Obama Losing Voters Over FISA Support 1489
Corrupt writes "I've admired Obama, but I never confused him with a genuine progressive leader. Today I don't admire him at all. His collapse on FISA is unforgivable. The only thing Obama has going for him this week is that McCain is matching him misstep for misstep."
Good time... (Score:1, Interesting)
not to be in the US. What's it gonna take guys? When you just going to leave, or revolt, or something? You think your votes are actually counted? What about all those scandals with the electronic voting mechanisms? And the Florida scandals? GTFO.
When you stop supporting the lesser of two evils, (Score:4, Interesting)
the greater of two evils starts winning. If everyone always voted for the lesser of two evils instead of holding themselves politics, the evils would diminish instead of grow.
He lost a $1K donation from me (Score:5, Interesting)
It went to the ACLU instead.
I've left the Democratic Party and I won't vote for Obama any longer. Both parties are completely irresponsible and don't deserve any support. Further, I'd support general strikes and mass protests to demand our supposed "inalienable rights" back. They've been alienated from me, a citizen, and I'm pissed off about that.
Re:Who supports FISA? (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently so. Every time I see this discussed online, there are people who say things like "the telecoms shouldn't be punished for doing as the government asked", ignoring the illegality, that Qwest didn't go along, etc.
You show your disappointment (Score:1, Interesting)
By signing this open letter: Open letter on getfisaright [getfisaright.com]
The group that's doing it is pretty cool. Just a bunch of folks who self-organized on Obama's own social networking site.
I am a libertarian (Score:5, Interesting)
However, after his vote on FISA, I have decided to throw my vote to Bob Barr, whereas I was previously planning on voting for Obama.
I hope others who were planning on voting for Obama decide to do the same.
The political culture in this country scares me, and I am very afraid of where we are headed. It is a shame to see the Constitution mocked like this. The only hope I have left is in the judicial system which I hope has the balls to stand up to the power grab and strike it down as unconstitutional.
Re:Bills (Score:5, Interesting)
the only 'tools on terror' are the blooded ones that can't seem to read or comprehend history.
there is NOTHING that wiretapping will do to prevent those that hate us from doing damage to us. any 'terr-a-wrist' worth his salt is already using subchannels, hidden info in plain sight (steganography) or just regular old pedestrian encryption.
at this point, the door locks only keep honest people out. and tracking honest people is NOT going to bank you any 'terr-a-wrists'. its only going to harm the freedom base of the people you are TRYING TO PROTECT.
the logic is flawed: "we must vote for this or we lose the WHOLE bill". yeah, so? then lose the whole friggin bill, then! this all-or-nothing shit is bad for us and always has been. justifying that we need SOME 'tools' is just ignorant when the tools you are using have NOTHING to do with what you are advertising them as. same as using a garden hose to solder circuit boards. yes, a hose is a tool, but it won't do any good in soldering. wiretapping won't catch a single 'bad guy' but it sure will ruin what we had left of our right to free speech.
we don't even have to wait a generation to see the chilling effects. already, everyone I know is CAREFUL about what they write online (or their e-journals), what they say over the phone and even what photos they take and publish. if that's not a chilling-effect in operation, I don't know what is.
roll back the WHOLE notion of wiretapping. its not useful, its intrusive and its too abusable against non-criminals (ie, us!). the 'benefit' is not clear and the abuse is all too clear. this 'tool' should be destroyed and never used again. yes, I'm really serious - the right to free speech is near to the right to breathe air and drink water. it should be considered HOLY and not fucked with. kill our ability to communicate freely and we are not a free society anymore.
Re:Democratic Party (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bills (Score:4, Interesting)
And nothing would have been the right move. Obama caved in on this topic and it's just as evil and just as stinky as what his opponent has done.
If you're going to use altruism and idealism as "values", then you have to stick by them. That's what Obama sold me, and now he's taken them back. Now he's the lesser of two evils. That sucks.
Re:Who supports FISA? (Score:3, Interesting)
1. National security is the realm of the Commander-in-Chief - NOT congress, and broad military issues should be left with strong leadership, not with bureaucracy. We don't need warrants against spies and those doing war against us.
2. International terrorism is primarily a military - NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT - matter. Its roots are in a conflict against governments and people as a whole, not against individuals, thus putting it in the realm of the military.
3. Communications of internationals, like it or not, are NOT covered by the US Constitution. Anything that travels across borders has ALWAYS been an open book to ALL countries. Most/all communications travel in this manner now...even when one international calls another, it can travel through US systems. We DON'T need a warrant to listen to that.
All this being said, we DON'T need to be listening to people who aren't on watch lists and the like. However, the military needs to do its job with as few roadblocks as possible.
We also need to protect US citizens' rights as guaranteed by the Constitution when they are not - nor intending to commit - acts of terrorism (or crimes, for that matter). We were dealing with a weird red-tape issue, and an administration that may have taken a step or two too far - allegedly, may I remind everyone, because we really don't know who they were or weren't listening to - in their zeal to fight terrorism. We forget that the current administration can have one of two interpretations - the whole "blood for oil" argument, but there are also MANY actions of this administration which have been zealously adamant about defending from international terrorism, with many mistakes, big and small, made along the way to achieve that goal.
Sorry, bit of a rant and rather a rough draft, but I wanted it to be said...
Re:Good time... (Score:5, Interesting)
not to be in the US.
Oh, please. Australia banning Fallout 3, Canadian judge overruling a parent's normal punishment, and Britain is officially insane.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/11/america/hate.php [iht.com]
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=6aaf855a-47e3-4e3f-8709-5b53dcfffff0 [canada.com]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2008/06/25/noindex/nbaby.xml [telegraph.co.uk]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2008/06/25/noindex/nchild.xml [telegraph.co.uk]
I'll stick with the imperfect USA.
Canada, being so close to the US, still appears to have a little sense:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080628/steyn_commission_080628/20080628?hub=TopStories [www.ctv.ca]
Re:Good time... (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, you may have been modded a troll, but you are right.
When are people going to stand up? When will they turn off American Idol and actually look at what's going on?
I have a feeling this won't happen anytime soon. A lot of the major news network won't cover the story, or will spin it to make American's think they are safer.
Most American's won't do any kind of real research on there own like through the internet, they expect to be hand feed the information over TV, and in this day and age, important information like this will never come across the news networks.
I think if American's knew what was going on behind the scenes, they would stand up, but it's getting people more involved and more informed.
Also any mod points I might have gotten will be surly brought back down after this next statement....
Yeah I tend to agree that I don't think our votes count. I'm sure there is plenty that goes on behind the scenes to ensure the proper person get's into office.
It's sad to think about....but what can we do? Writing senators all day doesn't seem to do the trick. (Obviously)
Re:Who supports FISA? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Bills (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that, unlike many state legislatures, the US Congress has no rule (nor will it ever) against adding riders on bills that are not related to the main proposal. Additionally, there's only so much time to actually legislate during a session, so mashing bills together is pretty necessary.
It's not an ideal system, but running the federal government more or less requires it.
Also, I think there should be some sort of phrase that describes invoking Ron Paul, sort of like Godwin's Law.
No way to oppose it (Score:3, Interesting)
If he opposes it, there will just be 9 million attack ads about how he "supports terrorism" and he'll lose. The best strategy is to support it to win the election, and then strike it down first day in office. That's why being in politics is a crappy job... you have to support things you don't want to in order to get the job, and then when you finally have the power to fix everything, your electorate is confused as to why you're "changing".
Re:A multi-cave (Score:2, Interesting)
I should also point out that at my family gathering this weekend average blue collar americans don't like his middle name. Like really hate his middle name. They hate George with a passion, but having a middle name of Hussein is something they are having a hard time with. There are a lot more of those than there are people who know what FISA is.
Re:Good time... (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a feeling this won't happen anytime soon. A lot of the major news network won't cover the story, or will spin it to make American's think they are safer.
looking at CNN yesterday, it wasn't even on the front web page! that bitch, jon benet (who the fuck cares, at this point, btw?) got the front page. but OUR FREEDOMS, no, not front page material.
CNN is not much better than faux news. we have been sold out in almost every way imaginable; by our lawmakers, by our reporters, by our consuming public.
I think I believe in evolution; but I KNOW I believe in DE-evolution. I'm seeing it right now, in real life.
Re:Lesser evil (Score:3, Interesting)
Except we don't always vote for the lesser evil, and haven't in the past two elections, and are suffering for it.
If we continually vote for the less evil candidate, the other candidates will become less evil to try and get votes.
This is how system works, for better or worse, by slogging through the trenches.
If Obama isn't elected, far worse will occur in terms of civil liberties than if he wins. Obama has a chance to be real progressive in office, even if he plays it safe during the election months. McCain will just pardon the Bush administration and stay in Iraq for 100 years etc.
I mean, if you say Obama's lost your vote because of this, then you're being selfish, because the sad truth is that he's still the best feasible option. We need to consolidate our power or we'll never get anything accomplished.
Getting offended by things like this are also why the democrats always fail. Politicians can not be idealists. Write an angry letter, but get over it.
Obama the big fat liar (Score:1, Interesting)
centrist (Score:5, Interesting)
McCain likely has 10-15 states because he is conservative, older, and his opponent is not white. Obama might have 5-10. Therefore Oboma has to reassure the people by making them aware that he was born inside the contiguous united states, in fact the heartland, unlike his opponent, and he will not shake things up too much.
Which means allowing this miserable fiasco to continue, at least for a while, and not waste too much time looking back. The republicans can waste billions of dollars on impeachments, et al, beacause they have the support of the people who live on beliefs, not facts. And this is where the issue is.
George Bush was elected on a platform of Christianity, that he had been saved by the power of Jesus. People trust him. He is not too smart, and, like the populous, often works from beliefs rather than facts. So he was elected instead of Gore, who is more of a let's explore the possibilities type of guy, even if the possibilities do not come to fruition, it was fun talking about them. But that is too complex and too easy to attack. In any case, many people trust Bush and think that anything he does is ok.
More importantly, many people believe that foreign terrorists are the danger, or at least non-christrian terrorist, and specifically every Mosque in the world is base for attack on the US, which makes Mosques on US soil an issue. Many people trust Bush to do anything to fight against these threats, and protect the American Way of Life. In fact, the only reason Bush is having trouble now is that he has failed to protect our way of life, we are now forced to buy small cars, and the weak dollar means that we can no longer be so arrogant. But that does not mean Bush is not the most moral man in the country, and what he does comes from a good place.
So Obama voted for an act that in the scheme of things is probably no worse that anything else Bush has done in his best effort to end the traditional transparency and public responsibility that should characterize a democratically elected government. He did this as insurance against a Bush style ad in which is is implied that black men should be kept in prison indefinitely [wikipedia.org], because giving them a second chance at rehabilitation is too dangerous. He did this as insurance against the late Jesse Helms type ad, in which it is implied that if a black man has power, no white will be able to get a job [youtube.com].
At the end of the day Obama is unlikely to be any more or less moral than any other president. I like him because, unlike many in the US, I like to have leaders who are intelligent and can think and articulate their own thoughts so the rest of the world does not think we are all uneducated bigoted red necks who run to our churches at the first sign of trouble, or at least to our guns.
Re:Lesser evil (Score:3, Interesting)
If Obama isn't elected, far worse will occur in terms of civil liberties than if he wins.
Are you sure?
1 - Democrats, and obama in general, tend to have a very good grasp of technology.
2 - While Republicans pillage society based on the old industrial cartels, dems do it on behalf of the entertainment cartels.
usually 1+2=3, but in this case 1+2 = "dead internet"
There is an alternative to tweedle-dee and tweedle-dee... vote for him.
Re:Bills (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Who supports FISA? (Score:5, Interesting)
While I strongly object to the telecom immunity provisions, I support the substantive amendments to FISA regarding the wiretapping provisions. Of course, I would certainly vote against the bill as-is.
The rationale for amending the substantive provisions of FISA is pretty straightforward: the original statute had a bug where purely international communications passing through the US could not be bugged on US soil without a warrant, but if you tapped the very same cable in int'l waters, it was legal. This distinction makes no sense whatsoever -- the location of the wiretapping equipment should not be relevant.
Secondly, neither the original FISA nor any other provision of law ever prohibited interception of a foreign to foreign phone call, even if the physical interception happens on US soil. That same foreign-to-foreign communication would require a warrant, however, if it was written in a email that was retrieved from storage inside the US. Again, a distinction that makes no sense -- the mode of communication ought not to be relevant.
Thirdly, the new bill still provides that a court order is necessary if a target is inside the country OR a US citizen. In fact, the old FISA did not require a warrant to target an American citizen outside the country, whereas the new bill does -- an expansion of protection for our citizens traveling abroad.
If anyone wants to show me any provision of this bill that provides for the warrant-less wiretapping of American citizens, I'd be glad to see it. Until then, that characterization is unfounded. See the analysis at Balkinization (who opposes the reforms, btw, so you can't accuse me of getting information from a friendly source!): http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/guide-to-new-fisa-bill-part-iii.html [blogspot.com]
Of course, it's utterly contemptible that Pres. Bush didn't go to Congress in 2001 and get the law fixed instead of just ignoring it. That fact, however, is strictly independent of the merits of the reforms. Simply pursuing a goal illegally (immorally and in unbelievable disregard for the rule of law) does not actually materially change the merits of the goal itself.
Re:He lost a $1K donation from me (Score:3, Interesting)
Obama thinks that FISA is now over (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Who supports FISA? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, and in the true sense of "conservative," one would want to LIMIT the power of the government.
You misunderstand "conservative". The true sense of "conservative", and the only one it should retain for political discourse to have any objective meaning whatsoever, is to avoid change. Thus it is correct to label as "conservative" those who defended absolute monarchy against its removal, and those who defended the Communist Party of the USSR against its removal, although both of those are as far from limited power as one could imagine.
And, indeed, a great deal of the positions referred to as "liberal" in current U.S. political discourse are, in fact, conservative. A misunderstanding helped not in the slightest by the universal usage of "conservative" as a synonym for "evil" by those self-identifying as "liberal". And vice versa, of course.
Limiting the power of the government is most correctly -- or at least, most understandably -- referred to these days as a "libertarian" policy. This is also referred to as "classical liberal", to distinguish the original philosophy referred to as "liberal" from its current meaning, which it seems in the vast majority of cases works out to "utterly totalitarian, but in service of ends we feel are good, namely stomping out any disparity among individuals".
Re:Who supports FISA? (Score:3, Interesting)
I support FISA, but not the amendments made this year.
I support FISA becuase it's better to be realistic about what we're going to do in a situation and have rules governing that situation, than to pretend we're going to do something different and then make up the rules as we go along.
The Fourth Amendment, if you read it carefully, doesn't actually require searches to have warrants. It requires them to be reasonable. It also requires warrants to be issued by probable cause. This doesn't mean searches without warrants are automatically unreasonable. Common sense shows there are lots of situations where the police search without warrants that are reasonable and constitutional. Nobody objects to a SWAT team entering a private building if there is a sniper there.
It's the borderline cases that we have to watch; that's where civil liberties are nibbled away.
FISA is a critical law because it defines how the border between legal and illegal will be policed. It basically says, OK do what you have to in a hot pursuit situation, but be prepared to justify your actions afterwards in a court of law. FISA, in its original form, unlike the amendments passed this year, doesn't fundamentally alter the boundary between legal and illegal searches. It creates an accountability mechanism that allows legal searches to proceed unhindered while preventing the government slipping in a few illegal searches among them without somebody noticing.
The problem with the FISA amendments is that they create a de facto shift in what is allowable, not a de jure one. It's basically a license to break the law.
Almost all the ills of democratic government come from hiding the illegitimate with the legitimate, and then obscuring the two. You take your pork barrel favors for your friends and hide them in a bill everybody needs to pass. You take your political black bag jobs and mix them in with counter-terrorism. Even the PATRIOT Act has a lot of reasonable and important provisions in it. It's just that if you want to make democracy the tool of your private interests, you never let a piece of medicine go without carrying along its share of poison.
Re:Before Everyone Goes Off the Hook on this One (Score:2, Interesting)
Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.
This right here is why I'm still voting for the guy. Yeah, I disagree with his position on this. I would certainly love to see the telecoms and Bush burned at the stake for what they did.
But throwing a tantrum because you found out Santa isn't real probably isn't the best way to go about this.
Every single person claiming 'he lost my vote' is putting us one step closer to President McCain. And I can assure you every Bush loving Republican out there is rubbing their hands in glee at that prospect.
So, do what you have to do. I guess if you truly believe Obama won't represent the majority of your beliefs, you have to vote for someone who will. But I really hope there's more of a reason than a bill that was a losing battle to begin with.
I have no doubt that some of the "he's lost my vote" folks are, in fact, clever plants by the McCain campaign to make it look like there's more dissent in the party than there actually is.
Re:He lost a $1K donation from me (Score:3, Interesting)
Barack Obama and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments [findlaw.com]
The ACLU agrees that there is no criminal immunity, and while this fact had been largely overlooked, Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson said this point had been mentioned in passing in both the House and Senate during the debate. With a little more digging, I found that the sponsors, as well as the Bush Administration, also understand that there is no immunity in the House-passed bill from criminal prosecutions for violations by anyone.
Re:Who supports FISA? (Score:3, Interesting)
Quite so!
I've been saying the same for years now, but it's finally starting to become so blatantly obvious, people are starting to agree with me who I never thought would "see the light".
(One of my former co-workers, for example, emailed me recently, commenting about the old "political debates we used to get into during happy hour get-togethers". He used to be a strong Democrat/Liberal. He said after reading Ron Paul's book and keeping up with what's going on in politics lately, he simply wishes "he kept his mouth shut" back then.)
Right now, it's almost immaterial if we get a Republican or Democrat elected. Both parties are on course to dismantle our Constitution and build an authoritarian government that co-operates more "in step" with other nations of the world.
Will we really become the "American Union", merged with Canada and Mexico? I don't know ... but big changes of a similar magnitude loom on the horizon. National ID cards? Check! Unlimited federal govt. power to spy at will? Check! Special highway to deliver goods from Mexico to Canada, non-stop, through the U.S., yet not even U.S. owned? Check! Experiments at the state level with laws designed to force citizens to spy on each other or face criminal charges? Check! (See Texas and the new requirement you hold a Private Investigator's license and Criminal Justice degree to be a COMPUTER TECH!) See still more removal of individual freedoms at the state level to bring us closer to accepting a "police state"; EG. Austin, TX now allowing officers to FORCIBLY draw blood samples from anyone suspected of a DUI. Check!
Re:Who supports FISA? (Score:4, Interesting)
1. National security is the realm of the Commander-in-Chief - NOT congress, and broad military issues should be left with strong leadership, not with bureaucracy. We don't need warrants against spies and those doing war against us.
The legislature is supposed to write laws, and the executive is supposed to enforce them. For instance, if the Congress passes a law saying that President Bush cannot torture people (such as treaties like the Geneva Conventions or the Convention Against Torture), President Bush is required to enforce that law (specifically, the War Crimes Act of 1996).
The Congress should not tell the President what to do, but rather what cannot be done. Reasonably, I think you would agree with this.
Further, I would imagine that if the administration said "so and so is a spy", a warrant would be given in short order, so I do not see a warrant as an excessive burden of proof, especially given the extensive intelligence abuses of the 50s and 60s.
2. International terrorism is primarily a military - NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT - matter. Its roots are in a conflict against governments and people as a whole, not against individuals, thus putting it in the realm of the military.
I agree with this entirely. Unfortunately, the USA PATRIOT Act removed the barrier between foreign intelligence and law enforcement, allowing evidence obtained from FISA warrants (or the lack thereof) to be used by the FBI. I think this sets a dangerous precedent whereby a future President could potentially have the FBI criminally prosecute someone for acts unrelated to terrorism that were uncovered co-incident with investigation into "terrorism".
3. Communications of internationals, like it or not, are NOT covered by the US Constitution. Anything that travels across borders has ALWAYS been an open book to ALL countries. Most/all communications travel in this manner now...even when one international calls another, it can travel through US systems. We DON'T need a warrant to listen to that.
You're exactly right, we don't need a warrant to listen in on communications between foreign entities. In fact, we never have. 50 USC Section 1802 [cornell.edu](a)(1) authorizes the Attorney General to eavesdrop on foreign-to-foreign communications without a court order.
We were dealing with a weird red-tape issue, and an administration that may have taken a step or two too far - allegedly, may I remind everyone, because we really don't know who they were or weren't listening to
Right, this is why John Ashcroft (when he was Attorney General), James Comey, and a significant amount of the top echelon of the DOJ were about to resign en masse during the Intensive Care Showdown [thinkprogress.org] on March 11, 2004.
What would make hardcore GWOT supporters threaten to resign over a program that was still not public at the time? One must wonder how horrific a violation of the law must be to motivate such dedicated followers to such extreme ends.
Re:You admire a politician? (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. I couldnt have said it better myself. I didnt like Hillary too much, but with Bill (even the evil petty Bill that seems to have resurfaced) as "co-President" I would have had much more faith on the rebuilding of this country than this frankly all-flash-no-substance Obama. Didn't the country (much less Democrats) learn anything about voting for a cult of personality? Republicans (and Naderites) did for Bush, and look how that turned out
Re:You admire a politician? (Score:5, Interesting)
As the presumptive nominee of the majority party, he should have the power to stop any legislation. If not he is the wrong guy for the job. With any pressure by Obama this bill never makes it out of committee.
Re:It's not the issue, it's the meta-issue (Score:3, Interesting)
I am not surprised either, but I had a small smidgeon of hope that simply because he was such a fresh face, he might actually give us a fresh start after all the years of the Reagan/Bush and Clinton dynasties. I want the president and Congress to be different parties just to keep Washington from doing too much damage, but a small part of me thought maybe Obama being such a fresh start would make up for that.
Now, no. I sure don't have much use for Bush Number 3, aka McCraven, but at least he would be the opposite party. With this spineless Congress, that's not much good, but it's better than nothing.
Re:It's not the issue, it's the meta-issue (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think just because you renege on a promise you are ethically challenged. For example, Bush Sr promised not to raise taxes but was forced to when needing to increase funds to pay for a war. It was a stupid promise but I think he was right to change his position when circumstances changed. Bush Jr, on the other hand, promised to cut taxes and stayed with that pledge no matter what. I think he was given every reason to legitimately change his position on this (the supposed trifecta) but never did. In this case I think the latter is much more ethically challenged than his father.
However, in Obama's case I can't think of a good reason why he should have changed his vote and almost certainly was just doing political pandering.
Take off the tinfoil hat (Score:3, Interesting)
If politics were really as bad as you make out, we'd all be slaves by now. Sure, there are problems, but for the most part, politicians of all parties are honestly doing what they think is best for the country.
Do lobbyists manipulate politicians into thinking that what is good for company or cause X is good for the country? Certainly, and that is an issue we need to address.
Is there a higher percentage of sociopaths at the highest level of politics than in the general population? I think so, but the same is true for the business world as well, and will be true in any hierarchical power structure. Is it anywhere near 100%? No.
Telecom immunity was a sideshow (Score:4, Interesting)
Obama didn't cave on FISA. He just looked at the core issues.
Take a look at http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051220-5808.html [arstechnica.com]
If we assume that article has correctly identified what was happening, the core issue becomes how to get massive, automated wiretapping under judicial control. The article states that there aren't enough judges to process all the warrants needed under the old FISA law using the new technology. So instead of fixing the law, the administration ignored it. Bush and Cheney should be impeached over this, but that isn't going to happen.
A major purpose of the telecom lawsuits was to get discovery going and find out what was happening. The investigation ordered by the new law is also supposed to do that. However, if the article is right we know what was happening. Enough was said publicly about a variety of matters for the author of the article to figure out the underlying technology.
Let's give Obama credit for focusing on the core issues and working to get them fixed. If he gave on the immunity sideshow, that's just part of the imperfection that he said was there in the compromise.
Re:centrist (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:The answer is right there (Score:4, Interesting)
Or how about actually standing up for their constituents?
I voted for Obama in the primary because his rhetoric of change really made me feel hope for the future of this country. His support for this FISA bill has thrown that hope out the window. Where before I was actively trying to persuade others to vote for Obama, I'm now trying to discourage it. I don't want McCain to win, but at the same time, someone has to have some principles somewhere along the line and I'm not giving up mine. I'm standing up for myself and not supporting Obama any longer.
Re:Lesser evil (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Bills (Score:5, Interesting)
there is NOTHING that wiretapping will do to prevent those that hate us from doing damage to us. any 'terr-a-wrist' worth his salt is already using subchannels, hidden info in plain sight (steganography) or just regular old pedestrian encryption.
Yeah, so those people in the industry (imagery analysts, linguists, cryptographers, et. al.) should just do nothing? Something tells me you have no insight to the amount of success our intelligence experts are having against the "terr-a-wrists". Do you even realize that run-of-the-mill, junior ranking enlisted soldiers are exploiting those things you say can't be exploited EVERY...SINGLE...DAY (to include your bonus word of steganography)?
My company provides a suite of tools that exploit all these supposedly amazing tricks the enemy is using, with great success. To sit back and say "nothing can be done" is defeatist and capitulatory.
Re:You admire a politician? (Score:3, Interesting)
Obama is being hammered for changing his views. Bush is hammered for NOT changing his views.
Why do you think that's inconsistent? Perhaps what matters isn't whether they change their views or not, but what those specific views are and whether or not new information warranted changing them.
Re:I admire certain politicians (Score:4, Interesting)
I have, twice. But for you, here's the list again: Dennis Kucinich. Paul Wellstone. Jimmy Carter. Nelson Mandela. Kim Campbell.
Tar away.
Re:You admire a politician? (Score:3, Interesting)
The point is that he used violence to affect political outcome. That makes him a terrorist.
That definition also makes George Washington a terrorist.
Nelson Mandela blew up government buildings under direction of the Soviet-backed African National Congress.
I don't have a major problem with blowing up government buildings during a struggle for independence. I do have a bit of a problem with groups that blow up women and children in pizzerias -- we managed to win our independence without doing it -- but I'll stand by my earlier comments regarding the balance of ones accomplishments. Do the balance of Maldela's accomplishments outweigh the negatives? Most people would say that they do.
Either way, trying to compare Obama to Nelson Mandela has got to be some sort of corollary to Godwin.
Exactly where did I compare Obama to Nelson Mandela?
Re:Bills (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, I think there should be some sort of phrase that describes invoking Ron Paul, sort of like Godwin's Law.
In a discussion where you've just discovered that the mainstream "change" candidate is willing to break his filibuster promise, the Fourth Amendment, and the Rule of Law?
I think the applicable phrase is "I told you so."
We'll have to wait for someone less gullible than me to say it, though. I voted for Obama in the primary, because at that time I believed that he meant what he was saying about civil liberties, and I decided it would be better to vote against Clinton's fearmongering than to vote for a candidate like Paul who (at that point) couldn't win. I made a mistake, and I apologize.
Re:Bills (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not an ideal system, but running the federal government more or less requires it.
Bullshit. We've got more tools and methods for information management and analysis than the framers could have dreamed of. I bet 50 random slashdotters could throw together an immensely improved system to manage the government in under a month.
We get the leadership we deserve (Score:4, Interesting)
I have never admired a politician in my life (get a life !). I have admired statesmen, but they then need to be dead 50 years or more.
I was going to vote for Obama for President this fall. Politically, I am an independent who has voted Republican a few times and Democrat fewer times. Mostly, I stay home (voting third party is meaningless in the system we have). I also think that we need to start repairing the Constitutional enforcement ASAP. Enough damage has been done over the past 40 years (when was the last time Congress declared war ?).
Here he comes along, this fellow trained in constitutional law, and I say, ok, maybe I will give him a chance. Voted for him in the New Hampshire primary. Was happy when he finally put the Clinton machine to bed and started the campaign. I do not buy for a moment that he has been tacking to the center. He has long been a supporter of faith based initiative (his career as a community organizer was nothing but a faith based initiative). I have concerns about separation of religion and state, but with sensible safeguards like hiring constraints etc., those issues can be dealt with. His position on guns has changed but it does not matter either way for me. The second amendment is safe and since I do not own a handgun, I admit I do not follow this issue very closely.
However, the fourth amendment is perhaps the second most amendment (after the first amendment) in our country. It (used to) places restrictions on unreasonable search and seizure by the government. It has become more and more toothless and yesterday, it was effectively carved out of the constitution by legislators who had no legal right to do so (changing the constitution in such fundamental ways requires a constitutional amendment - but who has the time these days for the people to actually express their opinion - like Gonzalez is supposed to have said about something related, this is so "quaint"). In the modern world (just look at the farce playing out in Europe with the countries bold enough to reject a constitution disguised as a treaty), laws do not matter as much. They can always be incrementally extinguished.
Who is responsible for all of this ? WE ARE. Why ? Let me know how many Senators (and House members) who voted to gut our Constitution again get re-elected in fall.
As to Obama, well, he just lost my vote yesterday. It does not matter whether he collects enough focus group flack to apologize for it at some point in time or says his vote was wrong, I am done with him. I know his vote would not have made that much of a difference (though the moral statement would have been massive), but he had the opportunity to act on his conscience yesterday. He did not. I will not be doing the same in November. My ballot on the question of the President, will be blank. Down ticket, it will depend on what my representatives did in Congress.
And Mr. Barack Constitutional Law Obama, it does not appear that you were paying attention in class. Grant of retroactive immunity is unconstitutional in itself :
Article I section 9: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed". It just remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will educate the Congress on the matter. Given recent history, I am not overly optimistic.
Re:You admire a politician? (Score:4, Interesting)
Far left ideology? Man you Americans have some strange ideas about what left-wing ideology means. "hard left" where I live would mean slashing military expenditure to perhaps 5% of the current levels, instituting proper free healthcare everywhere, proper free education everywhere,.. actually HARD left would mean making private education illegal. Try googling "socialist workers party" for some hints at what "hard left" really means.
So how would you characterize a platform that slashes military spending to perhaps 1% of current levels; gets the government completely out of health care (Medicaid has arguably been a major source of the problems that exist); gets the federal government completely out of education, and encourages states to offer vouchers/grants for use at accredited schools (primary through post-secondary); legalizes drugs and regulates them similar to alcohol; and phases out social security, housing subsidies, etc., encouraging states to pick up those issues in the way they see fit?
Oh, and after balancing the budget and erasing the deficit, slashes taxes because all that money is no longer needed for military, welfare and education spending.
The lousy thing about the left/right continuum is that both ends are heavily statist. There's no room in it for those of us who love freedom and independence.
Re:Who supports FISA? (Score:5, Interesting)
The religious right isn't running the Republican party
I disagree. I think the religious right has far more influence now than it did in Reagan's era. Their consistent support, combined with their ability to turn out the vote on election day was a significant factor in both the 2000 and 2004 elections, increasing their influence considerably. This influence was solidified by their alliance with the neo-conservatives over the war in Iraq.
kooks on the far left are running the Democrat party.
Again, I beg to differ. The Democratic party of today is far more centrist, both on economic and social matters than it was before. Today, more than ever, you see Democrats that are questioning of issues that, in the past, would have been core Democratic principles. Issues like corporate tax breaks, pro-choice abortion stances, and affirmative action, to name a few.
The way I see it, its the Republican party that has become more extremist, while the Democrats have moderated many of their opinions.
Re:The answer is right there (Score:2, Interesting)
he's a constitutional scholar - retroactive immunity is Ex Post Facto and unconstitutional under Article I Section 9 US Constitution.
so in effect that language in the bill is powerless and Obama knows it
Re:The answer is right there (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not vote against it?
Indeed.
History repeats itself. The Computer Decency Act, which most people considered unconstitutional was attached to the mid 90's Telecom bill. Asshole politicians, including my own rep, Andrea Seastrand voted for it anyway, saying the Telecom bill was too important to pass regardless of any other crap attached. Look where the Telecom bill led to ...
By the way, The Messiah had promised to filibuster the bill until it was dropped. It only takes one Senator to do that. Obama is woefully inexperienced and it shows.
It's still not too late for the Dems to salvage the election, they can still vote for Hillary! in Denver.
PARAPHRASE OF OFFICIAL RESPONSE - LIVE FROM TV (Score:3, Interesting)
Someone brought this up to Obama in his campaign stop in Fairfax, VA - his response talking about he helped expand the federal whistleblowers law.
he says the issue here is that we haev a surveilliance program that tracks people that could do us harm - it was supposed to run through FISA (i'm trying to keep up with him while typing this) - "there is little doubt the bush administration chose to ignore FISA in setting up with program" and went to the phone companies. Reason we originally wanted to deny them immunity was not just to punish them but to find out how the program was abused and we might not have any leverage to make sure going forward the program wasn't violating basic civil liberties. Hence he voted against the original version of the bill. He said the current bill is not perfect - it did two things he wanted to support: explicitly stated that ALL surveilliance programs MUST go through FISA to make sure they're getting warrants, it also institutes and inspector general to investigate any abuses already present. He recognizes some people feel that the phone companies were complicit and should be accountable and he understands this - but he feels that this surveilliance (when conducted legally w/ warrants) is important for our security and he had to balance punishing the telecoms and what he feels is needed now - he also made reference to the fact that he can change things when he gets into office.
So... we have an official response
sorry for the paraphrase i tried to keep up.. there is a direct quote embedded
Re:I am a libertarian (Score:2, Interesting)
Since we feel similarly about Obama, perhaps we can see eye to eye on this. I felt like Ron Paul had something going - a bit crazy, but capable of being reasonable; compromising (for a libertarian) and with strong character. I think that the racist stuff is a bit exaggerated; even if true to the extent shown, I'm willing to believe it was an "any port in a storm" type of thing, where people supporting his other ideas happened to tend to be racist.
Having read a few articles and wikipedia on Bob Barr, he just seems like an extremist nut blowing in the wind. Democrat/left activist until his mother gave him some Ayn Rand. OK... I've known a few people like that (going either direction), and I wouldn't want one for a boss let alone president. But this was so long ago, you may say.
Let's ram through some ridiculous anti-drug legislation while ranting about "witchcraft"... and then change our mind a few years later and lobby for the drug reform policy to get it repealed! Maybe if he'd not suppressed the 68% majority AGAINST his legislation in the first place, this hullabaloo wouldn't be necessary.
And speaking of witchcraft, what was up with banning wicca in the military? While I wouldn't mind banning religion en toto in the services (except for the fact that it would dissolve the military overnight), it doesn't seem like a support of personal liberties to ban one and only one.
One of the big problems with the "conservatives" now is the religious right; this guy seems to have... an interesting allegiance with their ideals.
Maybe he's had an epiphany since all that - well, what kind of epiphany would he have when Rumsfeld gives him Leo Strauss to read? Serious question - he seems to exhibit a total lack of consistency, disturbing in any candidate but especially a libertarian.
Re:The answer is right there (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems to me one of the great problems about elections is that extremely complex issues get boiled down to ten words. This is a perfect example of that.
I think you're correct but not for the reasons you believe. I see this vote as a calculated political move for his campaign because he knows that it would otherwise be reduced to a scrolling headline saying he voted against fighting terrorism. He supported an amendment that he knew wouldn't pass so that people like some of the apologists in this thread can say that he tried. Then he voted exactly opposite of how his campaign promised he would, in an attempt to move his campaign more toward the right. I believe that his campaign underestimated the fallout from the same folks who pushed him past Hillary in the primaries, but the reality is that these same people are not going to jump ship to McCain.
You need to weigh more than just telecom immunity when considering this vote. I'm not saying he made the right vote (it really is a tough call in my opinion), but reducing the bill solely to telecom immunity is to greatly misunderstand things.
The problem with this sentiment is that telecom immunity was a huge issue and one that didn't need to be tied to this bill. With Obama making an unambiguous statement about what we would do in this case, he failed himself and his supporters by doing exactly the opposite.
Re:You admire a politician? (Score:3, Interesting)
> How about vote to uphold the Consitution and the 4th Amendment:
Oh really. Please explain how wiretaps that cross international borders possibly violates the 4th? International mail has been searchable since forever and we tapped the hell out of international cables in WWII and even during the Cold War. There is a big difference between police activity and intelligence. No I don't think intelligence info should be (and generally isn't) admissable in court because spys ignore most of the safeguards to prevent tyranny but intelligence gathering isn't about arresting citizens.
First I don't see any such restriction on the 4th. Second they aren't just wiretaping international calls, they've been wiretapping everything they want to, domestic and international. They why the needed to grant the telcos immunity; its illegal.
Thank you. (Score:3, Interesting)
Gloriously well put.
It's astonishing how anyone can look at the headlines today, laced with verbs like "cave", "surrender", "give in" and "capitulate" and conclude that, boy, Anthony Fremont did a good thing there.
On the other hand, one vote on a measure that passed with more than a two-thirds majority doesn't really mean much of anything. It does make Obama as much of a cowardly weasel as the rest of them, but, seriously, you've got to blame just about the entire Republican party and roughly a third of the Democratic party for this one. They can't all be Chris Dodd, unfortunately.
It's depressing that if all of the Republicans vanished from Congress, we'd still only have a rough majority of sane folk there.
Re:The answer is right there (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm a big supporter of standing up for your beliefs, but at the same time I realize there are times when you have to pick your battles, and as you say, suffer a loss to get the gain. The question then is, what did we gain by passing this law? FISA already made it a cakewalk to get warrants. So what did we gain while pissing on rule of law?
its just mathematics folks (Score:3, Interesting)
in a democracy, you never get a president who appeals to you greatly, you always get a president who appeals to you weakly (if at all). the reason for this is that someone only appeals to you greatly if they have a lot of affinity for your own values
but being that your set of values are a small tiny subset of the range of value sets out there, then if someone appeals to you greatly, that means they only appeal to a small number of people, and therefore are never going to be elected. get it yet?
so the job of a presidential candidate, to appeal to as many people as possible, is to pick a mixture of values that appeals to as many people as possible. but by covering all of these bets, this naturally means you weaken your appeal to any one given small subset of values, in order to cover as many subsets as possible
this is the inevitable truth of democracy: you will always, forever, only get a president who appeals to you very weakly, because it is the job of the candidate to appeal to as many people as possible in order to win the presidency. therefore, EVERY eection, FOREVER, consists of picking the lesser of two evils. this is mathematically inevitable. pleae, get used to it
this is why morons who vote for fringe candidates only weaken whatever cause they care about. in their blindness to embrace a cnadidate who appeals to them greatly, but can never win (because any candidate who appeals to anyone greatly naturally only appeals to a small subset of a population), they therefore are wasting a vote that would otherwise go to the candidate who appeals to them weakly, and ensure that the candidate who appeals to them least wins! morons. you always ALWAYS vote strategically in an election. you never, NEVER get your golden candidate. your golden candidate can NEVER win. it is simple mathematical inevitability
the question is simply then: why are you so stupid not to know this, and why do you take it so personally?
why are you so stupid as to expect that you will ever get a president who appeals to you greatly? why do you waste your vote on fringe candidates? why are you so shocked that your golden boy obama is proving to be SMART as well as charismatic (hint: his smarts is why he tracking to the center, appealing to you WEAKLY, instead of strongly like he used to. waaaah)
everyone takes it so personally. its politics you morons, not a romance
this is the way it has always been, and always will be in a democracy, forever. get used to it. grow a brain. don't take it so personally, it just means you're blind, dumb and selfish about the unmoveable absolute rules of politics
and yet you morons are always part of the process. wasting your vote on perot (ensuring clinton won), wasting your vote on nader (ensuring bush won), wasting your vote on kucinich and ron paul, etc.
and so, i guess the lesson is for me: also part of politics are the committed partisans. the fools who will always vote blindly idealistically, never intelligently and strategically. and you are just damaged goods for the shrewd politician to route around
the permanently clueless. so idealistic and naive about how democracy works
btw, to preempt some of you even stupider than the idealistic and naive:
1. democracy is still a better form of government than any else.
2. also: triparty and quadparty systems have their own shortcomings, such as ridiculous coalitions between ideologically opposed parties in order to retain party. go ahead, ask any german about greens getting in bed with the far right
3. furthermore, the democrats and the republicans ARE different parties and DO represent different values. to explain it to you in parable: two peaks in the rocky mountains viewed from out on the great plains are the same. but in a mountain valley in the rockies, the two peaks couldn't be more different. in other words, if you see the republicans and the democrats as the same, you yourself are so far out on the ideological bell curve, the real issue is that you yourself are so out of touch wi