Anti-Telecom Immunity Protest Group Tops Obama Website
By Nicole Belle Tuesday Jul 01, 2008 12:00pm
Protesters are storming Barack Obama's website. But they all support Obama.
A grassroots group of activists has been organizing on MyBo, Obama's official social networking portal, to protest the Senator's recent decision to back controversial legislation granting the President more spying powers. The effort hit a big milestone on Tuesday afternoon: It is now the largest self-organized group on Obama's website, topping networks that were launched over a year ago. The spying protest, "Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right," launched last week. (See Obama Network Organizes and Revolts Over Spying, The Nation.)
Membership spiked to about 8,900 people on Tuesday, edging out a student group with roughly 8,600 members, and one organizer estimated that the growth rate reached a rapid four percent during the daytime. The group initially spread through the Obama network, since the site's platform instantly connects members through a dedicated email listserve. On Monday, for example, over 200 emails shot across the wire, reaching the roughly 2,300 members who opted to receive individual messages. The exchanges ranged from policy debates, like whether immunity was acceptable if the telephone companies acted in good faith, to organizing strategies, such as promoting the group on sharing sites like Digg. Then some activists open-sourced the project, creating a wiki-hub for additional actions -- from calling Obama's office to urging Keith Olbermann to promote the group -- and launched partner groups on other sites like Facebook.
"To reach number one, we're going to need all of us to start talking to - and emailing - their family and friends," wrote blogger Mike Stark in a missive to the group at 3:46am on Monday. "[Obama] said he'd open up government and respond to the people instead of the special interests," he added, "so let's force him to respond."
You can join the Sen. Obama, Please Vote Against FISA Telecom Immunity here.
Login or Register to post comments.
C'mon, Barack. You have nothing to lose on this one. Just like KO said, no matter which way you go, you'll be attacked, so do the right thing.
C'mon Senator Obama, do the right thing. Lead on this. Show you are a leader (I know by following Feingold and Dodd...) and speak out against why the mere presence of Telecom Immunity makes the bill worth defeating.
I joined this group. I can live with a lot of individual policy differences, but the telecom immunity thing is just so wrong.
Please Sen. Obama, if there ever was a time to flip flop, it is now. Doing the right thing is all that matters.
Ok... Has anyone actually read the legislation? I think most of you are just fear-pandering nuts. This bill grants immunity from CIVIL cases but not from CRIMINAL cases. It actually allows prosecution of PAST crimes to be tried criminally. Figures most Americans want the "right" to sue; rather than actually to have an impact and put people behind bars, we want the right so sue and get money for "damages".
“ HAPPY 4th of JULY, 2008 “
… “ I HAVE A JOB ! “
Thank You, bush, cheney, republican party on, all…
I HAVE A JOB !
… DIGGING GRAVES
4 Y/OUR WAR DEAD
And MY STARVING NEIGHBORS
… EFFCIENTLY
COVERING UP OUR CONSTITUTION,
YOUR BOGUS LIES and PILFERING
WITH THEIR
… EXHUMED DIRT !
---------
new poem by, Roger Drowne EC
http://www.RogerART.com
.
Isn't there something we could do to raise public opposition to action against this bill, even if we must emphasize the financial benefits of a lawsuit against those telecoms?
I post everyday in that group. People are pissed, and rightly so.
I expected too much from Obama, like a kid with a new bike, I was so happy.
His FISA decision slapped us in the face.
It is all for nothing though. He has his corporate designed agenda.
It's like Chomsky said in an interview posted on alternet.org, even though most Americans want national health care, it won't
happen because as Kerry said in 2004, there is no political support for it. Which means no big corporations support it.
We don't exist in this political system, sure we got Donna Edwards elected, but we couldn't beat Liebermann.
I know it takes YEARS of committed support to make the big changes, but we don't have years.
Bush could nuke Iran tomorrow and that would put us in a shooting war with China and Russia.
THAT is my biggest fear becasue a war with China means our economy collapses and it would make the Great Depression
look like a hiccup.
dp @ 5:
Simplistic.
And, yeah, I've read HR 6304, I have it bookmarked and have a copy on my hard drive. "Criminal" prosecution here is a red herring.
dp, why is it ok to grant immunity from civil claims?
if u were being spied on wouldnt u want ur day in court?
we all know the criminal case will go the same way valerie plame's case went.
a few thousand civil cases might make a difference.
does it bother u that obama and a lot of the dem legislature in the pocket of the telecoms are willing to give up our rights for their campaign contributions?
Obama, You need to call this a fight to protect individual liberty and the constitution. It has to do with labeling the argument the right way. When you label it give immunity to the telcoms many people might say why not? But if you label it I will proyect the constitution and individuals right to privacy not many people can argue against that including the GOP.
Now this is constructive criticism of Obama.
I'm going to go join it now and I advise you to do the same.
dp @ 5:
Who the hell are you to label us "fear-pandering nuts"? You work in the industry or something?
OJ Simpson was found not guilty in his criminal case. It took a civil suit to establish GUILT.
Yeah, if I find out that AT&T used my personal information and illegally spied on me, I want the right to destroy them by taking all their money. That's the only kind of "capitalism" they seem to understand.
Politics 101:
A) Get YOUR candidate nominated/elected.
B) Pressure him/her to do the right thing.
u'd think this FISA flop plus the 'faith based initiatives' BS he's pandering with
should be enough to wake up the obamadrones before its too late.
....must be something in the water
(sodium flouride + estrogen)
dp, here, linky:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h6304/text
What part of "General Warrants," "Writs of Assistance," retroactive and prospective blanket immunity, federal pre-emption of state constitutions and privacy laws, and utter absence of independent oversight don't you understand?
dp @ 5:
That is true but by having the right to sue the amount of cases cannot be controlled and the amount of information each case will bring out will not be able to be controlled. The telcoms have a big problem but they should have thought of that before they decided to break the law with the Bush government.
Perhaps you might have heard of the preemptive pardon, a favorite tool for GOP Presidents?
1 - I highly doubt you've read the legislation. Most Senator's probably haven't.
2 - Everone who watches KO knows this still leaves open criminal liability
3 - There are many reasons that immunity from civil laibility should not be granted. My top two:
a) Why should we grant immunity? How does that serve the nation's interest? What have telecoms done to deserve special immunity? If you don't have a good reason for it, then it shouldn't be part of the bill, since legislation is supposed to benefit the people. Please show how immunity does this.
b) Civil cases are easier to win. The standard for criminal cases is much higher. This is just one of the reseasons why civil cases have a much greater chance of actually effecting behavior -they are easier to win. Additional benefits: multiple cases can be brought, and it hurts the company's bottom line, not just the officers and directors (effecting everyone with an interest in the company and giving stockholders an incentive to protest criminal behavior).
Lollimom @ 13:
I took action in the more immediate sense by taking my business elsewhere (dumping AT&T. Not that I ever WANTED service through them anyway. They bought Cingular a few years ago and took over my plan). I now get my cell service through CREDO; I could have done more research to figure out who the other non-offending providers were, but CREDO seemed like a safe bet.
Flexing my economic power: it's all these people understand or care about.
Sadly, Obama is only looking in the interest of the Bilderberg Group and NOT "We The People"
We are ALL screwed.
Writs of Assistance:
(A) Writs of Assistance.
(2) We taxpayers get to pay retail for this.
(3) Prospective immunity in addition to the retroactive piece.
This country needs more Evangelical Constitutionalists.
wow im really glad to see so many of you ppl thinking vs the few who simply arent.
a couple of weeks ago i got banned from posting here
for pointing out that obama voted to reauthorize the patriot act and fund the illegal wars
ppl labeled me a republican and a troll >_<
like republicans are informed citizens...HAHAHAHAHAH
dp @ 5:
Good luck getting the state to bring a criminal case when you get wiretapped by.... the MOTHERFUCKING STATE!
It is funny in a sad way how some people can not only justify but actually defend the very things that go against they very own interests.
marko @ 8:
Believe it or not, a war with China would be secondary in that situation. If Bush looks at Iran sideways they'll shut down the Strait of Hormuz and the oil tit shuts down. At that point the whole world heads down the toilet. Make no mistake, Bush fools with Iran and the world as we know it comes to a screeching, roaring halt.
One thing I do like: this "opposition" group was allowed to organize on Obama's own website. That's refreshing.
They are spying in him like they did to MLK.
Then he spews about patriotism.
Two corrupt Senators.
It's not a question of voting against the bill, Obama will likely vote against it.
What he will not do is show any leadership on a progressive issue or one that doesn't pander to scared right wing ignorants.
And don't act suprised, 90% of Obama supporters never bothered to take a close look at a lousy record of leadership.
NYTimes picked up the story, republished at Common Dreams (no registration required):
Obama Voters Protest His Switch on Telecom Immunity
I have sincere doubts as to whether or not Obama really cares what liberals think. Like all democratic politicians, he's appealing to his base - the mythical "middle." It's what Kerry did in 04 and it's what HClinton did all thru the campaign. In one instance, she made a big point of saying how she doesn't agree with moveon.org. Earlier this week, Obama went out of his way to disagree with moveon. Apparently, it's this year's Sister Souljah (although a less apt analogy it would be hard to find - an obscure rap group vs one of the cornerstones of democratic activism).
It's so stupid but so predictable (and, as glennzilla pointed out so persuasively, it never works). For one thing, it's likely to kill democratic turnout among the people who were so energized by Obama's primary campaign schtick. I doubt if 75,000 turned out in Portland, OR because they thought he'd support FISA immunity, make a big death penalty statement, criticize moveon, and throw wes clark under the bus. Low turnout means McCain could get close enough for the GOP voting machine owners to steal the election.
To Plouffe, Axelrod and all you other geniuses running the campaign - and of course to Obama himself - let me just say, bravo! And what really makes it so silly is that few voters will see it for anything other than what it is - Obama acting like another rudderless pandering politician.
fiver @ 27:
I Wonder if McCain will let an opposition group organize on his web site? Does anybody here care to try?
Americans should be now very concerned about a bill in the Congress about to be voted on...H.CON.RES.362 authorizing Bush to blocakde Iran and search all ships leaving and sailing to Iran,which is a declaration of war.The bill is scheduled to be vote on in the next few day.
The resolution says US can do it without UN approval.
Democrats who won the Congress by promising end of Iraq war..now starting another one.
The resolution was presented by Congressman Gary Ackerman (D. N.Y),and Mike Pence Republican from Indiana.
The Senate have a similar Senate Resolution S.RES.580 presented by Senator Evan Bayh from Indiana.
The question is ..will Democrats in the Senate vote for such bill,and what will Obama and Hillary Clinton vote will be?
These are serious reolutions that can mean war .
They can easily pass..with pressure from AIPAC who are pushing to make them pass...
Democrats promised to end war in Iraq...and now they are doing the same thing again...starting another war.
Obama said that he did not vote for war in Iraq..and he was against such vote...But he was not in the Senate then...I'm waiting to see how will he vote on resolution 580.
mocasdad @ 31:
I am a centrist independent. Nevere been registered to any party, and hold generally moderate views. This has pissed me off as well.
DC @ 32:
Cindy would have to foot the bill for the bandwidth it'd chew up.
man...cant wait to go french revolution on these assholes in power.
PS: i got dibs on pelosi
" have sincere doubts as to whether or not Obama really cares what liberals think. Like all democratic politicians, he’s appealing to his base "
Exactly. So why was it that liberal blogs got all worked up about Obama v Clinton? That sure was alot of hot air and bickering over two of the biggesst triangulators in politics.
Removing telecom immunity is meaningless unless you address CALEA. Repeal CALEA, or rewrite it, and immunity becomes moot.
pffft @ 36:
I would not touch that head once it gets severed. All that botox will leave the skin cells and revert back to its initial state: botulism.
As if human corpses where not toxic enough.... ugh.
yeh starting a war in iran is the only way they can think to distract us from the dollar devaluation they've been allowing for years. now that the even the IMF is trying to audit the federal reserve they need more shock and awe to turn our attention away from the old rich white men behind the curtain.
i expect those two bills to pass Randy
LOL DUDE
To DP @ 5:
It is not about us wanting to have our right to sue. It's about us NOT wanting a right of our's taken away simply due to politics. Without this bill, the telecoms can be pursued in both a criminal and civil court. They deserve immunity for nothing involving this, especially since they bill me every month. When I make an internaitonal call, I expect it to be private in accordance with the law. I pay money to a company that supposedly complies with the law. When they have screwed up, why should any of my options be off the table when it comes to legal remedies?
Granted, I'll give you that this is not the doom scenario the ill-informed are making it out to be. It's not giving immunity to Bush. But, the fact is, this is a bill that will take away our rights rather than strengthen them. No thanks.
Actually, I was really upset when I first heard that he was going to support it. Then, Keith Olbermann noticed a loophole in it. As has been pointed out by a previous comment, it doesn't matter which way he votes, the Cons are going to use it against him. So, he might as well do what is best, right? I mean, what we're upset about here is that the telecom companies are going to be free of criminal charges. BUT, this isn't exactly the case. The bill only overturns CIVIL cases. Criminal cases, on the other hand, aren't excluded. Anyhoo, watch Olbermann's take on this. Here's the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/30/olbermann-special-comment_n_110...
It's really quite interesting and makes me kinda' wish us liberals would keep our mouths shut on this one.
pffft @ 40:
They can distract all they want, but once the oil stops flowing... with what are going to grease their war machinery, pixie dust?
Attacking Iran would be right there in the top-3 stupidest decisions taken in human history, and we have over 10000 years to look back for a long list of fuckups. Then again I would not put it past Bush, he truly must be a breed of dumbass the likes of which has seldom graced the earth before.
God have mercy on our souls...
pffft @ 10:
That action of bribery is intent of disrespect of democracy, and deserve more scrutiny for slapping the faces of the people.
BobbyG @ 34:
WTF is a moderate view? You don't mind little moderate wars, you don't overspending on health care for a moderate amount,
you don't mind being wiretapped in moderation? So called moderates are the main reason for the inertia in American politics.
So called moderates are choking us!!!
true indeed Dude.
i'm definitely not saying they've thought it through any further than:
"we need to distract these cattle while we finish looting whats left of the treasury and scamper off to paraguay"
The issue goes beyond telecom immunity, and Obama needs to be better advised on what constitutes good security.
Needle-in-a-haystack wiretaps aren't good security.
We need defense in depth, to be able to cope with threats regardless of whether we listen in on a terrorist's phone call. It's just like defense in baseball or football ... you need range, speed, and flexibility.
We also need to be candid about our failures and what doesn't work; giving immunity to the telecoms stops that short, not only protecting corporate interests over the Constitutional rights of citizens, but conceding the argument to the 9/11 crowd - that the wiretaps were necessary and effective, rather than an egregious violation of the law.
Reason and sound arguments must prevail over fear and Republican framing.
Chicken Hussein Little - NOT!! @ 26:
What I'm curious about, in that situation, is what will Iran do if they can't sell their oil?
I'm not, by any means, attempting to justify Bush's Moran rhetoric, but I'm sure the calculation is more complicated than that.
And that's also why I'm sure I want him as far away from the buttons of the calculator as possible. He's far too stupid, clumsy, ill-informed, and arrogant to be allowed to make a decision like that.
It is so sad to me that this even has to occur. As an Obama supporter, I was hoping he would make the right choice the first time around and show off some of the "judgement" ability. If he doesn't already know the overriding sentiment of the public, he needs to find out where the disconnect is and get plugged back in.
Robert Wexler for VP. Buy his book. It's good.
slippy hussein toad @ 49:
I reckon that Iran can deal better with not being able to ship oil than us with not being able to import oil.
Repeal FISA.
I am a member of that group as well.
I signed up too. I may be missing something, but FISA is horrible in its original form, to weaken it is unacceptable.
MountainMan23 @ 14:
Thank goodness some people are ready for an advanced course, then, since B is often impossible after A is achieved.
i said it before, i repeat it now:
if the right is going to make demands on obama and pressure him to lean in a particular way, then it is imperative that the left does too.
if we simply give obama the benefit of the doubt, or criticize those that criticize obama-positions, then we will watch as obama continues to move to the right.
even the most hardcore obama supporters should still keep the pressure on obama. the silence of the left means that the only thing obama hears is the activists from the right.
i give credit to obama for even allowing such dissention on his website. and, further, those that keep on obama, 'keep him honest', etc. are fighting the good fight.
xoites defends Constitution @ 52:
What's your beef with FISA?
(Or are you confusing FISA with the PAA, as have so many people, including some who work for Obama?)
marko @ 46:
Fuck you, you moron. I said that Obama's FISA capitulation pissed me off. Learn how to read.
I am a centrist moderate, yes. Meaning that I have a brain and I use it to discriminate rationally, weeding out the equally stupidass crap proffered by both the brainstem right wing and crybaby extreme lefties, both of whose cohorts seem to be incapable of discerning where to pick worthy fights.
"you don't mind being wiretapped in moderation?"
Read some of my graduate work on privacy (the topic has changed in 10 years, but the principles have not), then get back to me regarding whether you think I'm an intertial moderate on defense of privacy. Here's a bonus link, to some of my work opposing Total Information Awareness.
Get a clue.
It was regretable that Obama took the position that he did regarding FISA. But look deeper. He came out with his remarks after he met not only with Hillary in Chantilly VA, but with the worlds movers and shakers from the Bilderberg group. If I were a fly on the wall at this most secretive of meetings, I could hear the chorus now. Yes Senator Obama, we believe that America can accept someone of coloras president, but we’re not quite ready to allow our breatheren in the telecom industry or our NSA and CIA to be taken to the financial cleaners or worse over a little thing like spying on citizens without a warrant. Play ball by modifying all your talk about Constitutional values and your a done deal. If necessary, we can even rig electronic voting machines in your favor just as we did in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.
If this is truely what politics has come too, then all we are ever living through are continuous cycles of good cop ( Democrats ) bad cop ( Republicans ). The game is the same. The Republicans carry a big stick but the Democrats can screw you just as well but in a kinda gentler way. I have stated this before and see nothing different at this point in time. There is no difference between the parties as they are both controlled by powers with money. Big money.
Obama told us he was an agent of change. Sadly, the more things change, the more they stay the same. The only difference is the way the little guy is screwed as ultimately the power brokers make the final decisions as to how societies are to live under the guise of the rule of law.
If you are still having trouble getting your head around this, just remember…
“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” – James Paul Warburg, whose family co-founded the Federal Reserve - while speaking before the United States Senate, February 17, 1950
BobbyG @ 57:
Wow what a "moderate" way of proving the point of the previous poster.
LOL "moderates"
The caption for the photo should read. "Yeah, can you believe my supporters really believed I was a progressive constitutional lawyer?" "You were right Rove, after eight years of Bush those stupid Democrats were so desperate for change they'd believe anything I told them. Suckers!" Ha Ha Ha!
senator obama give them something to cry about
DC @ 17:
I can hear it now. In order for the country to move forward and put this behind us we won't prosecute anyone. Nothing ever changes in D.C. Just different palyers with someone elses agenda.
JTM @ 56:
I don't know about his beef, but a secret court created to hand down warrants - in secret - has never been high on my list of "good things."
Following in the line of thought of a post a couple above, we need to let everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, running for office that Kremlin style secrecy will no longer be tolerated in the U.S.A. Hell, I'd like to see Grand Juries and Closed Congressional Hearings become a thing of the past. Look at what the continual build up of the secret society has wrought over the last 30 years!
Yes, General, we CAN handle the truth! Give us a CHANCE.
Question for you and Darko: What exactly are you cats doing do fight for the Constitution beyond taking entertaining drive-by comments potshots?
slippy hussein toad @ 49:
Problem is the folks running Iran aren't the sharpest arrows in the quiver, if they were they wouldn't be poking frat boy with a sharp pointy stick.
That said, there are lots of customers for oil these days. We won't last a month if the dealer shuts off our supply of the oil drug. At that point we either capitulate or nuke the world. Not pleasant options to consider. Meanwhile Bush et al are hanging out in the underground cities with their lackeys and flunkies while we deal with the disaster unfolding around us. YUCK.
Andrew @ 62:
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. "We cannot get mired down in recriminations and the criminalization of policy differences. Time to move on..."
Medford Tim @ 63:
So how would you decide whether a warrant was, well, warranted when issues of national security are involved?
Can't use the regular courts.
Can't let the Exec Branch do whatever it wants.
So what other option is there besides something like the FISC?
dp @ 5:
And a pardon from President George W. Bush to the telecommunication companies that participated in spying on Americans. They had a choice. Qwest chose not to authorize spying on Americans. Do you still subscribe to AT&T as your telecommunications company?
Obama, give us something to believe in. Your slogan means nothing without action.
Granting immunity against civil claims is exactly what the telecoms want. No one is ever going to prosecute them criminally but a civil suit could cost them billions.
In the words of Dick Cheney, "So?"
Obama won't listen to you people. He already knew how it important this was to people.
But he turned his back on you.
If apologists and others want to cling to their naive belief that this man was going to be different, let them.
I'm done with him. And apparently, he's done with you.
Oh, but keep sending him money, and repeat after me "Yes we can"
There we go. Good little zombies.
Go back to sleep America.
BobbyG @ 64:
I am sure that whatever it is... it must be 10000x less that what you are doing, I am sure they must have great internet access in the front lines, you fighting for the constitution and being able to post in a blog. Oh lord of multitasking.
Yet, I fail to see what your tangential question had to do with the fact that you claiming to be a "moderate" and in the same breath say "FUCK YOU" sort of indicates that you have not checked the definition of the word "moderate" in Webster's lately...
John @ 71:
It is called "holding your leaders responsible" it takes two to tango in democracy, you know...
JTM @ 67:
The FISC worked fine before this dust up and should continue to do so in the future. if an agency has credibile information and wishes to target a suspect they present that information to the court and the warrant is issued. I believe what many are pissed about is the wholesale sucking up of every from of digital communication that is available and then having NSA and or CIA super computers the size of baseball fields culling through private comminucations without probable cause to do so.
If you have a specific target in mind then by all menas show the court your intel and let them decide. I believe as the law stands now, then can start the spy process and get the warrant after the fact if the information is compelling enough, but just don't suck up all digital data on a witch hunt looking for trigger words. That goes beyond any Orwellian wet dream.
HR 6304 Section 803 in its entirety:
Nowhere in this bill does it say that such blanket prospective telecom immunity and neutering of state privacy laws and constitutions is limited to the surveillances performed pursuant to other section of HR 6304. Ya know theose little fine print privacy notices you get with your wireless vendors; statements? Tear 'em up, they are hereby rendered essentially void, absent concerted legal efforts to get telecoms to further clarify their privacy policies.
This may have already been voiced, but if you do join the group like I did, you may want to opt out of receiving emails from "the group" as it is a bit overwhelming, but you certainly see and feel the power that this movement has after the first batch of 145 emails lands in your in-box!
JTM @ 67:
Why not? Because they TELL you it's too "sensitive"? Are you still buying that crap? Twenty three thousand five hundred sixty warrants have been issued since FISA's (FISC) inception. Do you really believe there have been 23,560 cases of "national security" so sensitive that they couldn't be aired in open court? Not to mention the millions of "Suspicious Activity Reports" and "National Security Letters".
This stuff needs to be shut down. No one knows what the hell is being done - it is ALL "secret".
The Dude @ 72:
LOL! Is that all you got?
purvis ames @ 70:
It's been argued (rather convincingly) that the telecoms couldn't give a rat's ass about immunity since they have all the defense they need in terms of letters from the DoJ. The people who want immunity (to stop the proceedings are (a) those in the Admin that ordered the taps and (b) the Democrats (Pelosi, Harman, Jello Jay) who effectively signed off on them by saying nothing when told.
JTM @ 79:
Yep. This is really all about Bu'ush/Cheney et al CYA in the end. The telecoms have dispositive existing outs to the civil actions.
Medford Tim @ 77:
Yes, I am.
Don't judge FISA in terms of what's been done under Bush. There are 20+ years before Bush of it working just fine.
With that said, the Whitehouse (senator, hot building) idea of requiring FISC decisions to be reported to Congress would be a welcome change.
dave @ 29:
Maybe, but I'd guess that there are more than 10% of us who wanted someone else -Kucinich, in my case; Edwards was my 2nd choice - but will now vote for Obama so we're not stuck with McBush.
dp @ 5:
What I want is discovery, which comes with civil action.
I joined the Obama group here.
Tons of email (you can opt out), some very good posts.
The FISA 'revision' is an abomination.
As Jonathan Turley put it so well, it is what every criminal would love to do, make the law conform to past illegal actions.
In other words, get out of jail free.
If this passes, there will be no civl discovery and I will not bet on any criminal prosecution.
Prosecuting anyone for acts that many of which are now legal, even if unconstitutional, will not happen. Not as a practical matter.
There is also a statute of limitations, the federal statute is five years in most cases. If prosecution has not begun by year three, they will not bother because they can easily pass the statute and lose their entire effort.
Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking.- Yeats
BobbyG @ 78:
Evidently that's 'all you got'. I was expecting more, bobby. weak.
I think it's tragic that Obama supporters are now all sucking his keester, when before they were all acting self-righteous in how good he was, and hence how good they were by association.
Shame.
If only this country had more people who questioned ALL government, not just one side of the aisle, would we have been able to fix this broken ship.
"Greg Craig, a Washington lawyer who advises the Obama campaign, said Tuesday in an interview that Mr. Obama had decided to support the compromise FISA legislation only after concluding it was the best deal possible.
“This was a deliberative process, and not something that was shooting from the hip,” Mr. Craig said. “Obviously, there was an element of what’s possible here. But he concluded that with FISA expiring, that it was better to get a compromise than letting the law expire"
http://www.nysun.com/national/obamas-brain-trust-taking-shape/71580/
The "best possible deal"? What spineless bullshit.
eag @ 85:
Y'know, blah, blah, blah, WHATEVER. I'm an open book. My efforts speak for themselves, on the record, and I don't need to hide behind anonymous screen names in order to take shots at someone for claiming to be a political "moderate."
BobbyG @ 88:
Wow... BobbyG, now is that you Christian name?
The funny thing is that with you flipping out and going off the deep end calling names and turning this into a surreal "dick" competition. You sort of proved the point of the original poster that some of the so-called "moderates" are anything but "moderates."
Maybe he will get a clue if everyone joins. I just joined and it's membership is up to almost 12,000! So go and join.
bb @ 90:
I have joined just for you! (cross fingers)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/02/obama_fisa/index.html
The Dude @ 89:
Whatever. Some anonymous commenter flames me for my "centrist" politics, claiming I'm part of the "problem," that person is gonna get severe pushback. You may not like my episodically irascible style, Fine. Try to imagine how much I care. Your time would be better spent examining my positions on issues and reacting rationally to those. And, right, I am anything but "moderate' when it comes to defending the constitution. So, the original poster actually stands refuted.
I'll be drinking in moderation like hell on the 4th, motherf@cker!
I, too, am very self-important, and my real name is Rancid Venison.
Please, please pay attention to me and read what I have to say. It's much more important than what you're doing now.
I'll go ahead and make the obvious reply: "Whatever."
It's nice that you put this link up, Nicole. Makes it easy to join and get involved.
Which I just did. So thank you.
BobbyG @ 92:
Your logical dissonance is only surpased by your capacity to project.
Let me break it down, someone was having the opinion that some of the "moderate" policies/agendas are anything but "moderate." That is a valid opinion/point, you may disagree with it... fine. However when the first thing you do is to flip out and go off with ad hominem attacks, guess what you should be the last person to complain about flaming and request civil discussion. May I remind you that your response started with "FUCK YOU... blah blah blah.."?
So I may suggest you take your own advice first before dishing it out.
Cheers.
RancidVenison @ 93:
i don't swim in your toilet, so don't pee in my pool, capiche?
Take it to the boardroom.
AT&T last trade $33.04
Verizon last trade $35.88
Rogers Communications AT&T in Canada last trade 36.80
Throw thier shit away.
The Dude @ 95:
marko @46
"WTF is a moderate view? You don’t mind little moderate wars, you don’t overspending on health care for a moderate amount,
you don’t mind being wiretapped in moderation? So called moderates are the main reason for the inertia in American politics.
So called moderates are choking us!!!"
________
WTF?
dp @ 5:
To me it looks Obama knows he is going to wins an
Civil cases can not be pardoned - criminal cases can.
dp @ 5:
Civil cases can not be pardoned - criminal cases can.
BTW, Dude @95
Show me where I did that? Whined about civil discussion? Complained about flaming? You equate pushing back with "complaining" about flaming? LOL.
The bottom line here: During the primary Obama pledged he would filibuster the FISA bill.
I told you Pelosi would lead him around by the nose and run the government.
Thank you. I'm here all week.
harley @ 100:
Not to mention that -- irrespective of the pardon thing -- criminal cases are much more difficult to bring (and prevail in) in general, and with respect to these alleged offenses may be impossible in any practical sense. Civil cases already exist, Talk about bringing criminal charges is probably just that -- talk.
BobbyG @ 103:
Criminal cases are impossible to win when the defense can not get the evidence.
"National Security Issue" sorry - no paper trail for you.
BobbyG @ 98:
Again, "fuck you" was a valid response to the post you just quoted... how?
If you think that the post you quoted is a "flame bait" you may just have casted all sorts of doubt about your reading and comprehension skills...
I use to respect the posters here.
WTF happened?
Ben @ 43:
Olbermann is in the tank for Obama. He really has to cover his ass now that Obama is flip flopping on us. I really used to respect KO and think he might actually be a great journalist but it turns out he's just Bill O'Reilly with the opposite point of view. No matter what shitty decisions Obama makes or how much pandering he does KO will have an excuse for it. The first half hour of his show for the past year or longer was spent trashing Hillary. I don't trust his journalistic integrity any more.
harley @ 106:
It got out of hand. And I apologize for my part in that. I'm done.
BobbyG @ 101:
I have no reading and comprehension skills, or simply don't understand that what you wrote is kept in the rest of the thread. There are some of your gems:
a) You did complain about flaming:
"Some anonymous commenter flames me for my “centrist” politics, claiming I’m part of the “problem,”"
b) You requested civility:
" Your time would be better spent examining my positions on issues and reacting rationally to those."
c) You call this "push back" which I guess it makes you feel better about not having to own to you spewing personal insults:
"Fuck you, you moron. I said that Obama’s FISA capitulation pissed me off. Learn how to read."
I am bored with your intellectual dishonesty. Have a nice one, cheers.
BobbyG @ 108:
No worries. This is reflection of the Democrat party as a whole and Obama flip flopping us.
If Obama has any aspirations of becoming President he's going to have to be more aggressive. There is SO MUCH for him to use against these criminals, so many scandals, so many crimes, so much treason and so much easily observable and provable facts that are right in all our faces and he's playing patsy. He worries about pissing off the wrong corporations and he goes soft. We need an aggressive Democrat to call bullshit! on these rats. We need a Dem who's fearless in the face of being called extremist, that's what will get him elected. If we wanted soft, plushy Dems we can elect congress members.
Rollo Tomassi @ 111:
He is becoming "them" before our very eyes.
C'mon Obama,
Do the right thing and please vote NO on telecom immunity.
Go dig up his 2004 DNC speech on youtube. This is NOT the same man.
Kerry eviscerated Bush in every debate they had, and he lost because he wasn't extreme enough to put up the facts for fear he'd lose independents. I see Obama doing the same.
Rollo Tomassi @ 114:
Obama gives great prewritten speeches but he is a horrible debater.
harley @ 106:
I dont know. Its gotten steadily worse in the last few months.
I can recall being attacked and called some rather harsh words because I said that Ted Nugent was a good artist.
Apparently some of the posters here are still fascinated by, and enjoy practicing the law of anonymous douchebaggery.
If you are upset with Barack Obama's reversal on telecom immunity, start sending him or his people messages letting him know that your vote is riding on it. Let them know what states you reside in, if you supported him initially, etc. I'm from NJ, where he did not win over Hillary Clinton, and let his campaign know that one of the main reasons I voted for Barack Obama was over his pledge to support the filibuster of any bill the provided telecom immunity. Now that the primaries are over, I let them know that I feel like a bait and switch is being pulled, given that Mr. Craig's explanations were wrong and no strong argument or explanation for his reversal has come from Barack Obama himself. Push now!
Pissing into a very strong wind....Good luck with that.
AMAZING, A law to make sure that a law is followed, that is a new one, making existing law “irrelevent” unless it is backed up by “another law” that absolutely says to follow the first law. What about that new law - backing up the first same law, does that new law need to be backed up by another back up law? - to make sure that the backup law is also followed? ……….I am getting dizzy, it is anarchy at its finest……..
Creating A Law - To Follow The LAW —– WOW!!!!!!
We now need a law to follow the law! I guess that means that people can break the law until another law backing up the first one is put into place. How do we know what the law is by these standards? We are screwed!!!!!!!!!!!!
As someone with deep hopes that Obama can prevail and that he actually tapped into a new phenomenon through his decision to run and his unbelievably successful campaign, I am a little taken aback by how quickly some of his supporters will rise in anger because he has said or done something they don't totally agree with. It would be impossible for him to approach every issue, every day in a manner that all of us would be in 100% agreement with. He is trying to address an extraordinary range of complex issue and to do this with the intent of actually working for "all Americans." All means all and it means there will be all types of compromise, efforts at cooperation, times for push back, etc. Too many of his supporters are starting to sound like it is vital that their particular approach is the only correct one and are driving this whole group into divisions that are not helpful. If we start sounding like the small-minded, bitter, and divisive yokels from the Limbaugh/OReilly element of society then this whole effort will be for naught.
Unless we are Harvard-trained lawyers with access to other great minds and unless we have intimate understanding of the nuances of this Bill and what can or cannot happen later and what may be gained by its passage that otherwise would have died in an extended debate about all the details of the immunity provisions, maybe we ought to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and actually support the man.
The FISA Bill * Let me get this straight - The Bill creates a new law to make sure that the same old law is followed, I have to say that - that is a new one, making existing law “irrelevent” unless it is backed up by “another law” that absolutely says to follow the first law sounds dangerous and a little like anarchy. What about that new law - backing up the first same law, does that new law need to be backed up by another back up law? - to make sure that the backup law is also followed? It is like Creating A Law - To Follow The LAW —– WOW!!!!!! We now need a law to follow the law! By voting for this bill this sets a really scary presendence. How do we know what the law is by these standards and can anyone break the law and then get away with it? It is like the bully in the schoolyard who says "wait that does not count!" and making rules up as they go to make sure they win. The FISA law was always in place, it was never not the law, how can people break this law and then be excused for it by putting the same old law that was never removed - back into place? How does repeating the same old law, somehow reinstating it, make the old existing law unbroken? IT makes no sense. Am I getting this wrong?
I'll pass. I can't figure out why everyone has their panties in a twist about "civil" immunity. Big whoop. Criminal immunity is where the big punishment is and it's still on the table because it is NOT included in the current FISA bill.
I encourage Obama to vote in favor of the FISA bill, which restores all previous protections, and then nail the f*ckers to the wall when he gets in the White House. If he votes "no," we end up with the same thing we have now -- which is unlimited spying on Americans.
Sometimes I think the progressive wing just like to have something to bitch about.
That's B.S. Obama is a great debater, contrary to what the idiots on cable TV say. They also thought cCain would be a great candidate. These people talk alot but rarely know what the hell they're talking about. McCain is a horrible debater with an uncontrollable temper. I can't wait for the debates!
Lori @ 122:
Uh, No. Wrong.
Yer panties need to get in a bunch.
Here ya go, Lori.
"Title I of the new bill, which includes a dramatic expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act".
Info up.
It's too late, Obama already failed to lead on this issue and bought and paid for by the corporates; this is just faux outrage; trying to close the barn door after all the horses have left!
It’s too late, Obama already failed to lead on this issue and is bought and paid for by the corporates; this is just faux outrage; trying to close the barn door after all the horses have left!
I was going to post about it being too late, but WakeUpAmerica! beat me to it.
He's right. It does not matter one whit whether Obama votes no. The Dem leadership can obtain a bargain to have others counter a "no" vote with more obligatory "yes" votes to make up for it.
He could have changed things before, but now it would just be purely symbolic and empty.
Lori @ 122:
Obtaining criminal prosecutions would be very nearly impossible. And Bush could pardon the telecoms. This is not cut and dried. If it were, legal experts against telecom immunity would be on board with letting it pass. But instead, many see it as the only reasonable legal recourse.
The better thing to do is to allow both to go through, rather than cutting off the doable civil recourse, while praying that you still have the slim opportunity to criminally prosecute.
Cutting off civil recourse is just plain stupid.
CHANGE!!! RIGHT?
I think people don't really understand what the FISA bill actually does...They are just responding to the lunacy of some liberal bloggers that weren't really supportive of Obama until he was basically a lock anyway (i.e. Daily Kos) and are frankly showing their true colors. For people that are against domestic spying period, that's fine to have that opinion, but the FISA bill is not enabling domestic spying on U.S. citizens. That is already in full swing. The point of the bill, and the reason why so many Democrats support it, is because it RESTORES THE REQUIREMENT OF A WARRANT AND PERMISSION FROM A COURT to wiretap or to engage in domestic spying. This bill is actually intended to increase protections of civil liberties not decrease it.
It also prohibits the government from invoking war powers or other authorities to supersede surveillance rules in the future.
The McCain campaign is longing for another terrorist attack in the U.S. and if Obama voted no on this bill -- a bill that is perceived as being tough on terror though in reality it isn't really tough or not tough, his electability will reach an all-time low and McCain could say he's not serious about keeping us safe in a post-(insert date of new attack) world.
Sam S @ 130:
Baloney. It states that only foreign communications are allowed to be "targeted", but allows targeting Americans who call or email foreign locations. That opens up targeting of Americans' communications without a warrant.
And since only the targeting procedures themselves are permitted to be reviewed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and not the targeted individuals nor the basis for targeting a particular individual, the above admonition is little more than just that, with no force of law or oversight. Anyone is game at that point.
Something really disgusting about this whole thing is Obama's excuse for his FISA vote, as told by Greg Craig, Obama's advisor: he didn't want Bush's warrantless surveillance orders, authorized under the Protect America Act and originally voted against by Obama, to expire.
He wanted warrantless surveillance orders to continue and not expire.
John @ 71:
Be afraid, be very afraid. Wasn't it just last week that you wingnuts were saying Obama would turn on Whitey as soon as he's sworn in? Well what if he turned on republiscums? Are you afraid yet?
It sure would be an awkward family reunion. But, believe it or not, Barack Obama is related to both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/familytree/545460,BSX-News-w...
Obama a card carrying member of the Council on Foreign Relations
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/5440/CFR_the_link_to_OBAMA/
Obama is as CFR as they come. In addition, Michelle Obama is on the Board of Directors of the Chicago Global Council.
Nope, not votin. Guy can't even give me one fucking constitutional amendment back, no point votin. Let fuckin McCain win, Who gives a fuck.
Saint Augustine @ 133:
looks like the worm has turned !
Ellessidil @ 116:
boy i know how that goes!
Otay @ 132:
i hear what your saying otay!
As of this writing the FISA group on Obama's site is the largest group, with 13,572.
If the Tel com companies are going to be protected and immune from civil law suits, lets face it, they are off scott free. Like the people in charge are actually going to go after them "criminally" the very people who are passing legislation to make sure they are immune........, I will not hold my breath, come on guys - have we not learned that the people in charge are in deriliction of duty for holding anyone accountable for anything lately. That is why we are having this conversation in the first place, DUH! Oh yeah the tel com companies are in big trouble now, being held accountable by the very people who are letting them get off and giving them Immunity from Civil liabilities HELLOOOOOOO! WAKE UP!!!!! Yeah they are going to hold them to the fire, I can smell their sneakers burning now..........
The critisism of some who believe that the immunity only pertains to Civil law suits:
If the Tel com companies are going to be protected and immune from civil law suits, lets face it, they are off scott free. Like the people in charge are actually going to go after them “criminally” the very people who are passing this legislation to make sure they are immune……..from civil law suits, Come on guys - have we not learned that the people in charge are in deriliction of duty for holding anyone accountable for anything lately. That is why we are having this conversation in the first place, DUH! Oh yeah the tel com companies are in big trouble now, being held accountable by the very people who are giving them Immunity from Civil liabilities = HELLOOOOOOO! WAKE UP!!!!! Yeah they are going to hold them to the fire, I can smell their sneakers burning now……….Those sneaker wearing sneaky spies……..Spying on their own neighbors = US citizens -how dare they! I find it facsinating how some people think they are doing such a fine job with their research and are reading the fine print of this bill and think that the loopholes are going to be used to somehow bring justice to us, the only loopholes being used right now are the ones that make sure our gas prices are deregulated (Enron loophole, watch CSPAN and learn something) to make sure gas price stay quadroopled so they can screw us at the pump. All the while blaming it on a supply problem that does not exist. Banks have also been deregulated so you loose your homes, a million more next month. We are loosing our shirts and our homes right now and some are still believing that someone somewhere is acutally going to be held accountable. AMAZING!
I thought the narrative was the following....
Hillary is the greedy, corporate, "Karl Rove in a pantsuit" shrew
Obama is the real deal that puts principle before politics. In fact, he is only in politics for the people.
--------------------------------------------
Well, Obama has had his "Sister Soulja" moment. Don't worry they will now serve consolation KoolAid under the bus instead of on the bandwagon.
MarcyJ @ 107:
That may be (I do disagree with you, but your point is no less valid). But, even idiots like Billo are right from time to time. Maybe by pure accident, but it does happen. You may think he's a complete neo-dumbass. However, I do believe he had hit onto some good logic on this one that could work in our favor in multiple ways. So, I just ask that you take a look at the video (if you haven't already), and maybe forget about who's saying it and what you think about him, but just the words and what they say. You might be surprised.
The web site requires registration, proof again that Obama is just another god damned Christofascist traitor who is no different than all the rest.
Uhmmm....Nope. No registration required dude. I'm not even registered with the site. Heck, I didn't even know that there is a place to register. And, even if so, what on Earth would a website showing videos that it recorded from a newscaster's personal comments on his show have to do with anything even remotely close to proving the person said newscaster was talking about to be a "Christofascist trator". ...Hell, even simpler than that; what would he be a traitor of? You? Was he ever in a club with you where you made some sort of pact or something? Someone doing things you don't like does not make them a traitor. It makes them someone who does things that you don't like. You have to have made some sort of a specific commitment to someone in order to be a traitor. ....Ugh, I'm really not sure why I'm wasting my time with this response. I guess I'm just really bored. G'night, everybody.
Login or Register to post comments.