The Reason that they compromised and the burden of Obama

[grantcart]

Personally I wish that the legislation had gone in a different direction all together.

Rather than opening up to massive lawsuits I would prefer a huge government fine with the money going to the treasury. There are probably good reasons why this isn't an option but massive lawsuits for this type of corporate misdeed will result in huge attorney fees and all of us will get $ 8.25.

The question is not about immunity. There is an immunity provision in the law. The companies simply had to ask for the White House to certify that it met certain National Security Standards. Some companies requested the certificate the White House refused and they did not comply. Their business relations with the federal government probably suffered as a result.

What is at stake is retroactive immunity. To me its not that it is a huge loss of civil liberties because again under the law under certain circumstances they can get it and under the law they are limited in what they can do with it. It is not a positive step to be sure but projecting this as crossing the line into a fascist police state is well, silly.

The more serious question, I believe, is do large corporations have a special standing under the law where they can use their muscle to get excused from laws after the fact. Their interests were already in the law that gave them options to secure immunity - they failed to follow it and now want off the hook.

Tough.

The problem is that it is an issue that generates virtually no interest in the public.

However it does give the Republicans something that they can use from now until November.

But that is not the reason I believe that they compromised. Nor do I believe the more outlandish suggestions that there are tie ins to Democratic leaders that have to be protected.

The reason is much simpler. Should there be another terrorist incident between now and November and this bill was not passed then the Republicans would very likely be able to completely change the existing public sentiment and effect the results of the General Election. This, I believe, is why the Democratic Leadership decided it was better to take the issue off the table now and address it again after the election.

We can disagree on this point and wish they had stayed firm. Fine. To suggest criminal conspiracies, bribery and other hysterical theories is not simply overwrought it overlooks a much more obvious reason. Everything looks so simple to us at our level.

As for Senator Obama I find it outrageous that simply because he is our presumptive nominee that he now have to carry the mantle of righting every transgression of the Bush administration between now and November 4th. This is particularly true because he stood up when it wasn't popular.

Putting that aside however, is it not obvious to everyone that Senator Obama receives 50 times the scrutiny that anyone else has. Still having to justify himself on who he is and even idiotic things like his birth certificate, his church, his flag pin.

And now there are people saying HE HAS TO DO THIS or HE MUST DO THAT. All with an electorate that doesn't care about nuanced explanations.

If your the least bit concerned about restoring respect for the constitution by the President of the United States we have one choice to do so. He has already said that he intends to go back and undue the extra constitutional steps that Bush has undertaken by reviewing all of Bush's signing statements. It is clear that he has a deep and abiding interest in changing how the government functions so that lives more in the spirit and not just the letter of the constitution

Why don't we give the man some space. I think he has earned that much.

[NanceGreggs]

1. Excellent!

:kick: and REC'D!!!

[grantcart]

13. always appreciate a Greggs kick

[bjobotts]

94. That is so much bullshit I don't know where to begin, The polls show the electorate care a lot

[bjobotts]

95. This was never about security 'cause that was easily fixed but Bush would veto without immunity

[bjobotts]

97. Immunity would not generate husg attorney fees as these were civil rights groups

[bjobotts]

98. They would sue for a dollar. It's the immunity stupid, always was and is

[bjobotts]

99. Immunity covers all Bush's illegal activity and makes sure it will never be revealed.

[bjobotts]

100. Telecoms carpoet bombed congress with doantions, more than what they stood to lose

[bjobotts]

101. This gives Bush the right to break any law he wants without oversight or accountability

[bjobotts]

102. If he asks or asked anyhone to break the law he just has to say it was to protect us from terrorists

[bjobotts]

104. It can be stretched to include any corp and any activity anytime anywhere if done to protect.

[bjobotts]

105. In no way can this bill be considered a compromise and it's far worse than PAA

[bjobotts]

106. Win or lose Obama should have done the right thing and denounced it

[bjobotts]

107. Obama knows there is no way immunity can be taken out because the president will veto it

[bjobotts]

108. Kit Bond states"if the government tells you to do something, ah, you better do it"

[bjobotts]

111. Also states this is better than the WH ever dreamed they'd get.

[bjobotts]

113. Don't try to spin it like we should be all accepting. Our rights were sold down the river today

[bjobotts]

114. Obama mis represented what the bill does just like Pelosi to spin it

[bjobotts]

117. Party affiliation aside, you must stand for the constitution. Obama didn't today

[Captain Angry]

135. Do you win a car if you can post hundreds of times with no text, replying to yourself each time?

Just curious.

[FrenchieCat]

152. Why don't you start a thread.

Looks like you feel like it.

This statement from Grantcart is something to think about....

Should there be another terrorist incident between now and November and this bill was not passed then the Republicans would very likely be able to completely change the existing public sentiment and effect the results of the General Election. This, I believe, is why the Democratic Leadership decided it was better to take the issue off the table now and address it again after the election.

[iconicgnom]

156. Problem is, they didn't "table it", like they tabled impeachment. They passed it.

No similarity at all.

We're talking collaboration, here. And this is important. However one wants to cheerlead Obama and the Dem ticket, and I certainly do want to do that, I insist that we remain a "reality based" community. I will not drink the kool-aid.

[Jackpine Radical]

162. Mlle. Chat,

Je la comprends. Maybe these people have some wisdom, non?
(Tu es si beau!)

[Maureen1322]

202. self delete

[Maureen1322]

203. If there is another incident, repukes will blames Dems anyway.

They'll say info was lost between Feb (when immunity expired)and now.
Passing this bill is bad and trying to justify it is worse.

[AlbertCat]

217. Should there be another terrorist incident between now and November

If, what if, but what if.....

Oh shut up.


Why are we tap-dancing for the Repugs?! If there's another terrorist attack, it will be because Bush's policies....including getting info from Telecom.... ISN'T Working. Like all his other ideas. That's all the Dems have to say. Everyone knows it's true

[ima_sinnic]

198. so this is how to raise post count quickly

:eyes:

[elocs]

246. 17 subject only posts in a row do help to raise the post count.

I wonder if it was reported. 17 posts in a row to say what could have been said in a single post. Somebody is a little full of themselves.

[CreekDog]

252. are you aware that when you run out of space in the subject line

you can keep right on writing down in this handy little space? :shrug: :think:

[disndat]

211. Before going off the deep end

as I did when I first heard Pelosi's statement, KO and John Dean both concur that Obama will continue on the fight against immunity. Obama wants to get the large telcos as much as we do. Please read his statement on Huffpo and be reassured.

[grantcart]

112. absolutely 100% wrong nothing to do with Bush at all

[grantcart]

109. you are 100% wrong the immunity has to with civil lawsuits on the telecom industry for not

requesting national security certificate when the administration asked for data base information on customer calls.

This has absolutely nothing about granting immunity to the administration.

It has nothing to do with criminal immunity.

The awards would have been in the hundreds of millions (which I don't have a problem with).

You have completely confused disparate legal conflicts.

This had to do with allowing the companies to get the immunity from civil suits that the law provides for had they followed the procedure when the Administration asked for customer data information. They failed to ask and were open to civil law suits.

The immunity covers that and nothing that the administration did.

[bjobotts]

120. Wrong, because it gives Bush the right to do it if he says it was to protect us from terrorists

[grantcart]

132. Absolutely nothing to do with the telecom compromise on retroactivity

which is what this and the other threads are about = telecom retroactive immunity about one very specific thing that has already happened.

There is nothing in the compromise that gives the government any immunity.

[bjobotts]

138. Yes there is. Go to [e-mail] and find it. It states

that if Bush said it was to protect America from the terrorists then he is operating legally to ask these companies to break the law and it immunizes Bush AND grants him the right to do it anytime he pleases without warrants if he says it is to protect us from the terrorists.

[grantcart]

151. you or glenn have it backwards If the white house issues a certificate that the

data is required for national security reasons then the companies not the administration is immune from civil suit.

Interestingly enough several companies requested the certificate but the Justice Department refused to issue them and the companies refused to comply with the request.

[Jakes Progress]

261. This bill allows the government

to do just that. Order the data without the certificate. If that is now legal and made retroactive by the bill, it makes bush's crimes legal. Greenwald explains it and has a number of constitutional lawyers backing him up. Check out the Olberman video here on DU. He had a constitutional law professor explain it the same way.

Telecom immunity is not the main problem.

[youngharry]

148. no Immunity overlooked

What hasn't been said here is that the lawsuits against the telecoms were civil lawsuits. There is nothing in this bill that stops CRIMINAL LAWSUITS. Remember Obama used to teach Constitutional Law. He understands that the telecoms can still be held accountable for their trampling of our Constitutional rights by suing them in criminal court.

[grantcart]

188. You are absolutely correct and the ones that would bear that burdent would

be the government not the telecoms. This is probably why the government never gave the telecoms anything in writing saying that it was legal.

[MNBrewer]

247. How do you "sue" in criminal court?

[cbayer]

2. Well done.

I predicted this. There is going to be a period of disappointment when it becomes apparent that Obama can not be all things to all people. The idealization of Obama was a set-up. I trust that he will continue to do what he thinks is best. I am also prepared to be both delighted and disappointed. Some of the posts today from people saying they are going to walk away because of this one issue are really disquieting.

[grantcart]

4. I remember your post at the time. The thing is that the people who fill those stadiums

are not disappointed on this issue - they don't even know it exists.

[cbayer]

17. That is absolutely true.

If you asked most of the people at the rallies about FISA and retroactive immunity, you would probably be met with silent stares. That is probably just as well. It is my sincere hope that they get themselves to the polls on election day.

[rox63]

8. Obama is a human being - He will not be a perfect President

But he will be 1000% better than Bush. Obama knows and respects our constitution. He will uphold and protect it, just like the oath says the President must.

[ZinZen]

19. and he stresses that point constantly

I cannot count the times when he has said "we are not going to agree all the time" in his speeches.

[bjobotts]

126. Yeah, a demonstration of real change alright. Like supporting a Bush enabler in the primary

John Barrow D-Georgia who accuses dems of the cut and run party in Iraq and supports everything Bush does...against the Georgia state senator Regina Thomas and afro-American from a 70% afro American district who is a real progressive with views in complete alignment with Obama. You better start paying attention and realize Obama is a politician and like all politicians needs to be held accountable to the promises he makes to keep them.

I'm starting to wonder if the rumor is correct about his NAFTA ideas just being campaign rhetoric like the Canadians said. Keep you eyes open. Right now Obama is just become the lesser of two evils and is yet to prove otherwise. This FISA giveaway was his first chance and he failed. I';d like to believe he has some reason for giving away our freedoms and rights here but win or lose he should have denounced it and stood up for the constitution and our rights. We are all disappointed but this is the reality.

[Raksha]

185. That John Barrow endorsement is disturbing, all right.

Especially considering that his challenger is an African-American progressive. I posted about that on another thread, and I'm definitely going to keep my eyes open.

[blogslut]

3. Thank you

We absolutely must, must, must work as hard as we can to get not just Obama elected, but Democratic Senators, Congresspeople, State Senators, State Representatives...Majority, Majority and overwhelming Democratic Majority.

The 110 Congress has been a bust because we simply did not have enough Democrats on our side - most especially the president.

What is the good of passing a righteous piece of legislation when the goon with the pen vetoes it or writes another signing statement making the new law worthless?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. Finally!

A much-needed voice of sanity in the wilderness!

Thank you...

K&R


:patriot:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

6. We set the standards higher for him than for any candidate in the history of elections.

It's a shame. Yes, he should be criticized where criticism is warranted, but geez...

give the man a break. The media is bashing him left and right. We don't need to be doing the same and feeding into it.

[ProSense]

14. They set the standards high for Kerry too:

Prove you are progressive. Prove you are all things to all people. Prove you are just like me. Prove you are not who they say you are.

In a general election only one thing matters in the end: Are you going to get a Democratic or Republican president?

In 2004, the "prove it to me or you don't get my vote" people got Bush.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

36. You're absolutely right!! n/t

[bjobotts]

129. What fucking standards are we setting. Nothing unusal. The press was gonna bash anyone.

[CreekDog]

255. if you can do better while winning the primaries and the general election

let me know.

the kind of issue that draws 100 Democrats in the House to vote for it is not one that one candidate will change, it will take the public to change that.

[tbyg52]

7. Thank you. I feel better now. Seriously. And I desperately needed to feel a little better. nt

[K Gardner]

9. K&R, as usual. Thank you, Grant. One would hope common sense would prevail here.

[grantcart]

11. you must be dreaming lol lets not hope for too much lol

[bjobotts]

130. Common sense?? Common sense said stand for the constitution and the rule of law.

[ProSense]

10. Excellent.

All with an electorate that doesn't care about nuanced explanations.

The media spinners thrive on this. That is why the public financing frenzy isn't about the process. All the media has to do is repeat McCain's talking point about a "broken promise."

[grantcart]

15. thanks

[DevonRex]

12. Perfect. Thank you. K&R

[Enrique]

16. I agree completely, but I have a question

the spirit of your post could easily be applied to Nancy Pelosi just the same.

But I haven't read such a defense of her posted here, and I expect that if it did appear it would be received a bit less friendlily.

What do you make of the rhetoric against Pelosi?

[grantcart]

21. I, like you and everyone else down here have no real idea. lol

I would like to think at this point the key leadership is cooperating and it is a joint strategy.

[bjobotts]

131. Please, go to [e-mail] for an explanation to clarify

[Solon]

18. That's stupid, he hasn't earned shit yet...

Either hold his feet to the fire or not. I frankly don't give a shit what the media says or does, Obama is responsible for his own actions and just because the media attacks him over fluff of no importance doesn't give him a pass on important shit that he compromises his own principles on.

[grantcart]

27. thank you for stopping by - these centuries of ridicule must be weighing heavy on you

Solon surely was a dreamer, and a man of simple mind;

When the gods would give him fortune, he of his own will declined;

When the net was full of fishes, over-heavy thinking it,

He declined to haul it up, through want of heart and want of wit.

Had but I that chance of riches and of kingship, for one day,

I would give my skin for flaying, and my house to die away.




http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lives/Solon#8

[Solon]

30. Frankly, I find this "our leader must not be questioned" shit to be anathema to the idea...

of having a functioning democracy. If you want to elect an absolute ruler who's words and actions can never be questioned, fine, but please don't claim you value democracy as a result.

[disndat]

229. People! Stop worrying!

Obama has people behind him who are as good as you can get, like Al Gore, Caroline Kennedy and yes, Keith Olbermann. Last night, KO and John Dean said Not to worry about the FISA bill just passed in the House. It still allows Obama to go ahead and do the right thing with the telcos and Bush One of the reasons Pelosi supported the bill is that several Democrats are running for election in heavily conservative districts and those people, believe it or not, still believe that we went to war because of the "terrorists" and not for oil. If you don't believe in Obama, believe in KO. He would never steer us wrong.

[nsd]

20. K & R

This is an excellent post. Its explanation for Obama's (and the congressional leadership's) position is spot on.

In this environment, Obama can't afford to be a purist. He can't try to satisfy the desires of everyone in the progressive blogosphere. He has to win the election first. If he doesn't do that, he can't do anything.

[Nia Zuri]

22. Thanks. I learned somethng from your post

[Faryn Balyncd]

23. sound reasoning

[Born_A_Truman]

24. Let's get him elected!!

I admit I do not understand all the complex issues surrounding FISA, otherwise I would wonder why people seem to be more up in arms over the telecommunications giants getting immunity than they are about the effing White House that didn't provide the certification. Now if immunity for those b***ards was in this bill I could see getting upset at Obama. Are we saying his and only his NO vote will stop this bill?

We have ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE of righting any wrongs unless we take back the WH and congress. Don't people see this?

[Two Americas]

165. it is false

You say that we have no chance of righting wrongs if we don't take office. Who is this "we?" None of us will be placed in office, with a handful of exceptions. "they" are not "we" and people are personally idenitifying far too closely with the politicians if they are confused about this.

The idea that electing someone is the only way to right wrongs is proved false by the facts about every successful political movement for social justice in history. Compromising on the fight for social justice for the purpose of winning office is the one certain way that the wrongs will never be righted. Quite the opposite of your thesis here.

Perhaps the reason that some people don't see this, which perplexes you, is because there is nothing there to see. You can't see a hope, and when the hope has no basis in the lessons of history or even in common sense, it has no value.

[JeffR]

25. Well done, grantcart

Well done.
:kick:

[Maureen1322]

26. I am pissed at all of them.

The Democratic Party in the Congress has let us down.
All of them.

[grantcart]

28. maybe you should stand for election and show the idiots what is to be done.

[bjobotts]

133. Or maybe he should vote for someone he can believe in again.

[placton]

29. BARF!

If Hillary had done this, you would be all over her. Obama sold out. It is as simple as that. I will support him with money, time and enthusiasm. But don't give me this crap that he needs "some space"! This is the Constitution being gutted, friend. When Obama backs down down on health care, and other issues, you should expect it.

of course, we cannot let McCodger win. But enough with the "Obama deserves special treatment." Like Bush?

[grantcart]

41. This was not a major constitutional issue. The issue of immunity was already

established the compromise was on retroactive immunity.

It is a question of undue influence and the corporate entities having too much muscle but there was no great constitutional issue at stake here.

I think on the other hand the issuing of "signing statements" by the President when he signs Legislation into law is a great constitutional issue.

Senator Obama has said that he is going to review all of Bush's.

On real constitutional issues - ones that have meat - Senator Obama is ahead, by himself but gets no credit.

[Jakes Progress]

81. You have made some points that make me think

and I will address those in another post,

but don't say this isn't a major issue. The part of the bill that allows the president to call on any corporation to turn over all their records and gives him and his group the right to spy, eavesdrop, and snoop into anyone's life just on a say so is constitutional. That is the part that the president's men are crowing about. For this to be alright, you have to say you trust someone like george bush with the power to go into anyones private mail or correspondence or electronic activity because he wouldn't do it if it wasn't for national security. This is the stuff of totalitarian governments. DU could be required to give the names, email, addresses, - any information they have on any of us to the government. To refuse would be against the law.

That is constitutional. I really don't give a flip about the telecoms. Retribution is sweet, but it will never come to the corporate heads. What I care about is holding our elected officials responsible and maintaining the privacy that is the bulwark of our American life.

Maybe he has gotten himself caught up and flummoxed by the republicans. What I want to see is his statement that he understands the constitutional ramifications and that he will guarantee to replace them.

[AZ Criminal JD]

31. No, he doesn't have to vote for it.

I knew the excuses would be out in force.

[spooked911]

32. There are two problems with your premise

1) the Democrats could have held Bushco accountable and upheld the rule of law and ran on that rather that be held hostage to the Republican's logic

more importantly--
2) 9/11 was an inside job and the terrorism meme is bull to begin with

[grantcart]

44. your tying all of this to 911 being an inside job illustrates the over arching principle

better than I could.

[Lilith Velkor]

222. IOW, another inside job is in the pipeline in case the Dems grow a spine?

That could very well be.

Of course, if that is so, it would probably happen anyway to give us an excuse to attack Iran, right?

[natrat]

33. bs...they gave in b/c of complicity or were bought off-it's not some fear of attack

corruption and/or cya

[Cha]

34. Thank you, grant..I should have

come here first but, it's okay..I'm here now and your analysis makes sense to me. Eye On The Prize!

You know they want us to have an attack before the election so they don't have to lose power..they stop at nothing.

Oh, to be a spider on the wall during the Dem meetings on this bill.

[jgraz]

35. "Why don't we give the man some space. I think he has earned that much." WTF?

He hasn't earned shit. WE have earned some goddamned leadership after we busted our asses to get him the nomination. We need to quit treating these politicians like they're royalty and start treating them like what they are: our employees. And let me tell you, if one of my employees had fucked up this badly, he'd damn well be hearing from me about it.

[DevonRex]

38. Sure, tell him what you think. But, all he is right now is a senator. nt

[jgraz]

40. No, all he is right now is his party's nominee for President.

He can do a helluva lot more than he's doing on this bill. Even if you stick to the myth that he's "just a Senator", he could put an individual hold on it, organize a filibuster or just tell Wussy Harry to not bring it to a vote.

But he can't even manage to vote against it. :banghead:

[DevonRex]

45. Well, we'll see how this shakes out. We should certainly make

our wishes known.

Do you really think a filibuster of this bill will help get him elected president? I think it would kill his chances.

It does not have to be Obama who does this. And IMO it should NOT be Obama who fights this.

[jgraz]

50. Why would filibustering this kill his chances to be President? No one wants this wiretapping bill.

Well, to be more specific: anyone in favor of telco immunity isn't going to be voting Democratic this fall no matter what. I can't possibly see a political upside to this.

[DevonRex]

52. Oh, you know how it'll pan out though. If he fights against this FISA

bill because of the immunity thing, they'll say he voted against the government being able to capture terrorists. Hey, if they could vote on the issues separately, it's a no brainer to vote against immunity and for FISA. Unfortunately it's a package deal, at least for now.

[jgraz]

56. They've said worse things about him and he's kicked their ass.

Remember the Reverend Wright thing and his wonderful speech on race? Why can't this be another opportunity for one of his brilliant "teaching moments"?

Or is that only when his campaign is being directly affected? This time, it's just our civil rights so... no speech for us.

[DevonRex]

60. Hey, personally I would LOVE for him to give that speech. And I

would also LOVE for people to vote on reason instead of fear.

I will also give him a little bit of time to handle this in the best way. Do you know when the senate votes on it? That's one question I'd like the answer to.

In the meantime, I'll be making my call to my senator and I'll email the Obama campaign.

[jgraz]

63. He has time to handle this in the right way. In the meantime, we need to make ourselves heard.

Speaking out against his failure to lead on this issue is what we should be doing right now.

[DevonRex]

69. It's way too early to call this "his failure to lead on this issue..." The

sky is NOT falling.

[jgraz]

71. Too early??? How long has this FISA thing been a story? What has Obama said or done?

He's already failed to lead. He failed to lead last year, he failed to lead 6 months ago and he's failed to lead now. He can start leading at any time, but that doesn't change the reality of what's already happened.

[grantcart]

96. This is not the wire tap issue this is the request for data issue

You are mixing up warantless taps with the request for billing data.

[grantcart]

39. "Yes we did such a good job with Gore and Kerry maybe we can really

destroy him this time after all if he isn't fucking perfect he doesn't deserve us because we fucking are"

is that about it my friend?

[jgraz]

46. This is not a "not perfect" moment. This is a "holy shit, what are you thinking" moment.

And it's a real kick in the ass to all the people who got him the nomination. Was all the "yes we can" shit just talk, or did he really want to change the way Washington works?

Well, he's about to get a big taste of what "we" can do when we're pissed off. Maybe the next time he'll think harder about doing the right thing.

[grantcart]

49. why because it involved illegal wire tapping of phones?

[jgraz]

53. Because it involves a further gutting of the Constitution.

One of the reasons you elect an expert in Constitutional law is that you want this kind of fascism stopped. Not enabled, not explained away. Stopped.

If Obama doesn't understand that -- or worse, if he doesn't care -- then we're all in big trouble.

[grantcart]

59. The compromise doesn't involve wiretapping or constitutional issues my friend

it has to do with the companies not requesting for a certificate before they handed over billing records.

The issue of immmunity is already in law.

The issue here is simply one of retroactive immunity nothing more and nothing less.

It speaks to the issue allowing Corporations a second bite at the apple when you and I don't.

Its not good but it is not a major constituional issue like illegal wiretapping.

However Senator Obama's response on reviewing all of Bush's signing statements is a constitutional issue. A big one.

He went out on a limb - gets no political advantage for it.

I think that he has a very good grasp of constitutional issues.

Now we could give him the benefit of the doubt or we could give the opposition more fodder to attack him with.

I leave it with you.

[jgraz]

62. Retroactive immunity means no lawsuit which means no discovery which means Bush walks on lawbreaking

That's what this is about: letting a criminal regime get away with gutting our civil liberties.

I expect my President to stand against this sort of thing.

[grantcart]

103. there is no immunity on any criminal issues. It is a simple immunity - which they would have gotten

had they requested for certification of national security status. They should have asked and they should have been penalized for it but it is not related to the criminal use of wire tap that you seem to be thinking of.

[PassingFair]

219. You think this is about "billing records"?

They split off LINES to the government.

Jeez!

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1491889

[bjobotts]

136. Will you STFU about Gore?Kerry. This election is like no other because of the Bush disaster.

[FrenchieCat]

37. Looks like you see the big picture in the strategy not to lose......

and those who have witnessed our media at work knows that you have stated is exactly correct.



Should there be another terrorist incident between now and November and this bill was not passed then the Republicans would very likely be able to completely change the existing public sentiment and effect the results of the General Election. This, I believe, is why the Democratic Leadership decided it was better to take the issue off the table now and address it again after the election.

We can disagree on this point and wish they had stayed firm. Fine. To suggest criminal conspiracies, bribery and other hysterical theories is not simply overwrought it overlooks a much more obvious reason. Everything looks so simple to us at our level.

As for Senator Obama I find it outrageous that simply because he is our presumptive nominee that he now have to carry the mantle of righting every transgression of the Bush administration between now and November 4th.

[Jakes Progress]

82. So we give up the fourth amendment

so that we can win an election. What next? A woman's right to choose? A forever war? What do we stand for besides getting elected? i think with his oratory skills he could talk to the nation about the precipice that we are standing on.

He has to carry the mantle of righting every transgression because that is the basis of his campaign - the change the way things are done. Same old politics is not changing the way things are done.

[ColonelTom]

92. I wish I could K&R your post within this thread.

Nicely put. If we accept that the only goal is winning elections, that's the only goal we'll reach. We need look no further back than the 2006 election, and the two years of capitulation that have followed, for proof.

[bjobotts]

141. Bullshit.It's sundown is in 5yrs, not after the election. They could have fixed FISA but this was ab

about immunity. If there were another terrorist attack we would blame the republicans and Bush for vetoing the FISA fix because it didn't contain retroactive immunity. This is just a lame excuse to give political cover to these complicit blue dogs and Obama. Bush decreed security was not as important as immunity. Now we will never know what they did that was so bad that Comey and Ashcroft and the whole top tier of the DoJ was willing to resign over. This makes Bush's illegal activities, legal.

The terrorists are coming put a guard on every door. The only terrorist is the Bush regime and its complicit enablers.Fear mongering at it's worst. this had little to do with "another" terrorist attack but that is what they would like you to believe. Obama will win in a landslide even with a terrorist attack and the dems know they will win huge majorities in both house and senate even with another terrorist attack and the polls prove it because that question was asked and dems won hands down.

[MNBrewer]

248. If, but, if if if

[DissedByBush]

249. Principles of freedom are subordinate to political expediency

That's pretty much what this says. The Constitution and the people lose if one telco gets off the hook because the Democrats couldn't stand up to Bush.

[MissWaverly]

42. the Dems will never win at that game

first, between now and November, we all know that another 500 pound bomb will fall in Iraq and the 3 finger fragments left will be Osama, we all know that will happen. And of course, we will know that it is Osama becuz Dr. Curveball will tell us, look it's him. Of course, there will be a "plot" discovered of 5 men who only work as Santa's helpers and frequent a soup kitchen in July, will be found to be plotting to blow up something, anything and it will be a terra
alert. A real threat, even though they will not even have a knive or a fork with them, they talked about it.

[grantcart]

48. all reasonable points - my point that you may disagree with is that this is

the motivation behind their thinking not that Pelosi received a bribe et all.

[MissWaverly]

58. Oh, yes, I agree, I think it's the terra, terra, terra mind set

but, Bush and Condi did not read the PDB that said Osama Bin Laden determined to attack US, there were 140 warnings that
summer that were ignored and the Republicans want credit for protecting us. I don't think there's a rational response
to that since much is based on rhetoric, lies and conditioned responses we've all been exposed to for years since 9-11.
Best stick with the truth. Facts like when we went to get Osama in his cave not 1 American soldier was given that
job, it was turfed to local tribesmen. Or Ashcroft would not allow checks to see if the terrorists had bought firearms. Yes, they were real concerned about this terra thingee.

[creeksneakers2]

43. The compromise is OK with me

I'm far more worried about 4th amendment protections being included in the bill than I am about whether the phone companies get sued or not. Suing the phone companies won't slow the expansion of fascism in America. Fourth amendment protections will.

[Robeson]

47. Thanks for framing the big picture, grantcart...

...nice post.

[grantcart]

54. thanks haven't seen you around for awhile - how is your singing lol

[Robeson]

65. Oh, I lurk, post occasionally, and like you...

...just keeping my eye on the prize.

[anonymous171]

51. Yep. I believe they are trying to counteract the "weak on defense" smear.

[Zodiak]

55. Is there any evidence at all that this OP is more than a bromide?

Because anyone can dream up a scenario where seemingly bad guys are really the good guys. It may comfort the faithful, but it goes little beyond rhetoric.

Obama should be hearing from us on this. He said himself that this campaign is as much about us as it is about him. If he does not hear our displeasure concerning this bill, he may play things too safe and shake a lot of people's hopes. The Constitution is not negotiable; it is central to our social compact. As a Constitutional scholar, Obama should know his role in this.

John Dean's assessment is far more plausible. The law is so poorly written that there is no protection from criminal charges. Obama's team looked over this POS legislation with a fine-toothed comb before issuing this statement. Hopefully they noticed this, as well and plan to pursue criminal charges when they occupy the Executive branch. There is no evidence of this, of course...but indicators of this strategy exist amongst Obama's statement.

But this should have never happened. The DINO wing of the Democratic party is cozying up to an unpopular President and bringing our Constitutional rights with them as an offering....same as they have done dozens of times over the last eight years. Hoyer, Pelosi, and Reid are the weakest Democratic leaders I have ever seen in my lifetime, and they should be voted from their positions and replaced with leaders who wish to represent us. And the Democrats who continuously stamp their feet and demand Bushco legislation (the DLC and Blue dogs) need to be put on notice that they can be replaced, as well...preferably by replacing a dozen or so.

[grantcart]

61. I have to go but if you go up thread this is an issue of corporate influence

not constitutional principle.


Senator Obama has already made major pronouncements on real constitutional issues like reviewing every single one of Bush's signing statements but apparently real constitutional issues have no bearing for you.

[Zodiak]

67. False attribution of motive

You have no evidence of what I feel about Constitutional issues nor do you have qualifiers as to what makes a real Constitutional issue. That kind of rhetoric is not productive.

And I have read the entire thread before I posted, despite your assumption otherwise. I am far from convinced this issue is independent of fourth amendment rights. I recognize the influence of corporatism all too well...it is the opposing force to the fourth amendment rights when it comes to this issue. One is not exclusive to the other.

Also, Obama's past performance rhetorically on Constitutional issues are completely independent of this particular issue. Let's focus on the issue at hand.

So again I ask, is there any evidence that this is more than a bromide?

[dflprincess]

72. "The Constitution is not negotiable"

Thank you!

[Zodiak]

75. It is not

Our country had to ratify the Bill of rights in order to become a country in the first place. It is central to the social compact.

PS: I just heard news that Obama will join a filibuster against any immunity-laden Bill should the Dodd amendment fail. That is good enough for me...that is sticking his neck out, fighting, and keeping his word. Pelosi on the other hand... :thumbsdown:

[davidpdx]

205. Maybe you could post a source

and that would help calm people's nerves a little. Care to share with us?

[disndat]

209. Agree. John Dean was most reassuring

on KO last night. Dean and KO seem to have placed their faith on Obama and team to do the right thing. I despaired before I heard what they both had to say, especially when I heard Pelosi say, "we have to have the means to fight the TERRORISTS," words right out of that scum, the pResident's coke-out mouth. KO & company saved the day for me.

[mzmolly]

57. It's not easy to be level headed at a time like this.

Thank you grantcart for this perspective.

K and R.

[razors edge]

64. Fine, I'll give them space for now,

it isn't like we have a choice, other than to continue to point out their criminal collusion here and in other echo chambers just to hear our own heads rattle.

But if someone pulls a false flag terrorist strike, and/or we go to war with Iran in the mean time, where does that leave the Democrats and your enlightened support of their capitulation?

[peacetalksforall]

66. I must be in a dark hole - because as of today - NO ONE represents me. I

can't be a Democrat because the Democratic Party does not represent me. I am lost out here and I'm alone. All my love for my country - down the hole. Obama does not represent me. Nor did Clinton. Desparation of feeling because the Democrats consdier our Constitution crap. It's really hard to take. Good-bye Barak. I was hoping on behalf of the youth who were so energized that you were going to be different. Take Back America - what a joke. Instead, give gifts to the barons.

[razors edge]

263. Your not alone hc,

I still love you. Thats a start. :pals:

[trickyguy]

68. Let's wait til Obama gets in the oval office. With his experience

in Constitutional Law I have no doubt that he will "right" all of the Constitutional "wrongs"

that Bush has put into place over these almost eight years.

And we should remember that Barack is only one human being and he will need time and extra help

to achieve even part of what we are all hoping for. I'm taking a deep breath and giving him a chance.:toast:

[dflprincess]

74. And how much time do we give him?

Wait and see if he's re-elected in 2012 because if he does anything during his first term he may not be re-elected? I'm sure that's the excuse we'll be hearing.

[Barack_America]

70. Thanks for serving as a voice of reason.

Yet again.

This can't be easy for him, but he will do what he has to do.

Eyes on the prize.

[Frank Lemadeer]

73. I do disagree, somewhat

Doing it now has nothing to do with fear of another attack, or opening themselves up to criticism from the right. The fix was in--the telecoms were going to get their immunity, period.

It's pure political expediency. They are ramming it through now so it won't follow along into the conventions and the thick of the election season. They're counting on the usual short attention span of the media and the public.

And you know what? It will work just like it always does.

They couldn't risk shelving it until 2009, because goodness knows there might be too many progressives who might fight it then. Or too much new information might come out.

So they weighed the risks and decided they had to move now.

And if it put some of their jobs in jeopardy, I figure that was a risk they weighed too. If they were complicit in the activity, as many suspect, they decided it was a risk they had to take.

It's a tossup as to whether the Fourth Amendment will survive. Maybe the courts will intervene at some point, but I'm not optimistic. Habeas Corpus only survived by one vote.

[Blue_Roses]

76. well said and thank-God for the voice of reason...

:applause:

[Old Codger]

77. what

We have available, the choice is Obama or mcnut .. I'll take Obama and hope he means what he says and does what he says he will/..... BUT I am a "little" cynical and will believe it when I see it, in the end he is first and foremost a pol, he will do and say whatever he needs to get elected and then maybe he will do what he says he will I will be pleasantly surprised if he does as it will be a relatively rare thing for sure.

[Tigress DEM]

78. The original laws did not give immunity outside FISA.

FISA was not used and it was the law at the time.

Rethugs put immunity into the "protection act" after the fact and yes now we have to deal with ammending that law, but it is NOT the law that was in effect at the time we were spied on by our own government with the willing help of telecoms and internet providers. Qwest and Google excluded, I believe.

If they had followed FISA law and gotten a warrant and presented that to the telecoms and internet providers to review people's records with some valid reason, there would be no discussion or legislation uproar.



RE: Obama, yeah, let the guy get his feet under him but he's going for the highest office of the land and he has to be able to take this stuff. Just hopefully people on his side will not be the worst purveyors.

[grantcart]

119. Warrant could not be issued because

a warrant requires specific information about a particular person and the government was asking for data base information.

What was required and what the telecom companies did not obtain was a certificate from the Administration that it met certain National Security guidelines. You are correct that had the companies gotten that then there would have been no issue of liability.

The companies that did ask did not receive the certificate and they did not give the government the information. Immunity was in the legislation already but some companies did not follow the correct legal procedure. Republicans put in "retroactive immunity".

[TexanDem]

79. Here! Here! Thank you for a voice of reason.

[Jakes Progress]

83. Sure, a spoonful of sugar

will make it go down more easily. That's the purpose of sugarcoating.

[cliffordu]

80. Excellent post!! The hysterics need to read all of this post before

making all the threats about dropping support for Obama, et, etc, etc....

K&R!!!!!



:kick:


:yourock:

[bjobotts]

143. Obama is still 100Xs better than McCain but believe you lying eyes anyway

[madfloridian]

84. We need to speak up when this stuff happens. We can't just let it go.

That is how we got into Iraq...then we rationalized what they did.

I can see your point about Obama's need to do certain things...but why did 58 Dems flip from no votes last year to yes votes this year??

There is a link in the comments to Swing State project.

Why so many?

[AZBlue]

85. I think that the majority of those "outraged" over this are the ones

who never planned to support Obama anyway. Obviously not all of the posters fit into this category - but most do. They are breeding and spreading their "concern" as a way to weaken him.

[madfloridian]

86. Now wait a minute. That is a very broad brush.

I am one who is very suspicious of this bill and everyone who is supporting it. Why are they doing it? Are they being threatened by the Bush administration? Not so far-fetched you know.

Why did 58 switch from no votes last year to yes votes this year?

http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2294

I support Obama, but I question him and I question all our Democrats who did this.

[AZBlue]

87. I said most, not all. And, that's from what I've seen of the posts tonight.

I'll be the first to say that obviously I've not seen every post (nor do I want to, LOL).

It's a political move. And it's one that will be corrected once he's President. It's not ideal, but that's politics in this country.

[provis99]

89. One that will be corrected when he's President? How so?

Presidents don't pass laws, Congress does. If Obama becomes President, there won't be squat done about the abominations in this bill. He won't have the power to ignore a law that was passed before he became President, unless he indulges in some Bush-style "signing" statements.

[grantcart]

124. What was at stake was the White House pressuring telecom companies to give

up data base information - that was done by the White House not congress.

He has already stated that he is reviewing every single "signing" statement that Bush has signed with a review of challenging them.

[rebel with a cause]

90. I agree.

I have never seen so much hate spring up full grown from an event like this. It is not like this is the first time we have been disappointed in the actions that take place in Washington. As for me, I am not a politican and have always refused to play politics even in the work place and know that it has a way of hurting ou when you do not. You have to out think your opponent when you are in politics, and you have to do some things you might not want to in order to get where and what you want. You want to change the world, then you may have to stoop down in order to get where you can stand up tall and get the power to do the changing. For me, I will stand by Obama until it is proven to me that he is not worthy of my trust. This bill, which I am unaware of all the points made in it, is not enough to do that to me.

As someone up thread said, the sky is NOT falling and I am tired of some people acting as if it is. There are just too many of these threads of "outraged" people downing Obama. If this is really Democrats, then it is no wonder that we have problems winning sometimes. We expect perfection in our candidates and accept the worse in the republicans candidate. I am tired of this mind frame and I will not be apart of it. Putting on my "happy face" (Strictly Ballroom reference) and staying on track for Obama.

[grantcart]

192. you want to see hate go out of your way and start a post saying something nice about

Senator Clinton.

[davidpdx]

206. Well put, I have no problem with people disagreeing with Obama

but to suddenly start in with the Chicken Little routine is pretty ridiculous. We really don't know what will happen in the US Senate and they HAVE NOT even voted on it yet. Unless all of these people have a huge crystal ball or are psychic, they are getting their panties in an uproar for nothing.

If you are really concerned, then email the campaign and his office. Do something, but don't sit here and bitch and moan about it for god sakes.

[bjobotts]

144. I don't buy that at all. There is cause for disappointment and outrage here

[Two Americas]

180. nonsense

I am going with the ACLU's strongly worded opinion on this. Are Democrats still permitted to do that? Or is the ACLU now part of the "hysterical wing" of the party and "helping the Republicans?" It has nothing to do with Obama. Are you saying that those of us who side with the ACLU on this issue are to have our party loyalty questioned now? Have we come that far with this loyalty nonsense and suppression of free speech and thought within the party?

[NorthCarolina]

218. I don't buy that at all

I think some were hoping for real "change" and a fervent adherence to the ideals of the Constitution. Feingold and Kucinich are good examples of exactly that.

[PassingFair]

221. Bull Pucky.

I am an Obama supporter who is outraged.

He may have taken money and support from
corporations and "leaders" like Joe Lieberman
in the past, but he is playing in a new
stadium now, and his fans are PISSED.

We will NOT buy tickets if he doesn't
perform.

He can get his money from AT$T...

[lala_rawraw]

88. with respect, i disagree...

if the road to the white house is paved with a shredded constitution, then that road is the end of democracy. they had a duty, and obligation and their oath of offices demanded that they not do this. they may have lost the wh, they may have won it. but whatever happened, they did their duty to us and to the constitution. that is the essence of democracy. there is no compromise on this.

as for another terrorist attack... well if that happens between now and november, then every person who believes that 9/11 is an inside job will be justified. the attack in question, however, is going to be against Iran, which Pelosi made sure was still on the table. see, they are compromised. not because they fear criminal prosecution, but because they are either on the take and/or being blackmailed. there is no other logical explanation for this type of abdication of duty.

no, they are not justified and don't deserve to be in the wh precisely because they violated their oath of office.

[grantcart]

93. there is no substantive constitutional principle at issue in the compromise.

The issue of immunity was and is a part of the statute. It was never an issue.

What was objectionable was that the Telecom firms in responding to general requests for data (not wire taps) did not request certification that it met Natioinal Security levels. So the issue that was compromised was the question of retroactive immunity.

It is a significant political issue but hardly a constitutional one.

In the meantime Senator Obama has been outline real and significant constitutional issues that he is committed to including for example re-examining every single signing statement that Bush has signed.

He gets no credit for this - there is no constituency but he has made it clear that he intends to restore real respect for the constitution and is persuing those policies that do in fact have constitutional weight.

[bjobotts]

145. God you are so wrong.Go to [e-mail] to get it.

[bjobotts]

146. This grant s the president the power to ignore the constitution when he deems it necessary

as long as he says it was to protect us from the terrorists. The constitutional principle is that we forfeit our right to privacy and illegal search and seizure if the government tells us to do something we have to do it even if it is illegal because the government does not have to abide by the fourth amendment if they say it was to protect us from the terrorists. That's this "compromise"

[Born_A_Truman]

116. Who deserves to be in the WH?

Well, I for one would rather have a President Obama in the WH if this bill passes, which it might even if Obama votes against it, than a President McCain, who we know would continue the policies of the Bush administration. These are our choices and no way do I want McCain to win.

[LaStrega]

91. Hit 'em where it hurts ...

And lend a hand to issues and non-profits that matter. Credo Mobile ... check 'em out. They regularly run a special where they'll pay any early termination fees you may incur to switch over.

Another good thing, when I've had to contact customer service, I always get a human at the other end of the line (no annoying looping "for blah-blah-blah, press blah-blah-blah button), and that human is always American. No outsourcing. Credo, highly recommended.

[Mithreal]

110. Give him space? It's not about him it's about us

He deserves our support and hard work to help him get elected.

My congressman's staffer used Obama as an excuse to vote yes on this "compromise". The staffer said we can trust Obama to not take advantage of bad laws when he is President. That's not good enough for me. I do not want to have to trust a President to do what is right, I would rather have this be a nation of laws. Congress and Courts must check a President's illegal activity.

What is going on with us? I am seeing people make excuses for Obama and talk about giving him space. If Obama must run to the right to get elected, then fine. Maybe Progressives need to sit back and wait until after he is elected? We are not going to be able to push him in any direction until after he is elected. I trust him to do what he needs to do to get elected, but once he is elected with my help and the help of millions of others, we must be heard.

[dailykoff]

118. Translation, give intel outfits space

to trash the Constitution.

[grantcart]

122. the compromise has nothing to do with any intelligence agency at all

it has to do with giving telecom companies immunity against civil claims.

[dailykoff]

134. It's an intel operation and letting FISA expire would be the kiss of death

to the whole terra scam. Not that I'd be sorry to see those parasitic sacks of shit and their creepy shitfaced enablers behind bars. :hi:

[dailykoff]

115. And the CIA is a warm fuzzybear that needs our support.

I read you loud and clear.

[grantcart]

121. no your completely irrelevent as per normal.

[dailykoff]

127. Letting FISA expire in August is by far the better course.

It should never have been passed in the first place.

[Tatiana]

123. It was a political decision, clearly.

But not the right one. Even if we did suffer another terrorist attack, why in the hell couldn't we fight off any attacks by putting the blame where it would likely belong: on the Commander-in-Chief.

Republicans support the Constitution.

Independents support the Constitution.

Democrats support the Constitution.

If we can't defend our own defense of the Constitution, a document that even the conservative Supreme Court Justice Kennedy said must remain in effect even during times of war, then we need to question our strong and determined we really are.

I understand why the decision was made. But Dems like Carney and Rockefeller did not make this decision for the good of the party or our upcoming electoral chances. They did it because they agree that the government should be allowed to spy on Americans and/or they are up to their ears in money from the telecom industry. Period.

I'm a realist. I know you are correct when you say the majority of the public could care less about FISA or telecom immunity. The problem is, they don't know what this measure entails and if they truly understood it, they would be against it. This will be the reason why Obama will weather any negative feedback from this political calculation.

However, there comes a time when you can choose to do the politically expedient thing or the right thing. Obama has done the right thing more times than not. However, this was not one of those times and I think everyone who cares about this issue should still support him, but feel free to let him know why this leaves a bad taste in our mouths.

No, Obama is not the end-all, be-all, nor should he be. Those who have let things get to this disastrous point should be held accountable. Obama can't save the world. But he does have the unique ability to convey complex or complicated ideas in ways that compel others to listen and understand. This is a time where he could have articulated the dangers of telecom immunity (which we all know he strongly opposes) in a way that put the ball back in the Republicans' and Bush's court.

[grantcart]

128. There was in fact no significant constituitional issue at stake in the compromise

The question of immunity was already in the law and the compromise allows the telecom companies to get the immunity that they could have had had they followed the procedure - or not complied with the request.

We agree that it is a political decision, and not the one that we preferred - but there are no significant constitutional issues in the specific compromise that was agreed to.

In the meantime Obama has gone out on his own on significant issues like challenging Bush's signing statements.

He gets no credit for this, a much more substantive constitutional issue.

[dailykoff]

137. Warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional period.

Convenient to criminal enterprises perhaps, but unconstitutional nonetheless.

[grantcart]

164. The compromise had absolutely nothing to do with the wireless wiretapping

it had to with the request for billing data and the lack of a national security certificate from the Justice Department which would have given the Telecoms immunity.

[dailykoff]

237. FISA legalizes warrantless surveillance. The "compromise" makes it virtually

impossible for victims of unconstitutional eavesdropping to seek legal redress. With or without the compromise, warrantless surveillance is grossly unconstitutional. Learn what you're talking about before spinning or do your talking points come in the mail?

[Frisbee]

244. Grant...

I think at this point those who are EVER going to get what this is about and not about already do. The rest have made up their minds, and you are not going to change it. Great post, and definitely worth thinking about. I for one, think that Obama has to walk a VERY fine line right now, to avoid handing the Repubs more ammunition than they already have (even though most of it is BS). I have enough faith in him at this point to believe that if elected, he will try to right as may of the wrongs as he can. Given that he is a constitutional scholar, I have to imagine that all of this is pretty important to him. If he loses, especially to McInsane, we all lose and the Constitution continues to be trashed.

[Tatiana]

139. Sorry. Can't be that blase about it. We're talking about losing a way of documenting Bush's

illegal spying activity and the fact that it took place PRE-9/11. The only means (at the moment) we have of obtaining the details and information is through the lawsuits against the telecoms like AT&T, which will now (likely) be thrown out as a result of this legislation.

That is a SIGNIFICANT loss. Sure, someone could try to take it all the way to the Supremes, but can we really count on Justice Kennedy to defend the Constitution in this case? Probably not.

The telecoms did NOT comply with the required procedures and they should pay a price for it.

Once this is enacted, we can't just go back and revoke the immunity that was granted. We'll likely never know the details of this illegal spying program and that is information the public deserves to know. We could have fired a shot dead on at Mr. 28%er, but instead of even holding our fire (NOT EVEN TAKING UP THE BILL THIS YEAR), we shot ourselves in the foot.

Not completely devastating, but pretty damn bad.

At the meeting, Bruce Fein, a Justice Department lawyer in the Reagan administration, along with other critics of the legislation, pressed Justice Department officials repeatedly for an assurance that the administration considered itself bound by the restrictions imposed by Congress. The Justice Department, led by Ken Wainstein, the assistant attorney general for national security, refused to do so, according to three participants in the meeting. That stance angered Mr. Fein and others. It sent the message, Mr. Fein said in an interview, that the new legislation, though it is already broadly worded, “is just advisory. The president can still do whatever he wants to do. They have not changed their position that the president’s Article II powers trump any ability by Congress to regulate the collection of foreign intelligence.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/washington/19fisa.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&hp&oref=slogin

[dailykoff]

142. Great analysis.

What Obama hopes to gain by handing Buscho a get out of jail free card I can't really figure out. I don't think it helps him politically (vote wise) at all.

[Tatiana]

150. This is political strategy. And, as abhorrent as it is, sometimes it works.

Nancy Pelosi said from the get-go that she was taking impeachment off the table. Contrary to the belief of some, it is not because she is in bed with Bush. Her strategy, as party leader, was to leave the weakening Bush in office and (as his his approval ratings continued to plummet) force Republicans to run on Bush's record. Make no mistake, Nancy knows Bush could and should be impeached. But she placed electing more Democrats as a higher priority.

So what do we have as a result? No impeachment. But, we have won three special elections in a row in EXTREMELY CONSERVATIVE districts and all the polling indicates that Democrats will be competitive all over the country in the upcoming election - even in "red" states. Democrats won in 2006 by running against Bush. Honestly - there was no Democratic "Contract with America." No organized plan to restore fiscal responsibility, economic stability, create jobs, etc. We ran against Bush and we won on that, simply because the "D" was better than the "R" who marched lock-step with Bush/Cheney.

Here's the same strategy at play again. FISA/telecom immunity/national security-related wiretapping is now being taken off the table. The Republicans can't run or attack Dems on that issue from a national security standpoint. The hope is that in taking the issue off the table, the Republicans will be forced to run on issues like the Iraq war and the economy. If this election is about the war and the economy, we will win... big. That's what the goal of the Dem leadership (with the exception of Democrats like Carney and Rockefeller who are bought and paid for by the telecom industry). Obama has clearly bought into this strategy in order to win, thinking that we'll suffer now, but in winning be able to do a lot more work to reverse the damage that has been done. It is a legitimate point.

My concern is that once this retroactive immunity is granted, that's it. We can't take it back. All the information that would have been obtained from those lawsuits is gone. Our only hope (and it would be a very slim one) would be for someone(s) to challenge the law all the way to the Supreme Court and for a majority of the Court to declare the legislation unconstitutional.

I'm not holding my breath.

[dailykoff]

155. Oh man. Did Cheney dream that one up?

That is unbelievably cynical, counterproductive and unprincipled. Let the blood flow, it's good for getting votes. If that's what Obama is up too I will seriously consider voting for McKinney.

[Two Americas]

161. ROFL

"No significant Constitutional issues?" Just the Bill of Rights. But what importance is the Bill of Rights, when compared to "winning," and if we actually stood for anything the public would never respect us for that, and the Republicans might "hammer us." So better that we just submit I guess. Clever actually. So we can "win." By submitting.

"...the immunity that they could have had had they followed the procedure - or not complied with the request." What have we come to? Am I actually reading that?

This reminds me of the famous quote from the Viet Nam era - "we had to destroy the village to save it." We have to destroy the Constitution to save it - that is what I hear you saying. We have to let criminals go free to stop crime. We have to cower before tyrants to overcome them.

[grantcart]

167. Go ahead and laugh all you want but the statement stands now answer a question

the compromise does not bring out any new or important significant constitutional issues that are not already in the bill.

The hyesteria here today is with the compromise.

The compromise deals with a single issue allowing companies who could have qualified for immunity a second bite of the apple.

What constitutional issue do you think is being raised.



Again for clarity this has nothing to do with warrants, wire taps, FISA courts, retroactive warrants, warantless wiretaps, etc.

On the very question of the compromise - retroactive immunity for companies that could have had immunity had they followed the correct procedure?

[Two Americas]

173. whatever

Then the analysis I heard on NPR and BBC and CBS - those far left radicals from the hysterical wing of the party - was way off. There was a right wing shill on one of the programs with the usual "we have to give up civil liberties in time of war, there is always a trade-off, nothing to see here move along now" line of reasoning.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

125. checking in after a little vacation

hey, great post Grantcart.

:hi:

Its still sinking in to me right now.....I still don't know how I feel, I was very very disappointed
when I heard.

Still digesting it.

Haven't been in for awhile, fell asleep on the couch one night, and that was the night I realized I didn't need to do the Obama Daily news any more, after doing it since mid February.

Looks like GDP has calmed down enough where good posts don't get lost with the numerous others.

[grantcart]

159. The problem is a question of balance. When Senator Obama goes it alone no one notices

When he doesn't follow their particular personal agenda he is a complete sell out.

Senator Obama makes a unilateral move in the right direction like stating that he will review all of Bush's "signing statements" and gets no credit for it.

The FISA Bill comes up and has serious flaws in it. However if you make a principled stand now its very difficult for the public to understand the fine nuance of drawing a line here rather than there.

Moreover should there be another attack between now and Nov 4th it would be very difficult to penetrate through the hysteria -- many people would simply react that the Democrats are too soft.

This story isn't finished and we will see what happens next week but there was a lot of hysteria today and I simply think that we need to give Obama room to manuever without condemning him and giving his opponents more fodder.

[phrigndumass]

140. "better to take the issue off the table now and address it again after the election"

This makes sense. Why give the republicans a hammering point? It's better to get our candidate elected and then fine the hell outta those telecom companies.

:thumbsup:

[bjobotts]

147. They made it to last 5yrs not "after the election". Here's hoping Obama has an ace up his sleeve

[phrigndumass]

149. Check out FrenchieCat's thread ...

"Obama will work to remove Retroactive Immunity provision from FISA Senate version of Bill"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6390859

[MNBrewer]

256. Do you REALLY think that will happen?

I'm sure it's "off the table".

[iconicgnom]

153. I do NOT agree

At this point in history I do NOT think any presumptive POTUS should be allowed ANY distance from strict respect for constitutional law, and this FISA bill is extremely questionable.

I do NOT agree that the path to become POTUS requires compromise on key issues of moral (constitutional) law.

I certainly DO think it is about time for a presumptive POTUS to make a determined stand on issues of moral/constitutional principle, rather than promoting some pragmatic short-term fait-accompli, like this FISA business that just passed Congress.

Now or never.

[grantcart]

154. do not agree with the FISA Bill or just the compromise

Do you agree that FISA Courts should be able to give search warrants after the fact?

Do you agree that there should be immunity for telecoms for providing non specific data base information if they have received a national security wavier from the Justice Department.

I am not clear what your positions are and exactly what principled stands you feel that Senator Obama must now take.

[dailykoff]

157. Both positions are unconstitutional.

Neither deserves the support of any Democrat or any citizen for that matter.

[grantcart]

160. specifically which position is unconstitutional?

FISA Courts and the use of retroactive warrants?

[dailykoff]

163. Both. Let's review the fourth amendment to the Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

FISA supposedly gets around the Constitution by addressing itself to "foreign" intelligence but in fact it's a completely unconstitutional domestic spying operation. It should never have been passed and should absolutely not be expanded. It be allowed to expire.

[grantcart]

170. Are you saying that FISA courts are unconstitutional yes or no?

[dailykoff]

172. I've said yes three times already. No more kicks for you. (n/t)

[grantcart]

184. For your information the FISA courts were established in 1978 and have

operated under both Democratic and Republican Presidents without problems or controversy until Bush tried to do an end run around it.

Apparently you are under the impression that they are something brand new that Bush came up with you are mistaken.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court

[dailykoff]

239. No kidding, and it's been controversial since its existence was made

public. Secret renditions are another "policy" you could say operated without controversy under Clinton and Bush until we found out about it.

[The Purple Shamrock]

168. I'll take this one...

>>> Do you agree that FISA Courts should be able to give search warrants after the fact?

Yes.

>>> Do you agree that there should be immunity for telecoms for providing non specific data base information if they have received a national security wavier from the Justice Department.

No. As far as I know there is no provision covering "non specific data base information", whatever the hell that is. What I do know is that the original FISA statute requires a warrant for all intelligence gathering, even if after the fact. I also know that ALL electronic surveillance operations by the government must be conducted under FISA. To quote Greenwald:

Under FISA, it is a criminal offense to eavesdrop on Americans without the oversight and approval of the FISA court. Section 1809 of FISA expressly provides that " person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally - (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute. . . ." And Section 2511(2)(f) provides that FISA "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . may be conducted." Thus, a person has broken the law if -- as the President admits he did -- he orders eavesdropping on Americans without complying with the warrant requirements of the statute. Period.

So again, no. A note from the President or his underlings doesn't cut it. There must be a warrant. If the 'electronic surveillance' sought (non specific data base information, as you characterize it) does not lend itself to getting a warrant (exactly because it is non-specific!) then it cannot be sought under the law. This is precisely why this provision exists.

This is not really hard to understand. FISA requires warrants. All surveillance must be conducted under FISA. The administration's requests to the telecom companies were as illegal as if they asked them to cook their own books.

But go ahead, please try to argue that the information sought by the administration does not construe 'electronic surveillance'. I'll enjoy shooting that down as well.

[grantcart]

182. Your talking about warrants and taps and this controversy isn't about either

1) what I called non specific data base information was according to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act quote

Access to certain Business Records for Foreign Intelligence Purposes unquote.

Again for clairity nothing to do with wire taps or electronic survellience.


2) The administration requested that they provide information about customers presumably customers calling patterns.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/inteldump/2008/06/the_immunity_deal.html
The telecom companies could have obtained a wavier had they


show a federal judge that they received written assurance from the Bush administration that the spying was legal.

3) Several companies like Qwest asked for the wavier and it was not provided and they complained later that they suffered business losses because of it.

4) The companies that did not seek the wavier - again nothing to do with warrants - now face 40 law suits.



The issue of the compromise which has everyone saying that "the constitution has been gutted" is a very narrow one specifically should the immunity that the companies would have gotten had they insisted on getting in writing from the Administration that the request was legal under National Security Law.


5) The basis for such immunity is based on "governement contractor defense"

http://www.outsourcing-law.com/government_contractor_defense.htm
Lessons Learned. The sovereign immunity defense becomes available, vicariously, to government contractors only if they conform to the contract. Where a third party alleges that the outsourcing service provider failed to conform to "reasonably precise" responsibilities under the contract, the provider is vulnerable to a claim for negligence.

Government contractors should not engage in activities that constitute a breach. But if they succeed in showing their conduct was not in breach, then they might wish to be protected by an indemnification for attorneys' fees in addition to the defense of sovereign immunity.

And if they are liable for negligence, they might obtain some form of limitation of liability by insurance or indemnification.

The most prudent solution would be to establish and monitor "foolproof" procedures, including training and supervision, for compliance with rules intended to protect the rights of third parties.


6) To summarize you are correct that FISA requires warrants for electronic wiretaps. The controversy and the compromise which the Democrats don't like has to do with telecom companies passing customer information to the government. This does not and could not involve warrants because the government does not have specific information for a warrant like the name of the person that they want to persue. They are combing through data bases looking to see who called certain areas or who was uplinking to certain websites.
The law requires that for the contractors to be immune from law suits they must receive certification from the government that it was a legal request.

They did not do so. The compromise means that even though they did not do it before hand they are getting a second bite at the apple.

I frankly would prefer they get a nice big fine like an EPA fine but there is no provision.

Having explained it in detail it seems clear that even if you do not like it, and most of us don't, you can hardly call providing a retroactive protection that is already there a terribly significant change in the law.

It can be considered bad policy and bad politics but the rape of the Bill of Rights as some are suggesting? lets get real.

[The Purple Shamrock]

194. You don't get to define the parameters of this controversy.

Wouldn't it be nice if all the administration asked the telecoms for was what you term quote Access to certain Business Records for Foreign Intelligence Purposes unquote.

From Wired magazine:

Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, sits quietly at the center of a high-profile legal storm hitting the nation's largest telecommunications companies for allegedly helping the government spy on American citizens' phone and internet communications without court approval.

In 2006, Klein stepped forward and handed sensitive AT&T documents to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group that was preparing a class-action lawsuit against the telecommunications giant. That case and more than 50 similar suits have been consolidated into five master complaints that are now proceeding in a federal court in San Francisco. This summer, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear AT&T's appeal of a key ruling that rejected the government's national security concerns and allowed the suit to continue.
See Also:
Mark Klein's Insider Documents

Those documents are under seal, but Wired News independently acquired and published a significant portion of them last year. They show that AT&T built a network-monitoring facility in a nondescript room at an internet switching hub in San Francisco, at 611 Folsom St. Diagrams in the document show that AT&T technicians split fiber-optic cables handling AT&T's WorldNet internet service -- as well as traffic to and from other major ISPs -- diverting copies of the traffic into the room, which was packed with internet-monitoring equipment.

In this rare interview, Klein supplies details of how he first learned about the secret room even before being transferred to the Folsom Street office. He also lashes out at Congress for failing to hold hearings, and says he won't be satisfied until he can visit the AT&T building and see that the room has been dismantled.

--------

THIS is what these lawsuits are all about. THIS is what they are seeking immunity from. Business records? Please.

[grantcart]

200. They weren't my parameters friend it was a direct quote from the FISA LAW

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 is a U.S. federal law prescribing procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" (which may include American citizens and permanent residents engaged in espionage and violating U.S. law: §1801(b)(2)(B)) on territory under United States control.<1>

FISA is codified in 50 U.S.C. §§1801–1811, 1821–29, 1841–46, and 1861–62.<1> The subchapters of FISA provide for:

Electronic Surveillance
Physical Searches
Pen Registers and Trap & Trace Devices for Foreign Intelligence Purposes
Access to certain Business Records for Foreign Intelligence Purposes



The information that was at issue was the combing of business records so that they could identify people for surviellance. The activity you describe is surveillance. Electronic surveillance is not what the "agreement" today is about. Accessing business records - essentially billing records showing who called who does not require a warrant but the companies are not required to hand them over. If they do not get certification that they are a legal National Security request in writing then the companies can be sued and there are currently 40 such suits that will be wiped out if the agreement announced today becomes law.

[The Purple Shamrock]

195. And by the way...

You said "2) The administration requested that they provide information about customers presumably customers calling patterns."

Do you not think this information is electronic in nature? And if these requests are ongoing, (as they must be, else how do you discern patterns?) then how are they not 'surveillance'?

[iconicgnom]

171. This will take a bit of explaining, I suppose.

There's the pre-existing FISA legislation, and there's an extension being currently granted. I don't want to get into parsing commas in either case, and I don't want to get into some kind of contest.

on your first question:
"Search warrants after the fact" of a search? That the PO-lice should have free reign to spy as they please, sorta signing into a secret FISA court for approval in the event that they gather enough info for a conviction? No. I don't like that idea. I think (as a Canadian) that if US citizens don't have anything in their constitution that prevents that kind of shit, then they're fucked. It'd be a pity.

on your second question:
A problem is that this "immunity" is attached to a FISA bill, and it shouldn't be.
These should be separate items, but they aren't. So this complicates the debate.

Nevertheless, however I look at it, this whole business that's going down is bad news.

[dailykoff]

175. We do have something that prevents it, the fourth amendment,.

and FISA flies in the face of it. It's grossly unconstitutional and should be allowed to expire in August.

[iconicgnom]

179. Yah, I tend to agree with you on the importance of this.

But of course, Bush and Cheney are rolling on floor in orgasms of happiness, right now - and we wouldn't want to get them angry, would we?

[dailykoff]

181. A secret court that gives you retroactive permission to secretly spy

on anybody anwhere, what's not to love?

[grantcart]

187. that court has been working without controversy since 1978 so do you think that

it was unconstitutional all this time or did you just learn about it?

[dailykoff]

233. It's a secret court and for the fourth time, yes, it's unconstitutional. (n/t)

[grantcart]

189. the point of the question was to show that he was simply throwing all kinds of things

out there without having a specific reason.

The FISA courts have been in existence since 1978.

They provide the government a court they can go to get warrants on matters of national security without it becoming public.

One of the provisions has been that if the government ends up in a hot pursuit or in a situation that they need to take urgent action they can do so and they have 72 hours to go back and explain to the judge and get a warrant.

Immunity has always been part of the system the only thing that happened today is that it was decided retroactively.

I personally don't agree with it but I find the hysteria that makes it seem like its the shredding of the Bill of Rights laughable hyperbole, particularly when we have a constitutionally educated and committed candidate running for President.

My point is that the reason that the leadership agreed to it is that if there were a major terrorist event (and one could be fabricated couldn't it) then the Republicans could use the fact that we killed this bill as a means of completely overturning the election.

Thanks for your comments.

[iconicgnom]

196. No, that wasn't your point.

"The FISA courts have been in existence since 1978" says nothing about what warrants it, or how it came about, or why people are concerned with matters regarding it. I reject your use of terms like "hysteria" and "laughable hyperbole" to characterize the opinions of people like e.g. Olbermann's mentor Jonathan Turley, or Glenn Greenwald. I think your use of such terms shows that you don't intend to carry on a sincere discussion.

[grantcart]

199. the person I addressed it to launched a number of vague and incoherent charges

that was clear that he was not up to date on the specific charges and as he said he was against FISA courts which he was not aware have been existence for 30 years.

I am happy to have a sincere discussion and you can see that there are others who have made intelligent responses and I have made the best response I could.

the laughable hyperbole was relating to some people who have called this the thrashing of the bill of rights and people in other threads today who have indicated that they are not supporting Sen Obama or they are going to put his feet to the fire.

I freely admit I don't really know a rats ass about this subject. My brother is a judge and I have a brother who teaches law so i have seen them actually fill out warrants and send them back to prosecutors because they don't have enough detail. I respect Olberman and Turley and I am sure Greenwald is very intelligent.

But out of all of those people I trust Senator Obama more. And I trust him thousands of times more than McCain. We have a nominee and rather than blow up and start attacking the person I trust more. This isn't for laughs anymore. Who ever becomes the next President will have a decisive voice in starting wars and creating a framework for peace.

If the leadership of the party has determined that it is more advantageous to take this particular issue off the table now I don't think that they are criminally neglectful, have been bribed, cowards, or any of the other outrageous tacts that people have said in this thread and all of the others.

I think we should give them some room to manuever with out the strident condemnations and the hate filled recriminations.

You never really know which threads are going to attract a response. Had I known that this was going to be one that generated interest I would have outlined the arguments clearer, cited the sources and lined up well known authorities but the conclusion would be the same. Let Senator Obama have a chance to lead and if the leadership feels that its better to defer this for whatever stated then that should be good enough.

Senator Obama has demonstrated in many ways not the least of which is his call to review every single signing statement by Bush - an issue that I think will have a great deal more impact than the agreement to give the telecoms retroactive immunity.

[dailykoff]

232. WRONG again. I know exactly what FISA is and I know exactly what you are

my little internet friend, but thanks for the talking points. :hi:

[iconicgnom]

238. Then there's been a misunderstanding between us.

As I should have realized right away.
But here's the lineage:

you: Your OP
me: I do NOT agree (direct response to OP)
you: do not agree with the FISA Bill or just the compromise
me: This will take a bit of explaining, I suppose.



you: the point of the question was to show that he was simply throwing all kinds of things



me: No, that wasn't your point.
you: the person I addressed it to launched a number of vague and incoherent charges.
=====================

Anyhow, probably time to move on. This's a multifaceted issue esp. at election time. I enjoy reading your OPs and discussions. DU is a great board.

[grantcart]

241. had I realized that it was going to attract this level of interest I would have

written a clearer post with tighter language but the bottom line would have been the same

Senator Obama isn't just our best choice he deserves trust and room to manuever - sorry for the confusion above and thank you for your kind comments.

[TwilightGardener]

158. Great post. We here on DU can afford to be purists--that's our job, in fact--

to press for the most ideologically pure positions possible of our elected officials and candidates. Obama is a politician in the middle of an insanely important campaign, and he has to successfully cope with political realities and dilemmas--and if he doesn't, we lose it all in November. He's not going to give the GOP a national security cudgel to beat him over the head with, and the dumbed-down American electorate won't take the time to study the FISA issue in depth and understand its relationship to the Constitution, or understand why it's bad precedent to let telecoms and our government team up against us with no legal recourse. They just want to be safe from terra, and when McCain starts telling them a dumbed-down explanation as to why Obama doesn't want Americans to be safe, they'll buy it. Look at how they're buying the offshore drill BS. Let him do what he needs to do. And then after January 2009, we can hold his feet to the fire with impunity.

[Two Americas]

166. purity?

Defending the Bill of Rights is now to be called "purity" and impractical?

I cannot believe this long, slow, sickening slide into moral compromise people are accepting and defending. It gets worse and worse. I think people are being gradually acclimated to it. If we read the posts on this thread 8 years ago, we wouldn't believe it possible that Democrats would come to such a sorry place and be so pathetically weak and cowardly. It is just amazing.

[grantcart]

169. what is pathetically weak and cowardly is that people throw around

issues like Bill of rights when they don't have a fucking idea what the issues are.

Most of the people in their fucking hysterical threads are talking about FISA courts and warantless wiretaps which have nothing to do with the compromise that you are so enraged with.




Again for clarity this has nothing to do with warrants, wire taps, FISA courts, retroactive warrants, warantless wiretaps, etc.

On the very question of the compromise - retroactive immunity for companies that could have had immunity had they followed the correct procedure which of the first 10 ammendments to the constitution do you feel that this compromise underminds?

[The Purple Shamrock]

174. And stop calling it a damn compromise.

It is anything but. The House and Senate Republicans are exulting, while a good number of Democrats are stewing over this. I thought the definition of a compromise was when nobody gets everything they want. The Repugs have gotten EVERYTHING they could have possibly wanted from this bill.

[grantcart]

186. fine the decision

I am sure there are things that they don't like about it but you are 100% correct that the key outstanding disagreement about retroactive immunity for the telecoms was won by the Republicans.

Now do you think like some posting here that the Democratic Leadership decided that because they were bribed? blackmailed? extorted? or because they made a pragmatic decision that it was better to take off the table during the election period for various reasons?

[The Purple Shamrock]

191. None of the above...

although you seem to think you have all the bases covered. Conspiracy theories aside, this was not a pragmatic decision, but a cowardly one. They are afraid of being beaten again with that "weak on defense" cudgel, when all they end up doing is reinforcing the frame that Democrats ultimately capitulate to the Republicans on anything remotely connected with national security. Displaying craven weakness is never pragmatic.

[grantcart]

197. no your clearly way ahead you should stand for office and show everyone how easy it is

[Two Americas]

176. I am not talking about Obama

Your point, from reading your posts in the thread, seems to be mainly defending Obama from something or other. Maybe we should get that out of the way?

[Solon]

177. I looked at the bill, the burden of proof on the part of the Attorney General...

seems to be practically nonexistent. Indeed, the favorite term is "Reasonable belief". The only part of the bill I liked was the part about if a Judge doesn't approve the warrant, then any intelligence gathered up to that point cannot be used in a court of law or any legal proceeding as evidence.

I do not agree with the 7 day window allowed, its far too long, 24-48 hours seems more reasonable, in addition, I find the oversight capabilities of Congress to be lacking as well. Apparently there is an "out" for the AG to fail to report some of the activities in intelligence gathering because of "national security". Not to mention the fact that FISA court judges have, in the past, been basically a rubber stamp for government wiretaps. Oversight of the judges should also occur, even if its by another court.

[grantcart]

190. Those are all good points but my point is that they have nothing to do

with the particular agreement made today that received such hysterical reactions and condemnations of Obama.

The fact is that the FISA court has operated since 1978 without problem under both Democrats and Republicans until George Bush tried to rip it to shreds.

[Two Americas]

178. this is just shameful

This is shameful that you are arguing with and insulting people about this.

From the ACLU:

"Congress is poised to once again pass disastrous surveillance legislation, now upping the ante with a thinly-veiled giveaway to some major campaign donors.

"This bill allows for mass and untargeted surveillance of Americans’ communications. The court review is mere window-dressing – all the court would look at is the procedures for the year-long dragnet and not at the who, what and why of the spying. Even this superficial court review has a gaping loophole – ‘exigent’ circumstances can short cut even this perfunctory oversight since any delay in the onset of spying meets the test and by definition going to the court would cause at least a minimal pause. Worse yet, if the court denies an order for any reason, the government is allowed to continue surveillance throughout the appeals process, thereby rendering the role of the judiciary meaningless. In the end, there is no one to answer to; a court review without power is no court review at all."

"The Hoyer/Bush surveillance deal was clearly written with the telephone companies and internet providers at the table and for their benefit. They wanted immunity, and this bill gives it to them.

"The telecom companies simply have to produce a piece of paper we already know exists, resulting in immediate dismissal. That’s not accountability. Loopholes and judicial theater don’t do our Fourth Amendment rights justice. In the end, this is politics. This bill does nothing to keep Americans safe and is a constitutional farce.

"The process by which this deal has come about has been as secretive as the warrantless wiretapping program it is seeking to legitimize. While members and organizations who would seek to fiercely protect the civil liberties of Americans have been denied a seat at the table, one wonders how present the powerful telecom lobby has been.

"Leadership should be leading to protect the Constitution, not bowing to pressure from Republicans, the White House, and the telecommunications companies.

"The ACLU is asking Congress, as the final minutes tick by, to stand up and do the right thing."

[grantcart]

183. if that is your opinion then that is fine but what you have quoted is a critique of the entire bill

not the compromise on telecom retroactive immunity.

The ACLU doesn't want the bill passed with the compromise or without it.

The compromise that people are hysterical about has nothing to do with electronic surveillance what so ever.

[Two Americas]

243. understood

I can't speak for others.

[hardtoport]

193. I stand with the ACLU on this one, too.

And with all due respect to the original poster, I find it somewhat stifling to what could be a productive debate when you act as though those who disagree with you have no understanding of the bill or have not read the thread. I will give you credit for not tossing out " Don't you fucking read? ", which seems to be a common debate tool on this board.

Just because people express disappointment in Obama doesn't mean they aren't going to vote for him, or that they're threatening to vote McCain. You're asking for space for Obama. That's cool. Then why don't you give those who are angry about this some space. I'll still vote Obama, but first I am going to express my displeasure with him in an e-mail to his campaign. I have tossed my coin into the Democratic Party and Mr. Obama's coffers just the same way Verizon and AT&T have for the last several months, so I think I should also be allowed to toss in my two cents' worth if it's all the same to the blogosphere.


I think I'm adult enough to be spared the admonition " It's election time politics, Duh! " I've seen a few elections in my day. No, I don't expect him to be pure and yes, I do expect to be disappointed at times. What I don't expect is for him to say " We're not going to let the Republicans play the fear card. Not this time. " only to turn around and let them play the fear card this time. I agree with you that the American public on the whole doesn't do nuance. But Obama has been running on the premise that the America people are too smart to be fooled again by the one-trick pony GOP. He walked that talk on the gas tax issue and won. He is going to have to continue with the strategy of cutting through the GOP bullshit with nuance because the GOP are going to keep hammering him on the terrorism thing whether he gives them ammo or not.

[grantcart]

201. Yours is a very responsible and mature response and we are in fact in agreement

the fact is that there were many threads today in which people did say that they were in fact finished with obama, or that they were going to "keep his feet on the fire" etc.

There were also many threads that stated outright that Speaker Pelosi is criminally involved, had been blackmailed, bribed, extorted.

There are responses in this thread that calls Obama a coward.

This for a man that has put his family and himself at considerable risk.

He has also taken a number of steps unilaterally that the ACLU would be delighted with - for example the declaration that he would review every single signing statement that Bush has made.

He cannot deal with this unilaterally - yet. Of course when he is President he will have executive control over the agencies that were the real problem makers - after all it was the security agencies that went to the telecom companies not the other way around.

As I said before I don't think the lawsuits are the answer I would have preferred a nice fat fine going to government treasury.

I think you will find that there are many people that I have given extended answers to in the thread but there is one or two that I have a history with that simply like to spam a thread with dozens of replies undermining serious discussion.

Had I known that this thread was going to attract any interest I would have organized it more thoroughly, prepared the citations with more authority, kept the arguments tighter but the conclusion would be the same. Obama is our leader, he is a good man well qualified let's let him lead and not be so hysterical,

thanks for your comment.

[MNBrewer]

257. "unilaterally"?

You make it seem that his statement that he would review every Bush signing statement is some courageous, controversial stand.

[hokies4ever]

204. As Ron Paul says:

The Republicans want to increase military spending, the Democrats want to increase domestic spending, so they compromise and increase both. :rofl:

[davidpdx]

207. Grant, well put

each of us is not always going to agree with Obama everytime he votes, but he will (and has been) honest with us about what he intends to do. If people disagree, then they should email his office as well as the campaign. Sitting on your ass and bitching about it gets people nowhere.

Also I'd like to point out that NO VOTE HAS TAKEN PLACE YET. We don't know what may or may not be proposed in the US Senate once it comes to the floor.

[roseBudd]

208. Before November we have to pick our battles carefully, politics IS a chess game...

I want a checkmate in January.

[quaker bill]

210. you make several good points

allow me to add one or two more:

First, there are dozens, if not hundreds of incidents over the last 7.5 years that have proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that what the laws and the Constitution state are but trite irrelevancies to this administration. Indeed, if anything else were the case, this entire issue would never have arisen. To the extent that this bill in any measure gets the administration to subject its whim to even limited oversight, it is a step in the right direction. There is no good experience based reason to believe that they will comply with any of it anyway.

The only tenable reason I find for carrying on against the telecoms is to gather more evidence of an additional impeachable offense by the Bush Administration. While there is a simple joy and intellectual satisfaction in such efforts, we already have enough evidence to impeach if we were ever going to do it. If lying the country into a war is insufficient, nothing they might have done with the telecoms will change the ultimate result. Bush will serve his full term and leave office on January 20, 2009.

I think you are correct. A decision was made that the party simply does not want this issue on the table for November 4. Passing a different bill would be ineffective, because Bush would either veto it and leave the issue on the table, or sign it and then refuse to comply with it.

If change is what we seek, we need to win the election. There is no reason why, with control of the Whitehouse and large majorities in the House and Senate, this issue could not be revisited and substantially revised, sometime next spring. With victory, many things are possible and entirely likely, without it, nothing about this will change at all.

True and effective reform is will only be accomplished after victory and inauguration day.

[skepticscott]

212. The real Constitutional issue here

is whether the president (or any part of the executive branch) has the power to decide whether laws passed by Congress really need to be obeyed, whether and when he can suspend the law based on his own judgment, and whether someone he orders to violate the law can do so with impunity. By allowing this legislation to pass so easily, the Democrats in Congress have failed to hold Bush's feet to the fire on this issue and have once again neglected their duty to defend the Constitutional principle of separation of powers. Not only did they fail to block this legislation (which they could easily have done), but they took steps to ram it through with as little scrutiny as possible, a scam right out of the Republican playbook. We can only hope that the Senate will display more sense and courage when it's their turn to consider it, but I'm not holding my breath.

And sorry, but the argument that if this bill didn't pass and there were another terrorist attack in the wake of it, the Democrats would be badly damaged just doesn't hold water. Any terrorist attack that occurred between now and November would have to have been planned long before and could not possibly have been enabled by this legislation. In such a case, it would be the Democrats who could claim that, despite having all the tools and suspensions of civil rights that they wanted, the Republicans are STILL not able to protect the country from our enemies, and that the war in Iraq in not serving to prevent domestic terrorist attacks. (I know, that assumes that there's someone in Congress with the balls to make that argument...call me a giddy optimist.) Nor does the "we'll get tough after the election" puffery hold much weight. For members of the House, there's always another election coming up, and we've heard that same refrain too many times to keep swallowing it. If doing the right thing never cost you, everyone would do it all the time. The true test of someone's principles is whether they stick to them even when it is not necessarily to their personal advantage to do so.

[tomp]

213. what a fucking apologist! nt (just not worth it)

[ekwhite]

214. K&R

If you want this kind of crap to stop, you have to get a Democratic president in office.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

230. that is the idea so we had all better get behind Obama

[windoe]

215. I agree, to support Obama and get Democrats in office

and that we will have to be patient for change, it will not happen overnight. I also agree our reality is different than what it looks like from the inside. Things have gotten so corrupt that deals are going to have to be made in order to make a smooth transition into the next administration.

But once again we are being asked to put all our trust in them without having any right to participate in the process, or really having a clear idea of what is going on, we have to speculate all over the place.
I reserve hope, but I also think that being prepared and aware of the actual implications of where this country is right now legally and ideologically is not hysteria, it is vigilance. There is a big difference between venting online (it is probably the best safety valve) and heading out the door with torches and pitchforks.

But they better watch themselves, it is to their own detriment if they do not gain public trust soon. The way to do it is to communicate in real language and not convoluted legalese so everyone understands. Obama is good at that but he is not in office yet, Bush still sits. They have lost our trust, and must earn it back!

[I hate liars]

216. You might be right, but there's a big catch...

If the Dems caved on the FISA bill to inoculate themselves against a terrorist attack between now and the election, they are also, de facto, supporting the police state policies of George Bush.

Not only is that anathema to most of us here (they will lose some part of the liberal voting block over this), it establishes a position that will take lots of energy and "political capital" to undo, once the new President and Congress take office. How likely is it that they will act quickly and forcefully to undo this law, then? Not very, IMO.

OTOH, if inoculation *is* the real motive for the Dems, that strongly suggests that they believe that the Administration not only could but would cause or allow a terrorist attack to occur, since it's crystal clear that FISA already allows interception of communications of any sort, without exception.

[Jefferson23]

220. I have been an Obama supporter for some time now, after Kucinich had no chance

I will vote and support Obama no matter what BUT I will NOT pretend that this sucks nor will I cut him slack. Quite the contrary, I e-mail and complain big time, if we don't demand as much as possible from whoever is representing us you end up with is mediocrity. He should always be receiving a clear message from his constituents.

[grantcart]

236. And that is a fair response - but lets put this into context

Obama has also taken many many strong positions on similar issues including closing Guantanamo and reviewing all of Bush's signing statments it seems to me that he has earned some trust and room to manuever.

[HousePainter]

253. Grantcart, Thank you for your patience and clarity

Hopefully some of what you have repeated over and over will make our fellow DUers see that this is a journey with many steps not all of which can be in a straight rigid line.

What you say about Obama is true. He is the most inspiring Presidential candidate (with a real chance of winning) that I have seen in my 55 years.

Let's hope we don't blow it, because the realistic alternative is unacceptable.

[ooglymoogly]

223. so much for bullshit and pug talking points.

I think for the shaping of my thoughts I will defer to Johnathan Turley who truly understands the damage of this legislation to our constitution and liberties and who has said as much.

[frogcycle]

224. the voice of reason

all too rare.

An additional nuance was suggested on Countdown - the immunity from lawsuits is all well and good - may protect them from expenses and prohibit some people from making money - but it does not give them immunity from criminal charges. That is more important in the long run.

It has been argued that the real resistance has been that lawsuits would enable discovery which would expose criminal activity. Well, maybe that avenue gets cut off, but maybe they can be exposed by more direct avenues once the criminal conspiracy running the country is replaced.

[rosesaylavee]

225. Well stated.

There are no alternatives to President Obama. We vote for him or face the guaranteed downfall of our country and the further distruction of the planet.

We will not agree with him on every single issue. Reasonable people understand this.

[Laurab]

226. K&R n/t

[JackDragna]

227. You're living in a dream world.

Did you even read your own post? "Should there be another terrorist attack.." Is this what democracy has been reduced to? Capitulating to monsters for fear of what the public will do? Whatever happened to standing one's ground for what's right? It has been such concessions to political expediency that have already shredded our civil rights. Now we do the same for the telcos?

As for your assertion that Obama has an abiding interest in changing Washington, I seriously doubt your claim. This is a man who came out in favor of NAFTA, for God's sake. This is a man who has little interest in doing anything substantive for the average American, both in terms of economic policy or restoring constitutional safeguards.

[iamjoy]

228. Sorry, No Excuse.

to me, saying

The reason is much simpler. Should there be another terrorist incident between now and November and this bill was not passed then the Republicans would very likely be able to completely change the existing public sentiment and effect the results of the General Election. This, I believe, is why the Democratic Leadership decided it was better to take the issue off the table now and address it again after the election.

Well, that's why so many Democrats voted for the Iraq War Resolution. And progressives have lambasted them for it, in many cases never forgave them for it. Now Obama is our nominee and we would like to believe he has some political courage, because, after all, he was smart enough to oppose the Iraq War. Now we realize that it may have been smart, but Obama can't claim the political courage high ground.

"You all need some therapy, because somebody came along and said liberal
means soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on communism, soft on defense and
we're going to tax you back to the stone age because people shouldn't have
to go to work if they don't want to.

And instead of saying 'Well excuse me you right wing, reactionary, xenophobic,
homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, leave it to beaver trip back to the fifties,'
we cowered in the corner and said, 'Please, don't hurt me.' "

But don't worry, I will still help get Obama elected because I'm okay with the fact that no politician is perfect, or is going to agree with me all the time. I'm even okay with voting for the lessor of two evils. Let me tell you something, go for Scylla and it may take six of your crew, but vote Charybdis and you lose your whole ship.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

231. Congress needs to now go back to the drawing board

and think this whole situation through. I'm sure many of them don't understand the complicated legislation. A lot more research is required. Also our intelligence agencies need a facelift in the meantime.

[ooglymoogly]

234. Yes Fitzgerald to head FBeye, Gen clark to head military intel

Wilson to head CeyeA and all shaken till the family jewels fall our of their vaults.

[meowomon]

235. We can't always get 100%

There has to be a few compromises. But no retroactive immunity for the Bush/Cheney Thugs. Ever.

[BeatleBoot]

240. Oh, the Drama

I do declare, I may fall with the vapors at any moment!






:eyes:

[IndyOp]

242. Everything looks so simple to us at our level - ???

I agree with much of your post, particularly the part about Obama having earned some space, some benefit of the doubt regarding this particular situation and how much of an effect he can have at this point in time.

I strongly disagree with your general statement that "Everything looks so simple to us at our level." Why do I disagree?

It frames us as people who are "less than" those working in the Senate or Congress. They are experts and we need to trust them. No - we are their watchdogs and we need to not trust them, to require that they fully explain why they are doing what they are doing and critique them as strongly as is appropriate.

We've seen what happens when we conclude that THEY must have special information or special insight that we don't have --- the Iraq War & Occupation and the deaths of 1.2 million Iraqis and thousands of U.S. citizens.

It is entirely likely that some members of Congress are doing this to protect themselves from legal jeopardy. I stand with Bobby Kennedy, Jr. when he says that 100% of Republicans and 75% of Democrats are corrupt. Don't disrespect people who are willing to look at their representatives from an appropriately doubting perspective.

[mythyc]

245. kicking this fine analysis

I got a lot of respect for your perspective here at DU Grant...

:kick:

[readmoreoften]

250. I'll go with ACLU over someone who writes something that simply "sounds reasonable"

Back it up with links or I'm taking the opinions of legal professionals on this one, no matter how "hysterical" the professionals sound.

[grantcart]

254. as opposed to going with Senator Obama who doesn't have any

constitutional expertise at all

good thinking


and while I love the ACLU running on their platform will net us 8 states.

[momto3]

251. Very well said. Thank you.

When we are so quick to butcher our own, who needs repubs? I realize that I will prbably not agree with all of his decisions, but I also realize that he may know more about this matter than I do.

Peace.

[populistdriven]

258. McCain didn't love America, until he was tortured into it. There are no atheists in foxholes either

Its the general election stupid, lets save these battles for after he is in the WH

[skepticscott]

259. For all the people who K&Red this post

and all the others who swallowed the arguments of the OP without question, you owe it to yourselves to read another take on it:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/21/obama/

[OwnedByFerrets]

260. Grant, you've been very good about answering

your critics. I would like to know if you will give your thoughts on this:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=174804

I may be wrong, but doesn't this raise the "constitutional" issue of your argument? Since this was taken out, Monkeyboy has the ability to attack Iran without the approval of congress.
And since it "was" taken out, should there not be a NO vote, if for nothing else than this?

www.wearableartnow.com

[grantcart]

262. Thanks for your input

I hadn't really expected much of a response so it was just a quick post.

Had I known that it was going to get such a rise I think I could have written a better one.

The reason that I am willing to make short term concessions on some other issues is because I am absolutely convinced that an attack on Iran is imminent, and if McCain gets elected it is absolutely inevitable.

The reason that I believe this has to do with my experience with Iranian refugees back in 1980-1982.

Very much like Ahmadinejad they would say very provocative things and cause totally unnecessary conflict.

The reason? I finally asked them and I was told two things - provocative debating is a basic part of the culture and goes back to even buying chicken at the market, and the second is that Iran wants to be attacked - they are begging for it.

Let's go back a little bit to the earlier part of the year when Israel bombed an industrial complex in Syria. There was no reaction from the Syrians - they were caught with a North Korean reactor being installed - the NK admitted it.

Now we have a prolonged provocation from the Iranians why?

What has a hostile environment done for the Iranians?

Why do they continue to provoke?

What is their real agenda?

It serves a lot of purposes; helps an unpopular regime enhance its control, helps them increase their sphere of influence with Hamas and with some (and only some) of the Shia in Iraq.

But the most important reason is that even a simple airstrike will have a very dramatic increase in gas prices. It will make them even richer. They need the money because Ahmadenijad was elected on a "share the wealth" program and he is spending it too fast and the economy is having major problems especially in the rural areas.

If he can provoke the Americans or the Israelis into an attack it will drive the price of a barrel of petroleum to well over $ 200 per barrel. If the nuclear construction doesn't do the trick then they will try and provke Bush by helping radicals kill Americans in Iraq.

So everything must be done to stop the Administration on Iran. I don't know what or why was done in the article and you always wish that you could hear from Pelosi when you read an article like this. The reason that I am willing to take some short term detours on other issues is that I believe that it is absolutely critical that Senator Obama is sworn in as President because of his very calm approach and his willingness to launch aggressive diplomatic initiatives.

Here is today's update from Rueter's indicating that Iran is indeed proceeding with provocative language

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2130845620080621?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran is pressing on with uranium enrichment "non-stop", its envoy to the U.N. nuclear agency was quoted as saying on Saturday, despite a world powers' offer of economic incentives to coax Tehran into halting such activities.

The Islamic Republic also appeared to dismiss any suggestion of limiting nuclear work it says is for generating electricity but which the West suspects is aimed at making bombs.

Six major powers, including the United States, last week offered Iran help in developing a civilian nuclear program and other benefits in their latest attempt to resolve a long-running dispute that has helped pushed oil prices to record highs.

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator said Tehran was ready to start negotiations "based on a win-win principle", official media said. Saeed Jalili was also quoted as saying such talks represented a "golden opportunity" to strengthen peace.

and here is ElBaradei's comments today warning of a massive conglauration if Iran was attacked and that he would resign immediately if anybody launched a military strike on Iran. I find it interesting that he was not particularly upset - and no one else was either with the earlier Israeli attack on Syria.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/21/israelandthepalestinians.iran1

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, responded to the news by saying an attack would turn the region into a "fireball" adding that he would resign if there were a military strike.

Both the US and Israel have said they will not allow Iran to secure a nuclear weapon capability. Iran says its nuclear development is for civilian purposes and it has no ambition to build a bomb.

The leak could be designed to put pressure on Iran - but it may be counterproductive, pushing Tehran into rejection. Two days after the offer, while George Bush was visiting London, Gordon Brown announced tougher financial sanctions against Iran.

There has long been speculation that Bush, prodded by Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, might launch an attack - or give the green light to Israel to launch one - before leaving office next January. But that speculation is receding.

The Israeli military refused to comment on the exercise but said its air force "regularly trains for various missions in order to confront and meet the challenges posed by the threats facing Israel".

Although Israel says it favours tougher sanctions to curb Iranian nuclear ambitions, it has pointedly not ruled out military action.

This week, Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, repeated his warning that Iran remained the biggest threat in the region. "I don't think we deserve to live under the threat of a nuclear Iran," he said in an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald published on Thursday.

Shaul Mofaz, a deputy prime minister and former army chief, provoked criticism this month when he told an Israeli newspaper that an attack was unavoidable. "If Iran continues its programme to develop nuclear weapons we will attack it," said Mofaz, who is in charge of Israel's strategic dialogue with the US over such issues as Iran.

Everything must be done to ensure that neither Israel or the United States launch an airstrike on Iran. I don't know which legislation is the best vehicle for that but it is critical.

[OwnedByFerrets]

264. Thank you for your well thought out and

insightful reply. Having nothing but "gut" feeling and past president to go on, there is NOTHING anyone can do if Monkeyboy(cheny) decides to attack Iran. Leaving that wording in, or reattaching it, would at least make it illegal. Thanks again.