Where is Obama on the FISA fight? Obama responds! UPDATED 1,2, &3
By John Amato Thursday Jun 19, 2008 3:00pm
What is Obama's position on the newly passed FISA bill in the HOUSE? So far we're only getting silence. I contacted the campaign and I'm waiting for a quote. I believe that Nancy Pelosi is taking a hit for him. She's not telling anyone to support it, but explained why she voted for it. If she really believed in it---she would have urged her colleagues to vote for it, she did not. Here's the roll call.
If Obama is remaining quiet because he doesn't want to have to run against the Republican/FISA ads that would come out...well....that's wrong. He can't allow them to frame the debate and run the agenda in the general election. Americans are solidly against immunity for the Telecoms. It's his party now and he can easily lead on this issue against McCain by being the first one out of the gate against Telecom immunity, but stand strong for our national security. In the past Obama supported Chris Dodd's filibuster.
It's official: Obama will back a filibuster of any Senate FISA legislation containing telecom immunity, his campaign has just told Election Central. The Obama campaign has just sent over the following statement from spokesman Bill Burton:
"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."
That was huge at the time. McJoan writes:
Senator Obama, spoil Bush's FISA Christmas celebration. Remind your colleagues that he is a lame duck with a sub 30 approval rating. Remind your colleagues that they are far more popular with Republicans than with their own party.
Remind your colleagues that, in your own words, "The stakes are too high and the challenges too great to play the same old Washington games with the same old Washington players." Reject this bill and lead your Senate colleagues in upholding the Constitution.
Marcy Wheeler writes a letter to Obama:
Senator Obama, you are asking voters to choose you to become the President of the United States. You had to as Senator--and will as President--swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
You cannot remain silent on this issue and at the same time fulfill your promise, the one you have made, and the one you will make, to defend the Constitution. Remaining silent rejects the separation of powers. Remaining silent presumes that the "political branches" can simply legislate the Courts into submission. And remaining silent communicates that you--the next President of the United States--believes checks on executive power like habeas corpus and the Fourth Amendment are mere niceties and not foundational principles of this great nation.
As the presumptive leader of the Democratic Party, you can lead your fellow Senators in rejecting this unconstitutional law. But without your leadership, the Constitution will suffer a dangerous blow.
UPDATED 1: Obama has come out with a statement via Glenn Greenwald:
Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. . . .
After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act. . . 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.
It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives -– and the liberty –- of the American people.
He says he will work to remove amnesty from the bill, but once that fails, will vote for the "compromise." Obama has obviously calculated that sacrificing the rule of law and the Fourth Amendment is a worthwhile price to pay to bolster his standing a tiny bit in a couple of swing states. The full Obama statement is here.
UPDATED 2: Digby says:
Roy Blunt and Steny Hoyer are practically tongue kissing on the floor right now and congratulating each other on their mutual fabulousness in negotiating the rape of the constitution this morning. It's quite a love fest.
--
Capitulating to the most unpopular lame duck president in history because they are afraid of him. Makes you proud to be a Democrat doesn't it...read on
UPDATE 3: Atrios names Obama: "Wanker of the Day "
Login or Register to post comments.
Bravo Obama! This is what it is going to take. We must stand up to the crooks and liars. On the subject of crooks and liars, watch Cindy McCain tell Jay Leno "our marriage was started on a tissue of lies." Watch the whole thing, it is really stunning! Pretty funny when she's been dumping on Michelle Obama, but this really shows the difference between these two women.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv7LUT1ezm0
Obama will lose my volunteering efforts in the Fall and maybe even my vote if he does not come out STRONGLY against this NOW.
This is his chance to really demonstrate "change".
Should he fail, he will lose so much momentum and possibly give the presidency to McCrazyCain.
Democracy is the grandest illusion of all.
Ofcourse he is remaining silent, this is an actual issue of substance.
A real leader would have at least made a statement by now. Very disappointing.
Where is Obama on the FISA fight?
Holding the coats.
The way this diary reads is that Obama has taken a stand to filibuster this time. Is that true? I think the diary is indicating Obama stood for the filibuster in the past, but it is not known where he stands now.
Probably wishes he could vote "present" like he did in the Illinois Senate on controversial issues.
A leader would of been out in front of this prior to the house vote.
He has not voted on a FISA bill yet. Should be interesting.
Yes, hold his feet to the fire. This ain't the time for bullshit.
All of a sudden I feel justified for not supporting Obama.He still has a chance to do the right thing, and if he blows, I'm going full blown campaigning for MCcain.
His silence on this very very important issue will make it or break it for his candidacy.
Further proff Obama's not the great agent of change he likes to claim. Nader does a good job of calling it on Democracy Now.How do you spell C-O-R-P-O-R-A-T-E.
Don't stay silent, Obama. Show the courage to lead on this important issue. We know you can do it.
I think Obama is in a bit of a political quandry. If he makes a public statement, the debate over FISA becomes about him - he'll definitely be taking a hit on it. In addition, what if he fights against it in the Senate, but it passes anyway? Then he looks weak. This isn't to say he shouldn't oppose this execrable law anyway - I think he should - only that doing so comes with great political risks.
So much for Hope:
"After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.
"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.
"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."
Nyguy: So, um, how do you think McCain is going to vote on this in the Senate. I'll bet you thirty trillion dollars he votes for it. So what do you do then?
Ruling Class Rou @ 10:
Exactly right.
My Fax from yesterday
To:
Barack Obama,
US Senator and candidate for President
Fax # 202-228-4260
From:
Alice X,
US citizen and contributor to the Obama campaign
Fax # 734-nnn-nnnn
Dear Sir
It is my understanding that the US House of Representatives will be considering revised FISA legislation within the very near future.
I write to express my strongest opposition to past and future warrantless surveillance and retroactive legal immunity for parties that may have engaged in such surveillance.
I urge you to speak out against such provisions and actions.
Thank you.
Most sincerely
Alice X
No to Congress FISA giveaway.
Obama is no longer silent. He supports the bill saying, in part:
"After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act."
I think I'll stay home on Nov. 8.
Keep the 4th admendment strong. Fight for the constitution Obama!
“To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.”
I truely hope this is the case.
Terrorists will never be able to take away our freedoms. We can only take them away from ourselves. (Not original, but appropriate)
arbitrista @ 12:
The bill is going to pass in the Senate, there is not doubt there is not enough democrats that will vote against it.
He had to make a stand prior to the House vote. It is too late.
nyguy @ 9:
That was a bit hasty, don't you think? Why are you in such a hurry to support McSame?
Don't you think he deserves a chance to be heard first. I know I'll listen to him. And I will pay close attention to what goes on for the next several months. And then some.
Booman posted Obama's statement on FISA. It's mixed, and not great. He opposes FISA immunity and says he'll work with Congress to remove that portion of the bill. But he speaks more favorably of the compromise in other respects than he ought to....
Wow, I raised a question about Obama's financing a few threads bellow and was labeled a troll.
I guess, all of you now qualify to be called trolls. After all, you ARE criticizing Obama. How dare you not be Obama sheeple?
arbitrista @ 12:
He is in the senate, his opinions have to be made public if he is to really play himself as a candidate of change. And what happended to filibusters?The cons do it all the time. I'm really going independent, and I mean, never, ever again voting for a democratic candidate for the rest of my life.
How is McCain going to vote on this? Will McCain throw out our constitutional rights? McCain supports the KGB elements in the US Government?
Anybody that makes this the reason that they will vote for McCain is still a douche. If Obama caves on this, just imagine what McCain will do, and on top of it, if McCain is president he will exploit all of these new found unconstitutional powers just as his predecessor would. Don't be an idiot.
TPM has Obama's statement in its entirety:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/201032.php
The gist if it is: Obama feels that, while retroactive immunity is a bad thing, he has no problems with the present wording regarding Expanded Executive Surveillance.
I translate this as: I think the phone companies should be held accountable, but screw the 4th Amendment--I want your phone records!!
arbitrista @ 14:
At least MCcain will vote for his convictions. He is a war mongering fool, and I expect it from him.
nyguy @ 28:
Oh, I see. You're gonna vote for "integrity".
Where does McCain stand on the constitution? Will McCain preserve the 4th admendment?
DocG @ 13:
The audacity of hype
sharkcellar @ 26:
I agree completey. A McCain Presidency will be a further descent into fascism and lunacy and I would never vote for him. Ever. Unfortunately, I just cannot support a nominee who doesn't support basic, constitutional issues. Rather than be an idiot and vote for McCain, I'll just not vote.
Will McCain sell the constitution out?
Talking Points Memo has this quote from Obama:
"Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.
"That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.
"After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.
"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.
"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."
sharkcellar @ 29:
Nope, I'm simply campaigning against anyone who betrays the freedoms we have. This has been a very important issue before, and even more since Bush took over the White House. I'm not giving him a pass on it. You can be a sheep if you want to.
Embittered & Anti-Republicrat - Max-Hussein-1 @ 315:
Please, riddle me this...
.
Could you be more specific?
it was a disappointing statement
he said he would support someone else put their butts on the line if they want to filibuster, but if that doesnt work he is gonna sign on with Bush and McCain.
The American people are on the side of the rule of law....... I for one is hoping that Obama will join the American people instead of the right talking heads.
I have called his office about this twice....... 202-224-2854
do the right thing Obama
Edwin Hussein @ 355:
So did we.
Mickxotic @ 302:
thanks mickxotic . . . i'm going to pass on the scotch, single malt or otherwise, but i'll raise a hoegaarden in your username
{ Deleted, Please don't post in all Caps or In all bold Lettering. It's Yelling. Thank You. Site monitor]
These people aren't "capitulating to a lame duck president". They're serving the same masters Bush serves; Wall Street. If they appear to cave in to Bush, it's because they both have the same goals.
It's just that Democrats have to do a little dance in public and act like they don't *want* fascism.
Johnny2Bad @ 348:
As someone who has a degree in philosophy, I can confidently tell you that you are using the term "Straw Man" wrong.
Johnny2Bad @ 359:
I'm all for it. You've got until November. Better hurry. (Who will we find to be the new guard, in 4 short months? Maybe Hillary, at the Convention.)
Would this be a good time to take a really close look at the "presumptive" candidate? Maybe concede that he is not all he was made out to be? Lack of experience and qualifications do not a leader make. Merely an old fashioned politician surrounded by hype.
Selling out the citizens in favor of FISA is just the beginning. Or maybe I misunderstand his ability to "reach across the aisle".
Pat J @ 368:
Note to Johnny: Now THIS is a strawman argument!
I had hoped Obama would be for change. Little by little he seems to be capitulating to mainstream politics. Unless he starts showing more backbone, I will vote for a third party or independent. Let's see how Obama responds when Israel or the US attacks Iran.
Hate to say "I told you so about Obama," BUT... I TOLD YOU SO!!!
PUMA.
Jo @ 169:
and they will all be repigs , obama kersplunks! kucinich 08
Oh what a surprise... he's a destroy-our-constitution, CFR, globalist shill after all. We are truly a nation of idiots. ...propping this do-nothing up. Idiots. And why didn't we, the opposing party electorate like Kucinich? Oh yea, he wasn't electable because he wasn't tall enough and had funny ears. Idiots. But he had one thing going for him. Not that he defends our constitution. Not because he has the stones to impeach the crooks. No, his wife was hot. That's all you idiots could see of his virtues. ...his wife was hot. Idiots. Democrats are idiots. I'm changing my party affiliation tomorrow. I'm a libertarian as of this minute.
Just like I thought, no matter who the two candidates are, they will maintain status quo and not rock the boat.
VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!!!!!!!!!!
Obama also says that he as president will closely monitor the program. So Obama is willing to vote for the legislation now, even though he may not win, thus having us have to trust McCain.
wearescrewed @ 373:
The media and 'pundunces' reduced the race down to Clinton and Obama. Then, so many wanted the "American Idol Candidate", they decided to go after Sen Clinton until she bowed out like the rest.
Scott @ 374:
Who is the Libertarian candidate you suggest? You live in America. At this point in the game, it's either McSame or Obama. The end.
John @ 309:
Wow, I really couldn't have said it any better than that.
remember this yes we can , yes we can ,yes we can ,yes we can er um unless we cant!
"Obama will back a filibuster of any Senate FISA legislation containing telecom immunity"
Excuse me. Pardod? Wait a F'ing minute. He will "back"??
WHERE'S THE LEADERSHIP?
Barak Obama: following along.
What sort of pathetic mess has the DNC sent us now!
Hope for America? MY ASS.
Now it's time for those of us who knew better to ask it, with the same smugness as the Obama supporters after Hillary dropped out: "Who are you gonna vote for now? What other choice do you have?"
It's a beautiful combination of Michelle's on-camera idiocy and Barack's SNL skit: the mask is coming off and the real Barack is showing his face. You've married him and now you're finding out what his morning breath is like. Divorce? It will take years, and you'll just marry stupid again; you're not nearly as smart as you imagine, certainly not smart enough to learn from your mistakes.
Congratulations to all you "Progressives" for blindly piling onto the bandwagon on the basis of skin color, vague promises of "change," and your hemorrhoidal "Anybody But Clinton" policy. Nader in 2000, Nader in 2004, and in 2008 the coup de grace.
*clap*
*clap*
*clap*
im embarassed for you!
Trust @ 375:
so, either he's arrogant (for assuming that he will win) or an idiot (for not considering the mccain-at-the-reigns scenario)
and i had hoped, after 8 years of this soul-crushing presidency, to be able to go to the polls with pride
Gloria La Riva, Socialist candidate for President, is stand up on this issue as well as most issues important to progressives.
Don't let the label scare you. If you thought Obama was gonna be a liberal/progressive and are disappointed to learn he's just another corporate shill, there is always Gloria La Riva.
It's time to think outside of the two-party system box. Obama's not afraid that 'progressive/liberals' will tack right into McInsane's camp, but he may be afraid if Dems start agitating toward the true left.
"Every couple of years the oppressed get to choose who will be their oppressors." K. Marx
Prof. Challenger
So, if Hilllary stood up and put a stop to this bill, would you support her getting the nomination? I'd think about it.
So much for the "change" candidate. I have an idea....why don't Obama and McSame just tie the knot as the "Bipartisan" government, toss the Constitution in the trashcan and declare martial law. I mean, that's what is happening anyhow.
abarts @ 376:
Are you kidding? Clinton and globalist shill are synonymous as well.
In one of the debates DK was asked "why didn't you back the patriot act. His response? "Because I read it." Not one other dem had a bush to hide behind from that moment on. Our best candidate had put the stake in the heart of all the shills. But our party kept helping the media laugh at him. Why? Oh yea, because democrats are idiots!
Obama, lip service you can count on.
lets hear it one more time, cry if need be, yes we cannnnnnnnnnn!!!!!!!
[OK tyree, I think you've made your point. Enough is enough. Site Monitor]
Well, the honeymoon is over. Didn't even get to cut the cake.
He must have gotten a look at his 'file'.
From the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams:
[An extraterrestrial robot and spaceship has just landed on earth. The robot steps out of the spaceship...]
"I come in peace," it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, "take me to your Lizard."
Ford Prefect, of course, had an explanation for this, as he sat with Arthur and watched the nonstop frenetic news reports on television, none of which had anything to say other than to record that the thing had done this amount of damage which was valued at that amount of billions of pounds and had killed this totally other number of people, and then say it again, because the robot was doing nothing more than standing there, swaying very slightly, and emitting short incomprehensible error messages.
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."
teknikAL @ 390:
what do you think dian fienstien was showing him and hillary at her house!
Happenstance @ 381:
Maybe you shoulda thrown your hat into the ring.
Easy to disparage, much harder to open Americans' eyes, and really change things. Americans never seem to truly want change, just unfettered acceess to an endless supply of consumer goods, without a lot of details about how they got there. That's why you are where you are today: you sat by --for decades-- as your Empire strangled the globe, and became the corrupt morass it is now.
It's over Johnny!
tyree @ 382:
Back atchya, tyree. Obama's statement, via Ben Smith at The Politico:
Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.
That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.
After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.
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.
It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people.
[emphasis added]
catch-22
DC @ 33:
With prince georgie's s**t marks?
sharkcellar @ 29:
At least McCain made time in his schedule to actually do his duty and vote. Obama is Mr No Vote.
I personally can not vote for someone that does not vote themselves.
"Barack will support a filibuster"
but he will not lead a filibuster? another follower, not a leader.
No balls Barack.
theWalrus @ 32:
If Obama caves on this, I can understand not voting. Kucinich was my guy and I'm keeping my eyes on Obama, but I think not voting is a very unAmerican thing to do, nevermind the voting history of Americans in the last few decades. There have been far worse candidates than Obama.
ysbaddaden @ 37:
This is really bad.
Obama, you need to step up. You said we'll change this country together. You need to get up in their face! I couldn't tell from reading this piece if you had made a decision or not. Oh, and Hillary you need to say something too.
They wanted unity and got it.
karl @ 36:
There is no catch 22. You are either a leader who knows right from wrong or you are not.
commander in thief @ 39:
If someone leads (i.e. does all the work), I will follow. Nice.
Bush barks, Democrats roll over.
I want to hear a strong resounding unequivocal condemnation of this bill and all those who voted for it
we need to hear this!!! this delay is costing him!!!
Obama!!!! Listen!!! Except for John Edwards, I have never given anyone money but you..
NOW FUCKING EARN IT!!!!!!
AmericaBlog is writing that Obama supports the FISA bill and has a statement he issued. Here ends my support!
[ Deleted, That's enough tyree. Please stop. Site Monitor]
I'm just happy to know that Obama stood up to the provision, rather than just automatically let it pass. But I'm going to bet that he'll work to have the immunity clause removed when he becomes President.
tyree @ 396:
enough what site moniter ? critisizing obama? wth , is this the change we can believe in?
wow i cannot believe he is caving, damn i thought this cat was going to be different .. wow this sucks .. damn i really am finding it hard to believe ..wow i thought he was different.. it is going to be the same old same old ... NO IMMUNITY EVER !
as i said before obama said were going to be in iraq and afganistan for yrs to come , wheres the change? obama says nukes are on the table for iran ,wheres the change? obama mccain two heads of the same coin!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ Deleted, Off Topic. Site Monitor]
How about this: "So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program," he said, adding a vow to "to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives -- and the liberty -- of the American people." - Barack Obama 6/20/08.
We all knew once the door was open for expanded executive privileges, that the door would not be closed. This statement sounds to me that he plans to blow the door wide open. We cannot trust any current politician so long as they do not vote on the side of their constituents.
So what can we do as ordinary Joe Blow citizens? That's a great question. Here's a website that I found that helps answer this. It's not easy, but we all have to do our part. Sitting on our computers isn't going to get this done! Don't vote for the lesser of 2 evils, that's the beginning. Protesting, boycotting, and civil disobedience is the strongest tools at our disposal. We must use them all to overturn this environment of corruption. Begin organizing in your neighborhood today.
I was just watching Washington Week in Review, and there was not mention of the passage of the new FISA bill with immunity for co-conspirators nor Obama's Quisling attitude toward it. It was primarily about Obama withdrawing from public funds and Tim Russert.
I've been saying all along that no matter who would be the next Democratic candidate, even if they win, they probably wouldn't fight for our Civil Rights until AFTER 2012 when they may've won reelection. So many Obama supporters said, "No, no he's different, your a troll, a racist etc..."
And now this.
These are words, posted here as Obama's words, from a blogger who supports Clinton.
Until I see and hear it straight from Obama's mouth via a television broadcast, then I'll believe it.
ysbaddaden @ 403:
but ,but the terriorists will get us if we dont watch out!!!!!
ysbaddaden @ 403:
Saw the first few mins. of Countdown...Jonathan Alter and the new Newsweek poll.
Nothin so far on the constitution fire sale.
Way ta go K.O.!!
O'Bama just lost my support. Bush has implemented government of personality - not law. O'Bama just said (In the greenwald statement) that he as president would 'watch' this law closely - in otherwords, like Bush ... a government of personality not law.
To suggest that anyone must vote for O'Bama because of the (SCOTUS) alternative ignores all the problems that are as dire - and real not potential (as in the case of SCOTUS). He is proving himself to be a Clintonian triangulator and fails to differentiate himself from the corrupt congress.
He is a Harvard lawyer.
ysbaddaden @ 403:
Chickens roosting...Finally.
Pawn @ 402:
You're reading that part of Obama's statement much differently than I am.
I read that as saying that he will go above and beyond the oversight of the FISA program than this bill would codify.
Johnny2Bad @ 348:
Hitler and Satan straw men? No, they're the current president and vice-president, unfortunately.
John @ 391:
i refuse to laugh about this situation . . . i want to be all pissy and drink beer . . . and i need a hug
it seems to me obamas reasoning about fisa is the same old garbage of fear the bush dawgs spout every day of the year, we have to be protected for our own good , big brothers alive and well!
Anybody on the Internet can post these words as Obama's.
Believe it when you see and hear it straight from his mouth, not from a Hillary supporter.
Andy K Jong Il @ 409:
So, if he's saying "trust me...I'm not like Bush" I say B.S. That's not his job as President. Not even close.
That's the duty of Congress.
He should know that....what's worse is I'm sure he does.
Going along to get along. Time to reconsider Nader? (or even Bob Barr for that matter).
In addition to my earlier post, view the movie "Bringing Down a Dictator". This is simply spectacular and shows the power of the people practicing mass, non-violent, civil disobedience. The best part, they were successful and overthrew Slobodan Milosevich. Critical viewing for all of us that are fed up with the status quo in our American Bi-Parisan Dictatorship. This website provides links to purchasing the film, as well as lessons for all of us to excercise.
JustWords @ 404:
Well, maybe you need to hear it directly from his mouth, but the report is corroborated well enough in my eyes at least when pro-Obama talking heads like K.O. are even questioning the thinking behind his stance on this issue. Keith didn't lay into him, but at least he raised the question and a figurative eyebrow, which is more I can say of a lot of the rabid Obama supporters that are blindly defending their guy.
Yeah, Newsweek poll showing a 15 point lead and the disarray of the conservative cause (more or less) guarantees the "left" wing of the corporate party victory.... and, yes, the "average" voter won't care about RETROACTIVE immunity and the implications this has for our civil liberties.... but, I'm still convinced more than ever that I need to teach another year or two, finish my master's over summer's and during a one year leave of absence, and then jumping this sinking ship like a rat and going someplace to teach English or something (even anybody will still pay for such a dated skill).....
I loved the ideals this country stands for, just as I like the ideals espoused by the Obama camp and the "left"... but, their practical execution of their ideals SUCKS!!! and I've had my heart broken too many times. Generally, I'm a pretty cynical/jaded person... but, he sure fooled me. I gave him some slack for some things, knowing their are battles that you pick and that you can't always take a stand on principle *every* single time something doesn't jive with your belief system.
Yet, this is an issue of INALIENABLE right and liberties! The constitution is a written representation of the social contract that is supposed to exist between the governed and the government. That contract is totally null and void at the moment, and I'm starting to believe the only solution is direct action. Civil disobedience, social upheaval, tax resistance.... Or, just pulling up stake and leaving, as did many prominent jews, intellectuals, artists, and homosexuals fled Germany during the emergence of the Nazi's as the ruling party/force in German life....
People who equivocate and are apologists for Obama, WAKE UP! Get out while you still can, I know I will... I will stay here maybe 4 more years, at the top... then, "citizen of the world in spirit," "american citizen on work visa in reality" sounds appealing.....
John, you've done a heck-of-a-job getting McCain elected as our next President. You must be so proud!
I believe those words as Obama's words when I see and hear it straight from his mouth via a television broadcast.
Tell Hillary I said hi!
ian @ 415:
Barr????? shirley you jest
Andy K Jong Il @ 409:
With the powers in place, what he says, and what is done, are very different. I'd like to trust him also. Lessons in politics today, try to see through the blinders that are put in front of you. No American President ever has left office with his hands clean. An undeniable fact. I'm not trying to sway anybody from voting for Obama, I think now more than ever it's important to provide people the resources to civilly overthrow the corruption that is now in control. Even if Obama provides the best that he can be if elected, we should still fight for change and not become complacent.
CW @ 417:
I've been out for over 20 years, and not coming back.
RIP America.
JustWords @ 413:
Wow. Denial. A dangerous thing.
Which "from the mouth" statement do you want?
January '08: "I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill."
February '08: "We are trying to protect the American people, not special interests like the telecommunications industry."
Or Today: "Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise."
Gulp. Hard to swallow isn't it?
mudshark @ 419:
'Shirley?' I thought you were talking to ian
Johnny2Bad @ 414:
And you know that how?
And tell me what the issue is here. I'd like to know what you think it is.
405 tyree Says: ysbaddaden @ 403:
I was just watching Washington Week in Review, and there was not mention of the passage of the new FISA bill with immunity for co-conspirators nor Obama’s Quisling attitude toward it. It was primarily about Obama withdrawing from public funds and Tim Russert.
I’ve been saying all along that no matter who would be the next Democratic candidate, even if they win, they probably wouldn’t fight for our Civil Rights until AFTER 2012 when they may’ve won reelection. So many Obama supporters said, “No, no he’s different, your a troll, a racist etc…”
And now this.
but ,but the terriorists will get us if we dont watch out!!!!!
The problem here is Obama appears to be a panderer. He was supposed to be above such kinds of politics. Someone posted a highlighted version of Obama's quote that he would support the bill, but look closely at the retroactive immunity part. But that was integral to the passage of the bill he praises, and there is no presidential line item veto, so his only other choice would be booshian signing statements, or simply evasive contradictory statements within one supposed answer.
Andy K Jong Il @ 395:
let me put it this way sounds like your swallowing the bush lets be scared of the boogyman!
Doom, despair and agony on me... deep dark depression, excessive misery...if it weren't for bad luck I'd have no luck at all... doom, despair and agony on me...
hee haw
miss_kitty @ 422:
badabooom
Andy K Jong Il @ 423:
Wow....That's a stunning admission on your part. Here. Some required reading might be the best thing for you.
Here's a bonus. The very short and simple Presidential oath of office:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
425 tyree
Thanks tyree, it was Andy K Jong Il @ 395: that I was referring to as containing conflicting pandering statements within the space of one answer.
427 mudshark Says: miss_kitty @ 422:
mudshark @ 419:
ian @ 415:
Going along…
…????? shirley you jest
‘Shirley?’ I thought you were talking to ian
badabooom
That's from Airplane, when Leslie Nelson was actually funny.
My favorite scenes is when they have to deploy the automatic pilot, and a little boy gets shot down by a little girl he's interested in.
Ok the integrity voters are coming out to voice their concern. We'll see how noble your sentiments are if McCain gets in the house. If I'm a sheep, I'm a black wolf in sheep's clothing. You don't know shit about me. Apparently you skipped over the part about me holding Obama's feet to the fire on this and that Kucinich was my first choice. I imagine you "integrity" guys are Ron Paul independents who prolly wouldn't vote for a black guy to begin with.
sharkcellar @ 40:
I have never *not* voted. But after 8 years of war-mongering, fear-mongering and lawlessness I cannot, in good conscience, support a candidate who, in any way, enables the continuation of policies that, in my mind, have the potential to destroy this country. Glenn Greenwald says: "Obama has obviously calculated that sacrificing the rule of law and the Fourth Amendment is a worthwhile price to pay to bolster his standing a tiny bit in a couple of swing states." I just can't vote for that. Not voting is not unamerican. It's my right to not sanction any of this. I refuse to take part.
naschkatze Hussein @ 47:
I am reading that too. Thank Gawd I got a far on 75 acres in Panama.
Jon @ 34:
is this for real
fuck him
now we have to vote for ron paul
Obama was just now speaking live at a press conference in Jacksonville Fla. CNN cut in on it just long enough to cover the campaign finance part that is all the talk today on the talking heads' shows. Then they cut away. It would be nice to know if any of the reporters questioning Senator Obama asked anything about the vote today.
Let's keep in mind that Senator Obama is a Constitutional lawyer, and calm down until we know exactly what we are talking about. The tv world seems way more concerned about his campaign "flip flop" than they are about anything else. They say it won't probably even be noticed or cared about by voters, but that doesn't stop them from going on and on about it. They are trying to create an issue out of and issue-less topic.
Obama Supports FISA Compromise
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/20/155136/772/771/539250
Statement of Senator Barack Obama on FISA Compromise
(snip)
"Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.
.
Q U E S T I O N:
What does Obama support and defend IF NOT the Constitution of the USA?
.
Ruling Class Rou @ 31:
I'm actually an Obama supporter and will still vote for him. But I am greatly disappointed in him right now. Still, he's a thousand times better than Grampa.
I need to go look up the definition of "change".
I was considering sending $$$ to Obama. Stupid me.
naschkatze Hussein @ 47:
Ughh..AmericaBlog. Although I am thoroughly dissapointed that Obama is supporting this bill, I can't help but feel a little bit of schadenfeude for AB. Aravosis's campaign against HRC was low-down, brutal and disgusting. Now what will he do?...
Bull shit, bull shit, bull shit. Where was Barack when he could have killed this in the House. I'm sick and tired of triangulation of issues by the DINO Congress, including it seems, Barack!
Until today I WAS excited about Obama ... still better than Hillary but not by much
Yeah, right, Vote for RP. That has got to be the stupidest thing I've heard in the last 3 months.
Sure thing. Geeeezzzzz, do some frickin research will ya.
that's the end of change...America...we're screwed...Obama is a fraud...this is just the beginning...what a coward...will this inevitable shift to the right cost him the election? God help America...
“It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people.”
Sigh.
harley @ 56:
I am looking myself.
theWalrus @ 17:
John McCain thanks you for your vote.
theWalrus @ 32:
The lack of REAL change means we have two options: 1. Vote for Obama and simply delay the house of cards falling in this country, maybe he'll cushion the fall. 2. Vote for McCain and speed up the process.
Neither offer an alternative to the policies that have screwed the country, so realistically those are the two options. Neither will fundamentally change the economic system, healthcare, environmental policy, obviously the war or much anything and all NEED to change, radically. I know I'm preaching to the choir here but we should just be honest with ourselves. The Democrats had a chance to back candidates who did offer new ideas and they polled at about 1% in the primaries. People seemed to listen to the press while showing a distrust in the press. Either people don't realize the changes that are needed or they don't want to see them happen.
I just called Obama's office in Washington D.C.
he supports the compromise!!!!!!
deleted by JA
omg I knew it was to good to be true!!!
a major test and he fails miserably
omg
To say that I'm dissapointed is an understatement.
Here is the Amy Goodman interview with Ralph Nader. Her title is: Ralph Nader on Barack Obama: “It is Quite Clear He is a Corporate Candidate from A to Z”
odelisk8 @ 62:
we are so fucked
banned
Johnny2Bad @ 421:
Okay, I posted Obama's latest statement in my comment @395, but here we go again:
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.
It's the retroactive immunity for the telecoms that's the objectionable part of the legislation, and Obama states that he's against retroactive immunity, and that he will work in the Senate to drop that immunity. His words.
JustWords- If you're implying that Amato is a Clinton supporter, you're wrong.
ysbaddaden @ 429:
amen to that brother ysb!
Andy K Jong Il @ 431:
He'll "work hard to remove it" doesn't mean he won't support it if its still in. See the difference?
Of course to be fair if they have no bill yet in the senate comparable to the house, there would be opportunity to change certain features of it, but at this point of the election, it probably wouldn't go to compromise committee until after the election. If it can't get past the committee it will stall.
It's essentially kicking the can down the road instead of making a stand on principle.
JustWords @ 404:
Thats the same argument that my republican friends use when defending Bush....... They dont believe it unless he admits that he fucked up.
then when the facts are presented..... well it was just made up.
we dont need another group of blind followers....... if our leader fucks up then it must be spoken about loudly
435 Roger from Ohio Says: JustWords @ 404:
These are words, posted here as Obama’s words, from a blogger who supports Clinton.
Until I see and hear it straight from Obama’s mouth via a television broadcast, then I’ll believe it.
Thats the same argument that my republican friends use when defending Bush……. They dont believe it unless he admits that he fucked up.
then when the facts are presented….. well it was just made up.
________________________________________________________________
And then when you prove your facts are valid, it's just old news.
JustWords @ 418:
How can you blame anybody but Obama for his own words. It requires people like Mr. Amato to shine the light in the dark places since journalism has been reduced to satire. Would a story from the Washington Post help at all?
Login or Register to post comments.