Breaking: FISA Passes Senate

So what? What does that matter? He still voted for immunity.

It is also worth noting that Obama didn't really consider the immunity issue very important; so, he voted for the FISA bill with immunity.

The amendments never stood a chance, they were dead on arrival, they required 60 votes to be adopted. So, the real purpose of the amendments was to provide some political cover to the Democrats that were going to vote yes on the FISA bill for political reasons. Obama was one of the Democrats that needed some cover and needed to vote for the bill for political reasons. This is typical Washington and congressional politics, plain and simple.

Then why didn't he filibuster it? 58 Senators voted for the Leahy/Feingold amendment. If those votes were sincere, they had enough members of the Senate to filibuster it.

Who voted on the Leahy-Feingold amendment? Do you mean the Dodd-Leahy-Feingold amendment? Because if so, that figure is pulled from your ass. Roll call votes today:
Dodd Amendment fails 66-32, 2 not voting.
Specter Amendment fails 61-37, 2 not voting.
Bingaman Amendment fails 56-42, 2 not voting.
Cloture invoked on HR 6304 72-26, 2 not voting. "I will filibuster immunity" Obama decides his new position is "tough titty" and votes in favor of cloture.
HR 6304 passes 69-28, 3 not voting.
Cloture invoked on HR 6331, a bill involving Medicare, 69-30, John McCain alone not voting. Even brain-surgery-man Ted Kennedy made this vote.

excuse me you are correct the Bingaman Amendment was the one I referring to.

So he voted for the FISA one because his vote made no difference and he wanted to continue to try to position himself in the center, because that is the best way to become president.

Nearing

I understand your inclination, this is kiiiinnndda @!$%#ed, but here is the thing..Obama will win this presidency if his base sticks together as he tries to show people his more conservative side.. And Plus he has a conservative side, I dont think thats such a bad thing.

Here is the one caveat, this becomes sort of a leap of faith,
Because he could be totally full of @!$%#, 100 percent no doubt..

But then again, the people generally are not aware of exactly how bad things are with a gov't like our administration. These guys are despotic criminals, plain and simple. I sort of bet there is a chance Obama (if he is in fact genuine, which I still support) knows a little more of what he is dealing with. The elements in our administration are evil. They are missing that one fundamental thing that makes a human a human, namely, any compassion for others. Not to get technical about it, but thats sort of the facts.

So, I'm taking a leap of faith that Obama is not one of them, because I know what Mccain Represents, go look at his positions 7 years ago, running for president... I mean, thats a big stage, and he has had a big change of heart since then (creepy).

Take the leap of faith, we cannot let the neocons stay in control, its actually a moral issue at this point, the world is suffering from this @!$%#, we have to get our house in order.

But again, I understand and think you have your rights.

I've consistently been in support of the FISA Amendment, granted I wouldn't have minded the striking of the Telecom immunity provision but Obama's vote for the amendment was sound to me. I'm of the opinion that a lot of folks are making a big to-do about nothing. Then again, I'm not a Liberal Democrat so I can understand why a large percentage of his base is up at arms.

I too was very let down when I heard that how Obama was voting on this issue. Until I heard more about the situation that clarified, for me, why he had done so. Someone above articulated very well on this matter. I'd like to add that it was explained that ten months ago in August, right before recess, Congress was told there was a terrorist threat and they temporarily gave Bush the right for wiretapping without a warrant-an unconstitutional right. This was supposed to be resolved when they returned in January but was not. Obama had a difficult choice to make, either he could vote to end the wiretapping while losing the immediate chance to hold telecompanies responsible and be severely criticized by Republicans as flip-flopping and not holding strong to holding people responsible, or he could vote to put FISA back in place to make sure that wiretapping was legal again and deal with the ramifications of punishment and "flip-flopping" shenanigans from the left. I think he made the appropriate choice. It is more important to end illegal wiretapping as quickly as possible than allowing a political campaign bully you into seemingly going against your original position on punishing those who did the wiretapping in the first place. As was said above, there is nothing holding back on criminal charges later on, what's important is that illegal wiretapping end today.

I think it's important to point out that each possibility allowed the Republican party to claim Obama flip-flopped. There was no win-win choice for Obama to make. Instead, he made the responsible one, regardless of the political backlash that occured.

I'm not sure which of the above two posts are more incoherent - it's really close!

greenguy
I'm not sure which of the above two posts are more incoherent - it's really close!

[rolls eyes]

Incoherent?

I asked a simple question.

With the foreknowledge that if we are allowed an election this year the winner will be either Obama or McCain, this sucks, but it is the literal Truth.

Do you not support the man who has about a 60 percent chance of being full of @!$%# (Obama), or do you vote for him as an action for the secondary effect..

That of Voting against the guy who has about a 300 percent chance of being a war mongering criminal? Fascism, not to be cliche, I'm dead serious. Things are getting a little shadowy over here don't you think?

At least explain to me why I am incoherent, I hear what your saying.. This is extremely troubling, taken into context It worries me if we are just being entertained by Obama so we might not be looking at the guys who are coming in through the back door during unscheduled fire drills.

But Nearing, or Greenguy, I want to know what you think specifically about my point, or what point you have that is more primary for you. No animosity.. Curiosity

" Obama had a difficult choice to make, either he could vote to end the wiretapping while losing the immediate chance to hold telecompanies responsible and be severely criticized by Republicans as flip-flopping and not holding strong to holding people responsible, or he could vote to put FISA back in place to make sure that wiretapping was legal again and deal with the ramifications of punishment and "flip-flopping" shenanigans from the left. I think he made the appropriate choice."

I think thats really well stated. If we are operating under the premise that he isn't just faking it, which I continue to point out as a possibility while also supporting him. So note that, those who think I am naive.

But.. He has been far more consistent then any politician I've seen in a long time, the fact is that the situation is not ideal there in washington, there are real @!$%#ing issues, and you gotta figure out how to change things with those current translational methods available. (playing the game to a certain extent)

What if he literally is the most optimistic possibility? (Like a version of one of the most level headed, intelligent, intuitive, eloquent, and compassionate people you know, who just happens to have the chance to actually WIN the presidency..)

We rarely are even given that much, just a chance. Its always two guys who are the same thing. We know there is no upside. And when the economy is doing well (the 90's) it makes us like so-sp presidents (Clinton) alot more. But Obama's perceivable archetype is far more rare, Maybe Obama really is a genuine person who is morally outraged in the same ways that I, and many of you are morally outraged, and he plans on actually FIXING it. But you fix it by taming it first, thats the only way.

Please respond, I'm dying in class right now.

My writing was slightly incoherent, I apologize. Essentially all I was saying was Obama had two imperfect choices; support an end to illegal wiretapping or turn down that support to hold firm on his stance against immunity. It was the more responsible option to choose what was in America's best interest - ending illegal wiretapping. Even if it made him a "flip-flopper."

That's how I interpreted it as well.

Right. I wasn't referring to Mike's post. His thoughts kinda ramble and there are parts I agree with and parts I disagree with (I don't like throwing the word "fascist" around) but it'll take some time to respond to his thoughts and I'd prefer to address Kear's words.

I think its important to address it because this is a very complicated issue with lots of technicalities, so its really easy to get confused about a point (I often do myself.) We can disagree on what is in "America's best interest" but "making" a program legal does not mean that one makes it legitimate. After Bush granted himself a range of new, unprecedented wiretapping power, Obama had a choice of arguing that this power - to spy on Americans engaged in communications with people who are abroad (like what we're most certainly doing now) without warrants - was wrong, or to legitimize it.

He choose to legitimize it. To expand the president's power. And I don't think that this is in America's best interest.

Have any of you geniuses read the original FISA statute or the text of this law that I cite above? I'm sure you're aware of the revolution in telecommunications that has occurred since the original legislation was written at a time when facsimile machines were rudimentary and cellphones and email (except for a few Pentagon users) was still a long way off. Do you think that it might just be a good idea to have the ability to intercept telecommunications of parties suspected of planning this country great harm? If your answer to the last question is yes then you'd damn well better support the immunity provisions of this bill because if they were not included you can forget about getting any cooperation from the telecom companies who route most of this traffic and for any such effort to be successful their cooperation is needed.

Thanks greenguy. I really don't know as much about it as I should, especially if I'm going to post about it, so I appreciate responses that are respectful, coherent, relevant, and intelligent.

If your answer to the last question is yes then you'd damn well better support the immunity provisions of this bill because if they were not included you can forget about getting any cooperation from the telecom companies who route most of this traffic and for any such effort to be successful their cooperation is needed.

This is one of the most astoundingly false statements I have ever read here. Earth to America: telecoms don't cooperate with the government out of a whim, or capriciously. When a man in gray contacts them, shows them their warrant and demands they hand over certain information, they comply because THEY WOULD GO TO JAIL IF THEY DON'T. And if we remove immunity, they will still comply, not because they like the government and want to be nice, but because they have to. Its the law.

Earth to Bill: if the FBI shows AOL a warrant and asks them for access to the account of someone they believe to be a child molester, guess what - AOL will also comply. Again, THEY HAVE TO.

That is demonstrably false. No such FISA subpoenas (that's the technical term since a warrant is issued for the target of the search and the subpoena is used to enforce the FISA warrant) were ever presented to any of the telecommunications companies who cooperated with the administration under the NSA surveillance program. The companies relied entirely on assurances from the DOJ that what they were doing was legal. I presume you have heard the fact that anyone can contest the validity of a subpoena in this respect should one be proffered? If I were the general counsel of such a company and did not have this immunity you're damn straight that I would litigate the enforcement of such a subpoena to the nth degree and in the meantime the urgency of the request for national security purposes would go wanting.

This article from the New York Times outlines the arguments pretty well:

. . .The telecommunications companies that gave the government access are pushing hard for legal protection from Congress. As part of a broader plan to restructure the N.S.A.'s wiretapping authority, the Senate Intelligence Committee agreed to give immunity to the telecommunications companies, but the Judiciary Committee refused to do so. The White House has threatened to veto any plan that left out immunity, as the House bill does.

"Congress shouldn't grant amnesty to companies that broke the law by conspiring to illegally spy on Americans" said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington.

But Bobby R. Inman, a retired admiral and former N.S.A. director who has publicly criticized the agency's domestic eavesdropping program, says he still supports immunity for the companies that cooperated.

"The responsibility ought to be on the government, not on the companies that are trying to help with national security requirements," Admiral Inman said. If the companies decided to stop cooperating, he added, "it would have a huge impact on both the timeliness and availability of critical intelligence."

Quoth Russell Feingold:

Telecom companies that cooperate with a government wiretap request are already immune from lawsuits, as long as they get a court order or a certification from the attorney general that the wiretap follows all applicable statutes.

You're presenting irrelevant information. Again, telecoms were/are required to comply with lawful FISA requests. They could not ever refuse. Why pass the FISA law and still give the telecoms an option of not complying? How does that make any sense? You may recommend what you wish in your imaginary General Counsel law but the government would still be able to FORCE the telecoms to comply, with or without immunity.

As a corollary, in the Al Haramain case, the government accidentally gave said charity a classified document, unintentionally. Even though it was read, the gov't was able to forcefully re-classify it and remove its existence. And no, the lawyers could not kindly decline to cooperate.

And the telecoms don't have the option of declining to cooperate either.

And again, even before this disgusting immunity provision was passed, telecoms couldn't possibly face any civil action for complying to legal requests. And again, they

could not refuse to comply.

According to the original FISA bill,

(i) Bar to legal action
No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of a wire or electronic communication service, landlord, custodian, or other person (including any officer, employee, agent, or other specified person thereof) that furnishes any information, facilities, or technical assistance in accordance with a court order or request for emergency assistance under this chapter for electronic surveillance or physical search.

You have the needed authorization? Then any legal action against you would be dismissed. The telecoms didn't have the needed authorization. If they did, as the quoted passage illustrates, they'd have no need for immunity.

I'm afraid you're misconstruing the original statute. Chap. 1804 upon which the chapter you cite is based makes it clear that a FISA court judge must issue a warrant after the initial time period for unwarranted interception has passed. That's the reason the telecom companies were so worried because they weren't presented anything by way either of warrants or subpoenas in this regard and under the doctrine of "exercising reasonable prudence" which would govern a general counsel or similar legal officer of a corporation they would hardly be comfortable (and were not as the Times story makes clear) in relying on the government's assurances in this regard. At the very least it would open up a potential troubling can of worms for them in this regard as to my knowledge there's not a lot of case law in this area. If someone can provide some cites, I'd certainly be willing to reconsider my opinion in this regard.

How am I misconstruing anything? I think you are using very murky language to obscure some very clear points. For example, under the original statue, it was clear that telecoms had to comply with the government's orders, orders that would be approved by a judge. Its also clear that the telecoms were made aware that the Bush Administration was asking for communications without a warrant at some point. When a warrant was involved, the telecoms faced no chance of prosecution.

However, as the Times makes clear

Violation of the foreign intelligence law, known as FISA, carries criminal penalties, as well as financial fines for engaging in intelligence wiretapping without a court warrant. The administration maintains that Mr. Bush acted within the law because his inherent constitutional powers let him authorize the security agency to eavesdrop without warrants on the international communications of people suspected of terrorist links.

But the companies had to comply. And after Bush's illegal abandoning of FISA was revealed, the admin was able to get Congress to legalize those powers in August. And guess what? Telecoms would have to comply with those changes.

The law also gave the administration greater power to force telecommunications companies to cooperate with such spying operations. The companies can now be compelled to cooperate by orders from the attorney general and the director of national intelligence.

Duh. When Congress makes a new law, people have to follow that law. The telecoms obviously don't have an option not to, irrespective of your scaremonging.

LOL. If the telecoms were so unconcerned about the legality of their actions as you claim they were entitled to under the original FISA statute why the hell do you think many of them initially resisted complying with the administration's requests? Duh -- because the administration didn't present anything under the chapter I cite from the FISA court to justify it. Chapter 1810 of the original '78 Act states:

Sec. 1810. Civil liability

-STATUTE- An aggrieved person, other than a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a) or (b)(1)(A) of this title, respectively, who has been subjected to an electronic surveillance or about whom information obtained by electronic surveillance of such person has been disclosed or used in violation of section 1809 of this title shall have a cause of action against any person who committed such violation and shall be entitled to recover - (a) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $1,000 or $100 per day for each day of violation, whichever is greater; (b) punitive damages; and (c) reasonable attorney's fees and other investigation and litigation costs reasonably incurred.

Case closed.

Who cares if they initially did not want to comply with Bush's request (I'm not sure if its true.) Again, you seem unable to distinguish b/w Bush's FISA requests - the requests telecoms have been complying with for over three decades or his requests that went in contravention of FISA. You seem unable to understand this basic point. The telecoms have been complying with government requests for three decades without a legitimate fear of being sued. They only started getting sued recently, because warrants weren't involved. Are you able to comprehend this point?

The quoted passage only reaffirms my point - foreigners can not sue the telecoms. But Americans who were spied on without warrants can! The law is very clear. "Case closed," as you wrote.

I'd like to re-state another obvious point, because it doesn't appear to be coming through - telecoms, like you or me, have to comply with warrants and subpoenas. We have to. We don't have an option not to.

Yes

Why on Earth would the gubmint bring forth charges? They are the the reason they don't want charges brought in the first place.

I don't understand what the purpose of charging the telecoms would be in the first place, so you'll have to ask someone else that question.

But I could see the next president (if it's Obama) having his attorney general investigate the telecoms involvement with any constitutional violations and charging them with crimes for their cooperation with the previous administration.

If the concern is getting out in the open exactly what type of information was being passed along through the NSA to the White House, then that's the most effective way to do it. Not hanging the courts up with a ton of civil lawsuits against these telecoms. That's my opinion, anyways.

So, again in my opinion, I don't see anyone's support of this bill as a trampling of the Constitution, because I really don't see it as taking anyone's rights away. What's done is done. The telecoms involvement can still be investigated by the government and they can still be penalized. They're just not subject to civil action. I think that's okay.

They, of course, can "be investigated by the government." But they obviously won't be, as the government is the entity that requested their corporation and awarded them handsome contracts for it. Thinking people should learn not to argue this point. SteveHouse made this obvious point. And its virtually impossible for the telecoms to be charged criminally.

The bill (law now I guess, Xp) also forbids states from doing any investigations on their own. It's the feds or no one.

And really, Steve, what kind of lunatic would think the government will neglect to perform these investigations, right?

In terms of Sister Soulja moments, I don't mind Obama doing something like that as long as he does something meaningless like tell of some obscure rapper nobody cares about. Hell, he can execute a retarded man who is guilty of murder. But support the evisceration of the fourth amendment?

I know! All these unpatriotic America-haters don't trust our government to look out for us. Can't imagine why...

They, of course, can "be investigated by the government." But they obviously won't be, as the government is the entity that requested their corporation and awarded them handsome contracts for it. Thinking people should learn not to argue this point. SteveHouse made this obvious point. And its virtually impossible for the telecoms to be charged criminally.

The president requested their cooperation, and yes, the president is part of the government, but he's also an individual, one that has shown himself to be less than loyal to the best interests of the American people. This president was exempted from FISA by Congress, while the amendment was being worked on and passed through the House and the Senate, and I think it's in the best interests of the American people to get this bill passed quickly, rather than filibuster it and keep Bush unregulated.

It's not outside the realm of possibility that the next administration would order an investigation into any criminal activity with regard to spying on Americans and any other violations of constitutional rights. Obama has already expressed a desire to have his attorney general do just that.

Again, I'm not all that bent out of shape over immunity to begin with, whether it's civil or criminal. I definitely understand the argument for prosecuting telecoms, but it's not all that compelling to me.

Yes, They can still be prosecuted.

I'm not Nostradamus but I highly doubt Obama will prosecute anyone.

As do I. It makes for a good stump speech and when it comes down to it he can go "There are more important things to deal with."

you cant ever trace who they have listened in on!

Fat chance the indictment has to come from Department of Justice controlled by guess who King George. An as far as how Obama voted it was gamesmanship all the way. He voted for the amendments he knew were going to fail then left with no choice voted for the bill. Bull this is a constitutional sell out and as for conservatism we have all seen the results of this modern day conservative give me back the wide eyed liberal please at least they have principals.

Exactly - Stephen GI.

He voted for the amendments he knew were going to fail then left with no choice voted for the bill.

What's the difference between that and voting against a bill you know is going to pass?

Wow there is a geniune split here amongst people who at times I think I have seen support Obama. Some are interpreting it one way very strongly and others are the complete opposite.

I think the backhanded sarcasm is unneeded btw,

No body here is unaware of what the Gov't has been up to not just for the past 8 years, but for a better part of the past 100. But, Gov't is an object, like a Porsche, the Posrche does not have a desire towards something without the desires of a driver to operate it.

Week analogy but I think that if you had supported Obama before and now choose not to (so look away those who have been there from the start), you would be making a very drastic change of opinion on someone after one event, there is alot that this man has done and said that is good, as would be evidenced by you previous support. I think this sort of reaction to something smells of a person who is and has been severely sensitized to the current reality we face.

We need to stay optimistic but at the same time in contact and communicating with Obama, we ultimately all are tending towards the same goal.

I don't think he voted against the Fourth Amendment. He did not vote for immunity, he voted for an end to unconstitutional wiretapping. It seems clear that legal charges can still be brought later on, just not civil ones.

Which is not to say you should still support Obama, that's completely your decision, but I wouldn't let this be the last straw. Again, completely up to you, though. Speaking for myself, I seem to search out possible downfalls in Obama out of fear that my hopes are naive. So far, I don't believe they are.

In a way, its more scary to support a politician than to continually believe they are all corrupt.

I don't think he voted against the Fourth Amendment. He did not vote for immunity,

Even if he did vote for immunity, that alone does not represent a vote against the Fourth Amendment, as so many are misleadingly saying. It is no more a vote against the Fourth Amendment than any other "immunity" that is granted post-facto is a vote against the Constitution or the rule of law, whether it be immunity granted to criminals for turning state's evidence, or for amnesty to undocumented immigrants.

The "immunity for Telecoms" issue is a big red herring, in my opinion. Kind of like a mob going after the drug addicts just because they are frustrated they can't touch the drug makers and drug dealers. By the way, if you really want to punish the Telecoms, close your mobile and land phone accounts with any of these Telecoms. How many of you are willing to do that?

If there is a threat to the Constitution, it is the FISA provisions itself -- but I'm still doing my research so my jury is still out.

You are right, of course, voting against immunity doesn't represent a vote against the Fourth Amendment.

The limited research I've done does not declare that this bill's intentions are malevolant or attempting to restrict the fourth amendment. From my understanding, the fourth amendment was restricted back in August and the vote yesterday was a vote toward rectifying the issue.

I haven't done extensive research on the subject, so I will not argue any point further until I have looked into research outside of the mass media. It may turn out your correct, I'm not confident enough to say otherwise. Thank you for your comment.

The "immunity for Telecoms" issue is a big red herring, in my opinion. Kind of like a mob going after the drug addicts just because they are frustrated they can't touch the drug makers and drug dealers. By the way, if you really want to punish the Telecoms, close your mobile and land phone accounts with any of these Telecoms. How many of you are willing to do that?

More like a mob going after the drug dealers who were "ordered" by the drug makers to poison the product, even though such orders are inherently illegitimate and the dealers (pharmacies?) have no legal obligation to follow them and, in fact, have an obligation to disregard these orders.

nearing and greenguy - i promise to look into it more tomorrow!

Russ Feingold, according to this article:

I thought Sen. Russ Feingold made for an excellent representative of this practical point of view on MSNBC's "Countdown" last night. He's a class act who knows both the Constitution and the political gutter -- and he appreciates as well that on occasion one must travel the second to defend the first.

Rather than tsk-tsking his Illinois colleague's vote, Feingold noted that a President Obama would work with a future Congress to revise the Constitutionally flawed portions of the current FISA bill. It went without Feingold's saying that a President McCain would most decidedly not.

In short, the Wisconsin senator demonstrated with immeasurable grace that he understands the game and, unlike some on his side of the court, is keeping his eye on the ball.

Can anyone find a copy of the FISA bill (I hear it was horribly written) that I can look at? I don't feel comfortable weighing a decision off of second-hand information.

My assumption is that it sucks this was passed, but what I'm curious about is what would happen in the short-term if it wasn't passed. Would Bush still have complete reign for warrantless wiretapping if the FISA bill wasn't passed? Did it at least eliminate that unconsitutional right? Were the guidelines put in place to protect civilian's freedom and privacy, or to legalize the intrusion of their freedom? I can't tell without reading the thing myself.

I know I'm late to respond, sorry about that, but I want the full information, not soundbytes. Any suggestions?

Not before January, they won't. We'll see what happens after that.

We'll see what happens after that.

Exactly. Some people are not seeing the bigger picture. For those on the far-left who are ready to jump ship, think twice. You can either b!tch and moan for another 4 or 8 years, or vote for someone who's feet you can hold to the fire.

and watch them actually have to deal with the mess they made.

Except that they will keep making more and greater messes. Is Obama perfect and in step with everything I believe? Nope, and I don't expect him to be. I can understand his thinking on this and he did vote in favor of removing the telecom immunity, which scores points with me.

If nothing else, Obama is the lesser of two evils that have a realistic chance of winning. Voting for a third party candidate who has no real chance isn't the way to go this year, with so much at stake.

Or let the Repubs have it and watch them actually have to deal with the mess they made.

Yeah, that sounds like the responsible thing to do. Answer this. Who lives with the mistakes?

That was the plan with Obama. He pulled his feet away before his shoes were even scorched.

That's one way to look at it, I guess.

Or let the Repubs have it and watch them actually have to deal with the mess they made.

We already did that. For eight years. Look at the results and the damage. Not an ethically sound strategy.

nearing,
Remember, we don't live in the U.K. where they really do throw the bums out. You get another Republican in & guess who has to suffer for the next 4 years? Or 8?
We don't know what's up the flaming dog %&#$'s sleeve. He might have a plan that we don't know about (wishful thinking). Don't give up just yet. Since you're stuck here like the rest of us, let's at least give the inexperienced one a try.
Aaaaaa.......who am I kidding. We're doomed!

DAZ I agree with your last statement. We have power hungry politicians all around and that is the greater truth. That all of the are working for special interest and that is not ours. I will cast a protest vote and hopefully enough Americans will do the same to send a message some how we have to take our government back.

The republicans will never admit they made any mistakes - that should be clear. It would be 'stay the course.' That should make everyone happy.

Regardless of who is elected, the national security apparatus remains intact and largely unchanged. That is our real government and you don't get to vote for them.

Don't you see the cycle we need to break?

The Republicans come in and screw it all up (Reagan)

The Dems are elected to clean up the mess (Clinton)

The Repubs come in and pillage even more (Bush)

The Dems are left with a bag full of flaming dog @!$%# (Obama)

This time it can't be fixed so let's let Repubs wallow in their mess and get it to the point where we have a real revolution and throw both parties out!

I appreciate what your saying here, its a valid point. The two part system is what is inherently flawed with rot, and the republicans might lead us to that point, I'll give you that.

And I think I sense your confidence correctly, these sort of things have happened before and the people generally are able to overcome and found a new establishment more in lines with the spirit of the people. But you have to factor in technology when you look at past examples in human history, because technology takes every lesson we have learned, and multiplies it by a random number somewhere between 2 - 2,000.

I don't desire a collapse right now, at the very least we gotta jump into the cockpit and try to pull the plan up just a smudge so the eventual crash isnt just a straight nose dive into the earth.

Noise Dive type crashes are pretty @!$%#ty time periods to be alive, historically speaking.

Now lets multiply that by, oh i dont know.. 800, and ponder what it would be like.

Bush just made a statement yesterday about wanting to listen in on who the terrorists are talking to, and what they are planning. And I thought to myself..

Oh My @!$%#ing God..

So maybe I'm a loon, or maybe this dude is a @!$%#ing nutcase, like world historical figure type nutcase,

taught in text books 300 years from now.. ya know?

nearing,
And that should have began, ohhhhhhhhhh about 30 years ago. If not then, then 8 years ago.

nearing,
Did you catch any of Ted Koppels report on China? You might want to think about moving there & going to work for GM or Ford. Or AIG or Liberty Mutual.
I know this is off the subject, but you mentioned it a couple of days ago & I've watched every episode so far. One more tomorrow night. China's behind us by 50 years but they'll be equal in 5. I've gotta go. I've got an early class tomorrow. I signed up after Koppels report.
"Chinese for Dummies."

nearing,
I'll tell you one thing for sure, they've got one hell of a pollution problem and it's not getting any better. And that's just one of their problems. I'm going to bed.....good night!

Susan Collins and Olympia! both voted for the bill and against any amendments stripping the telecomms of immunity - the Republican Whips scored 100% across the board on all four votes today. BLEAH.

I'll append the list of the Senators who did vote against final passage: the white hats were: Akaka - Biden - Bingaman - Boxer - Brown - Byrd - Cantwell - Cardin - Clinton - Dodd - Dorgan - Durbin - Feingold - Harkin - Kerry - Klobachur - Lautenberg - Leahy - Levin - Menendez - Murray - Reed - Reid - Sanders - Schumer - Stabenow - Tester - Wyden.

Thank you for the information which I suspected. My efforts will be to replace Susan Collins with Democrat Tom Allen in November setting my cynical nature aside.

Tom Allen rocks! I'd love to see him in the Oval Office come 2020.

Take a step back from the ledge Nearing, just for a second maybe. This @!$%# does become extremely unnerving and depressing almost to an extent.

Breathe in and out...Peace and breathe

...

The anger is designed to distract you and make you ineffective

...like ignorance and drugs.

Nearing what was the alternative?

HC - Leaving the Country in the hands of 2 pro-elite families for almost 30 years?

The other, well, we know, God and oil. No health. No education. No science. HELL!

If he gets to Government then we will see if he was a REAL alternative. Until then, he can't give food to the neocons to let them call him a terrorist, a communist and those things you know they will call him. Any law can be changed if people demands it strongly but he still has to WIN, remember? and it will not be easy, that's for sure.

Any law can be changed if people demands it strongly

President Obama or no President Obama, I'm so, so, so, so, so, so sorry for your upcoming disappointment.

Veganima;

The Congress is sworn in to uphold the Constitution. Instead they legalized fascism.

Kevin Dicks:

Iraq too shall pass, Iran too shall pass, Civil law and habeus corpus too shall pass, and if any more passing goes on, what will come in is a Congress with funny mustaches.

These people are obviously not educated as to the real issue of the hijack of the republic or willingly ,knowingly refuse to acknowledge this truth. The rose colored glasses. they really want to believe that voting any party is going to make a difference now.These men swore under oath to God to uphold the Constitution of the USA.Enforceable .They will be held responsible and accountable in their complicity,soon. NOW.Look at those smirks on their faces,for it won't be there for long.

You all have been indoctrinated well.I don't blame you for your gullibility. In a constitutional government you are supposed have hope and recourse. It's not a constitutional GOVERNMENT!! READ.NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT. What is it going to take for you to WAKE UP???

Your children dying in a orgy of Blood letting? Start thinking now...NOW. Make Plans!Not,in case.

This is the CASE. Why suspend or abolish the CONSTITUTION?WHY? To enslave!!

It's not by some mistake or flux.
To enslave.
What can we do?
WAKE UP,FIRST! The obvious will be apparent soon.

Make plans as you would as if a HURRICANE was right off the coast.

What life? oh,the facade?The facade of your life?It would be better if you just went back to watching your soap opera life with the good cop/bad cop game of our 2 pissy system and snuggle in your complacency for the time being.It is all going to change soon.thanks to the apathy,avarice and malfeasance of those of your sort of ilk.

Don't worry ,your 2 minutes will be better used in the future as you run for your sacred lives from the private foreign mercenary armies of Blackwater,DynCorp,American Security Group,Wackenhut,Kroll and the Israeli company Instinctive Shooting International already here in our country ,courtesy of your beloved facade your so-called government has indoctrinated .

Not the end of times ..sorry.that would be the agenda...but alas...the order of Malta will not succeed. Now hows that for conspiratorial?lol

Sovereign Military Order of Malta..Joseph E. Schmitz(Inspector General,Pentagon). Chapter 17 ,Blackwater, by Jeremy Scahill.

Blackwater Shadow Army in Iraq - Jeremy Scahill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAibI5ahMGs

http://www.blackwaterbook.com/

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=blackwater+jeremy+scahill

And ISI was in New Orleans during Katrina(Blackwater,Ch.18,pg328) doing their little business and desensitizing good ol Americans to the fact that Private Military Companies were on USA soil,doing the bidding of their Masters who pay well.

289,000 of our 1.3 million troops are overseas, with 140,000 of those in Iraq. Blackwater has over 200,000 mercs there right now. With flak jackets and plenty of ammo.

Google NSPD 51 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

here's the White House link,above.Enjoy. While you can.

http://homelessokc.newsvine.com/_news/2008/06/24/1607017-supporter-of-administration-or-not-the-question-begswhere-is-the-administrationamerica-goinganywhere-what-about-our-constitution

Now funny thing about link http://www.concordbridge.net/NSPD-51.htm/ it appears dead.
just go to

http://www.concordbridge.net

and click on article, NSPD-51 and the Potential for a Coup d'Etat by National Emergency Many attempts are being made to see that this info does not get out.WHY??.They are concerned.WHO? The ones these articles reveal...all of them. Why am I not dead? They can't kill me.lol Hahahaha.(not a sinister laugh) :)

Right back at you ,nearing! lol ...smile and be glad that you did a wonderful job today. No one can take that truth from you. I smile with you. :)>

http://elainemeinelsupkis.typepad.com/religion_news/2007/06/nspd_directive_.html

NSPD Directive #51: More Nazi Magic From White House

The Nazi party comes from the name NSPD, (National Socialist Party of Deutschland) and Karl Rove and Bush came up with a nifty name for all the directives they create without the input of Congress: the National Security Presidential Directives. Everyone knows that when people come up with names of things, they like to have them match some sort of alphabet soup jingle. So they often first come up with the initials and then try to append appropriate words to it. All the traitors in the White House are big fans of mystical and hidden meanings. This permeates the entire GOP. For example, when computer hackers working for the GOP altered the computer voting machines in several southern states in 2002, five GOP Congressional winners won with votes of 18181 in their districts. The media said, when there were 2 winners with this number, 'How amazing!' But when there was 5, the media shut up. Never before had anyone won in an election with the same exact number of votes. And certainly, not 5 with a harmonic number that is very outstanding.

OPERATION FALCON: Practice Makes Perfect

http://www.usmarshals.gov/falcon/index.html

OPERATION FALCON: Practice Makes Perfect But how would all those potential incompatibles, certainly tens of thousands and likely far more, find their way to an appropriate detention center? After all, the Bush administration has managed to prosecute only a handful of businesses for hiring illegal aliens who number in the millions. Its clearly a matter of priorities. So, despite such distractions as hurricane Katrina, the Justice Department has been conducting mass arrest exercises code named Operation Falcon, (Federal and Local Cops Organized Nationally), whereby thousands of law enforcement officers from federal, state, county and local agencies arrested some 10,000 individuals within seven days, working from lists provided by the U.S. Marshall's Service, all coordinated to commence across the country simultaneously. Since practice makes perfect, four mass arrest exercises have been conduced: Two national (Falcon I April 4-10, 2005 arresting 10,340; Falcon II April 17-23, 2006 arresting 9,037); and one "eastern half of the country" (Falcon III October 22-28, 2006 arresting 10,733). The latest, Falcon IV (renamed Falcon 2007), continues narrowing the focus with regional exercises, such as Operation FALCON-Baltimore (February 2007, arresting 195)and Operation FALCON-Indianapolis (May 2007, arresting 283) as well as 27 other regional exercises (from July 8, 2007 to September 16, 2007), arresting a total 6,406 "fugitives", including "235 for not registering as sex offenders" and "300 documented gang members" making for excellent press. In fact, the main focus of Falcon 2007 was gang members and sex offenders, neither of whom were prepared to match the federal public relations effort, which includes raw video footage (more raw footage) passed to corporate media that shows police raids with positive commentary, no questions asked and no critics heard. What has not changed is the operational profile: federally prepared arrest lists, distributed to local, state, and federal police agencies, who arrest as many as possible within a week's time, usually starting before dawn on Sunday morning.

http://www.usmarshals.gov/falcon/index.html

Halliburton Subsidiary Gets Contract to Add Temporary Immigration Detention Centers

The Army Corps of Engineers has awarded a contract worth up to $385 million for building temporary immigration detention centers to Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary that has been criticized for overcharging the Pentagon for its work in Iraq. KBR would build the centers for the Homeland Security Department for an unexpected influx of immigrants, to house people in the event of a natural disaster or for new programs that require additional detention space, company executives said. KBR, which announced the contract last month, had a similar contract with immigration agencies from 2000 to last year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/national/04halliburton.html?ex=1296709200&en=01728da2eba059e4&ei=5088&partner=rssn "KBR would build the centers for the Homeland Security Department for an unexpected influx of immigrants, to house people in the event of a natural disaster or

for new programs that require additional detention space

, company executives said" new programs that require additional detention space

Operation Falcon from

http://www.concordbridge.net/NSPD-51.htm/

if you find the link dead go to

http://www.concordbridge.net and click on article
NSPD-51 and the Potential for a Coup d'Etat by National Emergency

Reichstag Fire

Reichstag fire, burning of the Reichstag (parliament) building in Berlin, on the night of Feb. 27, 1933, a key event in the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship and widely believed to have been contrived by the newly formed Nazi government itself to turn public opinion against its opponents and to assume emergency powers ... his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, is supposed to have devised the scheme. ... On Feb. 28, 1933, the day after the fire, Hitler's dictatorship began with the enactment of a decree "for the Protection of the People and the State," which dispensed with all constitutional protection of political, personal, and property rights.

Encyclopaedia Britannica

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_reichstag.html

Sovereign Military Order of Malta in Belgium The Code of the Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem

1. Thou shalt believe the teaching of the Holy Church and obey all her admonitions.

2. Thou shalt defend the Church.
3. Thou shalt show regard for the weak and defend them.
4. Thou shalt love the country of thy birth.
5. Thou shalt never retreat before the enemy.
6. Thou shalt lead an unceasing and uncompromising war against the infidel.
7. Thou shalt never tell a lie and shalt stay true to thy word.
8. Thou shalt be generous and charitable.
9. Thou shalt always and in all places be champion of Good and Justice against evil and iniquity.
Number six is interesting.
; UN links to official sites of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta

I disagree with Obama's vote. But I'm still voting for Obama because I don't have to agree with everything he does and every vote he casts. This is not the end of this issue.

This, too, shall pass.

I haven't read the entire bill. But isn't passing this one better than passing one that will give them immunity from prosecution? I don't think people should run around suing them for what they've done. That accomplishes nothing. They shouldn't be sued, they should be prosecuted.

Yes. If I recall correctly didn't he discuss how it was a compromise on what he wanted to see?

"I disagree with Obama's vote. But I'm still voting for Obama because I don't have to agree with everything he does and every vote he casts. This is not the end of this issue."

I totally agree Kevin.

I also agree. Mostly with PH. Obama had no choice. He is already called a Muslim Terrorist. And much to his dismay there are Americans who don't trust and fear him. I can only imagine what he felt making a compromise he's implied he doesn't even like. Had he said no McCain would be able to play on the fear to a whole new level. Had he said yes it probably would have helped him with some but to find middle ground he did the only thing he logically could. I have disliked his "virtuous manner" on many issues. Yeah he seems nice but "nice" doesn't win elections. This is the first time he did what a real Politician would do. I am not happy with the outcome but its not like his say would matter. And McCain Flip Flop GOD will simply play both sides while not even voting. So really what do you want Mr. O to do throw the election a way to make a point that wil be misrepresented anyway or strike the middle ground hard and figure a way to fix it when he CAN.

You're right, Macks.

cgbs6183, you ain't alone there in what you said!

cgbs6183 amen to your statement this is beyond Republican or Democrat, this is our Constitution that is being destroyed which without there will be no party politics there will be a dictatorship. Bush has taken this Country closer to a dictatorship then any other President but he did not do it alone, he had help from uncaring Americans, Party leaders on both sides, Congress and the Courts.

Our salvation in all of this is education we need to get back in the schools the teaching of our Country's history and Constitutional studies.

Lastly what really hurts here is Obama is a Constitutional educator and he voted for this invasion of privacy.

Lastly what really hurts here is Obama is a Constitutional educator and he voted for this invasion of privacy.

Obama's vote here is completely and totally consistent with his entire voting record. It's a shame his pointless words blind so many to this fact.

Didn't say the rest of the country. Said the majority of the country. Don't use a sampling of opinions from a website sponsored by NBC to gauge the pulse of the silent majority.

That's what I'm thinking, too. As naive as some will think me, I still trust him to do what's right.

He's making smart political calculations, and taking heat from the far-left. I applaud him for it. He voted yes, but he made it clear that he does not actually support the immunity.

Thanx Mike and I too am still with Obama. This is not over yet.

Get a grip.

I think you need to take some of your own advice. Sorry, but suing AT&T, Verizon, etc. in civil court is not a priority for me.

The 4th Amendment has already been violated. Suing the telecoms in civil court doesn't undo that.

I understand a sense of justice, but Bush hasn't been under the confines of even the old FISA since last year. It was important that an amendment get passed as soon as possible. It seems like the only sticking point with detractors of the bill is the immunity clause. I understand the anger, but I don't see the advantage of filibustering the bill in order to go after telecoms in civil court. It seems counterproductive to me.

Ok

Christian Areas:

He's making smart political calculations, and taking heat from the far-left.

There is no far-left in this country! The far-left are communists!

Get a grip.

I will rephrase what Christian said.

He's making smart political calculations, and taking heat from his loyal base because he knows they have nowhere else to go .

In other words, he is trying to position self in the middle as a moderate. In even more other words, he voted the way he did because he felt it was the best way to become president, not because of his convictions.

I will rephrase what Christian said.

What you said is not at all, in my view, a restatement of what I said. Just thought I'd make that point.

It's more about withdrawing from the battle to win the war.

Mike,
Yah, but now for the million dollar question...........Will He?

Nearing

That could mean millions upon millions of communications between innocent Americans and their friends, families or business associates overseas could legally be collected," Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), said Wednesday.

My dear, apparently Sen. Foolsgold's staff hasn't been doing its homework or they would have heard of ECHELON. That said, the system doesn't function like most lay people think it does. The computers merely datamine the stream for certain keywords, clusterings, etc., etc. and collate them accordingly. It's not like there's some gnome or army of gnomes over at Ft. Meade looking at your email traffic and mine. If something pops out of the collation, the NSA would still have to go to the FISA court to seek a warrant for further interception if one of the parties were an American citizen and watching same in real time with real eyes. On 9/10/01, as James Bamford (the foremost expert on this stuff) has noted:

. . . According to the N.S.A. director, Lt. General Michael V. Hayden, the problem is in the numbers. ''Forty years ago there were 5,000 stand-alone computers, no fax machines and not one cellular phone,'' he said. ''Today there are over 180 million computers -- most of them networked. There are roughly 14 million fax machines and 40 million cellphones, and those numbers continue to grow.'' In addition, worldwide telephone use has ballooned by about 18 percent annually since 1992, totaling some 82 billion minutes by the late 1990's. ''Osama bin Laden has at his disposal the wealth of a $3-trillion-a-year telecommunications industry,'' General Hayden said.

Given such statistics, a 2001 Congressional report says, the N.S.A. is ''faced with profound 'needle-in-the-haystack' challenges.'' Much of the information is picked up by more than a dozen large listening posts around the world, a single one of which, one former N.S.A. director said, ''can generate a million inputs per half hour.'' That's two million phone calls, e-mail messages, faxes and other types of communications every hour. ''U.S. intelligence operates what is probably the largest information processing environment in the world,'' he said.

The biggest problem, however, is trying to understand and analyze it all, a fact made dramatically clear by the Sept. 11 attacks. Even though important messages from Afghanistan were picked up on Sept. 10, they were not translated until the day after the attack, and even that speed might simply have been generated by the attack itself. Although the messages would not have, in themselves, disclosed the plot, they might have been one more piece of the puzzle.

The only ones fear-mongering with this stuff are the assembled hysterics here. I'm far more concerned personally with private companies are allowed to do in this country in selling personal data collected by them on customers to others which is why I almost never buy anything over the internet.

It does not matter how hard the task is it is the fact that they do. In light of it being so hard to do the fact that they attempt to tells us a little about their power hungry ambitions. There have been instances where the federal government has made mistakes before. While many at Gitmo are probably guilty as sin there still needs to be checks for the innocent. They infringe upon ones liberty by mistake and we are just suppose to say oh well it happens. "MY BAD." It is impossible to expect perfection so to prevent that this should not even be allowed in the first place. Yeah we should worry about the commercial industry and the selling of our information but as of now they can still be punished for that, unless of course they are Telecoms. With this new FISA there is no real recourse against it, everything is done in a secret court, the FISA court.

The only ones fear-mongering with this stuff are the assembled hysterics here

Read your Constitution, see 4th Amendment.

What you said is not at all, in my view,

never said it was.

He is however doing what he thinks gives him the best chance to become president. I would call that winning the war.

He does know he will take heat from his base and his base isn't just the far left.

In his view, the political calculus shows that he will gain more in the middle than he will loose from his base.

He has been provided with political cover by being given chances to vote on amendments that never had any chance of being passed.

9.14

I've read the Constitution, thank you very much, but from what I've seen from the vast ignorance on display in this thread it doesn't appear that many have read either the original FISA statute or this proposed replacement. And when you have @!$%# like this being spewed:

but Bush hasn't been under the confines of even the old FISA since last year

the ignorance is quite frankly palpable as after the New York Times broke the story about the NSA eavesdropping program the Bush adminstration reversed course:

The Bush administration said Wednesday that it has agreed to disband a controversial warrantless surveillance program run by the National Security Agency, replacing it with a new effort that will be overseen by the secret court that governs spying in the United States.

The change -- revealed by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in a letter Wednesday to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- marks an abrupt reversal by the administration, which for more than a year has aggressively defended the legality of the NSA surveillance program and disputed court authority to oversee it.

Further, even under the old program it's not like the Congressional leadership didn't know what was going on -- they did including that asshat Jay Rockefeller.

I'm trying to plow through the legislation right now (not fun). Regarding the Fourth Amendment:

SEC. 702. PROCEDURES FOR TARGETING CERTAIN PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES OTHER THAN UNITED STATES PERSONS.

(a) Authorization - Notwithstanding any other provision of law... the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may authorize jointly, for a period of up to 1 year from the effective date of the authorization, the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information.

(b) Limitations- An acquisition authorized under subsection (a) --

(1) may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States;

(2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States;

(3) may not intentionally target a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;

(4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and

(5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

I would read that article again. There's the issue of immunity, but that isn't relevant to the point you made. Rockefeller may have been fully aware of it, but he is more inclined to go along with a program of this sort and so I don't consider his knowledge to represent credible oversight.

As for that Gonzalez letter, I think you need to read it closer. His letter was very vague and seemed designed to affirm Bush's unconstitutional Article 2 theory. Many conservatives didn't think this was a "retreat" to FISA at all; but don't take it from me, let your friends explain.

You know, after glancing over some of the legislation, it does seem like the whole warrantless wiretap issue -- the most important thing, in my view -- has been addressed.

However, one could make a case that the "exception" below could be abused by the government.

(g) Certification-

(1) IN GENERAL-

(A) REQUIREMENT- Subject to subparagraph (B), prior to the implementation of an authorization under subsection (a), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence shall provide to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court a written certification and any supporting affidavit, under oath and under seal, in accordance with this subsection.

(B) EXCEPTION- If the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence make a determination under subsection (c)(2) and time does not permit the submission of a certification under this subsection prior to the implementation of an authorization under subsection (a), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to the Court a certification for such authorization as soon as practicable but in no event later than 7 days after such determination is made.

I am of course no legal scholar, and I do not pretend to fully understand the amendment.

We don't agree on anything. I hate this bill, but I find this part unobjectionable - before, the government would have two days to submit their request for a retroactive warrant; now, it's been lengthened to seven days. I'm not sure if it's a good idea, if the government really requires this much time, but, assuming they have cause to seek a warrant, the extra five days doesn't really bother me.

I hate this bill, but I find this part unobjectionable

What part do you object to? Is it just the retroactive immunity?

That part, sure. It also appears that the government will be able to spy on Americans, provided that we are communicating with people who are outside of our country. Without any warrant.

How many Americans will lose their privacy rights between now and January. If one that is too many and you know it will be many. Where is the justice for those that have already had their rights violated? What about the court action that is already in progress that as of yesterday is done with no satisfaction to those that filed the suits.

I've read the Constitution, thank you very much, but from what I've seen from the vast ignorance on display in this thread it doesn't appear that many have read either the original FISA statute or this proposed replacement. And when you have @!$%# like this being spewed:

but Bush hasn't been under the confines of even the old FISA since last year

the ignorance is quite frankly palpable as after the New York Times broke the story about the NSA eavesdropping program the Bush adminstration reversed course:

Regardless of whether the administration reversed course or not, they haven't been confined by the old FISA since last year. Bush said that he would stop last January, but that doesn't mean that he was confined by the FISA. He wasn't.

And frankly, just because he said he would stop doesn't mean that he did. Bush used his authority as commander in chief to spy on "U.S. persons" ever since Congress authorized him to use military force after 9/11. It was NEVER legal, even under the old FISA, and it's only more than a year after the NY Times article that he said that they would stop. So that's over five years unchecked by even the old FISA.

And until this bill goes into effect, he will still be unchecked. Whether his administration is still authorizing warrantless wiretaps or not, the old FISA wasn't stopping him because it wasn't in effect anymore.

nearing,

I disagree with your interpretation of the FISA. I must have missed something, because my understanding is that there will be no warrantless wiretaps on anyone, and any warrants have to be subjected to the burden of proof first. Is that inaccurate?

Secondly, this bill doesn't make it impossible for us to see evidence for illegal wiretapping. It just places the responsibility for charging the telecoms in the federal government's hands. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

I think nearing is right on this. Superman, do you think its legitimate for one federal branch to perform oversight on itself? And my interpretation is that the administration can effectively conduct US-global surveillance without any warrants, and afterwards pursue individuals for any number of potential illegalities.

without any warrants

Where does FISA grant the federal government the authority to do that? That's the whole point of FISA.

You're comment about one branch overseeing itself is a good one, and I'm on record as saying that I'm not a huge fan of the bill in the first place. But I think it's incredibly more effective than said branch having no oversight at all. FISA hasn't been in effect since last year.

And with Bush coming out of there in six months, the corruption and dishonesty associated with the executive branch won't be nearly as much of a problem. Again I submit that if you want justice, support the articles of impeachment that have been read against the leaders of this administration. They ordered warrantless surveillance even with the old FISA in place. This administration has repeatedly shown a blatant disrespect for the Constitution.

I think we're kinda going back and forth but we're debating, not arguing, so I still feel that our discussion is worthwhile. I personally don't think impeachment is realistic or practical. I also don't think the country wants that.

My presumption is that Obama will use FISA for wiretapping and hopefully, in four years, this horrible bill won't be renewed. But that's a long time to wait to punish lawbreakers.

What rights does this bill take away from you or honest, hard-working Americans?

It takes away your right to privacy and when you give up or have that right taken by those in government you have lost control of your freedoms and life.

Honestly, can you explain how this bill takes away my right to privacy? I was under the impression that it requires federal agencies to get a court order before spying on US citizens. Is that not the case?

Not with this law and it is through a FISA court.

this is from my comment on

thank you Chum for stating it so simply to trolls such as jcpMD. Remember , jcpMD,that all you have stated is perpetually accessible on some main frame for analysis someday. It's not like it cannot or will not be used as evidence as to motive and agenda.Those attempting to deride or abolish the Constitution of the USA will be held responsible and accountable in their complicity of these acts. Most of these men have sworn under oath to up hold the Constitution of the USA ,under God.Enforceable to all degrees.They knew the implications of this oath. "I was just following orders under duress !"will not work.These words that one types will go as evidence to prove that it was not done out of ignorance,but out of malice,apathy,avarice and malfeasance.Complicit.Perpetually.

http://chum.newsvine.com/_news/2008/07/09/1650935-my-handgun-my-parasite-never-forget-the-brutal-effects-of-the-bush-regime-will-be-felt-for-generations#c2153369

#9.3 I think it applies here.Just copy and paste.Voila.

Superman2001

What rights does this bill take away from you or honest, hard-working Americans?

cgbs6183

Not with this law and it is through a FISA court.

???

What is it in the new intelligence bill?

Question: What are the key provisions in the FISA bill?

Benson: The bill explicitly establishes FISA as the exclusive means for authorizing electronic surveillance; requires a court order for the surveillance of any targeted American, whether the person is in the United States or abroad; [and] requires a secret court set up to oversee FISA issues to sign off on provisions for removing the name of any American inadvertently captured in a communication with a foreign target.

[It] prohibits reverse targeting, which is when intelligence officials eavesdrop on a foreigner's communications overseas as a means to spy on someone in the United States, and sets up a procedure for federal judges to determine whether a telecommunications company can be sued for providing the intelligence community access to its networks without a court order.

Question: Under the proposed FISA bill, can Americans be spied on without a court warrant? Are their civil liberties protected?

Benson: Under the new revised law, a warrant is required to spy on an American, including, for the first time, Americans who are abroad.

If the intelligence community should unintentionally intercept a phone call or an e-mail involving an American, the agency involved must get a warrant if the person is of interest or take steps to erase that person's name from any report.

And what's to stop them from declaring a citizen abroad might be a "foreign agent"?

I'd like to thank Superman for linking to that. This is kind of the law of unintended consequences but I'm glad I got to see this outright government propaganda from a CNN "expert." I read through that interview and nowhere did Benson even hit that what the telecoms did was illegal. And, to re-state, the bill does advise Bush that he can only spy through FISA. The problem is that that was the law already; Bush had just chosen to ignore it. So then, would re-stating the law - pretty please - make any difference?

Benson: Under the new revised law, a warrant is required to spy on an American, including, for the first time, Americans who are abroad.

If the intelligence community should unintentionally intercept a phone call or an e-mail involving an American, the agency involved must get a warrant if the person is of interest or take steps to erase that person's name from any report.

Compare that with Washington Post's write-up --

The new version continues to require warrants to target Americans in the United States, but no permission is needed to track foreign citizens who are located abroad -- regardless of whether the surveillance passes through U.S-based communication networks. If the overseas TARGET is a U.S. citizen, a warrant would be required -- regardless of where and how the spying takes place.

I highlighted "target" b/c - and this is where I'd say Benson goes into outright lying - if the person spied upon wasn't targeted - that is, if his communication was pulled in through a dragnet - no warrant would be required.

I have every faith that Bush will piss on this law like he did the others all we as a Country did through our Congress is give him a license to continue to do what he wants.

Bush illegally wiretapped us. Now he has permission to wiretap us (if we communicate with anyone in any way outside the US) without a warrant legally.

Say, there are plenty of international Viners. Does that make Newsvine a target?

Honestly, can you explain how this bill takes away my right to privacy? I was under the impression that it requires federal agencies to get a court order before spying on US citizens. Is that not the case?

It is not the case. Anyone who communicates with a foreigner suspected of terrorism, even unknowingly, will now be under electronic surveillance. Once collected, if that information makes you look suspicious the government can then use the FISA court to obtain a warrant to put you under complete electronic surveillance. Note that this is a warrant based upon evidence obtained by a warrantless search. Normally this isn't acceptable. But thanks to the loophole now introduced, it is acceptable.

The FISA court is, and always has been, a rubber stamp body staffed by judges hand-picked by the national security establishment. Once you are a suspect, you will be under complete surveillance and you will never know this until they a) realize their error or b) arrest you.

Bush illegally wiretapped us. Now he has permission to wiretap us (if we communicate with anyone in any way outside the US) without a warrant legally.

That's not true. The bill doesn't allow reverse surveillance.

I'm not sure who it was or if it was even in this thread, but the comment was made that Russ Feingold, who you're quoting, isn't accurately portraying the provisions of the new FISA. According to what I've read about it, this legislation does NOT give the administration that ability, unless a citizen is communicating with a known or suspected terrorist.

Its my understanding that the burden of proving a "suspected terrorist" has been lessened considerably.

And they, of course, don't have to justify the "reasonable cause" to anyone outside their branch of government.

According to what I've read about it, this legislation does NOT give the administration that ability, unless a citizen is communicating with a known or suspected terrorist.

The law is actually fairly odd in its wording. While there is some boilerplate up front about what this surveillance cannot entail, there are numerous provisions that contradict said boilerplate and a disturbing lack of enforcement.

To cite just one example, Sec. 702 (b)(3) states that a "United States person" cannot be targeted outside the U.S. However, in Sec. 702 (i)(2)(B) the FISC is only tasked with reviewing whether the primary surveillance target is outside the US. Moreover, should the FISC find fault with a surveillance order the government has 30 days (!) to correct this problem under Sec. 702 (i)(2)(C).

But wait, it gets worse!

The government can appeal the decision to the FIS, Court of Review, a process which can take up to 60 days per Sec. 702 (i)(4)(C) and then appealed to the Supreme Court per (4)(D) which has no defined time span. In addition, (j)(2) allows any of these various Courts to delay further simply by stating a "good cause . . . consistent with national security."

During this entire appeals process, the surveillance can be maintained per (i)(4)(B). Essentially, all you need is a couple of friends on the FISC (whose appointments are all vetted by intelligence agencies) and you can place anyone anywhere under surveillance for months before anyone even gets suspicious -- and potentially forever.

In practice I doubt anyone would so transparently abuse this law. But you can do quite a lot while still being in technical compliance. For example, any reporter (even a US citizen) who does interviews with foreign radicals can be placed under surveillance -- and that surveillance can persist long after any contact with a suspected terrorist has occurred. Its not just the Fourth Amendment in danger here, but also the First.

Are you kidding?

No, I'm actually serious on that. As cynical as I can be about the power of government to do evil, there is a strong tendency for officials to stick to "procedure." Playing games with the process in the extreme manner I suggested is not likely to occur simply because some bureaucrat involved in all those steps will get annoyed by the paperwork. Also, these officials are people, and people are lazy -- so they'll tend to abuse people's rights in the precise manner prescribed by law rather than spending time working the system.

The inertia of the system is more than enough to crush people underfoot. No extra pushing is required. Moreover, using the law in a "by the book" manner allows everyone involved to psychologically distance themselves from their actions.

I tell you what if this is a victory for the American People and is something they wanted then this BS might actually be the moonshot that gets the approval and confidence ratings of the congress out of the cellar. But if Bush signs it and the American People want it then his approval rating would go up too. That can't happen, He's Mr. Constancy. Of course I am sure this is a victory for the American People in some higher sense like protection from ourselves.

I think if Bill is going to call Chris Dodd D-Countrywide, I'm going to call John McCain R-Keating

I would consider listening to or keeping tabs on who calls who from where is spying no matter what the legal mumbo jumbo is. This with he MCA and the possible "Thought Crimes Act" I fear what might happen down the road.

Like I said earlier this is the last straw, and while a single straw does not break a camels back the aggregate of the load does.

I would consider listening to or keeping tabs on who calls who from where is spying no matter what the legal mumbo jumbo is.

Spying on suspected terrorists is how the United States catches them before they commit acts of terrorism.

Requiring court orders (which require that any suspicious activity gets scrutinized under burden of proof) protects everyday Americans from having their rights violated.

It's not legal mumbo jumbo. It's a differentiation between a terror suspect and a regular, hard-working American who shouldn't be subjected to spying in the first place.

Yeah and the legal bull in the MCA is vague on Enemy combatant and the Homegrown Terrorism and Violent Radicalization Act (still pending) cites a dissenting view from the government as radical.

Again a FISA court and no it does not have to be a terrorist, heck some government bureaucrat can listen in just so long as he reasonably believes one party is in a foreign country.

Yeah keep trusting the government elite.

Typical liberal response. All who disagree with you are duped, stupid, idiots,etc.....................

You must not have noticed in my reply the commas between duped, stupid, idiots........It wasn't meant as a description of a single subject. I merely listed three liberal name calling favorites. To attempt to list them all would be impossible. Though if I need to list more, I'll just scroll up and down in this thread.

Don't just go by what you read on an NBC sponsored website. After all, NBC is still doing business with Iran.

Benjamin Franklin didn't live in a time when sub human, sand monkies can fly airplanes into office buildings murdering thousands of innocent people.

No, He lived in a time when despotic tyrannical red coats kicked down your door and hanged you for speaking against the King. But Franklin is not the only one to say that... It's an axiom, that is a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." 
- Abraham Lincoln

"He who is willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserves neither freedom nor security" Mark Twain.

But Fraklin said it best.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." —Benjamin Franklin

cgbs6183,
I caught Barr a few times when the debates started 2 YEARS AGO and he peaked my interest along with Ron Paul. But they lapsed into obscurity. Thanks for bringing him to my attention again.

Of course there'll be an election in November. It's sweeps month, and the newscasts need the ratings bumps!!! ;:-)

Nooooooo. That's not why. There will be an election in November because that's when all the snowbirds will be back in Florida and most of them are Florida residents for tax purposes. Therefore, they'll vote down here where we all know that "All of Florida's Votes Count."

mostly left wing extremists

That uninformed generalization leaves your credibility at precisely nil. Took you seven words. That's a neat trick.

any of you mostly left wing extremists have a clue why we have not had another 9/11 style attack?

We went to them so why bother coming here all that much it does not really happen that often. They have hated us for decades because of our interventionist strategies so 8 years is not rally all that much. I fear it will happen again but trampling out liberties won't help matters. We are spreading ourselves to thin with both wars and being in every nook and cranny in the world, thus bankrupting us. We can not keep this up forever and in the end this is just another step toward an ism we don't want to see, all for our "security"

oh and you want to laugh some more well see what you think of this

Neocon, like New Coke it sounded good at first but in the end leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

Cheezy?

probably

Correction we have been taken over and Bull---- on why we haven't been attacked, October isn't here yet. The Government is sure to give us a shot of scare before November.

Nearing... Congress today gave away any chance we had of finding out just how and how much the Telecoms were spying on us illegally. The telecoms are small potato's. there are over 30 violations of FISA authorized by the White House.. That's 30 federal crimes.

During the January 24, 2008 debate in the Senate, Senator Brownback noted, "The immunity provisions would not apply to the Government or Government officials. Cases against the Government regarding the alleged programs would continue. And the provisions would apply only to civil and not criminal cases."

The following is also a quote from Findlaw. I will omit the quote feature to make it easy to read.

"If the civil suits that will now be dismissed under the FISA amendments had proceeded, it is questionable whether they could have been fully litigated, because they involved national security matters that no administration would disclose. Moreover, if those persons who have violated FISA at the request of President Bush are criminally prosecuted, it is not likely that any would be sent to jail (absent aggravating circumstances like those that existed in the case of Ehrlichman, who was involved in hiding information from the courts). But they all, particularly the telecoms, could face serious fines for criminal actions. Given the downside, it is not clear whether Bush would issue a pardon in this context."

Here is the kicker.

"If it were issued by Bush, however, a blanket pardon to his "national security" miscreants would require acceptance by them of the fact that they had broken the law, and thus an admission of guilt. Were Bush to issue such a remarkable pardon, it would, of course, cement his historical stature as several notches below even that of Richard Nixon, who refused to pardon those who (many "for national security reasons") engaged in the so-called Watergate abuses of presidential power on his behalf. Not many presidents want to be viewed by history as worse than Nixon. And a blanket pardon would be an admission by Bush that his war on terror has been a lawless undertaking, operating beyond the bounds of the Constitution and statutes that check the powers of the president and the executive branch. It would be an admission by Bush, too, of his own criminal culpability (which is why Nixon refused to grant his aides a pardon.)"

Do you see the trap Obama is setting here? This will play out after the election.

I do. I think that is that president is Obama. I do. Obama said:

What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity.

You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in cover-ups of those crimes with knowledge [aforethought], then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody['s] above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it. (Emphasis added.)

This corruption is the worst part of the mess. Nothing else will ever be fixed if the government is not returned to the will of the people. Obama is a constitutional lawyer, he knows this, his platform has been on this, it was in his speech at the convention. If he goes back on this... then the promise of hope was indeed a false one and I will walk to Washington with a rock in my hand and they will have to kill me to stop me.

Thanks, Dan.

How can that not concern you folks who are saying, "Ah, so what"?

That mean you, SuperDuped (I mean Superman2001).

I'm gonna bow out now, because it's obvious that you're extremely emotional about this topic, and rightfully so, but you're not showing an ability to discuss it's merits without stooping to childish antics, and it's annoying.

The fact is that I don't see this FISA as being a trampling of the 4th Amendment, and you do. I'd enjoy a civil debate about the topic, but you won't do that.

And it's not just me. It's not just Obama supporters. It's not just Republicans. There are a lot of people who are aware of the ramifications of this bill that don't feel as strongly about it's effects as you do. They're all ignorant and mis/un-informed because they don't agree with you, right? That's ridiculous.

Nothing can change if we don't have the representatives in office that will work to change things nearing, if you don't trust Obama, and are buying into the hype and spin from the Media and the Right, and think Obama does not know what he is doing. Then Vote for McCain. FISA is just the tip of the iceberg.

Obama on the FISA 'Compromise' ...

"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

MYTH: Congress knows all it needs to know about the government's warrantless surveillance programs. FACT: Administration officials have repeatedly hinted about "other" intelligence programs. The NSA warrantless surveillance program may only be the tip of the iceberg. Congress needs to know about all illegal government surveillance programs before it considers giving the government more surveillance powers. Only a few Members of Congress have seen the documents relating to the terrorist surveillance program and Congress should not legislate in the dark.

See 10.16.

I do agree that Senator Feingold knows more about the bill and the 4th Amendment than I do, but I don't agree with his interpretation or representation of it. Same as you don't agree with Senator Obama's.

then the promise of hope was indeed a false one and I will walk to Washington with a rock in my hand and they will have to kill me to stop me.

Dan Hallo, aka, Zoilus

I'm with you ,when are you leaving?And in the other hand bring me a ham sandwich.
I'm broke and hungry.
But empowered and enfranchised!!
yes ,these unconstitutionalist have stolen everything from me.Children,wealth,family,home and my life. I'm not kidding.

if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in cover-ups of those crimes with knowledge [aforethought], then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody['s] above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.

And yes they really did do this stated up above.

Superman2001,

The Bill of Rights should not be up to interpretation. They should apply as written.

There should be no qualification of these Rights.

If you are to be secure in your person, houses, papers and effects, then it should be just that.

No person or official should be allowed to spy on you without probable cause. Plain and simple.

In the case of telecom companies, you pay them for a service in your home. The service is in your home connected to another home. The telecom companies are a private company, not an extension of a law enforcement agency or the government.

If you are suspected of a crime, then a judge should have no problem issuing a warrant.

Plain and simple.

cranky old man,

The Bill of Rights has sparked more controversy in this nation than anyone could ever point out here. That's the reason we have a judicial system and a Supreme Court, to interpret the Constitution.

Being a scaredy cat is not presidential.

If he were scared, he would have voted against it, to satisfy his "leftist base," though, Lisa. Right? Or are you changing your spin?

In any case, there's no logic to your words.

TJG - 22.2---obama has no fear whatsoever of losing his base......his embracing our President's position on fisa was to give Reagan democrats permission to vote for him.

what we didn't know was that Obama would fall in line with our President who as far as I know from listening to some dems is nothing short of the devil in disguise. Is their any greater sin for Barack Obama than to continue to embrace our President's positions one after the other after the other ?????

Your reasoning is completely laughable.

Christian 23.1 - you think obama falling in line with our President's side of one issue after another is laughable? I don't. I wonder how Hillary's supporters feel about it?

you think obama falling in line with our President's side of one issue after another

You state that as though it were a fact. Yes, laughable.

Christian, some can only parrot the party line and don't have a lot of depth to themselves :p

I'd be your customer.

Leah

You're a damn sight more likely to suffer real harm from buying things over the internet and providing personal information over supposedly secure websites than you're ever likely to be harmed by this new FISA statute.

I tell you the nutsroots are positively on fire with this thing. Oh, the humanity!!