Obama is finally showing the believe-any-hype public that he’s not a messiah here to save us from Hell, DC. Rather he is — how shall I put this — a politician. What’s next? Go back on immediately pulling out the troops from… Oh.
Obama’s FISA sellout: bad law, bad politics
There’s no doubt that Barack Obama reversed his earlier position on FISA “reform” legislation when he voted for that scandalous bill. It’s equally clear I think (despite Ed Kilgore) that the sellout was a political calculation, a tactical retreat, rather than a rethinking of the rule of law or the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. As kos has remarked, it was a tactical blunder. His FISA reversal was a major leap forward in the Obama campaign’s rush this summer to undermine his image as a principled leader with the courage of his own convictions. It’s a sickening spectacle of self-inflicted damage.
His apologists tend to argue that it was a clever or even a “necessary” tactic to vote against his own position in order to blunt Republican attacks. The reverse is true. Obama has simply fueled the flip-flopper attacks while tossing away ammunition he could have used on McCain.
#31 – How’s that basic literacy course coming along?
bobbo:
Russ Feingold noted in a recent speech on the floor of the Senate that, according to current law, if the snooping was done “in good faith,” they cannot be prosecuted.
Check this link for the gory details.
It sets the bar pretty fucking low, but there it is. Of course, Feingold went on to say that this sucks.
Privacy is a thing of the past, and there’s very little you or I can do about it. Obama has signaled that he doesn’t give a shit. On to other battles.
Bobbo, if I must make a choice between voting for the person whom I feel most fits with my own beliefs of how the government should be run, or the person who is the least unappealing of the ones likely to win, I’ll still always choose the person I would rather see in the office. It’s precisely because people get beat into them that 3rd party votes are wasted votes that we have none able to break through to a more conspicuous place on the public stage. FWIW, I’ve voted for the Libertarian candidate for the past 3 cycles, and I have no reason to believe I won’t again this time.
#34 Spot on. That attitude creates a self fulfilling prophecy.
I think liberals should just decide which issues are most important to them, and then decide if Obama fits the bill(or at least is better than McCain). A look at where Clinton defied the party’s base is a good start. Obama is already backtracking on Iraq, and he may go the whole way and start wars for political benefit. The upside is that he is not likely to be as corrupt as Bill Clinton, so there will be less need for political boosts. Comparing to Kosovo, it’s possible he may let his internationalism drag us into a war that the Europeans want.
I can see Obama going for a war with Iran, but not an all-out war. Perhaps he would green-light an Israeli bombing with US support.
Things like privacy and more power for the executive are also a likely area where Obama will not be concerned.
He may backtrack on taxes a little, but you are still likely to see taxes go up.
He’s not likely to backtrack on abortion, judges, and other social policy, with the exception of the death penalty.
He may be tougher on immigration than John McCain, though I don’t see it for now.
#36: I don’t like either of them for various reasons, but I plan on voting for Obama because I don’t want a Republican putting people on the Supreme Court.
Aside from judges and minor nuances, every Democratic candidate = Bush-lite.
Kerry = Bush-lite
Hillary = Bush-lite
Obama = … surprise! … Bush-lite
Oh George W. Bush is so evil. Let’s continue his policies on Iraq, Israel, Immigration, Guns, Faith-based partnerships with government, FISA, corporate welfare.
Why all the fuss about GWB when your candidate evolves to be GWB-lite?
Madness!
#39, Mason
You’re an idiot.
*
You people all upset about the new FISA bill don’t even know what is in it.
The Telcos ended up with the same protections under the law as they had under th previous FISA. If they can show a court they were asked by the Justice Department to allow interception of communication for security purposes they can not be sued. If they can’t produce a letter, they are open for liability.
Where is the flip flop?
#33–Noam==thanks. I read your link and the referenced sub parts. As I read the statutue the good faith defense must be BASED ON one or more of 7-8 provisions, none of which apply. And if they so clearly applied, why provide additional immunity? No–as I read the statutue without reading cases that have interpreted it, looks to me that Feingold doesn’t understand (sic) the legislation.
On its face, the statement is rather ridiculous. The law has long and clearly been “the government cannot snoop.” Therefore you can’t snoop in good faith.
Thanks for the link. It is difficult to read, and “maybe” I got it wrong. Good faith is like that.
#4–Sea Lawyer. Yes, thats wonderful. Thank you for Bush rather than Gore. Fell Better?
But how about I “prove” to you how wrong you are?
Tell Me==why don’t you write your own name in?
#40, The Telcos ended up with the same protections under the law as they had under th previous FISA. If they can show a court they were asked by the Justice Department to allow interception of communication for security purposes they can not be sued. If they can’t produce a letter, they are open for liability.
Actually, they didn’t. The Telcos are supposed to get a letter, correct, but they are supposed to get a letter signed by the “secret court.” This didn’t happen. In effect, the administration got them to wiretap without any legal justification under any law. Their only carrot was, “We’ll take care of it later, I promise.”
This is _why_ the retroactive immunity clause was included. The telcos should have said, “No problem. Show me the letter.”
You people all upset about the new FISA bill don’t even know what is in it.
Over 80% of the bill was secret from the very people who were voting on it so we aren’t the only ones.
It is times like this when the Constitution is needed the most and our elected officials let us down. I’ve already sent letters to my two congressmen informing them of their lost votes.
#44 Don’t take away Omama’s supporters excuses for still voting for him. We don’t need reality, we hopeful changing hopefulness…, or some such nonsense.
WHAT DO YOU EXPECT FROM COPORATE WHORES??????????????????????????????????????????????
#41, phead,
Still trolling. I guess that if you don’t have any brains you wouldn’t miss not having them. Too bad for you.
#44, Tom,
Not true. There are no such things as “secret laws”. The entire bill MUST be available and tabled in ordwer to become a law.
Second, if the telcos present a letter that they were asked by the Administration to open their lines to spying, they get immunity, the same as before. IF the FBI or other agency did the spying then THEY, and not the telcos, would be charged with wirtapping.
The FISA court applies to allowing federal agencies to wiretap. FCC regulations and laws apply to the telcos.
fuk obama and his coministic bullsh!t