Wow!! Back to Haloscan comments.
Glenn:
Did you need to use trucks to build this secret sidetrack on the inter-toobs?
And due you think the NSA will be monitoring it with the new improved FISA laws?
Even if Obama really really absolutely firmly INTENDS to rescind the FISA law and prosecute the lawbreakers 'after' he is President, he'll discover it just isn't possible.
Mr. Reynolds, is there a chance the courts will overturn this law as obviously unconstitutional, as they did the Habeas?
"Citing the need for such monitoring in order to justify this new FISA bill is just pure fear-mongering ('you better let us eliminate FISA protections if you want us to keep you safe from the Terrorists'). Obama has always said in the past that 'the FISA court works.' When did he change his mind and why?"
Obama changed his mind on this issue immediately after secretly attending the 2008 Bilderberg conference in Virginia on the night of June 5th. It is highly unlikely that his U-turn on FISA is either a coincidence, or that he has suddenly become illiterate and incapable of independent thought. Please examine the following two links before deciding on the validity of my claim-
http://digg.com/world_news/
Obama...conference_2008
http://americangoy.blogspot.com/...-obama-
and.html
p.s. the latter's views on AIPAC and the Israeli lobby in America are similar to Greenwald's
Glenn, I'm so done with destructive blogs like yours. Find some solutions. No more time for do-nothing obstructionism. No more time for "status quo" on FISA. Enough of this "I know everything and am the sole arbiter on the Constitution". I want you to be Atty. Gen. but you're gonna need to learn how to think and act and talk pragmatically.
Let's call him what he is - Barack the HACK - has a nice ring to it!
Amazing analysis. I wish Obama or his flunkies would go live on air and defend this stuff instead of issuing puff piece PR statements. Glenn, you are doing the most hard core reporting out there. Thanks.
Ugh. The optimistic view is that the Obama campaign weighed all of this and came to the conclusions that:
a) other than the passionate netroots types (ably led by Glenn and Jane Hamsher) there simply is no contituency in this country for the 4th Amendment. (They don't really know that, but they're afraid to find out.)
b) if Obama had chosen to make a stand on this issue, the Brian Williams and Joe Scarboroughs in the pundit world could be counted on to do exactly what they're doing with with the troop pullout issue today: distort it into the lazy "Dems are flip-floppers/wimps on security" narrative.
And that's my *optimistic* spin. The alternative is that Obama actually believes the defective arguments in this new FISA statement, wants these expanded powers for himself, etc.
I guess I just prefer the idea that Obama is tuned in to (or if you prefer, resigned to) some ugly political realities, versus the idea that he's stupid or evil.
I'd really hoped that Obama was going to put forward a strong defense of the Constitution. But it's starting to feel like we're entering the 4th quarter and Team Obama is ahead by a field goal. And they want to play it safe and run out the clock on McCain.
Happy Independence Day...
great analysis GG. I wish i had half the energy you do.
Craig McDonald: Please tell me you're joking when you say, "I'd really hoped that Obama was going to put forward a strong defense of the Constitution."
If not - you DO realize that there is more to the Constitution than the Fourth Amendment, right? Because, while our right to privacy is a central freedom in our society, and needs to be protected (and for the record, I think Obama's made the wrong choice on FISA myself), I think you and a lot of other folks here are failing to see the forest through the trees.
On one hand, Obama has failed to defend the Constitution on one front. On the other hand, the Bush administration - and, by extension, the McCain campaign - poses a far greater threat to a lot more of the Constitution than just the Fourth Amendment (although you can be sure that they'll menace that part of it as well).
To be quite honest, that's a distinction that I really wish Glenn, Kos, and a lot of the other liberal bloggers would make a little more clearly. If protecting the Constitution is your number one goal, then your top objective in doing so is to make sure that John McCain is not elected president.
I think the 'review was for the surveillance not for holding lawbreaker accountable by a politician promise.
My understanding is that this is better than what we had before wich was uncostitutional.
FISA bring the rule of law as you say back on the forefront and yes it is different than FISA of the past since no one enforced it.The next president will be able to follow up and find out what has been done.
I understand this wiretapping came about because there were threats of bombing the congress.
Aside from the privacy infringment I want pursue terrorist before they strike on mainland so let them wiretap all they want as long it does not last forever.
This immunity law seems unconstitutional to me.
I think the real unfortunate thing is that so many American voters are such a bunch of idiots that politicians almost have to talk that way in order to get elected.
Is there any context as to why this statement was issued? It seems to be just a re-hash of the same tripe that we were previously asked to swallow...
Some questions I have:
1. Is there any chance we can still win this thing?
2. Could Obama have ever realistically prevented the situation we're in now, given the overall weakness of the Democratic Congress?
3. Is there any way to make something good out of our loss here? Any takeaways that will improve our odds in future comparable battles?
"I'd really hoped that Obama was going to put forward a strong defense of the Constitution. But it's starting to feel like we're entering the 4th quarter and Team Obama is ahead by a field goal. And they want to play it safe and run out the clock on McCain."
Replace "Obama" with "Kerry" in the above paragraph and you'll see that there's no difference between the electoral strategies of the two. GG has pointed that out quite a bit lately. Remember what happened last time when they "played it safe"? And it terms of "running out the clock", need I remind you of what happened in December of 2000?
No matter what he's written about in recent memory, Greenwald's commentary and analysis has been smack, bang on every time. This is no exception. I just hope he considers the Bilderberg meeting as an impetus for Obama's U-turn on this critical issue- whether he actually writes about it or not.
"Let's call him what he is - Barack the HACK - has a nice ring to it!"
Thank you for your intelligent rebuttal of my comments. Your name has a nice ring to it, too. I actually had to do a double take, since I first saw "deepsouthdog" when I looked at who signed your comment.
Baraka - Don't be ridiculous; Obama's stance on the gay marriage debate alone, contrasted with Kerry's craven waffling on the issue in '04, sinks your argument from the outset.
Is there any context as to why this statement was issued? It seems to be just a re-hash of the same tripe that we were previously asked to swallow...
This statement was issued because Glenn, Kos, initiators of the mybarackobama FISA group, and others dragged this issue kicking and screaming to Obama's doorstep. The fact that he actually issued the statement, flawed though it was, and the manner in which it was issued indicates that either he was finally forced to address our concerns or he actually is trying to be a more responsive leader than we're used to. Not sure which.
What Would Al Gore Do?
"Baraka - Don't be ridiculous; Obama's stance on the gay marriage debate alone, contrasted with Kerry's craven waffling on the issue in '04, sinks your argument from the outset."
Sinks *MY* argument? I guess you missed Greenwald's last 10 columns...
Glenn, you're an Army of One dud, and I wish I had taken law classes too - or I took a few but decide to go in a different direction, darn it, but it does show that the pen certainly is mightier than the sword.
Never mind those cheap Obama teenie-bopers - they do have buyers remose, they just don't know it yet, the blogs comments are full of em, BUT the BLOGGERS themselves are starting to turn on the worm - and you did it pal, you did it. Thank goodness that we had some lawyer out there that isn't wrapped up in corporate legal disregard, writing away in some legal journal with words that the ignorant teeming millions would otherwise never see, I wish we had more lawyers like you, instead of lawyers that don't had time enough NOT to stop Obama from skating on his cheap acts of deception. Those corporates legals may thank you later, lets hope so, I mean, law has to stay static somewhere.
Strange how Obama turned to the dark side or whatever anybody wants to call it, hell, does anyone know what the HECK happen to him? Was Obama merely waiting till Hillary got out of the running to show this true RED colors? jeebus!
Gosh, so much money out of the wallets of those contributors that were robbed, stolen from for the good faith belief in Obama's big glory, his talk without walk words, his supporters, such a shame that Obama is that kind of swindler, but there is a sucker born ever minute. RIGHT, Obama?
Obama turn out to be so shallow and so corrupt. I mean really WTF happen I don't really know? But after his "letter" on his blog, we know it wasn't a Repug threat that coerced Obama, and the Dems Reps don't want to have anything to do with the will of their voters - they would much rather have Bush's lies to campaign one - and than pocket the wealth of those lies, I guess Dems got jealous, as it is. I don't think Obama ever really WAS a Dem accept in label only at his point - and thus he turned out to be such a cheap liar. I guess he doesn't read your blog. And Obama so nicely give of his limited royal time to a growing number of his blog supporters - jeebus, thanks Obama, for showing a winkling of good will, for giving your supports the time of day, your honorable royalness.
I wouldn't get into that mushy area that Obama demonstrated, because Obama might think he is king or something like that, and those dumb supporters need to be truly thankful for the entitlement of Obama's generous letter to them - but that part where he talks about McCain winning the election, OMG, it just looks like a veiled threat to me - there was SO ugly. Oh well - WHATEVER Obama - Good-bye would be Rep. Go back to the senate, whatever dud, just PLEASE, PLEASE get your face the hell off my TV. Lieberman is call you Obama - come on in, the water is fine over in Bush's shallow end of the pool. There is a lot of lying politicans in that side of pool and I know that Obama is going to fit right in even if it is srinking, there is always room for one mo
Baraka - I must confess, I have not read his last ten entries in detail. However, I'm clearly not the only person here who is guilty of that sin; if I was, then you doubtlessly would have seen Glenn's extremely apt comments in Update 4 of this entry: http://www.salon.com/opinion/gre...bama/
index.html
@benintn
Enough of this "I know everything and am the sole arbiter on the Constitution".
__________
LOL! GG does a ton of good work, but he rubs me that way as well sometimes. There are no "sole arbiters" of the Constitution. At the end of the day, this or that part of the Constitution means what SCOTUS says it means. And then they have this irritating habit of contradicting themselves every 20-30 years or so.
In the end it's all about political power.
BTW Glenn, have a nice 4th of July weekend, I'm sure somewhere that Alexander Hamilton is smiling down from the heavens on you pal.
Won't Bush attach a signing statement that says "I am not constrained by this law." I have seen it suggested that there be an amendment which says "if Bush attaches a signing statement, the immunity provision is void."
I would like to know what Glenn thinks of this.
The Bilderberg conference, well I guess that explains it.
This group lies to protect is money, it's power, Obama was blindside I'm sure, it's all a wealth generated lie.
I think that is why John Kerry said, no thank you, he couldn't handle it and didn't want too, but Obama doesn't even have that much grace. It's all a ruin scenario so Obama should either, in good faith lead or GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY.
If Obama is this afraid, he isn't change of any kind. The Bilderbergs are nothing more than a march to oblivion. Obama needs to look to the faith of Martin Luther King, Jr., or leave.
My guess is that Obama and his staff consider FISA to be obscure and arcane stuff that only matters to political blog junkies. He knows that most American voters can't tell the difference between FISA and an asteroid, so he has concluded that politically, it's not a big deal for his campaign. But if that's his attitude, he has badly miscalculated, because what he has done is to open the crack of doubt. His most loyal and hardworking supporters now wonder if they can trust his word; their faith is shaken, and they are now wondering if Obama is just another garden variety political whore. Whatever the merits of the FISA bill, Obama has made a political error on this one, and I'm stunned to see that he and his advisors got this so wrong.
All Bush has--ALL--to show for his years in office is the fact that we haven't been hit again with a new 9/11. It's one item. But's it's bigger than huge. It is the 8 gazillion-ton gorilla in the room with everyone engaged on this FISA fight. I beg you to turn your fine mind to an analysis of this: your arguments about assaults on the Constitution mean, alas, less than nothing to millions of voters--the decisive voters--IF they are made to believe that a vote for this crazy bill keeps them safer. Please address this Rove-ian mindf*ck. It is what is operating at large in the land. Your arguments or Kos having a tantrum or Arianna trying to call plays from HuffPO should instead take on THIS. We're on the horns of a dilemma: We could get FISA right and release the Rove element that would annihilate Dem victories all up and down the ballot. Take this on.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Greenwald and may be arriving from Obama's site, you might want to check out his main blog at Salon. This site is now an overflow site of sorts.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
Majorian -
Greenwald: "There is no question, at least to me, that having Obama beat McCain is vitally important."
I never made it clear who I'm for or against here. Greenwald's comment, pulled from the link you referenced, is EXACTLY what I believe.
That said, of course, I have real problems with Obama's abrupt left turn on FISA. I never liked Hillary and couldn't be further repulsed than I am about the neocons (that includes McCain). In a perfect world, someone like Ron Paul would be President. If only...
I've been weary of Obama ever since I read a Harper's piece on him, written near the end of '06. The Bilderberg shenanigans and his U-turn on FISA only confirm the worst of my fears and suspicions.
Whether it's Iraq, FISA, the Constitution, rampant abuses of political power, neverending abuses of power by bankers and lobbyists, the fairly recent atrocious conduct of the Federal Reserve, the state of health"care" today, or so many other festering issues, America is in a real bind. And there's no end in sight to any of it.
Edgar Allen Poe (1809-49). ... Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see.
Wise word for Obama.
Thank you, Glenn, and all of the Obama supporters that have made their voices heard. This response is not an acceptable one on principal, but I can't imagine a McCain campaign, or even a Clinton campaign even allowing it, much less respond to it.
Props to the Obama camp aside, this was a meaningless response. I will continue to withold donation funds and ask my fellow Obama voters to do the same, unless and until he either reembraces his solid, former position or it looks as though McCain has a shot.
We need the Democrats to get out of this pattern. We need people like Glenn, Feingold, the 75,000+ Obama supporters to keep this as honest as we can.
Blind adulation and unthinking support is the worldview of the past 8 years and longer.
Not this time. Not in my name.
~ An Obama supporter
Thanks for following up on this Glen, you are my personal hero for not dropping the FISA issue no matter where it went. Now, if only we could get some true liberals in office who aren't afraid to defend the rule of law and don't feel as though the only way they can win is to talk down to us with meaningless PR talk.
Obama just keeps digging deeper and deeper. Personally, I find his statement extremely insulting. Glenn had already debunked half of it before he even issued it.
I'm sick to death of the lies and the bullshit. Obama's not even the nominee yet and he's already giving us the lies and the bullshit.
I'm starting to care less and less about who wins.
this shit is crazy
Majorian wrote:
"Please tell me you're joking when you say, 'I'd really hoped that Obama was going to put forward a strong defense of the Constitution.'"
Of course I'm not kidding. But I completely agree that (as GG might say) "for all sorts of reasons" Obama is vastly preferable to McCain, and I will certainly vote for him. I was just trying to imagine what the rationale must be for voting for this unimaginably dumb FISA + retroactive immunity bill.
I have a question for anyone including Glenn:
What prevents immunity from being rescinded once it is granted?
Ant:
IANAL, but maybe "double jeopardy?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Dou...y#United_States
DoCan these Dems that are for trashing the constitution know something that we don't? Have cheney/smirk given them information that going against this will bring instnt attacks from the terrorist? What is the logical reason for this support from dems?
Are they really wimped out corporatist whores? Can the Dems give us an honest answer?
I wrote my blue dog dem condemning his vote for his horseshit vote.
Ask him politely if it was more important kissing corporate ass than defending the constitution? He didnt reply.
Maybe the neocons have some explosive trash they are holding over the heads of the Dems. Someone please give me a reason for this cave. Dont get it.
The obvious explanation is that the Democratic Congressional leadership is DEEPLY invested in this bill and anyone who hopes to win the general election as a Democrat is not going to be able to start off by humiliating them.
Everybody relax. Barack has got it under control, having dutifully calculated the losses and gains of his FISA flip, government support for faith-based charities (oxymoron alert!), and puffy patriotism pr pieces. You may now relax in irrelevance, hold nose, and vote in November for the non-John McCain.
Hey, there's a new video out: The 9/11 Chronicles at www.prisonplanet.tv
It's about the 50,000+ ill New Yorkers, including residents and their children, who returned to that part of Manhattan based on the lies of Bush/Whitman, and are now sick and dying.
Oh, say, can you see . . .
GG, thanks for this. The Pretzel Logic being exhibited by Obama will only grow over time I fear. And with every step down that twisted road, Obama's claim of "Change" and "A different sort of politics" grows equally remote.
As time passes it is becoming increasingly clear that a certain coalition needs to prepare for battle against Obama. Not a destructive battle, but rather one of forcing direction, and pressure.
One other thought on this--Bush himself should not be forgotten, once out of office. It seems to me that a court ruling against Bush in coming years would be a very healthy thing, and a marker laid down for future presidents.
By the way, it would be so great if Salon would just trash their extant "letters to the editor" section and use this simple, effective, and much more useful format.
Glenn wrote:
Obama says he will vote to remove immunity from the bill but knows full well that this effort will fail, and that the final bill will have telecom immunity in it.
That's false. Obama didn't say "... he ... knows full well that this effort will fail ..."
Glenn should have written:
Obama says he will vote to remove immunity from the bill, but he knows full well that this effort will fail, and that the final bill will have telecom immunity in it.
I am EXTREMELY appreciative of the time and brains you have given this FISA issue. I'm most happy that it led me to your blog; it is one of the most rational and intelligent I've yet read on the web.
Glenn, I've been reading your posts for several months and I just wanted to commend you for your work. You may not be aware that you're providing an incredibly valuable service and I sincerely thank you for it.
This whole "trust me" crap makes me sick. Does Obama not recall "I'm a uniter, not a divider"?
Reading the comments on Obama's statement at HuffPo is really scary. His supporters are practically laying alms at his feet and singing Hosanna. When will this country learn that politicians are just people, and are never to be trusted?
Ultimately, so many Democrats have gotten surveillance mud on themselves that Obama probably cannot count on his party leaders' support unless he supports this bill.
Or he cannot count on their support once he's in the White House because the revelations from the anti-surveillance lawsuits will be so damaging that many Dems would lose their jobs.
Thus, everything Obama says about this bill is probably an intentional & calculated lie. He ultimately understands that the amnesty must stand or some of his best friends face terrible embarrassment. But, he wants to go through the motions of standing with the anti-amnesty Democratic base, and he wants to persuade himself, perhaps, that he's a moral being, so he's pretending to try to remove amnesty from the bill.
If amnesty fails, for example, he'll have a smaller field of potential vice presidential candidates who lack surveillance skeletons. I read somewhere he wants Dick Gephardt on the ticket. Gephardt sits on the board of Kansas-based telecom Embarq.
Obama has decided that the pain of lying to his most fervent supporters is far less than the pain of betraying his most powerful supporters to the courts.
Like most politicians, Obama is an unpricipled man whose only concern is winning election. His apparent strategy for November is to position himself one or two inches to the left of McCain (wherever that may be).
A vote for Obama is a vote in favor of capitulation and business as usual.
If third-party candidates get 15% in November, next time it might be 30%. Vote Green, vote Libertarian, or vote independent!
And another thing - for those that say they must vote for Obama because the alternative is McCain, that is pretty weak tea. There are other candidates out there, and you can always write in someone. The only vote that is wasted is the one that is not cast!
Just Say No Deal.
Hillary or McCain in 2008.
NObama. Not now, not ever.
When Obama votes for the FISA Bill - what are we to do? I just can't vote for Obama anymore - and I sure don't want McCain either.
We need a third party and a back up plan.
Obama is not making any sense anymore, and he is acting on the "need to know" BS. We don't need to know why he is voting for the FISA bill - only that he is going to vote for it and if that is "deal-breaker - bye than" WTF? We don't need to know why he flip-flopped on FISA? Obama's "deal-breaker" BS seems to be derived from someone who has never campaign a day in his life, has no clue? Did Obama have a stroke, not remember constitutional legal studies? What happened to him?
And the veiled threat of "do you want McCain" for dictator or Obama for dictator?
How about NONE of the above. It seems there are enough people who are serious about protecting the laws in on US Constitution amendments, and we by now that Obama doesn't give a fly *uck what we think that we need a door number three here. We need a third Party - Obama doesn't care, he simple doesn't care and that won't change, we need a THIRD PARTY - and we need it NOW. Hell we needed it yesterday.
I can't vote for Obama and I can't vote for McCain - and being told that Obama is the only option isn't cutting it for me. Obama is basically telling Dems to go *uck themselve if they don't like it. Who the hell are we to take that kind of crap from anyone? Too many dead patriots in Arlington to submit to that threat. Please think about it. We have to get something together in a hurry folks. It has become clear Obama isn't going to listen to a word we are saying. I don't want to sit on my ass waiting to see if Obama is ever going to come around because he is NOT ever going to do that. This letter on his website showed a very hideous side of Obama. I will NEVER vote for that guy. None of us should. We need a game plan and we have a very short window here, but we have to do something and and we need to do it very soon.
It's over. Obama supporters bought the statement. DU has begun a subtle pressuring campaign to silence critics on its forum. I'm sure that's being repeated elsewhere.
It's unlikely this bill and others like it will ever be reversed. These rights are lost forever.
One day, Glenn, perhaps people will look back through bitter tears at the few like yourself who attempted to man the ramparts, wishing they had listened.
Yeah, I know, that's dramatic. But it's likely this is a dramatic moment--one that will be seen as a turning point for the Republic and the grand experiment of Democracy.
Glenn, thank you for your valiant fight.
We go home now.
Two words:
Cynthia McKinney.
Unlike Obama and Clinton and McCain; she actually defends the Constitution..and she's a genuine progressive.
The way to get out of a hole, is to simply get out of it. Democrats have betrayed the Left again and again; why not admit that fact and build a real alternative?
Or, maybe you want to continue to live this merry-go-round again when the Right reloads and regains power in 2010 or 2012 after the Obama (read; Bill Clinton II) Presidency melts down??
A part of me once even wanted to vote for Obama just to defeat McCain. After this past week's antics, though, I can't see why.
Anthony
I appreciate Glenn's analysis and ongoing attention to this issue. Whether one agrees with it or not, it is thoughtful and reasonable and open to thoughtful, reasonable response. That is the kind of discourse we could use more of in this country.
It is disturbing that so many are clutching to the "Obama rather than McCain" position so willingly and so quickly. It is a shortcut that ignores electing a "better Obama" rather than a "worse Obama." As his supporters, we should continue to express our hopes and ideals on issues as important as the Constitutional freedoms we are celebrating today; the military invasion/occupation of Iraq; the crippling of our economy; and the acceptance of incompetence so long as it is shrouded in the American Flag and laced with fear-based rhetoric. We used to be a better people in some respects.
There is a scene in the movie "An American President" where Michael J. Fox's character lectures Michael Douglas' character (the President)about leadership and what the American people want from their President. Each morning, Obama and his campaign staff should watch a clip of that scene and renind themselves why they are in this fight.
"The person who defines Reality wins."
Those who aspire to the highest office in the land should be constanty reminded of the oath of office they wish to take. Its really simple, a promise to defend and uphold the Constitution of the U.S.A. Anyone who doesn't accept the premise of that basic responsibility isn't fit to be C.I.C. and needs to step aside, they'll only hinder the healing of our broken Democracy.
this is a purely political decision on obama's part.
let's put the best face on it and move forward.
i think it's wrong, but, the man has made up his mind.
and of course he understands exactly what glenn is saying.
but, he's made the decision he needs to do this.
disappointing, but not critical.
let's not be too hard on the guy.
he got the message and it was a class act to respond.
when have you seen any other candidate or politician tolerate dissent on their personal site like that?
Haloscan rocks!
Cynthia McKinney indeed... she's got my vote.
strong work glenn. keep speaking truth to power, and we will continue to follow your lead.
OK. So now we've all got to email, text message and cell in encryption mode. This is all one huge conspiracy orchestrated by those pernicious encryption software gurus that are now forcing us to hide everything in plain site.
Glenn,
Thanx for the good work, keep it up. Reading the (very large number of) comments
to the Senator’s post at the Huffington Post and at the mybarackobama.com web sites,
many of those commenting seem to be in the ‘wow, he’s taking the time to talk to
us, that’s never happened before’ and the ‘suck it up folks, the alternative i.e.
McCain is unthinkable” camps. In fact, in his own posting Senator Obama also holds
up the McCain boogeyman.
However, I would ask, given that the Democratic party is going to increase its numerical
advantage and have clear majorities in both the House and the Senate, is it that
bad of an idea to vote for a President McCain? We would then have divided government
and large Democratic majorities would be there to temper any excesses of a McCain
administration!
If Senator Obama proves insensible to reasoned argument and continues his "tack
to the center" then folks who feel that he is the lesser of two evils, that
they are being taken for granted, feel that they have no choice, but still feel
very strongly re protecting our fourth amendment rights (amongst others, should
perhaps float the suggestion of a divided vote... Perhaps that might get their attention!
SNi
Thank you for the information Glenn. You have made it easier to understand what is really happening after all the politician double talk.
I have not understood why objecting to warrantless spying on Americans is considered left, liberal, progressive thinking and why taking that position is considered a threat to Obama's election.
The fact is FISA allowed our intelligence agencies to gather the information that Bin Laden was planning an attack and there was intelligence about the use of planes.
The "Intelligence" gathered prior to 9/11 was not properly utilized and that has never been fully addressed.
When I see people stopped and searched in the subways I feel as if I'm in a bad dream and I can't wake up.
Obama's support of this bill is a deal breaker for me. I am going to support Cynthia McKinney.
What's all this stuff about Cynthia McKinney?? Sure, she's principled, but how about voting for Ron Paul come November? Earlier this year, he set the single day fundraising record and is still running for President. He has sat in congress for years and, though technically identified as a Republican, is a libertarian. Ever hear him debate? He trounced his Republican challengers in every debate that he took part in. TV viewer votes consistently said so. There's plenty of footage of him up on YouTube.
Make no mistake about it, Ron Paul is the greatest defender of the Constitution that you will ever see. If you really can't bring yourself to vote for Obama (hopefully he gets back on track on FISA), then Ron Paul is the *ONLY* choice.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
Just keep in mind that, if McCain wins, he'll make sure that the ENTIRE SUPREME COURT is stacked with extremist neoconservatives. The FISA amendments will look like something the ACLU drafted if McCain wins. Trust me on that one.
Anyway, if Ron Paul only gets 15% of the vote, like Ross Perot did, McCain may very well end up in the White House. It's a big gamble. That's for sure.
Excellent analysis! If Obama votes for this I will consider it a deal breaker.
Glenn - you just picked up a new subscriber! 
Chris - Well, that may be, but keep n mind, we won't be getting ANY liberal in the top office - whether or not they qualify as "real," by your personal criteria - if liberals don't support the liberal that actually has a chance of winning in 2008. Ralph Nader or whoever may indeed be closer to representing your positions than Obama...but really, if you're looking for a candidate who perfectly matches your stances on issues, why not just write your own name in? Nader really doesn't have much better of a chance of winning the election than you do, and I'm sure he'll disagree with you on at least ONE important issue or another.
Baraka - With regard to the horrible state of the Union on issues such as health care, Iraq, the Constitution, the nation's poor fiscal and monetary policy, etc, I agree with you 100%. But we mustn't make "perfect" the enemy of "good" as we fight against these societal degradations. We must recognize that, out of the two candidates, one is, at the very least, a small step in the right direction on many of those issues (and a step in the wrong direction on really only one of them), whereas the other is multiple steps in the wrong direction on each and every one of those issues.
That said, I'm very relieved to hear you say that you agree with Glenn about the necessity of electing Obama, even if it's only a means of keeping McCain out of office.
"Could Obama have ever realistically prevented the situation we're in now, given the overall weakness of the Democratic Congress?"
This is a guy who is supposed to have this incredible skill set: the ability to motivate people, get them to work together, and create change. But when has he ever demonstrated these abilities in the Senate? When? His party has a majority in the Senate, and yet he can't get 41 of them to support a filibuster of the bill and defend the Constitution of the United States, something that just happens to be part of his job description, by the way.
Obama was just in Independence, Mo. on Thursday, giving one of his increasingly insufferable speechs on hope, faith, blah, blah, blah. His "good friend" Senator Claire McCaskill was there with him. Did he ask her to join him and defend the Constitution? Somehow I seriously doubt it.
I just wonder to what extent the NSA runs this country.
But *I* care who wins because of the Supreme Court and because I believe that Obama will end the war.
finally just sat down and read that... have been putting it off.
OK, so he is equivocating again. And he seems on board for a discussion, online - or what.
Will he pull a Bush and be all NEXT QUESTION about it now?
As a retired 70 year old life-long progressive and hard science academic, tonight I sat watching a TV broadcast of the spectacular DC fireworks over the Washington Monument, and was nearly brought to tears thinking about what this country should/could now be, and how my (highly educated) sons' should be enjoying the fruits of their hard labor - not worrying about making ends meet and if it's the right thing to bring another generation into the world we have found ourselves in post 9/11.
We have been robbed of SO much since then, and I fear, will not recover in my lifetime, and perhaps not in the next generation's either.
Furthermore, over the past 7 yrs we have been humiliated, manipulated, deceived and deprived of our national treasure by an authoritarian, facist regime, which has selfishly and willfully thrust a dagger into the heart of our delicate democracy, and which has discarded the Constitution and the rule of law to ensure enriching itself politically and monetarily at the expense of millions of untold broken lives and outright deaths, with total disregard to this, or any other, country's future.
We Americans, and the rest of the world, are, and will continue to be, much poorer (not just in monetary terms), and perhaps fatally wounded, for their selfish/selfless actions.
I am very angry and bitter about having almost an entire decade of my later life savaged by these undemocratic, unAmerican low-life hacks - make no mistake!
Regardless of the outcome of the upcoming election, the perpetrators of these high crimes and misdemeanors, will all still be living among us. My question to you all (and Sen. Obama in particular) is - shouldn't they ALL be required to pay for their illegal and treasonous acts according to the rule of law??
I had my hopes from prior Obama statements that some measure of justice would be met, but now, after his recent statements, I doubt that is going to happen,
If Sen. Obama votes in support of the FISA bill and caves on other issues like Iraq withdrawal, then his supporters will know where they stand, and more importantly - we will know where HE stands.
If he votes for the FISA bill, I will, with a broken heart, not only not vote for him in Nov., but will actively campaign against him, and instead enthusiastically support Dennis Kucinich as a write in vote...someone I know, understands the reality of our very threatened situation.
I am fully aware that this is a protest vote which could help McCain get elected, BUT so be it - if you don't like the outcome, you can do as I did for the '70's - leave the country!...I'm ready to go again!
Mr. Greenwald you seem to make some good points as far as your commentary goes. But, in truth, I think it does not go far enough and certainly does not cover the issue as well as I've seen it covered elsewhere. Infact, a blogger that goes by the name of NCrissieB did a far better job than you over at Daily KOS in his story entitled: "A Pragmatist's view on FISA". http://www.dailykos.com/story/20...0991/926/
542170
Basically, according to NCrissieB, due to the Patriot Act, our Fourth Amendment rights have taken such a severe dusting, that FISA is not the issue at this time, not really.
In his third paragraph, NCrissieB states,
"Folks, if you think FISA is the last bastion of the Fourth Amendment, I have bad news for you. If FISA is indeed the last bastion, the Fourth Amendment is already gone. The current bill will not fix the problem, no matter whether telecoms are given the affirmative defense of acting under color of law. The problem exists in the USA PATRIOT Act, not in FISA."
This guy is an attorney as well, who has stated,
"Most of my cases turned on constitutional issues: search and seizure, interrogation methods, ineffective assistance of counsel, police and/or prosecutorial misconduct, and the like. The issues that dominate the news and the blogosphere today are the issues I worked with in the grit and grist of real defendants, real victims, real crimes, real facts."
I'm not an attorney, but I sure do find reading so many attorney points of view interesting.
In any case, I suspect that Obama knows far more than any of us about what is really going on, and has made his move based on that knowledge.
Mr. Greenwald, I was very disappointed that the link you gave for more info on the FISA Bill did not take me to the bill itself, but rather to the spin page of the ACLU about the Bill.
"Folks, if you think FISA is the last bastion of the Fourth Amendment, I have bad news for you. If FISA is indeed the last bastion, the Fourth Amendment is already gone. The current bill will not fix the problem, no matter whether telecoms are given the affirmative defense of acting under color of law. The problem exists in the USA PATRIOT Act, not in FISA."
The line in the sand must be drawn somewhere. Few (zero?) people opposed the Patriot Act after it was drawn up by the neocons. Its renewal was only opposed by a handful of people.
And here we have this lawyer telling us that we should wait, yet again, to finally draw a line in the sand and say, "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!" Hasn't this guy's "solution" been the problem all along? Focusing on just the war, instead of waging strategically important battles, such as the one against FISA? Waiting for the Perfect Time to strike back, yet that time never arrives (or people don't know how to recognize it when it does)?
Taking a stand *NOW* against FISA- even if the greatest culprit of them all is the Patriot Act- is of such paramount importance, that there really is no other option.
Not offering any opposition to the Patriot Act, or its renewal by congress, were major mistakes that will take many years to undo. The same mistake must not- *CANNOT*- be made a third time with the FISA amendment. It must be opposed and killed, no matter the cost.
Has anybody considered the possibility that Obama can lose and he's giving all this power to a president McCain?
Just a law student here, who is totally amazed at just how little most people know about their own Constitution or what the laws ACTUALLY say. The Patriot Act and any follow ons, such as this latest FISA "update" are all aimed at undermining the protections of the people and the Several States from UN CONSTITUTIONAL intrusions upon our Individual lives and thoughts.
What POD landed next to Obama? I hope he can get his bearings sorted out and figure that "standing firm" is why there are still 15% of Americans who love George W.! I do not understand why there is no real "loyal opposition" to destroying the fabric of the Constitution. The 4th Amendment was already pretty frayed after U.S.v. Carpenter (1 and 2) and the Patriot Act was pure Fascism in lamb's clothing, or 9-11 blood whichever is more chilling.
3) If Bush is so unpopular why do his opponents ALWAYS CAVE to his demands? What does he have on them? Maybe that is exactly why BUSH is TERRIFIED of having the Telecoms reveal his "Hit list" a la Nixon.
4) So, Mr. Obama why are you afraid to stand your ground and ours?
5) You have a few days to think this over and then make the CORRECT VOTE which is NO.
It appears Sen. Obama has little respect for his supporters. How are we to believe his "firm intentions" when he is currently in the process of breaking his word? I, for one, am more interested in the protections of the constitution than in the word of any politician, including Sen. Obama. I was fooled once by this man, I will not be fooled twice.
In 2006 I held my nose and voted for democrats to end the war. It turns out that they continue to bring war funding and constitution shredding legislation pretending all the while that they are forced to do it. Hell democrats couldn't even get a hearing room under a republican congress. I think this post and others (he supported Lieberman against Lemonte remember, his trade policies look a lot like bush's, Evangelical ass kissing, etc.) have tipped the scale and Obama will now have to win my vote which at this point looks lost.
I expected much, much better of him. If he's having this much trouble understanding what this bill will do, how is he going to handle the duties of President?
[many expletives were deleted in writing this comment]
I could not disagree more with those who think Barack’s vote on the FISA bill diminishes him. W. has claimed powers that George III never did. In the realm of foreign intelligence gathering, W. insists that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to him, that as commander-in-chief his acts may not be constrained by the other two branches of government, and in particular that he is free to search in the name of foreign intelligence without the superintendence of the judiciary. The bill that Barack supports is the Congress’s weighing in to uphold the 4th amendment – “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” The bill expresses the Congressional will that the FISA Court is the exclusive source of foreign intelligence warrants.
The construct of prior FISA legislation did not anticipate modern communications. W. has asserted that his authority as commander-in-chief permits him to ignore the law to meet new circumstances. It is important that Congress assert the principle that FISA applies in all instances. Barack should support the strongest bill to that effect that Congress will pass, so that W.'s position will be contradicted.
In Youngstown Steel and Tube v. Sawyer, Justice Robert Jackson wrote that Presidential power is at its least when its exercise contradicts the will of the Congress. This act of Congressional will diminishes whatever modest respectability W.’s argument has ever had.
As to the telecoms, I just don’t care enough to let the issue stand in the way of the Congress reasserting itself here.
So why is only Obama being criticized.
Over 500 legislatures vote on this bill. Yet only Obama is being crticized, not Bush, not McCain not the democrats or republicans that support the revised bill.
Hmmm why do you suppose that is?
Benintn said:
"Glenn, I'm so done with destructive blogs like yours. Find some solutions. No more time for do-nothing obstructionism."
First, I do not find GG's blog destructive. he deconstructs arguments, and points out hypocrisy and untruths, but that is not destructive. Are you suggesting that when someone tells you soemthing you know is untrue, you should constructively call him false? How exactly would that go?
And GG did offer a solution. LEAVE FISA THE HELL ALONE. That's the right answer, and a good one. It sounds like you have bought the "we need to change FISA for no reason" argument.
GG basically said what my Grandma used to advise: Don't pee on my head and tell me it's raining.
I appreciate your analysis, Glenn. However, you should be attacking Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats first, for forging this compromise in the first place. In doing so, they put Obama in the position he is in, and he's taking the heat for it and is furthermore going to be unable to explain the nuances of this to the public and his supporters in any simple way. Politically, this is a no win situation for him and other Democratic members of Congress. Republicans will paint them as weak on national security if they vote against it. If you were Obama would you risk that? "First do not harm" to your chances to win this damn election is what I say. If we need to fix this later, we can. But don't give the right the ammunition they are so desperately waiting for just to be able to be "pure" about it.
Linda, do you think the Repubs will NOT attack them on natioanl security regardless of their vote on this bill? Please be realistic.
As for why we are "attacking" Obama and not Pelosi, there are three things about that:
1. It isn't an attack. It is a refutation of political spin and bs.
2. Nancy is still under a lot of pressure, it is not just Obama, and she always haas been
3. Obama is the presumptive leader of the Democratic Party. His stance holds a lot more influence than it did 6-12 mos ago. More, it is a fundamental CHANGE in his position. In fact, a true flip flop, which will open him up to even more repub attacks.
If you truly believe voting for this abominable bill will HELP Democrats, I suggest you do a good search like this:
"Democrats cave" FISA
And look at the thousands of bad articles about them.
The do a google search on
House reject FISA and look at the excellent press there.
It is clear the Democrats look better when they stand firm against this bill and its like. Just another instance of Dems caving in to FEAR when folks shove a boogeyman at them.
As a U.S. Army war-time veteran, Patriot, Attorney, and concerned Citizen, I applaud Glenn for presenting such a systematic refutation of Obama's propaganda. You cannot fault the legal reasoning and analysis. I just wish the Congress had such bright legal minds on their Staffs. The FISA bill looks like it was drafted by lawyers from AT & T with White House input.
The larger issue is this: Obama is racing to the Right because he thinks that will get him elected. In reality he is angering the Left (his core) and appearing wishy-washy to the Right. The Independents are watching his flip-flops and reversals with disdain.
Once you lose your Integrity, you have nothing else. Thank you Glenn for fighting the good fight, and as for Obama -- you need some new advisors.
F Obama, he had his chance and he blew it. I for one am glad he did it before November, I would really have felt angry if I had voted for him and he pulled this crap.
Mu vote will go to McKinney, or Nader, or write in Kucinich........no more lesser of two evil candidates for me, I am too old for waiting around for someone honest.
The url is a Video Response directly related to what we are supposed to be fighting against: The ultimate trashing of our Constitution, of our Rights. In relation, Mr. Greenwald's article is truly excellent. To me, the only area missing is referencing these actions as also providing legal cover (after-the-fact) for Bush's impeachable steps.
Why can't you guys just shut the f*** up and send Obama more money? He needs it.
I have a question for anyone including Glenn:
What prevents immunity from being rescinded once it is granted?
Ant | 07.04.08 - 5:46 am | #
This question has been ignored. Anyone care to take this on?
I'd also like to hear Glenn's take on the analysis provided by John Dean and the ACLU which notes that this new FISA bill still allows for CRIMINAL prosecution of telecoms and lawmakers.
I have a question for anyone including Glenn:
What prevents immunity from being rescinded once it is granted?
Ant | 07.04.08 - 5:46 am | #
My answer is:
Because the very same people who granted immunity will still be in charge.
Pretty simple.
My question is, I remember learning that (ip post facto?) laws that legalize past acts which were illegal are not legal. (unconstitutional)
is this recolection correct? is the loophole that the law doesn't legalize the lawbreaking, but obstructs justice by not allowing cases to go to courts at all?
another thing that i think about is that why do people think that Obama will be better than McCain?
I don't know how you can trust somebody who lies directly to your face.
His comments about NAFTA were "overheated rhetoric"? WTF?? I am from Michigan, and have worked for Ford, GM, and Toyota, and suppliers. I know how bad people are hurting becuase of destructive economic policies, and now Obama was just telling us what we wanted to hear.
I was pissed at Rev Wright's "he's a politician comments" because I thought they were destructive. While at the same time I knew they were true. I think now that more people should take that to heart and understand that Obama is not what we want him to be, nor is he what he says he is. He is not getting anymore of my money, that is for damn sure.
If Obama will lie to you about NAFTA and FISA, why do you think he will be better than McCain because of what Obama says?
His whole position reflects his values that corporations are more important than people. He has chosen his side in the class war, so why would he help the Supreme Court balance, when the largest problem I have is the CORPORATE slant of decisions.
In a five hour fit of anger and frustration, I dug up the names and contact information on the "Democratic" House & Senator traitors who voted to approve the latest version of the "Compromise FISA bill" -- which destroys our Fourth Amendment. I put the two lists up on the Net as websites and will now go about "promoting" them. Ideally, with your help, we could bring these sites to the attention of enough people to develop a viral network that could then gain critical mass among voters to remove these traitors.
Here are the sites:
For House "Representatives": http://www.cloudbyte.com/traitors.html
For "Senators": http://www.cloudbyte.com/
senatet...tetraitors.html
I am so sick of reading comments from Obama apologists trying to rationalize his complete flip-flop. What is so hard to understand: in March when the Senate voted to give telecoms immunity, he voted against it and made a big deal about it. Now, just 4 months later he did a complete 180... so, who cannot understand that his integrity is on the line?
All the Democrats should be ashamed!
Why do we have 2 political parties, when a Republican President who thinks he's a King and surrounds himself with sycophantic neocons who do his bidding can literally set the agenda with no resistence from the other side?!?! The Dems go along with him every time... pathetic.
In my opinion, Obama's statement can be viewed either as duplicitous or cowardly.
I wouldn't be so upset about the surveillance if there was any guarantee that the information was:
a) targeted towards individuals under suspicion
b) secure
c) discarded after a specified period of time (less than a year) if deemed irrelevant
d) obtained and handled only by national security employees. No information sharing with other departments
e) not used for any purpose other than to protect the country and its people from physical harm by a terrorist attack. Sharing/using information for other purposes should incur criminal charges and loss of employment
f) divulged in its entirety during court proceedings, to show why surveillance was necessary
g) not tampered with
g) not used to undermine peaceful political dissent
As it is, it's too broad. There's no guarantee that the government will use the information obtained as intended. The government already has too much of my information. Government institutions resell my information for advertising purposes.There's obviously no guarantee of security as it stands, since the government will send out classified documents to groups they've labeled as a terrorist organization.
Uncle Sam's so over-zealous that it will probably always be spying. At least they can be honorable enough to use it only to protect us. If you're going to build a database on all your citizens, give us a legitimate guarantee that you're not going to go all "1984" on us. And make sure that we never find out what our neighbor is doing unless he's trying to kill lots of people. I seriously don't want to know what goes on, there.
We really need a completely new Democratic party. The one we have now is broken.
It takes a little shine off of his personality cult.
He said he's going to end the war in Iraq. If elected, he'll come into office close to how long an insurgency lasts anyway.
It doesn't mean the troops coming home. They'll just end up in Afghanistan.
NAFTA? If he manages to get it modified, will the reduction in the trade deficit between Canada and the U.S. be because of NAFTA or because of the Canadian and U.S. currencies being on par?
VS'T蘦升降平台峩想薱伱笑
Commenting by HaloScan
