Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Obama: I’ll Fight To Strip Telecom Immunity From FISA
rawstory.com — Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., issued a statement in support of the House ’s update of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but said he would try to strip a provision granting immunity to telecommunication companies when the bill comes to a vote in the Senate next week.
katrinaw- 2090 diggs
- digg it
- rationalbeats, on 06/21/2008, -96/+95I unsubbed from Obama's website and when they asked why I said i would not donate money to a person who wishes to undermine the United States Constitution for cheap political points.
If you don't live by principles, then there is no reason to take anything seriously.
Obama can take his message of hope and change and shove it up his double speaking ass.- Ajajadude, on 06/22/2008, -30/+17I'm sorry, but, what the hell are you blathering about?
- sam10685, on 06/22/2008, -19/+4I'm sorry, but democrats are F'ed in the head as far as political views.
- theaceoffire, on 06/22/2008, -2/+12So are republicans, communists, and socialists.
- HYPEractive, on 06/22/2008, -1/+15right... those damn democrats and THEIR Bush!!
- kreneskyp, on 06/22/2008, -1/+7some news places were running rumors that obama is actually for spying on americans because he supports updating FISA. The real truth is most of us don't care about the spying, if it is done with the oversight of the fisa court. THAT has been the problem all along. without oversight there is nothing to stop rampant abuse.
- Ajajadude, on 06/22/2008, -3/+1So, basically, he's getting pissy over some rumors?
- sam10685, on 06/22/2008, -19/+4I'm sorry, but democrats are F'ed in the head as far as political views.
- theaceoffire, on 06/22/2008, -12/+10He does live by principles, which is why he doesn't want lobbyist's money, just like he didn't use their money for the democratic primary.
- UberNick, on 06/22/2008, -2/+11How do you unsubscribe from his site!?! If it's possible, they hide it pretty well and don't answer emails.
- HappyScrappy, on 06/22/2008, -4/+6How do you unsubscribe from a web site? Do you mean unsubscribe from a mailing list?
- falese, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5picky picky. you knew what he meant. dork.
- freedomwv, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4You are correct he does not live by principles. How about asking Obama why is has broken the Logan Act?
- Ajajadude, on 06/22/2008, -30/+17I'm sorry, but, what the hell are you blathering about?
- louise12345, on 06/21/2008, -68/+62So Barack was for it before he was against it? Unbelievable!!! These Democrats may not have control of the House, but the idea is to use your votes AGAINST bills that are an affront to liberty and the Constitution.
- Ajajadude, on 06/22/2008, -12/+32No, I think he was against it the entire time: "Last February, when an earlier version of the FISA bill came to a vote, Obama voted for an amendment to strip the telecom immunity provision from the bill."
- superkendall, on 06/22/2008, -12/+6You are not understanding that he means, being against FISA itself, not this tiny part of the bill.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1That's rediculous. You're making that up.
- superkendall, on 06/22/2008, -12/+6You are not understanding that he means, being against FISA itself, not this tiny part of the bill.
- Ajajadude, on 06/22/2008, -12/+32No, I think he was against it the entire time: "Last February, when an earlier version of the FISA bill came to a vote, Obama voted for an amendment to strip the telecom immunity provision from the bill."
- Stevanoski, on 06/21/2008, -56/+30He has to pay back the trial lawyer lobby somehow. Why not go after the people who helped keep America safe after 9/11?
- dsmx, on 06/22/2008, -7/+15Yes because as we all know he did such a good job at defending the nation against the known threat against the twin towers that day.
- banmaster, on 06/22/2008, -3/+6They kept america safe??? Holy ***** you really have bought into Bush's ***** hook line and sinker haven't you!
- dexter411, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2We had raided the home of Zacarias Moussaoui several months before 9/11, but because of bureaucratic missteps, we were unable to search his laptop. The laptop, recovered during the investigation of 9/11, contained correspondence and documentation of the attack.
FISA aims to stop this. How do you say, "Bush didn't keep us safe!" (by the way, the blame for that falls on Clinton), but then argue against ending bureaucratic ***** that makes it harder to do so?
- vinod1978, on 06/22/2008, -4/+9Safe? Terrorism is up worldwide. Exactly who or what is safer?
I know you might not be familiar with actual facts, but I thought I'd go on a limb here and show you some of the documented terrorist attacks that shows that since the Administration has adopted the current foreign policy since 9-11, Americans and the rest of the world are actually less safe. Tthe current Administration has increased the number threats to this nation and our allies. And if that isn't enough MSNBC, CNN, and the Washington post all agree with the majority of this nation (links below)
*note - the number in the parenthesis indicate how many died.
12 Oct 2002: car bombing outside nightclub in Kuta, Indonesia (202)
26 Oct 2002: hostage taking and attempted rescue in theater in Moscow, Russia (includes 41 terrorists killed) (170)
29 Aug 2003: car bombing outside mosque in Najaf, Iraq (125)
1 Feb 2004: two suicide bombings of political party offices in Irbil, Iraq (109)
21 Feb 2004: armed attack and arson at refugee camp, Uganda (239)
27 Feb 2004: bombing and fire on ferry near Manila, Philippines (118)
2 Mar 2004: multiple suicide bombings at shrines in Kadhimiya and Karbala, Iraq (188)
11 Mar 2004: bombings of four trains in Madrid, Spain (191)
24 Jun 2004: multiple bombings and armed attacks in several cities in Iraq (103)
1-3 Sep 2004: hostage taking at school in Beslan, Russia (includes 30 terrorists killed) (366)
28 Feb 2005: car bombing outside medical clinic in Hilla, Iraq (135)
14 Sep 2005: multiple suicide bombings and shooting attacks in Baghdad, Iraq (182)
5 Jan 2006: bombings in Karbala, Ramadi, and Baghdad, Iraq (124)
11 Jul 2006: multiple bombings on commuter trains in Mumbai, India (200)
16 Oct 2006: truck bombing of military convoy near Habarana, Sri Lanka (103)
23 Nov 2006: multiple car bombings in Baghdad, Iraq (202)
22 Jan 2007: multiple bombings in Baghdad area, Iraq (101)
3 Feb 2007: truck bombing in market place in Baghdad, Iraq (137)
6 Mar 2007: two bombings and other attacks on pilgrims, Hilla, Iraq (137)
27 Mar 2007: two truck bombings in Tal Afar, Iraq (152)
18 Apr 2007: bombings in Baghdad, Iraq (193)
3-10 Jul 2007: hostage taking and subsequent storming of mosque in Islamabad, Pakistan (102)
7 Jul 2007: bombings in Baghdad and Armili, Iraq (182)
14 Aug 2007: multiple truck bombings in Al-Qataniyah and Al-Adnaniyah, Iraq (520)
18 Oct 2007: bombing of motorcade in Karachi, Pakistan (140)
Please read:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18399660/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/powell.t ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...- styleomatic, on 06/22/2008, -2/+5if we'd get the f*** out of the middle east maybe this s*** wouldn't happen.
- dexter411, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2... And none of those attacks happened in America. Good work.
- 140Suffolk, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Yes, you're right. Let's DON'T fight back. It just gets them mad at us. Maybe if we're real quiet and do what they say they won't hurt us. Much.
- petrodollar, on 06/22/2008, -1/+10Are you kidding? This bill would have the effect of STOPPING lawsuits and forcing both the lawyers who are sueing the telecoms AND the lawyers who are getting paid $$$ to defend them to go find other work. This is anything but good for lawyers, you horrendous moron.
- Stevanoski, on 06/22/2008, -3/+1Who is going to defend the terrorist? accountants? Please try again tomorrow.
- dexter411, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2They need defense? They seem pretty tough when they behead our journalists and soldiers...
- Stevanoski, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1@dexter411, I became a fan of yours. Was actually replying to petrodollar's claim that no lawyers would be involved. Since he called me "you horrendous moron." and he did not pass the fail test I reckon that puts him a notch under a" you horrendous moron."
These Leftists are easy picken's. Have never had to use logic, only have to talk about feelings. So they hit logicfail at every turn. - petrodollar, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Why are you suddenly shifting the subject, stevanoski? You have thoroughly failed to address the fact that this legislation would put hundreds of lawyers OUT OF WORK. The Gitmo detainees already have lawyers, so it's not like the people who are suing the telecoms can just run over to Cuba and pick up new clients. Furthermore, gitmo detainees don't pay. There's no money to be made defending them, whereas there are millions to be made suing telecom companies.
Yes, stevanoski, you are a horrendous moron.
- Stevanoski, on 06/22/2008, -3/+1Who is going to defend the terrorist? accountants? Please try again tomorrow.
- dsmx, on 06/22/2008, -7/+15Yes because as we all know he did such a good job at defending the nation against the known threat against the twin towers that day.
- DemonEyesBob, on 06/21/2008, -53/+113Come on people, digg this article in response to http://digg.com/politics/Obama_Supports_FISA_Legis ...
- Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 06/22/2008, -9/+72He supports the legislation, just not telecom immunity.
- etherreal, on 06/22/2008, -14/+76But said he would vote for it regardless. Thats a big FAIL in my book.
- paranoiabacon, on 06/22/2008, -21/+11True, but you have to draw the line somewhere. I think the point that Obama is trying to make is that he's not soft on terrorism, but he does have to draw the line SOMEWHERE.
Also he made pledges to strictly oversight the ***** when HE becomes president so really all he's doing is extending it... for himself... hmm. - Aikidi, on 06/22/2008, -4/+44since when is defending our civil liberties being "soft on terrorism"?
the fact that any candidate would lose some footing for shooting this bill down (and they would) is ***** terrifying. - locojones, on 06/22/2008, -2/+36I'm sorry Obama, but there is no "compromise" when it comes to protecting the civil liberties of American citizens.
- ZenMojo, on 06/22/2008, -2/+7When did he say he would vote for it out of hat? This is the exact same statement he made that pissed off everyone else, except without the part where he pledged to fight telecom immunity being edited out.
My ***** detector just went off. - deadbaby, on 06/22/2008, -3/+2I dunno... ask the voters. They re-elected Bush and gave him a Republican congress no less so obviously they do believe that defending civil liberties is being soft on terrorism or they simply don't understand the issue. Either way, it's hard to blame Obama for not committing political suicide and losing the election in June when the voters have set a precedent that they want things like FISA so they can be "protected". We're talking about a 30 year old law here so it's really difficult to even blame Bush exclusively. The flaw in Democracy is voters are free to support bad ideas.
- mecharabbit, on 06/22/2008, -0/+8I think many people have the mistaken belief that Obama is not a typical politician. Now that he has secured the nomination, he is doing the same old move toward the political center for the general election that every candidate has done. Honeymoon's over, liberal Obama supporters.
- paranoiabacon, on 06/22/2008, -21/+11True, but you have to draw the line somewhere. I think the point that Obama is trying to make is that he's not soft on terrorism, but he does have to draw the line SOMEWHERE.
- etherreal, on 06/22/2008, -14/+76But said he would vote for it regardless. Thats a big FAIL in my book.
- Synova, on 06/22/2008, -15/+6I figured that title of that other article came right from Fox News, not Digg...
- cubiccavepearls, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Divest from Obama's campaign if he does vote to give the telecoms immunity:
http://www.pledgebank.com/divestobama
- Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 06/22/2008, -9/+72He supports the legislation, just not telecom immunity.
- lilbugleboy09, on 06/22/2008, -8/+125Someone should fight this, the concept of immunity for violating privacy never ceases to boggle me. What country do I live in again?
- ProfessorSYM, on 06/22/2008, -20/+4The country where it is always "someone else" who should get out, get to work, and solve our problems.
- TheImaginator, on 06/22/2008, -1/+29United States of America Inc/Ltd
- oxdeltaxo, on 06/22/2008, -2/+6You live in what one day will be ingsoc.
- hamGrenade, on 06/22/2008, -0/+6I think you mean Oceania. Much love though.
- Troy64, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Your profile says your from SA town. I not sure what country that is. You might go out see it you can find any flags that might be helpful.
- gonegoogling, on 06/22/2008, -48/+42***** liar!
- pjpark, on 06/22/2008, -50/+41I love the tacky way he pimped out the Great Seal.
- Jackson0909, on 06/22/2008, -6/+4It's very self-absorbed and arrogant. I actually can't believe he perverted the seal of the President of the United States of America with his propaganda. It's sick.
- jaymzdean, on 06/22/2008, -46/+40Obama will break all his promises.
I guarantee it.- wreckosaurus, on 06/22/2008, -10/+37well I was gonna vote for him, but some guy on the internet gave me his guarantee
- kida101, on 06/22/2008, -49/+39“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.
“[The bill] 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.”
Sounds good to me...O8ama FTW- Qtip42, on 06/22/2008, -22/+15Sounds like a sheep to me! Follow the leader right off the cliff.
- DavidtheDuke, on 06/22/2008, -7/+26But even if he doesn't support IMMUNITY, he's still supports the idea of LEGALIZED GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE. I know it has been going on for decades, but it'd be nice for a politician to ask it to be illegal, but I guess that's just too hard even for Obama :(
- MortVent, on 06/22/2008, -1/+16The government always had the option of surveillance with a court order for wiretaps and digital data surveillance.
FISA just puts more of the checks and balances back into play. - kreneskyp, on 06/22/2008, -3/+2its silly to be against all surveillance. its only when theres no oversight that there is a problem.
- skinnyskittles, on 06/22/2008, -1/+3it is not silly to be against all surveillance by the government, it's our right
- MortVent, on 06/22/2008, -1/+16The government always had the option of surveillance with a court order for wiretaps and digital data surveillance.
- JHB800, on 06/22/2008, -3/+7Fat chance he will. His democratic leaders won't give him the time of day.
- econojon, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5You can't be against immunity AND support the compromise. The compromise clearly states that FISA courts can review cases, but can't enforce rulings. FISA courts have to be able to enforce rulings for their to be no immunity. Otherwise the court will simply review the past case and nothing will happen to the telcoms.
- ohiomama, on 06/22/2008, -6/+6baaaaa. i don't understand how people blindly follow him and try to justify everything. we need to hold politicians accountable.
- runCMD, on 06/22/2008, -3/+5Senator Obama - if you will honestly work to seek full accountability for past offenses .. then start with your own. THEN I'll take you seriously.
- duddy, on 06/22/2008, -27/+21Obama acts like he makes ***** up, and then when he speaks to security advisers, changes his ***** mind.
- GhostyBoy, on 06/22/2008, -87/+148What a ***** sell-out.
No help on impeachment either....at least we no where he stands when it actually matters.- Sarevok9, on 06/22/2008, -22/+17Strip out the *****:
"I will fight to take away your liberties, but I'll make sure anyone that did it before this bill gets punished"
Obama '08 'change'
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ - HallEffected, on 06/22/2008, -18/+6you do realize that Bush's trials for impeachment wouldn't even start until AFTER he was out of office? waste of time.
- crowbar77, on 06/22/2008, -1/+13So giving some justice to those 3000+ soldiers families is a waste of time?
- HallEffected, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1he can still be tried for war crimes AFTER leaving office idiot. So no it's not
non sequitor much?
- HallEffected, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1he can still be tried for war crimes AFTER leaving office idiot. So no it's not
- crowbar77, on 06/22/2008, -1/+13So giving some justice to those 3000+ soldiers families is a waste of time?
- ZenMojo, on 06/22/2008, -9/+38Sell out? The whole argument was over telecom immunity and he said he's fighting it. The House actually imposed stricter regulations on FISA than were in there back in 1978 (for instance, instead of a "secret" FISA court overseeing things, a district court would), and traded it for telecom immunity. Now Obama's pledging to fight the telecom immunity.
People are just whining for the sake of whining.- pinsomniac, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2The entire argument was not just about immunity -- it was that immunity was the most important aspect of the argument. And to that extent, Sen. Reid came out and effectively said that their efforts will amount to little more than posturing, so this "pledge" to fight is just political cover.
I've supported Obama's presidential run, and will continue to do so -- but with markedly less enthusiasm. I've sent a letter (link below) to his senatorial office, and I suggest that anyone else concerned do the same.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/22/9391/4 ...- person425, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1Why? His job was to minimize the immunity granted by the compromise FISA act, and that's what he has done. For a telecom company to get immunity now, they have to prove that after 9/11, the office of the president specifically asked them to break the law. In every case, we get evidence to ***** up people in the whitehouse, or ***** up people in the telecom companies. This is what we really wanted isn't it?
- pinsomniac, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2The entire argument was not just about immunity -- it was that immunity was the most important aspect of the argument. And to that extent, Sen. Reid came out and effectively said that their efforts will amount to little more than posturing, so this "pledge" to fight is just political cover.
- ambrosious, on 06/22/2008, -5/+30IT'S "KNOW" GOD DAMN IT
- Sarevok9, on 06/22/2008, -22/+17Strip out the *****:
- dball48, on 06/22/2008, -35/+29yea, he'll fight to strip telecom immunity just like o.j. will fight to find the real killers.
- duddy, on 06/22/2008, -34/+25Wow, Digg is REALLY torn on this matter. The Obamanites vs. The Paulites. No one is posting ANYTHING remotely intelligent supporting or opposing his decision.
My excuse, I'm just too ***** lazy to give too much of a *****.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go speak dangerous keywords into my telephone.
Mail bomb, assasination, fertilizer, same sex marriages......Obama for President.....- RedPhalanx, on 06/22/2008, -3/+10There's more than two sides of Digg...
- duddy, on 06/22/2008, -3/+13Oh that's right, I forgot you non-conformist emos.
- sugarazor, on 06/22/2008, -1/+22Not really, arguing politics on Digg is pretty much the equivalent of arguing PS3 vs. Xbox 360.
- mimigins, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4Wii!!
- RedPhalanx, on 06/22/2008, -3/+10There's more than two sides of Digg...
- moantauk, on 06/22/2008, -78/+82WHERE IS YOUR OBAMA NOW?
- bjornski, on 06/22/2008, -13/+49Where's Ron Paul?
He didn't even bother to register a vote.- Sarevok9, on 06/22/2008, -11/+16Quoted from: http://digg.com/politics/Obama_Supports_FISA_Legis ...
"Jesse Benton was quoted: Dr. Paul missed the vote today because he had a longstanding commitment to speak at the Montana GOP Convention today."
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=56#comme ...
"And judging by his Statement on H.R. 3773 - FISA Amendments Act of 2008, he would have voted a resounding "nay"."
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr03 ...
The Emerging Surveillance State
Last month, the House amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to expand the government’s ability to monitor our private communications. This measure, if it becomes law, will result in more warrantless government surveillance of innocent American citizens.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=1064
thanks for playing.- bjornski, on 06/22/2008, -13/+12So he was raising money for the GOP.
And "would have" sucks as a reasoning.
You do or you don't. And he didn't. - TJATL, on 06/22/2008, -3/+14If you think Ron Paul was at the Montana GOP convention to raise money for the GOP, you are an ignorant fool.
- Disneyisevil50, on 06/22/2008, -3/+4Thanks TJATL, i thought I was going to have to say it, but I would have phrased it a little more colorfully, something like stupid ***** or unbelivable dumbass and the 5 people that upvoted you
- bjornski, on 06/22/2008, -13/+12So he was raising money for the GOP.
- michaelzhao, on 06/22/2008, -5/+15Before you Obamatards start bitching about Ron Paul missing votes... reality is a bitch...
Missed Vote Percentage:
Obama - 42.7% (253 votes missed)
McCain - 61.0% (361 votes missed)
Paul - 26.8% (429 votes missed)
'nuff said...- bjornski, on 06/22/2008, -1/+14McCain has missed SIXTY ONE percent of his votes?
Holy ***** - michaelzhao, on 06/22/2008, -1/+10He really is King Bush the Third in every respect...
Considering Bush has taken the most vacation days of any President... - TJATL, on 06/22/2008, -6/+3Do you think a President ever gets a real "vacation"? They are always working or being informed regardless of where they are at.
- metaliq, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5Bush's "working" and "being informed", as I am sure you have noticed, doesn't really mean much.
- bjornski, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2This one is on vacation everywhere he's at.
Did you see his cute basketball photographs?
- bjornski, on 06/22/2008, -1/+14McCain has missed SIXTY ONE percent of his votes?
- Sarevok9, on 06/22/2008, -11/+16Quoted from: http://digg.com/politics/Obama_Supports_FISA_Legis ...
- superkendall, on 06/22/2008, -5/+12That's actually a rather funny comment, given the current context.
- Gutterpunk, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Walking all over McCain?
- bjornski, on 06/22/2008, -13/+49Where's Ron Paul?
- RedPhalanx, on 06/22/2008, -24/+17I actually did vote for the FISA bill before I voted against it.
- swrostmore, on 06/22/2008, -20/+11"…a man on the scent of the White House is rarely rational. He is more like a beast in heat: a bull elk in the rut, crashing blindly through the timber in a fever for something to *****. Anything! A cow, a calf, a mare—any flesh and blood beast with a hole in it. The bull elk is a very crafty animal for about fifty weeks of the year: his senses are so sharp that only an artful stalker can get within a thousand yards of him…but when the rut comes on, in the autumn, any geek with the sense to blow an elk-whistle can lure a bull elk right up to his car in ten minutes if he can drive within hearing range.
The dumb bastards lose all control of themselves when the rut comes on. Their eyes glaze over, their ears pack up with hot wax, and their loins get heavy with blood. Anything that sounds like a cow elk in heat will fuse the central nervous systems of every bull on the mountain. They will race through the timber like huge cannonballs, trampling small trees and scraping off bloody chunks of their own hair on the unyielding bark of the big ones. They behave like sharks in a feeding frenzy, attacking each other with all the demented violence of human drug dealers gone mad on their own wares.
A career politician finally smelling he White House is not much different from a bull elk in the rut. He will stop at nothing, trashing anything that gets in his way; and anything he can’t handle personally he will hire out—or, failing that, make a deal. It is a difficult syndrome for most people to understand, because few of us ever come close to the kind of Ultimate Power and Achievement that the White House represents to a career politician."- swrostmore, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5I didn't get a chance to edit in my actual point - which is that if you take anything away from that epic passage, it is that Obama may "fight" to strip Telecom immunity, but not so hard that it will damage his chances in November. In other words he'll offer an amendment, and when it is voted down he'll vote for the bill anyway, so McCain can't say he's soft on national security.
- memoryhole, on 06/22/2008, -2/+0tl;dr
- MakiMaki, on 06/22/2008, -15/+127I like Obama, I really do but I honestly think retroactive immunity for telecoms is not the biggest problem here. It's the old frame of mind whereby being "strong" on national security means ignoring the constitution.
He could have taken the opportunity to explain why warrantless surveillance isn't completely necessary to protect Americans from the terrorists. Why its possible to do so without violating 4th Amendment protections. But he didn't.
For a Obama supporter, this is disappointing.
Glenn Greenward has a long and intelligent article on this issue:
http://digg.com/political_opinion/An_Honest_Look_a ...
FTA: "The very first line of Obama's official statement warns us that we face what he calls "grave threats," and that therefore, we must accept that our Leader needs more unlimited power, and the best we can do is trust that he will use it for our Good."
"It is absolutely false that the only unconstitutional and destructive provision of this "compromise" bill is the telecom amnesty part. It's true that most people working to defeat the Cheney/Rockefeller bill viewed opposition to telecom amnesty as the most politically potent way to defeat the bill, but the bill's expansion of warrantless eavesdropping powers vested in the President, and its evisceration of safeguards against abuses of those powers, is at least as long-lasting and destructive as the telecom amnesty provisions.
The bill legalizes many of the warrantless eavesdropping activities George Bush secretly and illegally ordered in 2001. Those warrantless eavesdropping powers violate core Fourth Amendment protections. And Barack Obama now supports all of it, and will vote it into law. Those are just facts."- ZenMojo, on 06/22/2008, -3/+6I perused the bill, and it does not seem any different than the bill that was in place in 2007 (in fact, after the lapse of the Protect America Act it safeguards more of your civil liberties than before). The one disturbing element is amnesty, but, again, Obama has positioned himself against that amendment.
It's important not to confuse this with the Protect America Act, which supported warrantless communication tapping and died in February without getting renewed. No one can wiretap anyone without a warrant, which is what the original FISA act in 1978 set forth. Nothing has changed except that instead of the Attorney General having a year to wiretap people without going to a court, now he only has seven days to pursue authorization.- an0nymous, on 06/22/2008, -1/+6Oh. Well *****. It's okay fellows!
Noted Obama apologist and Legal scholar ZenMojo has "perused" the bill and assures us that it's okay and that it "safeguards more of your civil liberties than before". Why is everyone so upset?
Oh.
Oh yeah:
• H.R. 6304 permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing.
• H.R. 6304 permits only minimal court oversight. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what or where will actually be tapped.
• H.R. 6304 contains a general ban on reverse targeting. However, it lacks stronger language that was contained in prior House bills that included clear statutory directives about when the government should return to the FISA court and obtain an individualized order if it wants to continue listening to a US person’s communications.
• H.R.6304 contains an “exigent” circumstance loophole that thwarts the prior judicial review requirement. The bill permits the government to start a spying program and wait to go to court for up to 7 days every time “intelligence important to the national security of the US may be lost or not timely acquired.” By definition, court applications take time and will delay the collection of information. It is highly unlikely there is a situation where this exception doesn’t swallow the rule.
• H.R. 6304 further trivializes court review by explicitly permitting the government to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever it gathered in the meantime.
• H.R. 6304 ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping programs over the last 7 years. The test in the bill is not whether the government certifications were actually legal – only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that they were, all the cases seeking to find out what these companies and the government did with our communications will be killed.
• Members of Congress not on Judiciary or Intelligence Committees are NOT guaranteed access to reports from the Attorney General, Director of National Intelligence, and Inspector General.- mecharabbit, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4Scary stuff. Thanks for the summary.
- an0nymous, on 06/22/2008, -1/+6Oh. Well *****. It's okay fellows!
- kreneskyp, on 06/22/2008, -2/+4The bill does not legalize any of what bush did. It still requires warrants for all wiretapping. what part of that don't you understand?
- an0nymous, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3Technicaly you are correct: It does not legalize Bush's actions. It can't as they were patently illegal. What it does do is immunize them. This process is known as AMNESTY.
What it does is prevent any legal challenge to the action which has a more pernicious effect: It prevents the details of the lawbreaking from ever being disclosed.
But don't take my word for it ! Ask the Republicans:
The proposal -- particularly the immunity provision -- represents a major victory for the White House after months of dispute. "I think the White House got a better deal than even they had hoped to get," said Senator Christopher Bond, the Missouri Republican who led the negotiations.
As for your second point, the ACLU says this:
H.R. 6304 permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing.
Which part don't you understand?- trotskyist, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1Uh, the whole point of this article is that Obama is fighting against amnesty. Did you even read it?
- an0nymous, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4Oh I read it,
No the whole point is that Obama is claiiming to fight against amnesty while actually enabling it.
Here, read ths:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/21/ ...
- an0nymous, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3Technicaly you are correct: It does not legalize Bush's actions. It can't as they were patently illegal. What it does do is immunize them. This process is known as AMNESTY.
- principle, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Besides granting retroactive immunity to telecoms, this bill destroys FISA and undermines the Fourth Amendment in order to legalize Bush’s assault on our Constitutional rights. While Obama’s support for this bill only shows where his loyalty lies, and it is not with the American people.
- ZenMojo, on 06/22/2008, -3/+6I perused the bill, and it does not seem any different than the bill that was in place in 2007 (in fact, after the lapse of the Protect America Act it safeguards more of your civil liberties than before). The one disturbing element is amnesty, but, again, Obama has positioned himself against that amendment.
- ileftfark, on 06/22/2008, -11/+83I know this is a big talking point for Digg and other online communities in general, but we're missing the big picture here. Do I think the telecoms should be penalized for violating civil rights? ***** yes. Is doing so going to erase the damage that has been done? No. What's more important here is what FISA as a whole allows. The fact that Obama would pass the legislation at all (telecoms aside) is nothing less than a travesty. There's way too much in FISA to go into great detail, but Wikipedia has a decent analysis:
FISA is codified in 50 U.S.C. §§1801–1811, 1821–29, 1841–46, and 1861–62.[1] The subchapters of FISA provide for:
* Electronic Surveillance
* Physical Searches
* Pen Registers and Trap & Trace Devices for Foreign Intelligence Purposes
* Access to certain Business Records for Foreign Intelligence Purposes
The act created a court which meets in secret, and approves or denies requests for search warrants. Only the number of warrants applied for, issued and denied, is reported. In 1980 (the first full year after its inception), it approved 322 warrants.[2] This number has steadily grown to 2224 warrants[3] in 2006. In the period 1979-2006 a total of 22,990 applications for warrants were made to the Court of which 22,985 were approved (sometimes with modifications; or with the splitting up, or combining together, of warrants for legal purposes), and only 5 were definitively rejected.[4]
The fact that Obama would pass this (again, telecoms aside- that's not even the biggest issue anymore) is ***** scary.- deadbaby, on 06/22/2008, -3/+2If it wasn't even a law do you really think someone like Bush wouldn't do it anyway? Obama could abolish FISA and 10 years from now some nutty Republican will be in the white house and just pass FISA 2 or do it illegally. It seems to me what we're talking about here is exclusively a political issue with little or no relation to what actually goes on behind closed doors at the White House & NSA. I don't think Obama should hang himself for a symbolic victory.
- ZenMojo, on 06/22/2008, -6/+3The bill has been law since 1978. This is why the big picture is of little interest. It is because, as it stands now, the bill has absolutely no effect on our lives at this point.
- Sarevok9, on 06/22/2008, -3/+5Why expand something bad into something worse? Just because its already 'in' doesn't mean we should expand it.
- revisrev, on 06/22/2008, -3/+4It's not an expansion. It's a reestablishment of the principles of the original bill, making congress' word on it the precedent, rather than setting the precedent that the executive doesn't require judicial oversight. Because the executive has broken the law, we're in a situation where we have a standing precedent, that the president can monitor communications with impunity. One of the other two branches must do something about this. The supreme court can declare his actions unconstitutional (which would have no effect unless they unequivocally state that the unitary executive theory is unconstitutional), the legislative can successfully impeach and censure or remove, or the legislative can legislate. It would be nice if we had enough balls in congress to impeach, but that isn't going to happen, so they should legislate.
Immunity... well, if somebody can prove that they were illegally spied on then they deserve to have their day in court. People should also have the right to know if they were illegally spied on.
- revisrev, on 06/22/2008, -3/+4It's not an expansion. It's a reestablishment of the principles of the original bill, making congress' word on it the precedent, rather than setting the precedent that the executive doesn't require judicial oversight. Because the executive has broken the law, we're in a situation where we have a standing precedent, that the president can monitor communications with impunity. One of the other two branches must do something about this. The supreme court can declare his actions unconstitutional (which would have no effect unless they unequivocally state that the unitary executive theory is unconstitutional), the legislative can successfully impeach and censure or remove, or the legislative can legislate. It would be nice if we had enough balls in congress to impeach, but that isn't going to happen, so they should legislate.
- Sarevok9, on 06/22/2008, -3/+5Why expand something bad into something worse? Just because its already 'in' doesn't mean we should expand it.
- flink405, on 06/22/2008, -4/+2Obama is the first presidential candidate since the Watergate reforms to decline public financing of his general election campaign.
Obama has almost no public record at all — no legislative track record, no executive experience, no foreign-policy experience, and no military experience.
Obama turned down McCain’s invitation to join him in a series of town hall meetings where they would appear together and answer questions from real voters — without a formal agenda, press panel or professional interviewers.
----------
What would HIllary have done?- SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2The town hall meetings were an obvious setup.
Obama has a long standing public record. Ignoring it does not erase it.
What does public financing of his campaign have to do with anything?
Hillary was essentially the same candidate just less honest and more self-centered. She would have done and been almost exactly the same.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2The town hall meetings were an obvious setup.
- ironhide, on 06/22/2008, -36/+72You idiots do realise that FISA has been in effect for longer than half of the diggers have been alive right? Where are the civil rights violations you are screaming about? I'm waiting...........
- goodnrg, on 06/22/2008, -9/+37For one, the Bush administration violated FISA with its warrantless wiretapping program. Besides violating FISA, this program was a violation of the 4th amendment as well as an overreach of the Executive branch and an attempt to circumvent the separation of powers in the federal government. What they are discussing now is an amendment to FISA as it stands now, that you refer to, from the 70s.
- ironhide, on 06/22/2008, -9/+18yes and the only difference is the immunity for the telcos, which Obama said he would fight. Bush's violation of FISA is a seperate issue.
- Jenadae, on 06/22/2008, -6/+8Ironhide you REALLY should read the proposed bill if you think that is all that is changing...
- ZenMojo, on 06/22/2008, -3/+9@Jenadae
I just so happened to have read the proposed bill. I suggest you try it, too.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill= ...
Anyway, this is useful in considering FISA:
>>Thus, the Court outlined seven constitutional requirements: (1) a showing of probable cause that a particular offense has been or is about to be committed; (2) the applicant must describe with particularity the conversations to be intercepted; (3) the surveillance must be for a specific, limited period of time in order to minimize the invasion of privacy (the N.Y. law authorized two months of surveillance at a time); (4) there must be continuing probable cause showings for the surveillance to continue beyond the original termination date; (5) the surveillance must end once the conversation sought is seized; (6) notice must be given unless there is an adequate showing of exigency; and (7) a return on the warrant is required so that the court may oversee and limit the use of the intercepted conversations.
Indeed, the Court said that if "neither a warrant nor a statute authorizing eavesdropping can be drawn so as to meet the Fourth Amendment's requirements... then the 'fruits' of eavesdropping devices are barred under the Amendment." Id., at 63. - bosozuku, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4Hmm. What do noted civil rights advocates the ACLU say?
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/35731res200 ...
They say it's a disaster.
- ironhide, on 06/22/2008, -9/+18yes and the only difference is the immunity for the telcos, which Obama said he would fight. Bush's violation of FISA is a seperate issue.
- pintomp3, on 06/22/2008, -5/+11the adminstration wants to go around FISA.
- lamiaconfitor, on 06/22/2008, -8/+5The problem isn't the original FISA. not that that is super awesome or anything in my opinion, but the changes are dangerous.
- ZenMojo, on 06/22/2008, -3/+4Can you even ennumerate the actual changes -- other than telecom immunity, of course.
- lamiaconfitor, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4first of all, it expands the fisa act to include any American citizen overseas. while they claim they want to limit wiretapping without a warrant, the language in the bill is weak and dems kind of tossed the republicans the leeway so that the president can still do ***** all he wants for the next 4 and a half years untill the bill is voted on again. now, just because you think I an idiot, does not make it so, did you even read an article on the subject? Or, do you think its just cool to pretend you are smarter then any random person you havent met? either way, suck it. you have internet access. if you need number on it, put it in MS office and put bullets on the page.
- an0nymous, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4It allows Ex Post Facto.
It trivializes court review by explicitly permitting the government to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever it gathered in the meantime.
It permits only minimal court oversight. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what or where will actually be tapped.
It permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing. - magus_melchior, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2@lamiaconfitor: Even if he insulted you, the fact that you responded in kind weakens your argument.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2Actually, this bill places much greater restrictions and much clearer guidelines than the original bill.
If you had read it you might understand that.
- barbiesnow, on 06/22/2008, -3/+1firstly it had to do with Mafia and other money laundering groups with probable cause being used. All of that has been set aside and is now done without any protection methods for the average person. It is now done with out safeguards for us.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1That's a nearly irresponsibly misinformed statement. Did you look up ANYTHING on this bill at all?
- ZenMojo, on 06/22/2008, -3/+4Can you even ennumerate the actual changes -- other than telecom immunity, of course.
- musikmann, on 06/22/2008, -6/+4It's called the slippery slope...
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2... and it was always a ***** political doctrine bring you such nonsense as anti-gay marriage proposals and marijuana prohibition.
- sonofashoe, on 06/22/2008, -2/+6Hey Ironbrain, Right, FISA is the law: A civil rights LAW. Kind of like a drug law. Breaking a drug law is a drug violation. Breaking a civil rights law is a civil rights violation. Dubya & Cheney wiretapped without a warrant, which violates FISA. There is your civil rights violation.
- goodnrg, on 06/22/2008, -9/+37For one, the Bush administration violated FISA with its warrantless wiretapping program. Besides violating FISA, this program was a violation of the 4th amendment as well as an overreach of the Executive branch and an attempt to circumvent the separation of powers in the federal government. What they are discussing now is an amendment to FISA as it stands now, that you refer to, from the 70s.
- DaDrake, on 06/22/2008, -26/+52This seems like Obama is trying to have his cake and eat it too. If you don't agree with the immunity, don't past the bill or show support for it in any form. Obviously, Obama was going with the party and was unwilling to distinguished himself as an individual.
- Snuff99, on 06/22/2008, -2/+7Not everything is clear as day, black or white, good and evil. This nation was built on compromise. If our founders had always voted between good and bad, never swaying for the other side, they would have achieved nothing.
Compromise, look it up.- MasterGrief, on 06/22/2008, -2/+5No.
- magus_melchior, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2In a schoolyard or a comedy sketch, that may be appropriate, but in a discussion, that may prompt the other person to draw a weapon.
(I know it's probably a really lame joke, but just so you know.) - MasterGrief, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1I'm sorry, it was rather inappropriate. It's the internet, though, so I figured I'd throw it out there--had it been in real life, I probably wouldn't have.
- magus_melchior, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2In a schoolyard or a comedy sketch, that may be appropriate, but in a discussion, that may prompt the other person to draw a weapon.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/22/2008, -1/+3This is so very true.
So many Diggers fail to grasp that democracy is all about compromise. Giving a little to get a lot is hardly "caving."
You can't have that black and white mindset in government. How quickly people forget that it's that sort of "with us or against us" thinking that gave of the biggest disasters of the Bush administration.
For me, it's a comfort to know I'm supporting a candidate who understands compromise.
- MasterGrief, on 06/22/2008, -2/+5No.
- Snuff99, on 06/22/2008, -2/+7Not everything is clear as day, black or white, good and evil. This nation was built on compromise. If our founders had always voted between good and bad, never swaying for the other side, they would have achieved nothing.
- jreinstedler, on 06/22/2008, -25/+35I don't believe this at all... it seems like Obama is jumping on all the hottest issues and says, "I'll fight it!"... Sorry dude, I don't believe you will. Focus on something and finish it... you're trying too hard and it's gonna bite you like it has every politician before you.
- ZenMojo, on 06/22/2008, -2/+5This is the exact same quote that people attacked him for, except now the fighting part hasn't been edited out. This is what he said.
- riseabove, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1and you'll end up with john mccain, who will GLADLY violate your rights
- jreinstedler, on 06/22/2008, -34/+30The silly seal sickens me... what a joke.
- Polidave, on 06/22/2008, -2/+3can you say Photoshop and too much time?
- RedPhalanx, on 06/22/2008, -32/+55Looks like the Obama brigades finally arrived, anti-Obama comments are being dugg down en-mass.
A serious question for Obama supporters- If Obama fails to strip immunity, and votes for it anyway, what message will that send?- ironhide, on 06/22/2008, -15/+23I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. FISA has been in effect since the 70s. Where is the police state? I figure 30-some odd years would have been enough time.
- crowbar77, on 06/22/2008, -4/+9"The bill, which was passed on a 293-129 vote, does more than just protect the telecoms. The update to the 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is an attempt to balance privacy rights with the government's assertion that some wiretapping is necessary to protect the country against terrorist attacks in an era of fast-changing technologies."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la- ...- SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1That doesn't answer his question at all.
- Sarevok9, on 06/22/2008, -6/+9Notice how many people have been tasered, stopped for no reason, killed by police...
Have you read any of the articles on digg that point out that the USA has more people in prison than any other country in the world (Mind you we have something like 25% more per million than any other country). The inequities of races in prison....Real I.D. is still looming, warrentless wiretapping is being voted for by DEMOCRATS...
Now... Did you really think your statement through before hitting the submit button?
Related articles:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/28cnd-prison. ...
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR32.4/article_loury.p ...- jemman, on 06/22/2008, -2/+5But this was not brought about by the democratic party, most of these abuses were under republican leadership. The Democrats have been trying to stop this overreach of power by the executive. FISA was created to keep the executive brach in check by keeping a record of the presidents wiretapping, this record is the important thing. It make it much harder for the president to spy on political enemies if he knows there is a record that the next administration will see when he leaves office.
- magus_melchior, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2Local police brutality and/or excessive discretion have little to do with FISA or domestic wiretaps, which would fall under the DoJ and the NSA. As such, anything that involves the non-federal criminal justice system (such that it is) is going to be a red herring. Heck, many local police/DAs hate the FBI and other federal officials, so why do you think they would be in lock-step with the administration?
Your point that a police state is well underway probably has merit, but you'd want to investigate local/state stuff at their level before assuming a grand conspiracy instigated by the Feds. - SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1They are absolutely NOT voting in warrantless wiretapping.
- crowbar77, on 06/22/2008, -4/+9"The bill, which was passed on a 293-129 vote, does more than just protect the telecoms. The update to the 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is an attempt to balance privacy rights with the government's assertion that some wiretapping is necessary to protect the country against terrorist attacks in an era of fast-changing technologies."
- ironhide, on 06/22/2008, -14/+8digging me down is not an answer :)
- visviva99, on 06/22/2008, -6/+17My answer: that he is a strong, moderate politician who has what it takes to kick neocon ideologue ass all over Washington.
I sympathize with the outrage over this bill, but there are two things we don't need this year: a) a Democratic candidate who remains chained to his base and loses the center and the election, and b) an ideologue who sticks to his convictions no matter what. We need a leader who can reach across party lines and get things done. Does that mean he ends up being more like Bill Clinton than Dennis Kucinich? Yeah, and that's too bad, but anyone who read his book would have seen this coming a mile away.- Snuff99, on 06/22/2008, -2/+7I'm reading his book now. I wish more of these folks would, he explains clearly what it takes to make progress in government(COMPROMISE!). And I believe he is putting those words in action. But digg is the mob, the mob is finicky.
Read the book people, then judge his decisions.
- an0nymous, on 06/22/2008, -4/+5This act is unconsitutional. I'm not finicky about that.
Support the constitution or ***** you.
And Obama was a constituitonal law professor? WTF?
The mechanism by which immunity is granted is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Ex Post facto is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Mass untargeted surveillance is UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
H.R. 6304 permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing. - Snuff99, on 06/22/2008, -2/+7Read the book man. *****, just read Chapter 3 the entire chapter is dedicated to the constitution! The man knows the constitution but he also understands the importance of compromise.
I'm not trying to be a bot but that book has given me a better understand of why he makes the decisions that he is making. You're not a supporter and reading his book likely won't make you one but it could better your understanding of why he does what he does. Just saying...
- an0nymous, on 06/22/2008, -4/+5This act is unconsitutional. I'm not finicky about that.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2Thank you! Finally a voice of reason.
I find it painfully ironic (and a little disgusting) that the same people who same to so vehemently hate the Bush admin now berate Obama for not doing things just like Bush (pandering exclusively a strictly defined base and ideology regarding compromise as weakness).
Rejoice people, we finally have a candidate who understands what democracy really means. COMPROMISE!
- Snuff99, on 06/22/2008, -2/+7I'm reading his book now. I wish more of these folks would, he explains clearly what it takes to make progress in government(COMPROMISE!). And I believe he is putting those words in action. But digg is the mob, the mob is finicky.
- runCMD, on 06/22/2008, -7/+3Maybe - he'll just vote 'present' again.
- Patrikimo, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5There's two reasons for doing this that I can see:
1) A barter of the sort: I'll vote for your bill if you vote for my amendment, sort of thing.
2) Political posturing. He's the first dem in a long long time to run as a national security democrat. It's hard considering most liberals believe in a smaller military force and other such progressive ideas. His reason for supporting it is probably to lure McCain's unsure base. In effect he is looking at the bill and the big kicker is the immunity the rest is similar to what we have had since the 70s and he is seeing something he can't stop by himself, and deciding to go for the political points. It's not what I would prefer he do, but it is a strategy to get elected and really with the other choice being McCain I am not sure I mind all that much. Ideological votes tend to alienate at least half of everyone (see Kuccinich and Paul) and he's trying not to do that because being voted in requires at least half of everyone to like you.
- ironhide, on 06/22/2008, -15/+23I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. FISA has been in effect since the 70s. Where is the police state? I figure 30-some odd years would have been enough time.
- mbonzo531, on 06/22/2008, -28/+42I know everyone will jump on me for supporting Obama here but I'm not going to create some comment that everyone will agree upon so I can get dugg up. Just like all of the egofreaks above that are now hating on Obama in order to feel popular on the internet, Obama needs votes as well. There is little to no way to win over some of the independents and swing states without reaching for a few conservative issues. Unlike Ron Paul, Obama can't just speak what he feels because he actually has a chance of winning. No matter how much you want your perfect candidate to win, they won't because there is always someone out to twist what you say. Obama needs votes to make change, if that is truly his agenda. You won't know who you are voting for until they have power.
- Qtip42, on 06/22/2008, -20/+17Lying to win is ok with you. Right on, maybe Ayn Rand was right when she said only certain people should be allowed to vote. Maybe ones with proven intelligence.
And another thing.....Why is the politics of becoming president more important than keeping your word? He values votes over his record? You would rather a potential president lie to become president? Wow.
Face it, this is no different than voting for the patriot act then coming back and saying OOPS no it's bad, lets look at it closer next time around. Till then, we'll just continue trampling on your rights......
You must be blind sir.- mbonzo531, on 06/22/2008, -5/+13You misjudged Obama like most people. Many believe he was the savior of all politics, a man with complete innocence. He is a politician and he wants power. You have to choose the lesser of two evils if you want to play along with "democracy". Obama did a great thing endorsing this bill, he will be a better figure head for America than McCain. Obama is supporting what the majority want him to support, just like all of the candidates brought up by our monopolized political system.
Looks to me that you are still living in a world of delusion, where you believe that Obama and McCain would do different things for America. You are voting for whoever you want to lead the parade of people who own you for the next four years.- Qtip42, on 06/22/2008, -2/+6I don't think anyone believed he was a savior...
I choose C.) none of the above / no faith.
Dilusional...hardly. It's sad that you're owned by these so-called leaders. I, however, am not. By the way, thanks for admitting to seeing the lies. Most obama fans dont. - memoryhole, on 06/22/2008, -1/+7I like how Qtip says he's not owned by these so-called leaders, since he's so above this political system. Funny, because I'm pretty sure by choosing C.) none of the above / no faith, he's pretty much letting everyone else decide for him. That sounds like freedom to me! Maybe if third parties in this country actually meant something, you'd have a point.
btw, I'm pretty sure when you start paraphrasing Ayn Rand, most people will stop caring what you have to say.
- Qtip42, on 06/22/2008, -2/+6I don't think anyone believed he was a savior...
- bjornski, on 06/22/2008, -5/+7How did your objectivist, Ayn Rand following hero vote?
Wasn't this issue important enough to voice one?- poxonyou, on 06/22/2008, -3/+7He had a very important GOP speaking engagement. Bahaha.
Civil liberties vs. building support for the GOP, the very ones who are pushing hardest for this (along with the spineless Democrats who went along with Bush's illegal activities). Hmmm. It's cool though, he's Ron Paul. - 0nslaught, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1He kept his word. It's something other politicians should try more often.
"Jesse Benton was quoted: Dr. Paul missed the vote today because he had a longstanding commitment to speak at the Montana GOP Convention today."
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=56#comme ...
"And judging by his Statement on H.R. 3773 - FISA Amendments Act of 2008, he would have voted a resounding "nay"."
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr03 ...
The Emerging Surveillance State
Last month, the House amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to expand the government’s ability to monitor our private communications. This measure, if it becomes law, will result in more warrantless government surveillance of innocent American citizens.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=1064
"This bill was a surprise to almost everyone except the people who had put in the fix. The bill was voted on within 24 hours of being released. I am willing to bet Ron Paul was not among those who conspired to allow this to happen.
Say what you will about the man's policies, he's consistent and honest and ***** the consequences.
Oh by the way? Look for a repeat performance next week in the Senate. There wasn't even an objection when the bill was added to the Senate Agenda after hours.
We've been sold out."
- poxonyou, on 06/22/2008, -3/+7He had a very important GOP speaking engagement. Bahaha.
- mbonzo531, on 06/22/2008, -5/+13You misjudged Obama like most people. Many believe he was the savior of all politics, a man with complete innocence. He is a politician and he wants power. You have to choose the lesser of two evils if you want to play along with "democracy". Obama did a great thing endorsing this bill, he will be a better figure head for America than McCain. Obama is supporting what the majority want him to support, just like all of the candidates brought up by our monopolized political system.
- RedPhalanx, on 06/22/2008, -5/+8So we're to let poeple slide as Congressmen and Senators because they "can't speak what [they] feel" under the hope that they'll be somehow different/better once we've given them 4 years in the WH?
We continue on this cycle of hoping that the guy we elected might be good, and kicking him once he isn't, while out nation suffers. When does this cycle of destruction end?- mbonzo531, on 06/22/2008, -7/+3The cycle of destruction has been ongoing since the dawn of man. We are pack animals and there is always somebody who will do whatever it takes to be in charge of another. It ends when individuals realize that their human emotions are a shadow of true reality, and that we all are one, so just be kind to all.
- magus_melchior, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1@RedPhalanx: If we all assume this about every candidate for election, no one would be elected. What might be a nice compromise is a "recall election" provision for every Federal elected office, so when they start screwing around we yank them.
The other problem is, not only is every person fallible, once you put yourself into public office, you inevitably make enemies-- especially if you stand for integrity. So you can try to vote with your conscience every time and ignore the shouting from your opponents, but they'll simply go behind your back to torpedo your causes and your campaigns in other ways. This is the world of politics; we can't assume that we can vote in someone whose record and conscience is clean, and then everything will be hunky-dory.
- deadbaby, on 06/22/2008, -4/+10I agree with you 100% If Obama comes out against FISA he loses the election in June. Simple as that. The left (especially) needs to learn how politics really work. It's not some intellectual right vs. wrong ivory tower debate. You have to play dirty and use any advantage you can to win elections. That's just how democracy works these days. You can't really blame the candidates for playing the game that we, the voters, have created for them.
- Qtip42, on 06/22/2008, -20/+17Lying to win is ok with you. Right on, maybe Ayn Rand was right when she said only certain people should be allowed to vote. Maybe ones with proven intelligence.
- jreinstedler, on 06/22/2008, -47/+55The Obamanites need to read this: http://digg.com/politics/Obama_Supports_FISA_Legis ...
And the comments are the best... Obama supporters are starting to realize they've been duped. Once that guy got the nomination, we're starting to see the real Obama.
Sad to see people are catching on this late. I saw through his lame game for the longest time.- paradexes, on 06/22/2008, -10/+5Oh you are sooo special. buried for lame bragging. Alto of people were duped. Sadly it took this bill to make people realize it.
- ZenMojo, on 06/22/2008, -7/+12You realize this is the same statement, right? The difference is, YOUR article edits out the part where he says he'll fight to strip telecom immunity. It's called selective information. It's used as a mild form of propaganda.
- an0nymous, on 06/22/2008, -2/+5You are the one falling for propaganda. His statement regarding stripping immunity is political cover.
He is party leader. The bill would nt have made it to a vote without his permission and support.
The bill is being rushed through in a profoundly undemocratic fashion. Again - he is the party leader.
Everyone acknowledges the language cannot be removed. Harry Reid has said as much.
Ex post facto is unconstituional.
Mass untargeted Surveillance is unconstituional.
Quit being a dupe. Even a cursory examination reveals the truth,
- an0nymous, on 06/22/2008, -2/+5You are the one falling for propaganda. His statement regarding stripping immunity is political cover.
- poxonyou, on 06/22/2008, -1/+7Pressure him. He's surrounded by politicians in both parties who support this. The more he knows people absolutely hate this, the more power he will have to speak more directly against it. Or, if you're cynical and think Obama is a huge phony, secretly waiting to carry on Bush's presidency (more wars, more surveillance, less freedom), the voices will pressure him more. It's either him or McCain at this point.
You can still support RP or whoever, but we also need to be realistic and really do everything we can to make sure this doesn't pass. That means showing our opposition to those who have the most influence, or soon will, on this. That doesn't mean engaging in, "Na-nanana-na I told you so, Obama isn't as perfect as RP [who was too busy at a GOP speaking convention to vote against this]" flame wars on Digg. - nicoshalom, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5I have worked on Obama's various campaigns over the years and I have never felt "duped". We may not always see eye to eye on every issue, but I truly believe that he will be a great President.
- trotskyist, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5The really funny part is that if everyone on Digg could read and/or wasn't so damn ignorant they'd see that Obama hasn't changed his stance.
Obama supports wiretapping in cases backed by evidence when a warrant is issued by a judge, as is allowed by FISA. There's nothing wrong with this as long as their is oversight.
Obama does NOT support retroactive immunity. He said the House version of the bill was an improvement over the Protect America Act because it restores FISA and does not allow warrantless wiretapping which is what we all want. The House version of the bill includes retroactive immunity, so Obama said (in the same quote that got everyone in a ***** furor) that he's going to try his hardest to get immunity removed from the Senate version of the bill.
Have none of you learned how bills are made? It's very common for the House and Senate to pass different versions of a bill. The different versions are sent to a Committee where a compromise is worked out and then both houses vote on the compromise bill. Obama is going to try to remove retroactive immunity from the Senate version and have it kept that way in the compromise version.
Are you all incredibly daft, or do you not even support legal, with-warrant wiretapping?- Polidave, on 06/23/2008, -0/+0It's good to know someone retained the information they supposedly teach us in school, people are going ape ***** over a poorly spun story, but it worked due to the read line, instantly comment nature of the internet, it's too bad that most people will not understand whats going on and that tactics like this may lead to America losing the better candidate for the presidency.
- 1310nm, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1This is exactly the problem, basically the government has put communications companies between a rock and a hard place. Comply with Homeland Security/warrantless wiretapping and hope you don't get a massive, nationwide, bankruptcy-inducing class-action suit against you, or don't comply and face the wrath of the government. The problem is not the tel/cable companies, IT IS THE GOVERNMENT. Hold their feet to the fire, not the telcos and cablecos.
- singletask, on 06/22/2008, -8/+33http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/35731res200 ...
H.R. 6304, THE FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008 (6/19/2008)
The ACLU recommends a no vote on H.R. 6304, which grants sweeping wiretapping authority to the government with little court oversight and ensures the dismissal of all pending cases against the telecommunication companies. Most importantly:
• H.R. 6304 permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing.
• H.R. 6304 permits only minimal court oversight. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what or where will actually be tapped.
• H.R. 6304 contains a general ban on reverse targeting. However, it lacks stronger language that was contained in prior House bills that included clear statutory directives about when the government should return to the FISA court and obtain an individualized order if it wants to continue listening to a US person’s communications.
• H.R.6304 contains an “exigent” circumstance loophole that thwarts the prior judicial review requirement. The bill permits the government to start a spying program and wait to go to court for up to 7 days every time “intelligence important to the national security of the US may be lost or not timely acquired.” By definition, court applications take time and will delay the collection of information. It is highly unlikely there is a situation where this exception doesn’t swallow the rule.
• H.R. 6304 further trivializes court review by explicitly permitting the government to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever it gathered in the meantime.
• H.R. 6304 ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping programs over the last 7 years. The test in the bill is not whether the government certifications were actually legal – only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that they were, all the cases seeking to find out what these companies and the government did with our communications will be killed.
• Members of Congress not on Judiciary or Intelligence Committees are NOT guaranteed access to reports from the Attorney General, Director of National Intelligence, and Inspector General.- superkendall, on 06/22/2008, -15/+2Fearmonger Alert! Don't let others use fear as a tool of coercion to make you dislike FISA. Learn what it does and then you'll realize the core of FISA is quite sensible, as are the proposed changes.
Sorry guys, Obama is right on this one. - econojon, on 06/22/2008, -1/+8I just sent an email to Barack Obama! Oh Joy, I feel like I have 0.000000001% of influence!
sent via: http://obama.senate.gov/contact/index.php
Dear Barack Obama,
I am very concerned regarding your position on H.R. 6304, the FISA compromise. If you could please clarify your position, it will greatly influence how I vote in the upcoming Presidential election. How can you support the compromise and be against retroactive immunity at the same time? The compromise only allows minimal court oversight, where only the procedures of the cases are reviewed and not the who/why of the actual cases. Why can't a court, specifically designed for classified searches, be able to review classified cases? How can we be sure the cases don't break our 4th amendment rights? Can't we have Constitutional protections and be able to fight terrorism at the same time? Why is it not better to revert the bill to the previous rules before September 11th, 2001? Your recent stance on the position seemed very contradictory. If you could please be specific, myself, and millions of educated voters would be very grateful. Thank you very much. - ZenMojo, on 06/22/2008, -4/+10Okay, seriously, why is everyone linking to everything but the bill?
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill= ...
The oversight in this bill is the same oversight provided in 1978. Nothing new here. You need a warrant, you have seven days to get one, you can't spy on Americans on American soil. The amnesty provision is a nightmare because it gives the president the precedent of his demands being "okay" as long as he says so.
And, no, the Attorney General cannot just keep spying on someone even after his authorization is turned down:
"In the absence of an order under subsection (c), an emergency acquisition under paragraph (1) shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, if the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 7 days from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest."
Right there, (f)(3), as soon as the application is denied the spying has to stop.
It's worth reviewing the entire bill to see what else the ACLU was mistaken about.- an0nymous, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5Yeah. You are smarter than the ACLU. Why don't you explain how ex-post facto is legal, smart guy?
Go "peruse" it first.
- an0nymous, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5Yeah. You are smarter than the ACLU. Why don't you explain how ex-post facto is legal, smart guy?
- 1gunners4, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5He's a ***** LAWYER!!! How can he not see that this in unconsitutional?!
- crowbar77, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Link doesn't work mate.
- superkendall, on 06/22/2008, -15/+2Fearmonger Alert! Don't let others use fear as a tool of coercion to make you dislike FISA. Learn what it does and then you'll realize the core of FISA is quite sensible, as are the proposed changes.
- Qtip42, on 06/22/2008, -14/+26So could an obama support please let me know how this is any different than the whole "obama voted for the patriot act" thing? Because I see no difference here, in fact, I see a trend.
- Polidave, on 06/22/2008, -4/+9The bill is re-stating that what bush did was illegal, since there are trails currently in court that cover this issue a new law would render them moot, the immunity for the telecoms and president is a rider clause that has to appeal to the other side to get enough votes to pass and possibly override a veto. All a checks and balances game.
- gradivus, on 06/22/2008, -5/+17Actually he got oversite provisions added to the patriot act and weakened some of it. If you cant kill a monster you sure as hell can hobble it. Its one of the reasons I am supporting him but the last few days he has been making some royal blunders about who and what his core supporters are and want.
- youareretarded, on 06/22/2008, -4/+6I agree but once again what are our alternatives?
Either way it looks like Americans are on the losing end again:(
- youareretarded, on 06/22/2008, -4/+6I agree but once again what are our alternatives?
- Carl306, on 06/22/2008, -1/+45"The White House had threatened to veto any surveillance bill that did not also shield the companies."
Figures... - pintomp3, on 06/22/2008, -3/+36he better put those words to action. his expressed support for the bill is outrageous.
- monkeyrun, on 06/22/2008, -30/+50Oh come on Obamabots, is this the best you could spin this story?
- ZenMojo, on 06/22/2008, -7/+10It's not spin. It's the unedited version of his comments.
- an0nymous, on 06/22/2008, -6/+6Which are about as credible as Hilary's bosnia story.
- ZenMojo, on 06/22/2008, -7/+10It's not spin. It's the unedited version of his comments.
- superkendall, on 06/22/2008, -20/+8He's going to try and remove it but vote for it regardless. Sorry if that hurts anyone, but that's the way it is.
Frankly this makes me think a lot better of him.- banmaster, on 06/22/2008, -0/+13That hes a gutless lying coward for backing it in the 1st place and then saying otherwise to get a few votes?
- superkendall, on 06/22/2008, -8/+2Yes, like I said it makes me think better of him than before. His turning to support it shows more sense than his previous position, even though the change obviously shows he is inconsistent in holding positions - but since we knew that anyway, his turn to support what I consider to be a reasonable position improves him to my thinking.
I didn't say that I considered him a better candidate than anyone else, just improved and it gives hope having him as president would be a Carter level event. - deadbaby, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1Personally it reinforces my view that Obama isn't scared of the extreme right OR extreme left.
FISA was passed almost 30 years ago. We lost the election in 00 & 04 and let the Republicans take congress too and thats' what led to the abuse of FISA. I don't see how Obama committing political suicide is going to erase those facts. - ZenMojo, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2IT. IS. THE. SAME. STATEMENT. You can't say he backed it and then said he would fight it because he backed it and said he'd fight the immunity provision at the same time.
Just because your previous version conveniently left out the most important part does not change reality.
- superkendall, on 06/22/2008, -8/+2Yes, like I said it makes me think better of him than before. His turning to support it shows more sense than his previous position, even though the change obviously shows he is inconsistent in holding positions - but since we knew that anyway, his turn to support what I consider to be a reasonable position improves him to my thinking.
- banmaster, on 06/22/2008, -0/+13That hes a gutless lying coward for backing it in the 1st place and then saying otherwise to get a few votes?
- thatguyfred, on 06/22/2008, -25/+44What a hypocritical asshat
- wildone71, on 06/22/2008, -21/+9A fried chicken and a watermelon in every pot!!!
- bjornski, on 06/22/2008, -3/+2Take your racist ass back to Stormfront.
Thanks.- Pillage, on 06/22/2008, -4/+4I concur with you bjornski only bigoted attacks against McCain should be allowed.
- bjornski, on 06/22/2008, -3/+2Take your racist ass back to Stormfront.
- UltraDavid, on 06/22/2008, -8/+28"Probably we can’t take [telecom immunity] out of the bill, but I’m going to try,” Reid told [doucheface].
Harry Reid: YOU ARE THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER! YOU DECIDE WHAT BILLS LOOK LIKE AND WHETHER THEY GET TO THE FLOOR! DO YOUR JOB, YOU SNIVELING PIECE OF *****! He is a weak, weak man.
Re Barack... this past week has really made me question my support for him.- dxgg, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2Yes, I makes me scratch my head, too. However, think of everything else he seemingly stands for, and the improvements he talks about. Perhaps his FISA support is showing his true colors, making it hard to believe anything else he says. But perhaps his support is just a blip, and many other good things will materialize. Regardless, he's still a much better choice than McCain, and voting for anybody other than Obama or McCain, while it may be voting your conscience, wouldn't help the country right now, since nobody other than those two would be elected.
- an0nymous, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5We should acknowledge his flaws and pressure him to do right.
- dxgg, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2Yes, I makes me scratch my head, too. However, think of everything else he seemingly stands for, and the improvements he talks about. Perhaps his FISA support is showing his true colors, making it hard to believe anything else he says. But perhaps his support is just a blip, and many other good things will materialize. Regardless, he's still a much better choice than McCain, and voting for anybody other than Obama or McCain, while it may be voting your conscience, wouldn't help the country right now, since nobody other than those two would be elected.
- Baldar, on 06/22/2008, -5/+25Wow.. way to go out on a limb. Why doesn't he vote against the whole thing, or at least the more offensive elements of it (although the whole bill is offensive). I'm more concerned about the part of it that says the government can listen to seven days of your phone calls in case of an "emergency". Granted, the telco immunity is disgusting too. Just if I had to pick my battles, it would be the seven day warrantless phone taps.
- ZenMojo, on 06/22/2008, -2/+4It used to be a year.
- Baldar, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2That's all fine and good, but it shouldn't be there at all.
- rawheadrex, on 06/22/2008, -3/+1That's all fine and good, but the question is, why are you suddenly demonizing Obama at this point in time, when that had been in effect for 3 ***** decades?
- Baldar, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Just because its been effect for three decades doesn't make it good legislation. If someone supports bad legislation, then they support bad legislation. Doesn't matter how old it is.
- Baldar, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2That's all fine and good, but it shouldn't be there at all.
- an0nymous, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4I'm going to go with the fact that it permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing.
- trotskyist, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1Except it doesn't. This Bill requires a warrant by the courts system, just like a warrant i s required to search your home. Read the ***** bill.
- bloosteak, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3ahh... ignorance.
- bosozuku, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3Here's a copy:
http://cryptome.org/hr6304.htm
- trotskyist, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1Except it doesn't. This Bill requires a warrant by the courts system, just like a warrant i s required to search your home. Read the ***** bill.
- ZenMojo, on 06/22/2008, -2/+4It used to be a year.
- AlienMushroom, on 06/22/2008, -10/+4Well, so he's not out of his mind then.
- MarkJaquith, on 06/22/2008, -14/+38And by "fight" he means "fail at removing it from the bill, and then vote for the bill anyway." Obama supporters: that sinking feeling in your stomach isn't Hope, and it sure isn't Change.
- pennvneff, on 06/22/2008, -4/+3Get ***** Mark
- Troy64, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Is it audacity?
- Polidave, on 06/22/2008, -7/+29 OK i was pissed at the level of fickleness earlier when people didn't "understand" what was going on after the first article. The diggers were roped into the game very easily, remember even small time bloggers hide the truth, the story was twisted to fit an agenda and some fell for it, then when Obama stands up and responds to people changing their minds on him over ONE issue out of several , he responds then everyone calls him a liar or a "politician". Excuse but is he not running for the highest office in the United States of America, does he have to win over the "majority" of the citizens, does he "understand how the system works, do we "assume" before we understand.
We always blame others before understanding that we the people are to blame, we elect those who choose, we decide how policy is made, we do not understand how our government works, that is why it fails that is why we are angry, to change the world we must make and effort America, so please before you yell and rant, try and understand the full story, its source, the atmosphere, an idea why one would choose to take such an action. We all say that we are tired of the same politics but we fall into the same patterns ourselves, we defect to the other side or to the "third" party in defiance to one wrong move.
Remember that no person is perfect and no person will completely reflect each and every one of your values, please understand that we are all humans and what these people are trying to do is to achieve a goal, now pick one whose goal is similar to yours and lets not be vindictive, in choosing who will represent our country on an international level, lets be rational, please.- paradexes, on 06/22/2008, -3/+11Still would rather vote for Obama over McCain at this point regardless.
- an0nymous, on 06/22/2008, -0/+8Supporting the constitution is make or break for many folks.
Guess you are willing to "compromise" that away.- dxgg, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4In this race, it will be either Obama or McCain as president. Don't fool yourself into thinking it can be any other way. You can certainly vote your conscience, take a stand, and vote for Ron Paul...but he won't be the president, and that's unfortunately just the way of it. Better to vote for one of the two who is aligned closest to the way you want the country to be run.
I know I may be dugg down for not supporting the "voting your conscience" thing...but is simply does no good in this country to not vote for one of the two major candidates. I really don't like this two-party system of ours.- an0nymous, on 06/22/2008, -1/+6Oh I'm not arguing. I'll go further - the next president will be Obama.
And he'll be a better choice than McCain.
Whoopde-*****-doo.
He threw his principles away in order to ingratiate himself with the Democratic incumbency, not the people:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/ACLU_poll_Majority_o ...
Look: don't refrain from critiizing people because you perceive them to be on your side.
Apologism is dishonest. - Polidave, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2It's not breaking from your principles it's choosing the right time and place to act on them, a politician must take the bad with the good, it how the game it played, just look at constitution itself, a complete compromise, these people fully understood what they were creating and what they were leaving out to get the thing passed, questions of morals were asked but many had to be pushed aside for another to when the country and the constitution was stronger. It just how politics is, not straight forward, for some reason most people don't like it when it is.
- magus_melchior, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3@an0nymous: Just because someone's offering another viewpoint, doesn't mean that he's a critic of your position. It's called courtesy and assuming good faith.
I do get the impression that you'd like to give Obama a piece or three of your mind, so I would encourage you to do so (hopefully in a civil enough tone so they won't chuck your correspondence outright), rather than attack ordinary Joes on the 'net.
Or challenge FISA in the Supreme Court. I'm sure there's been a few of those, and the SCOTUS laid out their opinions already...
- an0nymous, on 06/22/2008, -1/+6Oh I'm not arguing. I'll go further - the next president will be Obama.
- dxgg, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4In this race, it will be either Obama or McCain as president. Don't fool yourself into thinking it can be any other way. You can certainly vote your conscience, take a stand, and vote for Ron Paul...but he won't be the president, and that's unfortunately just the way of it. Better to vote for one of the two who is aligned closest to the way you want the country to be run.
- manifest020, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1I'm not interested in understanding why a politician would vote one way and say something completely different. I'm looking for a politician who says what he means, means what he says, and stands by it through all circumstances. The time for two-faced maneuvering politics needs to end. Unfortunately it's looking like Obama is not playing by those rules.
- punkrawkintrev, on 06/22/2008, -13/+39For all of you that think the telcoms did this to protect America after 9/11 please note that this program was well underway before 9/11 as were the Bush Administration's plans to attack Iraq.
SHAME ON YOU BARACK
Listen to us and kill this thing on the floor of the senate before it kills the 4th amendment- JNudda, on 06/22/2008, -5/+9Actually, the bill is supposed to remain consistent with the fourth amendment
"shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States."
"the procedures and guidelines referred to in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) are consistent with the requirements of the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States" - ZenMojo, on 06/22/2008, -3/+5FISA's an old bill. You should read the OLD bill before complaining about the amendment.
- an0nymous, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4Read the old bill. Complaining about this one. Pointed out to you time and time again what the problem is.
Mass untargeted surveillance - UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Ex Post Facto - UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Trivialization of the courts - UNCONSTITUTIONAL
- an0nymous, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4Read the old bill. Complaining about this one. Pointed out to you time and time again what the problem is.
- JNudda, on 06/22/2008, -5/+9Actually, the bill is supposed to remain consistent with the fourth amendment
- badfish0116, on 06/22/2008, -20/+18The debate about this issue will not go anywhere. The people that are supporting Obama , for the most part, have already totally made up their minds and nothing is going to change that. People that can see through this slick PR styled phony persona of his already know he is a sellout. It really amazes me how people cannot seet hat what surrounds this man is a cult of personality. His whole campaign and the mindless fashion in which his supporters carry themselves and defend his record and moronic decisions reminds me of the cult of personalities that surrounded Stalin, Mao,and El Duce. He is all style and NO substance. But it is useless to argue this point to someone firmly in the Obama cap just as it would have been useless to try and convince a supporter of Mao that maybe he wasn't such a good guy. Just look at some of the "Hope" posters that are floating out there. They look almost to a tee like posters of good ole Benito Mousolinni. When there isnt a teleprompter in his face the man can't be half as eloquent as he is scripted. The whole debate about telecom immunity is baffling to me. The man voted for probably the most horrible piece of legislation to ever go through congress the PATRIOT act and his excuse was just as bad as this one. I voted on it to water it down? ***** vote against it and have some balls my man.
- youareretarded, on 06/22/2008, -2/+4And our alternative is.....?
- badfish0116, on 06/22/2008, -5/+6There are plenty of alternatives or rather there were before the Dems let themselves get swooned by this guy. Ron Paul in my opinion was the most qualified and principled person running. You still have Nader and Barr and Baldwin running but people are right when they say they dont have a chance in hell. So right now the best alternative to me is looking like a revolution. Most people will chide me and laugh at this notion but that is fine. I'm sure the revolutionary ideas that our founding fathers put forth were laughed at as well.
- superkendall, on 06/22/2008, -9/+1McCain is a viable alternative if you at least want the consolation prize of smaller government (unlike Bush he will actually head that direction) and fiscal conservatism.
- geoken, on 06/22/2008, -0/+6Wait, you're actually claiming that the guy who wanted to prolong the Iraq war indefinitely is a proponent of fiscal conservatism?
- ProfessorFoo, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5If you are liberal there is no alternative. And @superkendall, I think people who were supporting Obama before this don't want a smaller government. If they do, then they are dumb ***** following digg trends.
- youareretarded, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Smaller gov or bigger gov, no matter who you pick is still will be politics as usual:(
- Snuff99, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2Maybe it's not us but you. Have you ever consider that you are the outcast? Perhaps your values no longer line up with the majority of Americans.
I think Obama is doing the right thing, you don't, now what?
We agree to disagree and nothing gets done or do we compromise as Obama has done. I'd choose the latter so that at least the issue moves forward and we are closer to a solution. You on the other would rather sit stagnate. Well sit friend, in your stanage pool of yesterday. I choose progression towards tomorrow.
- youareretarded, on 06/22/2008, -2/+4And our alternative is.....?
- Pillage, on 06/22/2008, -7/+27Yea..but once he's president he'll like totally be like "ohh just playin' I'm be sending Bush to jail on a unicorn. Oh by the way I discovered unicorns just in case you didn't know." Just watch it'll happen.
- OohChit, on 06/22/2008, -8/+11How sad, how they can be compromised :(
Man, now who? I had much hope with him.- Snuff99, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2You will NEVER find the candidate you are searching for because he or she does not exist. There are ~ SIX BILLION people on this planet and no two people agree on every issue faced. COMPROMISE is the only solution. Choose who is closest to your beliefs, that is your only choice, if you choose no one then you have lost because someone else will choose for you.
- riseabove, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Plus, he's not the president yet!! do you really think john mccain cares about your civil liberties??
- HubbertWins, on 06/22/2008, -8/+10Without the immunity, the telecoms won't help anymore and FISA is worthless. Obama is trying to have it both ways.
- an0nymous, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5Oh the telecoms are still obligated to assist law enforcement when presented with a subpoena. They always have been.
Without immunity the telecoms will not assist the governement in *breaking the law*, an important distinction.
- an0nymous, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5Oh the telecoms are still obligated to assist law enforcement when presented with a subpoena. They always have been.
- tkcom, on 06/22/2008, -4/+6smear schmear
- Slackdragon, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2Oy! Did someone say bagels?
- aliceinreality, on 06/22/2008, -3/+12i thought he went on to say that if he couldn't get it stripped, he'd vote yes anyway? that's what i've seen everywhere else, anyway.
- mrgreg, on 06/22/2008, -16/+42Finally. I hope this helps people open their eyes at what a sham Obama's trying to pull.
I can't believe he says he'll "try" to get rid of the telecom immunity, but if it fails, he'll shrug his shoulders and vote for it anyways. Obama supporters, is this honestly what you believe is "Change?"- MosaicM, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5And what other choice do we have? I'm not voting republican. Bush was horrible and I don't want another 4 more years of that.. We have a political system with two parties and that's basically it. And just sticking our heads in the sand and say we're lazy and we don't care makes us just as much responsible if we do vote for someone. So I'm not sure what choice we seem to have here.
I was and still am a Obama supporter. But I must admit this last week has made me feel I wish we had someone who REALLY stood up in what they believe in, instead of just doing what's in their best interest. I will still vote for him but oh how I wish we had more than two viable political parties.- 0nslaught, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1I'm not telling people to stop supporting him nor am I telling people not to vote for him. I'm just asking that people hold him accountable. I think most can agree, regardless of what you think he meant, he's not taking a strong enough position against this bill. I'm encouraging people to do something about it. Call, e-mail, and convince him into taking a better stance on it.
The thing is many *are* doing that. And I have respect for those putting forth that effort. If anything I want the people with principal to STAY and make sure he doesn't pull a Bush on the Dem party and destroy it too.
I'd much rather that principled people stay with him and hold him accountable than just give up and leave. - mrgreg, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Mosaic, you have a few 3rd party choices. This is going to be a huge year for 3rd party candidates, as the two main candidates are absolutely horrible. It's just going to be hard convincing people like you that there are actually more choices than the status quo of Republican or Democrat.
As for looking for "someone who really stood up in what they believe in," apparently you forgot about Ron Paul, who did just that.
- 0nslaught, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1I'm not telling people to stop supporting him nor am I telling people not to vote for him. I'm just asking that people hold him accountable. I think most can agree, regardless of what you think he meant, he's not taking a strong enough position against this bill. I'm encouraging people to do something about it. Call, e-mail, and convince him into taking a better stance on it.
- MosaicM, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5And what other choice do we have? I'm not voting republican. Bush was horrible and I don't want another 4 more years of that.. We have a political system with two parties and that's basically it. And just sticking our heads in the sand and say we're lazy and we don't care makes us just as much responsible if we do vote for someone. So I'm not sure what choice we seem to have here.
- MasterTroll, on 06/22/2008, -13/+14Obama is not perfect. I don't know why the entire Digg population chooses to believe he is. Actually.. no, wait. When I go to Digg, it's Obama being 100% right and McCain being 100% wrong.. and nothing else. Nevermind!
- ProfessorFoo, on 06/22/2008, -3/+8Hey recently there have been some anti Obama articles. Of course these articles mean we have to support Ron Paul, who is perfect for some reason.
- crowbar77, on 06/22/2008, -2/+3After 5 months of straight pro-Obama articles and Hilary/McCain bashing. And these articles don't mean you have to support Paul, just now you have a slightly less bias coverage of your "change" candidate.
btw Paul isn't even running anymore... - theshalit, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVKSfwfy0h8
some reason indeed
- crowbar77, on 06/22/2008, -2/+3After 5 months of straight pro-Obama articles and Hilary/McCain bashing. And these articles don't mean you have to support Paul, just now you have a slightly less bias coverage of your "change" candidate.
- JoeVet, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2Perhaps its because we already know what a third Bush term would be like. If your happy with the present situation in Iraq and the state of the nation then vote McCain and more power to you. The majority of us are not as pleased and will vote for a hamster before we vote for four more years of the same. But no hard feelings, good luck in November.
- ProfessorFoo, on 06/22/2008, -3/+8Hey recently there have been some anti Obama articles. Of course these articles mean we have to support Ron Paul, who is perfect for some reason.
- paradexes, on 06/22/2008, -7/+10Still voting for Obama over McCain. Unless a third person pops up on the ticket. Hell at this point a 3rd unknown option is better.
- superkendall, on 06/22/2008, -6/+4Hey, there's always Barr...
- TJATL, on 06/22/2008, -3/+3silly rabbit, socialism is for kids. To support libertarian ideas, you have to love, value and honor yourself the individual. It's much easier to give control over yourself to the government then to be self responsible.
- metaliq, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1Libertarian ideas and Socialism are almost the complete opposite...
At least according to Barr's views.
- metaliq, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1Libertarian ideas and Socialism are almost the complete opposite...
- TJATL, on 06/22/2008, -3/+3silly rabbit, socialism is for kids. To support libertarian ideas, you have to love, value and honor yourself the individual. It's much easier to give control over yourself to the government then to be self responsible.
- superkendall, on 06/22/2008, -6/+4Hey, there's always Barr...
- stinkymonkey, on 06/22/2008, -6/+26Everyone who loves Obama better start sending emails/calling etc..and let him know how you feel.
Do not support this bill!!!!!
http://obama.senate.gov/- leaknoil, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3or more importantly your senators. Obama has already come out denouncing the immunity provisions. That's really all he can do. Now its up to the rest of the senate to get on board and kill this thing. Don't call Obama call the rest of the senate.
- 0nslaught, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1You should call Obama too. He has a lot of influence and he has a vote.
Even members of DailyKos, DemocraticUnderground, MoveOn.org, and others are encouraging people to contact him. What? Are they anti-Oba
- 0nslaught, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1You should call Obama too. He has a lot of influence and he has a vote.
- leaknoil, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3or more importantly your senators. Obama has already come out denouncing the immunity provisions. That's really all he can do. Now its up to the rest of the senate to get on board and kill this thing. Don't call Obama call the rest of the senate.