Jim Webb is a Very Serious Person. You, little blogger, not so much.
By Nicole Belle Monday Jul 14, 2008 11:50am
Jim Webb: With respect to legislation, what I, I think the blogs really communicate, in a very intelligent way, on a couple of these really complicated issues, I would hope they wouldn't lock themselves into positions so early, uh, there's some really complex pieces of legislation that kind of get boiled down...
Josh Nelson: Are you talking about FISA?
Jim Webb: Specifically I'm thinking about FISA since I have to vote on it tomorrow afternoon.
(laughter)
That's a very complicated issue and I've looked at it from every single angle that it can be looked at. Having had the black clearances that we were talking about, and at the same time I'm very strong on privacy rights. It's not an issue that is easy to boil down in the way a lot of the blogging community has boiled it down.
Audio embedded in the original post. I mean, of course the Fourth Amendment is so hard for us little bloggers to understand--anonymous unserious people that we are, (/snark) but is Jim Webb saying that the ACLU doesn't understand the issue?
Login or Register to post comments.
Anyone who voted for or agreed with the recent FISA bill is, by definition, *not* "strong on privacy rights".
Sorry.
Hitting on the note Webb was trying to make (this is NOT issue specific, I did not support the FISA bill)
You do not want liberal bloggers to fall into the same dogmatic styling as those opposite of them. We do not represent the majority of America's opinion sometimes (simply because we are better informed is not an excuse). There are constant compromises that must be struck in a pragmatic world. If everyone in the party voted like Kuchinich then we would not have power in washington again.
The changing of public opinion is a slow and gradual process, one liberals have lost for a long time and are just starting to reclaim. The return to a more progressive America takes time, no matter how badly neocons may have fucked up in the short term. To not accept and understand this fact that, an uninformed public taken together with a political dialouge skewed against our interests, forces us to take baby steps would be suicidal to the progressive movement.
Again, I am as liberal as they come. But we need pragmatism, and that is how people like Webb and Obama will lead us to a future where the kuchinich liberals will be accepted by the mainstream as mainstream, and this neoconservative bullshit will be a laughed off relic of the past.
Couldn;t that just as easily be taken as a compliment? That Bloggers have boiled it down well?
They're doing it for our own good. That's why they also keep important information from us....because we citizens can't be trusted to understand the complexities involved in our freedoms.
I'm so glad that George Bushco and his crones and democrats are looking out for my best interests.
That Constitution is just troublesome to my welfare. Perhaps Martha Stewart can rewrite it to include a few healthsmart recipes.
c_ray_86 @ 2:
Destruction is often quick, construction always takes time.
Exotic Blue Lensman @ 5:
Well put, thank you.
Is Webb supporting the Family Immunity Plan ?
I'll match wits with Webb any time he wants to.
Hey Jim. Call me you fucking coward so I can respond to YOU personally, instead of you dissing me from the safety of your ivory tower.
Unlike you, I respect the right of the people to express any damn opinion they wish.
FISA sucks and YOU KNOW IT!! All of your beltway rhetoric and insider knowledge will never change my mind.
I can't believe I'm going to speak up in defense of someone who voted for the FISA bill but here goes. I think this article was a bit unfair to Webb. It makes it sound like Webb was talking down to the net community when I don't think he was. All he said was that its a complicated issue and that it often gets over simplified in the way its talked about on blogs. I hate to say it but I agree with him. The issue is a complicated one. The NSA has AI software that can process bulk emails and calls and look for particular patterns that might indicate a message that could be part of a terrorist cell. Its impossible, or at least I don't see how perhaps I'm wrong I'm no lawyer, to get a warrant to do that kind of processing. One answer, which I think most people here would advocate, is that you just don't do that kind of bulk processing period. However, I can see that a case could be made for doing that kind of processing with the appropriate safe guards. I don't know enough about the current FISA bill to say for sure, but I'm pretty certain given the past that such safe guards are not in the bill. I'm also sure that there is no justification for giving Telecom companies immunity before we even know what they did. I'm against the bill but what I'm trying to say is that what Webb said was reasonable and not condescending.
Yeah it's not as simple as bloggers make it out to be, I mean it used to be that a government agent had to get a warrant from FISA for wiretapping to be legal, now days, "fuck it all". They want retro immunity for telecomms and they want to hook up the NSA to the national phone system.
Do Democrats come with a spine now days? Or are they like Subway's boneless chicken?
c_ray_86 @ 2:
Very well put C_Ray. That is pretty much what I was trying to say as well.
was Jim on the early christmas list with those $8,000 gifts?
Webb is right. Us bloggers have boiled this issue about FISA down to simplistic terms:
It's ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL..!
Che's Lounge @ 8:
If "FISA sucks" and "fucking coward" are your idea of wit, my bet would be on Jim.
come on. he's right here. don't be so over-sensitive.
MikeD @ 14:
You're taking it a bit personally aren't you, Mike D?
Is Jim Webb your uncle?
There really is some legitimate criticism to what Webb said. Lets face, even bloggers who do this full time don't have access to the same information as Senators and Congresspersons. And may don't do this full time but blog anyway. We'd like to think that its all about common sense, limited research (that's publically available) and reasoning but none of us has the clearance to see the documents these folks see. And we aren't privy to the dealings that go on behind the scenes. Maybe there is a deal to broker this again when the new administration come on board. We just don't know. And lets face another thing, how bad did it make McCain look that he didn't even bother to show up. My brother, a dittohead, was even floored by that one and his support of McSame is shaken.
I'm not thrilled about the FISA bill but I'm also not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. These are the people who are supposed to represent us but they have facts we don't. For the most part, I can let my displeasure be known but I'm ALWAYS going to support the Democrat.
Che's Lounge @ 8:
and to think that one might question the ability of (segments of) the netroots to rationally analyze a complex issue, or to accept that there are complex issues at all.
Suz in KS @ 17:
And don't they know it! Can you name one difference our "Democrat"-controlled congress has from a Republican-controlled one? Same bailouts to big business, no impeachment, no investigations, we're still in Iraq, Guantanamo's still open.
Ah yes the "Democratic" congress is certainly worthy of your support.
Suz in KS @ 17:
Spoken like a true patsy. Aren't you tired of being played for a sucker?
Typical inside the beltway mindset. Full of contempt for americans in general. You see our elected politicians are vastly superior in intellect to most of us. We just can't appreciate how very complex these issues are. Why we mustn't damage our brains on these things. Listen to the important congressman and let him decide. Damn bloggers should stick to their video games.
BushNotAGoodPerson @ 15:
to be clear, i'm against the bill (my congresswoman voted against it. live free or die, baby), i just agree with his sentiment and think this is a knee-jerk reaction to any criticism at all.
c_ray_86 @ 2:
i disagree with your basic premise.
the country has a liberal slant when it comes to most issues. from healthcare, to torture, to preemptive war, to environmental concerns, to equality, to corporate ascendancy, etc. the country is a lot more left than the msm, and the mainstream political parties would ever admit to.
you accept the rights' logic that "liberal values" are not mainstream values.
if this was the case the right would not have to trot out the "cultural war" issues (like gay marriage and flag burning), which the country does lean right.
but, really, if the public was informed about 'the washington consensus', how our economy is skewed to favor the rich, etc. things would be a lot different. but, again, the corporations, the upper class, the msm, and the mainstream factions of BOTH parties would rather we not discuss the policies and the issues that they are dependent on to stay in power.
thus we hear over and over again that a centrist politician (like Obama) has to run to the right in order to get elected. i wonder who that benefits?
Does Webb even realize it was those bloggers that got him elected in the first place?!
The privacy of individuals, like clean air, no longer exists. FISA is not complex. It simply gives those in authority a free pass to listen to the conversations, etc. of Americans. Yet, for some reason, I don't feel more secure. And, I now wonder what is wrong with me.
Great. One more person I admire caving in to Socialized Capitalism. China is near.
I was wondering, wouldn't most of the serious A-grade terrorists (not the amateurs who invariably get caught) make a point of not spelling out what they were going to do in e-mails, telephone, fax and the like - hiding it in innocuous mundane looking messages so that it wouldn't be blatantly obvious and likely to be missed by all of this wiretapping, computer scanning for keywords, ECHELON and the like?
Not saying that they wouldn't get some information but I'm sure the terrorists are aware of what can be tapped and how and take steps to avoid it in the first place.
Ahoy @ 16:
No, I'm not taking it personally. I believe in civilized rational discussion -- even with people that I disagree with. I don't call people names and I try to discourage people, especially people who hold opinions I mostly agree with, from doing the same as I think it makes them look foolish and dilutes the power of their arguments. The difference between the left and the right is that the left has things like justice and rationality on our side. Unlike the right we don't need to yell and scream at people, call them names, or distort the facts. When we do those things we go down to their level and loose the power of our arguments.
It's not "early".
Daveboy @ 19:
And now watch when some one burst an artery when they are pointed out that maybe, just maybe Nader had the right opinion a few years ago....
it is not that the fourth amendment is too complicated for us to understand, it is that a) very few people, including senators, read and understand the details of the legislation and b) reasonable people (including the aclu) can reasonably disagree about what the actual implications of this legislation on the fourth amendment are, how that interplays with other constitutional guarantees and responsibilities, and what the constitution has to say about surveillance and communication modes that didn't exist two hundred plus years ago. if most people who are outraged about the fisa laws are honest, myself included, our opinions about the legislation are based upon summaries provided by other people... who may be summarizing another summary for all we know. webb is simply pointing out that details matter. and to the larger point, this knee-jerk defense of bloggers is just sad-- stop trying to legitimize what is already legitimate by virtue of the energy and value we, ourselves, place in it. running after people for approval is almost as sad as the way the blogosphere is frequently abused by people who have nothing but hatred and vitriol to spew, thus squandering one of the few vehicles we have to save free information and true democracy.
Samson- @ 22:
You missed my caveat, as I agree with you. The problem is the understanding gap. The general public is left leaning on many issues, and right leaning on some as well. The basic fact is neocons have refined the meaning of left and right, and the public as a whole is uninformed/uninterested to a point that its difficult to rebrand ideals.
I think its finally happening, but we can't blow our chance to slowly take the pendilum back in the correct direction. In the meantime we might have to sacrifice some things, compromise for the ultimate goal. I realize many here will not agree with me, and I respect that firmly. But I want real substantive change, and I'm not speaking as mouthpiece here for Obama. He is not without flaw, but I feel we have a firm grasp on what is needed to get to the promised land...
I'm sure
kickbacks and payoffsdonations from corporate lobbyists make things very complicated ...Webb can understand complex legislation, but not the arguments coming from the blogosphere.
Isn't the following the point everybody is trying to make?
- the new bill offers retroactive immunity for telecom companies, and gives the president sweeping authority to determine who is participating in a "risky" phone conversation. He therefore no longer needs a warrant to listen in on you. As such, we do not give a crap about whatever "complexities" may exist in the bill.
MikeD @ 9:
Electronic dragnets are unconstitutional. And Congress has never approved of them. Most importantly, there is no connection between data sifting and reducing terrorism. Great Britain has the largest number of closed circuit tv's in the world, yet their crime rate climbs.
Make no mistake, data mining is a political tool.
Ahoy @ 16:
sugar daddy?
Webb was a Republican until he switched parties because of the Iraq War. The only reason why he won is because of Allen's infamous 'Macaca' moment. And if it wasn't for bloogers and the internet and Y-tube, we the little people, would have never seen it! We can't trust MSM. If it was up to MSM, they would have quashed it.
Suz in KS @ 17:
oh, I see, denying the American public the information they need to make an informed decision demonstrates Jim's benevolence?
I think it's a pretty simple issue. They want to circumvent the Constitution without calling a convention. What more secretive information do I need to understand they are trashing the Constitution illegally? No grey areas here...just a bunch of excuses.
Exotic Blue Lensman @ 5:
This is the biggest load of hogwash I've read in a long time. Both of you. When the Democrats caved to Republican pressure after 911 that was viewd as "quick construction" of you were a Republican. Our country changes on a dime. And Democrats who vote for Bush/Cheney policies are obstructionist. Period.
All Hail the National Security State. Be happy, don't worry, Big Bro(and Sis) is watchin' out fo' you.
Only pantywaist, loser liberals would balk at maintaining the integrity of the constitutional over our National Security.
My god, if we don't get 'em over there, before you know it they'll be here.
There are very good reasons why our military establishment is more powerful than all the others in the world combined.
Phil Gramm definitely got the whiner part right. So suck it up and have another Twinkie.
Bud @ 20:
payed..... paid for a sucker
Jesus when did CNL beome inundated with DLC trolls?
MikeD @ 28:
are you using the 'right' as a label for Republicans? or are you just name calling? you see, you have undermined your very statement above with wry irony. Thus you have dilluted your own argument by committing the same faux-pas you are simultaneously dennouncing. That makes your position look ridiculous.
We must be getting to them! Both Jim Webb and Harold Ford complaining about the "liberal online blogs" at once? Gee, it's nice to be noticed; now how about some action on the issues, dear legislators?
I wonder what justifies thinking the country has a "liberal viewpoint" on issues. Other perhaps than what they occasionally say in polls. But when push comes to shove, i.e., legislation, then they sure don't stand up much for any liberal viewpoint. Be it environment, health care, defense, education....
try and put forth any real progressive changes and the public (the majority) recoil out of fear of change. We like to talk about a "new direction", but when any of the real proposals for it are put forth
the public runs to the right....This is what Obama understands, by the way: change will have to come in small increments, and will need someone to really communicate with the public, otherwise the usual right-wing media suspects will distort the conversation.
I'm not sure what's so offensive about what Webb says. He basically compliments the blogs intelligence and then says that this one issue is complicated. It seems like many of us have staked out a position on FISA, and when anyone gives an alternate view, we attack - behavior that the wing nuts on right do. We need to be careful we don’t do the same. We need to be open and tolerant to this discussions and alternate perspectives. I have the utmost respect for Webb, and while I've made numerous calls into my representatives on FISA, I can still internalize his point without getting upset.
cg the 2nd @ 34:
Not for certain, but I believe you have overstated the provisions of the "new" FISA
law. He(referring to the prez, as you did) cannot on a whim listen in on you or my
telephone conversations. As I understand the law, there must be some clear, known
information that the party being monitored is involved in communcations with a known or suspected terrorist, and that such conversations are with that person(or persons)
outside the US of A. And even if that is the case, the Gov. must go to the FISA
court(even tho after the fact), and obtain a warrant for such evesdropping. Some
one help or correct me if I am wrong or have misinterpreted the law.
Distracting Gordian Knots of hard-effort integrated complexity to be sliced by presumptuous bloggers getting to THE point.
The Constitution is a series of RED LINES for the federal government put in place specifically to chain down the federal government... the Constitution is NOT an over simplification. The founding fathers had heard all these same excuses already for many years when they drew up the Constitution. They wrote about WHY they drew these red lines (Federalist Papers) and they spoke about them in personal correspondence.
What is so hard to understand about this?
Let's make the war crimes committed at Abu Graihb retroactively legal too Jim...because its really complex and means complicity at many levels of government instead just the top.
"Jim Webb is a Very Serious Person. You, little blogger, not so much."
Man is that title ever off base and not even slightly funny.
I admired Webb for his stand against the Iraq invasion in 2002 but I have never had any illusions about his politics. He is to the left of his old sparring partner Oliver North but he was a Reagan apparatchik and Reagan was proto-Bush, all hagiography of the old Alzheimer's victim to the contrary. He is no General Clark (and Clark had his own Reagan-era baggage to overcome).
Webb's condescension is way out of line. If not for the blogosphere Webb would have been trounced by Allen.
And any time he wants a debate on FISA from non-anonymous bloggers, I'm sure Glenn Greenwald or Digby would kick his butt worse than Ollie North did by a long shot.
c_ray_86 @ 2:
Put your shit shields up Cap'n. Incoming from the self righteous ones.
That you speak truth has no bearing - you must be ideologically pure or suffer the consequences.
double snark
The founders had a tyrant then only recently banished from this land and therefore still fresh in mind when they wisely included the fourth amendment in our illustrious bill of rights.
Tyranny has found its new group of advocates. Anyone who voted for the FISA revamp is an advocate for the methodology of a police state.
I will have no core support for any of them and will do everything I am able to show them the exit from the national stage.
doggiebobo @ 47:
While I am not happy with any changes to the "old" FISA law, the changes to this law, while discomforting, are not the total end of the world. Do it represent another slide down the slippery slope? Yes, it does. However, the beautiful thing about our government and our laws are that both can be changed. There were political tradeoffs here, and they were done because we are in the middle of an election year, with alot at stake, and an opponent that will demagogue at every turn. If the Dems win big...which I STILL believe they will...this legislation can be changed faster than you can say "chimperor".
Let's be honest. The REAL issue that has the our knickers in a knot is the retroactive immunity, which ulitmately protects a president and administration that we all abhor!
Don't lose sight of the big prize. We have to stay TOGETHER. We have to support OUR candidates. We have to make it crystal clear to them what our expectations are if they win. We cannot let our opponents, who will stoop to nothing, who know no limits in how far they will sink, to drive wedges between us.
I suspect that most bloggers really don't do quite the research they should. I always take them with a grain of salt, as I do the "major" or "mainstream" media. Most blogs are imply opinion (present company accepted) Only a limited amount do actual research.
.
R E M E M B E R:
THEY(sic) HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS...
...And so THEY(sic) have attempted to legislate away our FREEDOMS... A G A I N!
Name me ONE terrorist that hates us more for our FREEDOMS...
Name me one terrorist that has attempted to take away our FREEDOMS...
... and I'll show you a body of Congress willing, waiting, abetting these terrorists.
.
Liberal AND Proud @ 55:
We are in total and complete agreement...It is the "immunity" provision of the new
FISA law that sucks and needs to be changed ASAP.
But, as to a "quick fix" to that horrible provision, I have some doubts even when Obama
is elected and takes office in Jan. 09. That is, as I recall, the new FISA law has a
"SunSet" provision whereby in 4 1/2 years(or not before June of 2012), Congress can
only then take a new look at the law and then make the required and necessary
changes. I hope I am wrong and that something can be done as to the immunity
provision sooner, but that is not my understanding of FISA as recently enacted.
Move on people, nothing to see here. @ 56:
this isn't an issue that requires "a lot of research".
calling for research is Bush' catchphrase for burying the truth....it doesn't take a lot of research to find this out either.
so let's all do our homework while justice gets steamrolled once again.
Embittered & Anti-Republicrat - Max-Hussein-1 @ 57:
christianity+democracy=dictatorship and fetishistic tortures.
doggiebobo @ 58:
Laws are written by men. When the political winds shift, "sunset provisions" suddenly drift off into the sunset.
That's why God invented erasers.
LiberalandProud@61: Man, do I hope you are correct and that come Jan 09, a
hurricane blows through D.C. and removes/erases more than just the Sunset
provision.
c_ray_86: Again, I am as liberal as they come. But we need pragmatism, and that is how people like Webb and Obama will lead us to a future where the kuchinich liberals will be accepted by the mainstream as mainstream, and this neoconservative bullshit will be a laughed off relic of the past.
===========
Obama has constantly taken the far-right constitution destroying positions. Kucinich has not.
Obama will NOT lead us into the future like he promised. He will not uphold the constitution as he promised. He will be no different than Bush and it downright sickens me.
Webb, who also used to be a favorite of mine, is not planning on upholding the constitution either.
I want a president who will stand up and pull us out of Iraq. Obama has consistently gave the yes to EVERY iraq bill that's come before him. That's not leading. I want a president who won't grant immunity to telecomms. I want a president who won't legislate the destruction of the 4th admendment.
I go by votes. Votes on the bills are what counts. And Obama has yet to deliver on a single promise... and he's not even in the white house yet!
Sure it is [simple], Mr. Webb and any attempt to make it seem so complicated that us mere mortals cannot possibly understand it is just someone trying to obfuscate their own criminal, negligent, and complicit behavior.
-First Amendment Us Constitution
The first and fourth amendments are very clear and you, Mr. Webb helped to strip them away. Proving guilt in criminal court requires a greater level of evidence than a civil court. All evidence of the FISA program is classified so no ordinary citizen has access to you have effectively stripped the right of Americans to redress grievances with the government. We have no right to possess classified information therefore we have no way to present it to back up our claims.
Additionally, the fourth amendment, allowing us to be secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant has effectively been suspended by the Bush authorized program. Bush does not have the authority to suspend parts of the Constitution he doesn't like. Nor does he have the power to override the law.
Together what these two amendment say is that the government ( and that means YOU, Mr. Webb ) cannot suddenly decide that it is ok to spy on American citizens, confiscate their shit or arrest them without a court order. Additionally it says that you cannot prevent them from suing or peacefully protesting about it either. Which is, in both cases, what you are doing.
Now the FISA law is slightly more complicated than the Constitution but it is also equally clear. You cannot, under penalty of a felony violation, eavesdrop or otherwise spy on any American citizen except by the provisions delineated in the Federal Intelligence Surveillance act. Meaning that you MUST obtain a warrant from the secret FISA court within the specified time limits ( 72 hours after surveillance begins for an American, or a year for a foreigner ), by presenting that judge with evidence to convince him that there is a need for the surveillance or you are BREAKING the law. The exclusivity provision in the original act means that unless you pass a law specifically removing the original exclusivity you cannot override it by any means, for any reason, even in a time of war. You have neither removed the original exclusivity provision nor have you taken the steps necessary to amend the US Constitution.
Therefore, you are acting outside the bounds of your authority and outside the law. Worse, you have done so at no cost to yourself, George W. Bush or the telecom companies but to the very people you are pretending to represent. We the people do not benefit in any way from this legislation. When presented with a lawful warrant a telecommunication company would be forced by law to cooperate with a lawful government investigation and would therefore be absolved of any civil or legal liability in the process. On the contrary we are harmed by this legislation, because the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution are boxed and given provisions which we must meet in order to keep them.
Which means that YOU, Senator Webb and everyone else who voted AYE on HR 6304 have aided and abetted an unknown (though logically greater than 0 ) number of felony violations of the FISA law. Each count of which has a penalty of 5 years and/or $10,000 in fines.
Further, the reason why you are passing this legislation, I suspect, is that you do not wish the full extent of the complicity of the Congress or the criminality of the administration to become apparent to either lawful courts or the citizenry. For fear of prosecution or perhaps the revolution that might result. Thus you are also apparently obstructing justice for your own selfish reasons.
The truth is that this entire issue is very simple for anyone not blinded by some bullshit party ideology. The Constitution is the foundation bedrock of this nation. Without it we are not a nation of people beholden to the Law. We are instead a collection of opposing factions each with their own agenda and no law or other binding force behind them.
We are not Europe or Asia or Africa we are not bound together by thousands of years of common history. We are a nation bound and created by a bunch of idealists two hundred plus years ago who codified what our society should look like. If we are in fact tossing aside the Constitution then any force of power you, Senator, might have had goes out the window with it. Without that document behind you, you just some Dickhead who thinks he's pulling the wool over people's eyes and that guy in the Oval Office is just some asshole dictator who has seized power because YOU let him over the objection of the people you pretend to be serving. By trying to make this issue look like anything other than a constitutional crisis in the making you are dishonoring everything that this nation has ever stood for.
The bottom line is, either you support the Constitution and the Rule of Law, or you do not. This isn't a shades of gray issue. The Constitution grants people ( doesn't specifically say citizens only but that's been the general assumption ) freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures. You violated that right by allowing the telecoms at the behest of Bush to violate it.
If you want the telecom companies to be able to spy on American citizens for the government - CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION. You can create a law that says "It's ok to break the law as long as the President tells you to." but since the President doesn't have the authority to override the law, it doesn't matter because the Constitution trumps that.
Another blow hard military creep! He needs to join the refucklican party.
I hope the dems can run a progressive against him. He is way out of touch!