Telecom Amnesty Foes On the Move 363
ya really notes a blog posting up at Wired reporting that foes of the Telecom Amnesty Bill have mounted a campaign on Barack Obama's own website. Though the group was created only days ago, on June 25, it has grown to be the fifth largest among 7,000 such groups, just short of Women for Obama. Although it is widely known that Obama changed his stance from opposing telecom immunity to supporting it, many have not given up hope of getting him to switch once again. Meanwhile, left-leaning bloggers and libertarian activists have joined forces to raise $325,000 in the fight against the legislation. "Their Blue America PAC is already targeting House Democrats who voted for the bill, including placing a full-page ad in the Washington Post [an image appears in the Wired story] slamming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who claimed credit for creating the so-called compromise bill. The coalition plans to follow-up with a Ron Paul-style money bomb, which will be used to target key Senators..."
Re:Widely Known (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, because he has not said or done anything in support of telecom amnesty. Disappointing people by not taking an active role in the fight is not the same as supporting something.
John Lennon (Score:4, Informative)
This is what happens when someone promises intangible things and bases their entire campaign upon promising 'change' and 'hope,'
John Lennon nailed it:
Re:Barack Obama (Score:1, Informative)
I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill. Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend. No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed. That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd's amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens â" and set an example to the world â" that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient. A grassroots movement of Americans has pushed this issue to the forefront. You have come together across this country. You have called upon our leaders to adhere to the Constitution. You have sent a message to the halls of power that the American people will not permit the abuse of power â" and demanded that we reclaim our core values by restoring the rule of law. It's time for Washington to hear your voices, and to act. I share your commitment to this cause, and will stand with you in the fights to come. And when I am President, the American people will once again be able to trust that their government will stand for justice, and will defend the liberties that we hold so dear as vigorously as we defend our security.
So while you say all he promises are hope and change he actually does take positions on these things. Imagine what you can discover when you do the slightest bit of research. It's his seeming shift to the middle and abandonment of this statement that has people pissed. Not that we misunderstood what he was talking about.
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks to this man I will never believe again, and I will vote republican across the board, even as a staunch progressive libertarian, until the democrats wake from their sleep.
And yet, looking through your previous postings, it is obvious that you ARE a republican, not a libertarian. Nice move. You are worthy of working with W or Rove.
More information about the myBO campaign (Score:5, Informative)
Re:About time (Score:5, Informative)
you may have noticed that every House member from Illinois voted against Fisa the other week. Even the Republican, Johnson. He was, in fact, the only Republican to vote against.
Re:I don't get why people are upset with Obama... (Score:3, Informative)
At the expense of the people who feel he won't be "tough on crime."
Nothing except the law that he's about to vote for, which will make it so that his AG can't even bring that cases to court.
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:3, Informative)
Any party that gets 5% of the vote gets federal funding and is likely to be in the debates.
BS. Ron Paul got higher than 5% and his existence was barely acknowledged.
That isn't going to stop me from voting for a third party this time around, but I'm not kidding myself about what my vote will change.
Re:Barack Obama (Score:2, Informative)
I'm really surprised you were modded insightful. The only gov't system without taxation is anarchism and that's just not feasible, no matter how much you rant against "liberals".
Re:Widely Known (Score:3, Informative)
He flip-flopped and is exactly what the summary says. Did I miss something?
Yes. The summary says "supports telecom amnesty", which is (at best) an exaggeration. The spin makes things sound more like maliciousness than ambivalence or incompetence. (I don't like his lack of backbone on this issue, but it's 'just' a lack of backbone, i.e. it's not like he would start campaigning in support of telecom amnesty.)
Re:Barack Obama (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:4, Informative)
It's not factually wrong; it's just... selectively reflective of the truth.
The FISA bill allows warrantless wiretapping of international calls made by American citizens only under emergency protocols. It allows warrantless wiretapping of folks who aren't American citizens pretty much indiscriminately. That certainly does make the large-scale warrantless wiretapping of communications by American citizens which has allegedly occurred under Bush (we can't tell, of course, because the courts are being blocked from investigating the matter in the name of national security... which I certainly agree is bogus) thoroughly illegal on an ongoing basis.
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:4, Informative)
Assuming he doesn't already.
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:3, Informative)
Carter pardoned Nixon before he was ever charged with any crimes.
That would be Ford you're thinking of.
Poppa Bush pardoned 6 people involved with Iran Contra, 1 conviction, 3 guilty pleas, and 2 pending cases.
To quote the US Constitution, the President shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States. It's not at all clear that he can pardon someone who has not been legally found to have committed an offense (that is, pled or been found guilty), someone for whom one can not specify their name and the precise offense they have committed. Yes, it's happened, and nobody cared enough to pursue the matter. Maybe we'll get that clarified after next January.
Or maybe Shrub could get them all individually indicted for every crime they might have committed. Wow, would that fill the news with stories about criminals in government. Then have them plead guilty. Which would monopolize the news again. And then pardon them, yet a third great news day about the crimes committed by or at the behest of government.
Of course, they'd have to trust Bush to carry through with his end of the pardon. Do you suppose they'd trust Bush significantly more than you or I would?
Leave the telcos alone... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:3, Informative)
This is true today (in the west) but it was not true when I was growing up in the 60's and tobacoo companies were actively breeding plants for higher nicotine content. Even in the 80's tobacoo companies were still putting out "scientific research" showing smoking was harmless and non-addictive.
In other words tobacco companies hid the truth from people for decades and actively spread propoganda and misinformation to discredit any scientist who disputed them.