office? More news lacking all context after this long commercial break."

Turn this into some Goebbels-inspired McCarthyism to root out the "wide-spread liberal dissent" in our ranks if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the overly-dramatic far-left critiques of Barack is what we all object to, not honest criticism from thoughtful supporters who disagree with this stance or that. We ALL disagree with the man about something.

If anything, it's the far-left ideologues are trying to quash any criticism of their methods and adding people to lists.

There are almost no liberals blogging or commenting on this site. There are even fewer democrats. What we seem to have is some sort of odd specimen called a "progressive" who thinks that "a new tone" in Washington is actually a good thing.

Actually, the John Ashcroft-ish accusations that criticisms lend comfort to the enemy remind me so much of that 2003 mindset of the Bush-adoring 80 percenters.

With Bush-adorers being reduced to 20-percenters, the simplest arithmetic indicates that many of them are now progressives, but their discourse habits remain unchanged.

Nice post, Tankard. Have a nice day.

I get where you're coming from Tankard, but the irony is that this sort of "principled hand-wringing" is exactly the reason Democrats aren't trusted. It's why we're "elites," overeducated thinkers who are more Hamlet than Rambo.

America is all about the mythology of the man of action who shoots first and asks questions later. He sees what needs to be done and does it, and is always set in opposition to some egghead worrywart who frets and doubts, confers, and so on. Fiddles, in essence, while Rome burns. John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Bruce Willis, Stallone and all the rest. This is what resonates with Americans. While the rest of the world decries "cowboy diplomacy," it plays pretty damn well in Peoria.

Of course, having a real discussion about the ins and outs of FISA has merit. But the overall theme that the consternation on the left is reinforcing and being picked up and transmitted is that the fractious, overanalyzing thinkers on the left are bickering about purity instead of getting something done. And if we have doubts about Obama, then why shouldn't everyone else? After all, he's black, he's muslim and whatever else. How many reasons do scared and largely ignorant, unread, provincial people need to turn away from someone unlike them toward a patrician white guy who was a "man of action"?

This is why the festering Clintonite sore is so troubling as well. It just reinforces the same theme. Debate the ins-and-outs of the 4th amendment, how FISA could/should be fixed, whatever, but the "I'm not donating" stuff we hear, the profound disappointment, the "I told you sos"...none of that is helping reassure the folks out there considering taking a chance on electing a young black man at this time in our nation's history.

Over at Huffpost, I saw some dumbass throwing Nader back out there, and I thought, you know, we really do not understand how this works. We'll divide and argue over relative degrees of purity and in the meantime concede the nation's future for another four years at least to those who have no principles at all besides every man for himself.

I don't think we need message discipline to that degree at all. Just a false argument so we can yell more. Disagreement is good and fun, at least for me.

So your critique of bloggers here as illiberal strikes me as really needlessly provocative. Like impeachment, you need to be more specific. My post about winning elections doesn't tell you or yours to shut up, my comments on it didn't tell you to shut up, nor do I think you should ever shut up. We had a disagreement.

But while you've gone to the tendentious, over-the-top Goebbels comparison for the Obama bloggers here (how quickly we've morphed from pie-eyed drones into Nazis), I must say, throwing our enemies in jail (the impeachment fetishist position yesterday) is Stalinist, a comparison I politely deleted from my comments, but now raise.

So I see your Goebbels, and raise you a Stalin.

;)

So that is what so many of us have being doing wrong. We have not being attacking Senator Obama enough, and not enough of the selected delegates have been declaring that they are going to vote for John McCain.

Let us all buckle down, and maintain a non stop assault on Senator Obama. It will really help him win, or so this thread implies. Sounds great. No one support Senator Obama from now on, because if you do you will cost him the election.

Be sure to disagree with him on every thing does or say. Do it to help him become president. It will work. Tankard would not mislead you.

It is possible you have a point here, liam.

It has been constantly stated that criticising Senator Obama gives ammunition to his enemies.

However, one nagging question is why he has made so many moves to the right recently. Especially, on FISA, research on the subject clearly shows majorities against warrantless spying, yet his advisors suggested his tactically incoherent and principally wrong position.

One answer maybe that his advisors, instead of researching national polls, took a temperature of sycophantic blogoshpere, such as often exists at sites like TPM, and concluded that Obama supporters will swallow his FISA vote with no regret at all, because they love him and care very little about his actual position.

Therefore, they suggested, after reading your comments, liam, that it is quite OK for Senator Obama to take the FISA position that he did - there will be NO political penalty, they said, just look at liam!

So it is you, liam, that has caused the great slide in Senator Obama's standing, by being an apologist and a sycophant.

No kidding. I find the obsessive defense of Obama on every issue a little annoying. Is it possible that the guy could have some flaws?

Of course, unlike Paul Krugman I'm not going to get discouraged just because some Assholes like Obama and want to insult anyone who doesn't praise him like Jesus, it doesn't mean Obama isn't a good candidate or won't be a good president.

This thread is a huge disappointment.

==This bill does none of the things you point out, all your Sky is Falling pronouncements aside. Please quote the page number and section number of the relevant portions of the statute. You can't because they don't exist. In fact, this legislation restores what little balance remained after all the other anti-terror bullshit Bush crammed through Congress. It restores essential checks on an Executive branch still bent on misusing the law.==

Over the years, I have found that legal positions by the ACLU are almost always very close to my thinking. Here is what ACLU's take on the new FISA changes are:

--------------------------------------------------
Why the FISA Amendments Act is Unconstitutional

The FISA Amendments Act allows the mass acquisition of U.S. citizens’ and residents’international communications. Although the Act prohibits the government from intentionally“targeting” people inside the U.S., it places virtually no restrictions on the government’stargeting of people outside the U.S., even if those targets are communicating with U.S. citizensand residents. The law’s effect – and indeed, the law’s main purpose – is to give the government nearly unfettered access to Americans’ international communications.

Government surveillance that sweeps up the communications of U.S. citizens and residents should be conducted in a manner that comports with the Constitution, and in particular with the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits “general warrants” and unreasonable searches. Yet the FISA Amendments Act permits the government to acquire the international communications of U.S. citizens and residents without requiring it to identify the people to be monitored; to specify the facilities, places, premises, or property to be surveilled; to comply with meaningful limitations on the retention and dissemination of acquired information; to obtain individualized warrants based on criminal or foreign intelligence probable cause; or even to make prior administrative determinations that the targets of government surveillance are foreign agents or connected in any way, however tenuously, to terrorism.

While the new law is complex, some of its principal deficiencies are clear.

•
The law gives the government sweeping surveillance power without requiring it to identify the targets of its surveillance.

Until Congress enacted the FISA Amendments Act, FISA generally prohibited the government from conducting electronic surveillance without first obtaining an individualized and particularized order from the FISA court. In order to obtain a court order, the government was required to show that there was probable cause to believe that its surveillance target was an agent of a foreign government or terrorist group. The FISA Amendments Act allows the government to conduct electronic surveillance without making this kind of showing to the FISA court – and without even making an administrative determination that the target of its surveillance is an agent of a foreign government or terrorist group. The target could be a human rights activist, a media organization, a geographic region, or even a country. In fact, under the new law the government doesn’t have to identify its surveillance targets at all. As long as the government is targeting people who are outside the U.S., it can conduct surveillance without ever telling the court whose communications are going to be monitored. And it can do this even if some or all of the people it’s targeting are communicating with innocent people inside the U.S.
•
The law allows the government to intercept U.S. citizens’ and residents’ international telephone and email communications without having to identify the facilities, phone lines, email addresses, or locations to be monitored.

The government doesn’t need to tell the FISA court whose communications it intends to monitor, and it doesn’t need to tell the court which phone numbers or email addresses (or communications lines, or gateway switches) it intends to monitor, either. Nor does it even need to tell the court which telecommunications company it is demanding access to. In fact, the new law allows the government to conduct intrusive surveillance without ever telling the court who it intends to surveil, what phone lines and email addresses it intends to monitor, where its surveillance targets are located, or why it’s conducting the surveillance. To conduct surveillance under the law, the government need only to tell the court that its targets are outside the U.S. (even if they’re communicating with people inside the U.S.) and that a “significant purpose” of the surveillance is to collect foreign intelligence information. By allowing the government to conduct surveillance without identifying the specific surveillance targets and specific facilities to be monitored, the new law permits the mass acquisition of U.S. citizens’ and residents’ international communications. Theoretically, the government could use the new law to collect all phone calls between the U.S. and London, simply by saying to the FISA court that a significant purpose of its new surveillance program is to collect foreign intelligence information.
•
The law allows the government to conduct intrusive surveillance without meaningful judicial oversight.

The new law gives the FISA court an extremely limited role in overseeing the government’s surveillance activities. The FISA court does not review individualized surveillance applications. It does not consider whether the government’s surveillance is directed at agents of foreign powers or terrorist groups. It does not have the right to ask the government who, what, where, or why it is inaugurating any particular surveillance program. Under the new law, the FISA court’s role is limited to reviewing the government’s “targeting” and “minimization” procedures. And even with respect to the procedures, the FISA court’s role is to review the procedures at the outset of any new surveillance program; it does not have the authority to supervise the implementation of those procedures over time. Even at the outset of a new surveillance program, the government can initiate the program without the court’s approval so long as it submits a “certification” within seven days. In the highly unlikely event that the FISA court finds the government’s procedures to be deficient, the government is permitted to continue its surveillance activities while it appeals the FISA court’s order. In other words, the government can continue its surveillance activities even if the FISA court finds those activities to be unconstitutional.
•
The law places no meaningful limits on the government’s retention and dissemination of information relating to U.S. citizens and residents.

Thanks to this new law, there is no question that thousands or even millions of U.S. citizens and residents will find their international telephone and e-mail communications swept up in surveillance that is “targeted” at people abroad. Yet the law fails to place any meaningful limitations on the government’s retention and dissemination of information that relates to U.S. citizens and residents. The law requires the government to adopt “minimization” procedures – procedures that are “reasonably designed . . . to minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of nonpublicly available information concerning unconsenting United States persons.” However, these minimization procedures must accommodate the government’s need “to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence information.” In other words, the government will be able to retain or disseminate information about U.S. citizens and residents so long as the information is “foreign intelligence information.” Because “foreign intelligence information” is defined broadly (as discussed below), this is an exception that swallows the rule. In addition, nothing in the law prevents the government from compiling huge databases of foreign intelligence information and searching those databases later for information about U.S. citizens and residents. Once the government acquires the communications of U.S. citizens and residents (through surveillance that is “targeted” at people located outside the U.S.), nothing in the law precludes the government from searching these databases – even with searches that are targeted at U.S. citizens and residents – and reviewing the content of individual communications.
•
The law does not limit government surveillance to communications relating to terrorism.

The new law allows the government to conduct dragnet surveillance if a significant purpose of the surveillance is to gather “foreign intelligence information.” There are multiple problems with this. First, under the new law the “foreign intelligence” requirement applies to entire surveillance programs, not to individual intercepts. The result is that if a significant purpose of any particular government dragnet is to gather foreign intelligence information, the government can use that dragnet to collect all kinds of communications – not only those that relate to foreign intelligence. Second, the phrase “foreign intelligence information” has always been defined extremely broadly to include not only information about terrorism but also information about intelligence activities, the national defense, and even the “foreign affairs of the United States.” Journalists, human rights researchers, academics, and attorneys routinely exchange information by telephone and e-mail that relates to the foreign affairs of the U.S. (Think, for example, of a journalist who is researching the “surge” in Iraq, or of an academic who is writing about the policies of the Chávez government in Venezuela, or of an attorney who is negotiating the repatriation of a prisoner held at Guantánamo Bay.) The Bush administration has argued that the new law is necessary to address the threat of terrorism, but the truth is that the law sweeps much more broadly and implicates all kinds of communications that have nothing to do with terrorism or criminal activity of any kind.
•
The law gives the government access to some communications that are purely domestic.

The new law prohibits the government from “intentionally acquiring any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States.” The government itself, however, has acknowledged that, particularly with email communications, it is not always possible to know where the parties to the communication are located. Under the new law, the government can acquire communications so long as there is uncertainty about the location of the sender or recipient. A reasonable law would have required any uncertainty to be resolved in favor of the privacy rights of U.S. citizens and residents, but this law requires uncertainty to be resolved in favor of the government. Thousands or even millions of purely domestic communications are likely to be swept up as a result.
•
The law immunizes the telecoms that participated in the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.

In addition to investing the executive branch with sweeping new surveillance powers, the new law immunizes the telecommunication corporations that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping program that the National Security Agency operated between 2001 and 2007. Telecommunications corporations that violated the law and allowed the government to trample the privacy rights of thousands of Americans should be held accountable for their activities. Letting them off the hook only invites more abuses in the future.
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.aclu.org/images/nsaspying/asset_upload_file578_35950.pdf
--------------------------------------------------

==Your excessive use of comrade seemed an anachronism at best. Your one-sided and unipolar argument is what made me suspect you were a new arrival. Your complete lack of context with regards to this legislation and the Constitution stuck me as the rather naive remarks of someone whose understanding of the Constitution is from a pocket version rather than a more in-depth understanding of 230 years of precedent. ==

Your "analysis" of FISA simply parrots the Republican talking points - it's fine, protects America, safeguards civil liberties, and the traditional Democratic institutions like ACLU are radical leftists who are bent on destroying America. After that, you call yourself a "Democrat" and try to shut down any criticism of the Party Leader, accusing anyone who still has any Democratic notions of being a violent radical! Man, you are one stinky Republican, masquarading as a "centrist", or whatever you are.

==My apologies for confusing your ignorance with being a new arrival. No offense was intended. We are all "just off the boat" as far as I am concerned, no matter how historically inaccurate or intellectually-dishonest our opinions may be.==

You "apology" is most certainly NOT accepted. You have revealed yourself exactly who you are - an immigrant bashing authoritarian - you used numerous attempts to attack my heritage, with a "commie" lurking just below the surface. People like you would feel right at home at the forum of the Heritage Foundation, not the supposedly liberal TPM.

==Please quote the page number and section number of the relevant portions of the statute. You can't because they don't exist. In fact, this legislation restores what little balance remained after all the other anti-terror bullshit Bush crammed through Congress. It restores essential checks on an Executive branch still bent on misusing the law.==

Ask and you shall receive.

Looking at the recently inacted FISA statute itself, the glaring flaws are easily seen. Here is the section that is an obvious problem (702) - a 1 year (!) warantless surveilance "grant" due to "exigent circumstances" with an "authorization" by the AG, limited to a "reasonable" statement that the target is a person is "reasonably believed" to be outside the US and the program is structured to prevent "intentional acquisition" of domestic communications. And, by the way, this "certification", is specifically not required to identify specific facilities, places, premises and property that it targeted. This very vague wording appears specifically structured to allow wide, unsupervised collection of wide swaths of communications, with no warrants, and the role of the FISA court reduced to a procedureal as opposed to specific oversight.

-------------------------------------------------
SEC. 702. PROCEDURES FOR TARGETING CERTAIN PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES OTHER THAN UNITED STATES PERSONS.

`(a) Authorization- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon the issuance of an order in accordance with subsection (i)(3) or a determination under subsection (c)(2), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may authorize jointly, for a period of up to 1 year from the effective date of the authorization, the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information.

`(b) Limitations- An acquisition authorized under subsection (a)--

`(1) may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States;

`(2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States;

`(3) may not intentionally target a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;

`(4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and

`(5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

`(c) Conduct of Acquisition-

`(1) IN GENERAL- An acquisition authorized under subsection (a) shall be conducted only in accordance with--

`(A) the targeting and minimization procedures adopted in accordance with subsections (d) and (e); and

`(B) upon submission of a certification in accordance with subsection (g), such certification.

`(2) DETERMINATION- A determination under this paragraph and for purposes of subsection (a) is a determination by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence that exigent circumstances exist because, without immediate implementation of an authorization under subsection (a), intelligence important to the national security of the United States may be lost or not timely acquired and time does not permit the issuance of an order pursuant to subsection (i)(3) prior to the implementation of such authorization.

`(3) TIMING OF DETERMINATION- The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may make the determination under paragraph (2)--

`(A) before the submission of a certification in accordance with subsection (g); or

`(B) by amending a certification pursuant to subsection (i)(1)(C) at any time during which judicial review under subsection (i) of such certification is pending.

`(4) CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in title I shall be construed to require an application for a court order under such title for an acquisition that is targeted in accordance with this section at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.

`(d) Targeting Procedures-

`(1) REQUIREMENT TO ADOPT- The Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall adopt targeting procedures that are reasonably designed to--

`(A) ensure that any acquisition authorized under subsection (a) is limited to targeting persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; and

`(B) prevent the intentional acquisition of any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States.

`(2) JUDICIAL REVIEW- The procedures adopted in accordance with paragraph (1) shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to subsection (i).

`(e) Minimization Procedures-

`(1) REQUIREMENT TO ADOPT- The Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall adopt minimization procedures that meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 101(h) or 301(4), as appropriate, for acquisitions authorized under subsection (a).

`(2) JUDICIAL REVIEW- The minimization procedures adopted in accordance with paragraph (1) shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to subsection (i).

`(f) Guidelines for Compliance With Limitations-

`(1) REQUIREMENT TO ADOPT- The Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall adopt guidelines to ensure--

`(A) compliance with the limitations in subsection (b); and

`(B) that an application for a court order is filed as required by this Act.

`(2) SUBMISSION OF GUIDELINES- The Attorney General shall provide the guidelines adopted in accordance with paragraph (1) to--

`(A) the congressional intelligence committees;

`(B) the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives; and

`(C) the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

`(g) Certification-

`(1) IN GENERAL-

`(A) REQUIREMENT- Subject to subparagraph (B), prior to the implementation of an authorization under subsection (a), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence shall provide to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court a written certification and any supporting affidavit, under oath and under seal, in accordance with this subsection.

`(B) EXCEPTION- If the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence make a determination under subsection (c)(2) and time does not permit the submission of a certification under this subsection prior to the implementation of an authorization under subsection (a), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to the Court a certification for such authorization as soon as practicable but in no event later than 7 days after such determination is made.

`(2) REQUIREMENTS- A certification made under this subsection shall--

`(A) attest that--

`(i) there are procedures in place that have been approved, have been submitted for approval, or will be submitted with the certification for approval by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that are reasonably designed to--

`(I) ensure that an acquisition authorized under subsection (a) is limited to targeting persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; and

`(II) prevent the intentional acquisition of any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States;

`(ii) the minimization procedures to be used with respect to such acquisition--

`(I) meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 101(h) or 301(4), as appropriate; and

`(II) have been approved, have been submitted for approval, or will be submitted with the certification for approval by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court;

`(iii) guidelines have been adopted in accordance with subsection (f) to ensure compliance with the limitations in subsection (b) and to ensure that an application for a court order is filed as required by this Act;

`(iv) the procedures and guidelines referred to in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) are consistent with the requirements of the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States;

`(v) a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information;

`(vi) the acquisition involves obtaining foreign intelligence information from or with the assistance of an electronic communication service provider; and

`(vii) the acquisition complies with the limitations in subsection (b);

`(B) include the procedures adopted in accordance with subsections (d) and (e);

`(C) be supported, as appropriate, by the affidavit of any appropriate official in the area of national security who is--

`(i) appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; or

`(ii) the head of an element of the intelligence community;

`(D) include--

`(i) an effective date for the authorization that is at least 30 days after the submission of the written certification to the court; or

`(ii) if the acquisition has begun or the effective date is less than 30 days after the submission of the written certification to the court, the date the acquisition began or the effective date for the acquisition; and

`(E) if the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence make a determination under subsection (c)(2), include a statement that such determination has been made.

`(3) CHANGE IN EFFECTIVE DATE- The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may advance or delay the effective date referred to in paragraph (2)(D) by submitting an amended certification in accordance with subsection (i)(1)(C) to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for review pursuant to subsection (i).

`(4) LIMITATION- A certification made under this subsection is not required to identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property at which an acquisition authorized under subsection (a) will be directed or conducted.

`(5) MAINTENANCE OF CERTIFICATION- The Attorney General or a designee of the Attorney General shall maintain a copy of a certification made under this subsection.

`(6) REVIEW- A certification submitted in accordance with this subsection shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to subsection (i).
...
--------------------------------------------------
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:4:./temp/~c110l675ph:e1138:
--------------------------------------------------

The other clear problem is that while section 703 describes targetting US persons outside the US and controls internal collection in that instance, section 702, which targets non-US persons outside the US is purposefully very vague on the internal collection. It seemed to me initially that there was a section missing, that should be titled "CERTAIN ACQUISITIONS INSIDE THE UNITED STATES TARGETING CERTAIN PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES OTHER THAN UNITED STATES PERSONS" that should fit between sections 702 and 703. Alas, only procedural safeguards are specified in this case, worded in the most vague way possible. Very bad.

It is also not very clear to me at all if the NSA warantless domestic spying program is really brought under any form of FISA control by this legislation. There is no very clear references to this, looking quickly.

I am disturbed that you even felt the need to start this thread.

I am disturbed that so many feel it needs to be discussed.

I am disturbed that Destor23 has to point out for the umpteenth time that this is not Obama's campaign website.

I am mostly disturbed because it shows very poor comprehension about site brand....

ahem, HELLO Y'ALL WAKE UP, look around:

Right now, the featured discussion for the week on TPMCafe Book Club is how to revitalize the Republican party. No, they did not sneak in the back door, they were invited.

Just think, maybe that invitation was a message to some of you who think that this was your very own place for spreading positive Obama campaign messages?

You know what really makes me laugh about that attitude? The hubris of thinking that joe schmo posting here knows exactly what Obama's campaign wants to hear and doesn't want to hear from the blogosphere. The idea that they don't already know that netroots is a bunch of special interest groups just like any of the others. The idea that they don't want to see honest expression of all kinds of opinions on Obama, that they don't approach looking at stuff on a site like this like a focus group. Hello, wake up, unless you have actually signed up with Obaman's campaign to spread memes on blogs, and are only spreading those memes the campaign has instructed you to spread, you are much more useful to Obaman's campaign telling them what you really think about each move he makes and everything he says.

I am willing to bet his campaign especially wants to hear what people like Tankard, wavering on his vote, think, and what Republicans and independents think. They don't need dittoheads, they need to know what's bothering people who are undecided.

==But the flip side of the coin is that as someone now facing the very real possibility of assuming the terrible responsibility any national leader has to protect the country's citizens he may very have come to believe that the sort of 'trawling' the new FISA makes legal is a valid tool. He indicated as much. Some mock him for having that 'esoteric knowledge' going on here. But, in this regard, there really is esoteric knowledge the public will never, practically speaking, be able to have. Just like with weapons development, and so on. There are some things we ask our government to do that require a "Trust us" stance on its part.==

If that is the reason, then I am doubly opposed to his decision. I am AGAINST the equation that sacrifices civil liberties and privacy for a government promise of "security". Period. I believe this to be a false trade, a cat in the bag purchase and a give away of rights which makes for mischief and abuse - that is the history of government spying. I see absolutely no reason why this is a good thing under an Obama presidency, especially if one considers that we may have another President now and certainly later.

==Obviously, the objectionable portion of the whole business is that the grounds for warrants are not, in themselves reviewable, as I understand it. Presumably, and in trying to stay away from conspiracy thinking, this was inserted to prevent disclosure about the scope and methodology of the spying. Now, of course that makes sense, because spying works better when people don't know what you're doing. And of course it's worrisome because it means that anyone accused cannot challenge the grounds for the warrant, because they cannot review the grounds for the warrant.==

Nonsense! Disclosure to who? The FISC ? These judges have the highest security clearance in the land!

No the real reason, like with any lawless surveilance, is that it is convenient and easy to implement. Simply suck in everything and have the biggest computers in the world chew on the data in real time. The other, lawfull approach is a lot of work - need lots of people, lots of thinking, HUMINT, infiltration, etc. Much easier to just get the whole thing for free. The only problem is that any government that has done this in the past has been authoritarian and criminal. Founding Fathers knew that this kind of lawlessness will lead to general lawlessness and forbade it. Now, being ignorant of the basis of our form of government, our Fumbling Fathers have decided to change the foundation of our Republic.

==So...This to me is the nut of the new FISA, and whether or not this can be addressed is what interests me. As to the "Trust us," part of this, the proof of the pudding will only be when and if people are accused based on information gained in this trawling effort, and how any legal challenges proceed.==

It is not as neat or as linear as that. In order to get a realistic challenge, one must have standing under a particular provision. How are you going to even know your privacy was violated? The government that violated it isn't going to tell you. In fact, they already used this, apparently with some success, by first warrantlessly surveiling some hapless "shoeless terrorists" in Miami, then based on that information, clearly entrapped them with a paid informant. How much information they shifted through to get to that brilliant "nugget" is far from clear - probably tons, and held on to it for years, against their own regulations, if the recent FBI audits are typical.

==One certainly hopes (I know...) that the Obama administration will not give rise to prosecutions for non-terrorism-related crimes deriving from trawling surveillance, or that we won't have ordinary citizens mistakenly caught up. With the right focus on the conduct of the Justice Dept., the Atty. General, and the various court appointments, including the SCOTUS, is where we would have to place our faith, and that's what Obama is essentially asking us to do.==

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I just don't understand why we willingly give government MORE power - we should be working to circumscribe their power, as they already have so much. There is no reason to suspect that Democratic executive will be "nice" when given an opportunity to abuse power - look at JFK and Lyndon Johnson, just to name a few recent ones. Hope is not a word that should be used in conjunction with granting government more potentially abusive power.

==But to pretend that there aren't legitimate intelligence gathering imperatives at work in all of this seems as naive as automatically presuming malign intent.==

There are real compromises that could have been worked out that would have been acceptable to larger sections of the population. Perhaps a much more intensive role for the FISC in determining the probable cause in foreign target application and less than the ridiculously long 1 year "exigent" exception. As it stands this law is a real disaster.

There are plenty of folks here voicing dissent for some positions of the candidate that is more closely aligned with the left. That those posts don't get as many recommendations only shows that Obama enjoys much support here. That's no surprise. Seems to me there is plenty for people to discuss and argue. And some folks here just don't want to risk giving an already slanted media more fodder for negative press re Obama. A little solidarity right now isn't such a bad idea. The GOP is doing it even though they don't agree with McCain on a lot of things. That's how they win. We're a bunch of independent minded folks and in a way that may put us at a little bit of a disadvantage in an election. It also plays into the perception of the Democrats as being less organized and falling apart in the long run, which makes Independents a little leery of voting Democrat.

I'm not going to argue that complainers should shut up, but I will say that I later regretted joining that group on the Obama website to protest the FISA vote. I didn't like later to hear the media using my statement being used to portray Obama as weakening in support. My support is the same.

I'm ready to win this time, and I want to fight for it. I'm probably not going to agree with everything any candidate would say but Obama is the best I've seen in my voting years and I'm not going to join groups or petition for him to change a position during this election anymore. I may make posts voicing disagreement. But they won't get recommended. That's OK.

a small snip from a great column by Glenn Greenwald:

...Just to highlight a highly illustrative example from today of how the Beltway establishment works and to whom they actually listen (it isn't you), The New York Times has published a profile of Steve Farber, the lead fund-raiser for the Democratic Party's 2008 National Convention. The article describes Farber this way: "In terms of lobbyists, few are more connected -- both west of the Mississippi and in the corridors of power in Washington -- than Steve Farber." With the recent vote on telecom immunity in mind, consider how the Democratic National Convention is being financed:

As a result of Mr. Farber's efforts, dozens of organizations have signed up as corporate sponsors of the Denver convention, including six that are lobbying clients of his firm: UnitedHealth Group, AT&T, Comcast, the National Association of Home Builders, Western Union and Google. In return for these donations, which can go up to $1 million or more, sponsors are promised prominent display space for corporate marketing and access to elected officials and Democratic leaders at a large number of parties and receptions...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/14/accountability/index.html

You need to guard your civil liberties. Every. Single. Day.

All of the cliches about Democrats are true....we are arguing amongst ourselves while the Republicans close ranks against us.

I just hope our advantages are enough this year to overcome the internal sniping. What is most distressing is watching it seep into the media and dominate the discussion day in and day out among the talking heads. The mainstream media would much rather engage in a daily referendum on Obama than cover the disaster that is John McCain and his non-plan for fixing this country.

I agree that we have delusions of grandeur if we think anything said at TPM will swing an election, but what is going on here is going on in a lot of places around the blogosphere, and as I said, now in the mainstream media. That can damage Obama, to the detriment of all of us. On almost any issue we hold dear, John McCain would be much, much worse.

Damn Tankard! You rock! Top o' the charts!