digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at blog.wired.com

Online Movement to Punish Democrats Who Support Wiretap Bill

blog.wired.com — Online activists from the right and the left announced an unprecedented campaign Tuesday to hold democratic lawmakers accountable for caving to the Bush administration on domestic spying. A group of high-profile progressive bloggers and libertarian Republicans are rolling out a new political action committee called Accountability Now.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • stradf, on 07/08/2008, -11/+51Democrats FOR wiretapping? I thought this was only for republican! Slowly, US is losing its freedom and privacy rights... And yet most of the people do nothing. It's nice to finally see a change.
    • InetRoadkill, on 07/09/2008, -7/+32As pointed out in another blog, what's going to happen is that all of the GOP will vote for FISA and a few democrats will vote for it as well insuring passage of the bill. The majority of the democrats will vote against it and claim they were defending the Constitution by doing so and as such claim they shouldn't be held responsible for the bill's passage since they'll be on record as voting against it. *****.

      The real test was when the cloture vote was held to sustain the filibuster that would have stopped this bill in its tracks. The vast majority of democrats voted to kill the filibuster, thus insuring the bill's passage and revealing their contempt for the 4th amendment and the rule of law.

      Tomorrow's vote is mostly a technicality at this point. The real vote occurred when the cloture vote was held. Look to see who voted for cloture. The ones who did so have no respect for the Constitution.
      • noahhoward, on 07/09/2008, -21/+2What exactly do you think the bill does to the 4th amendment? You do know that the 4th amendment already provides some exceptions for warrantless searches right?
      • fancypantscz, on 07/09/2008, -0/+7Right. So then why do we need to amend FISA legislation? And why don't we let the civil suits against the telecoms proceed unhindered and let the courts decide whether their actions were legal or not.

        You sound a little confused. Listen to what Feingold says in this video. It is about as simple as this complex issue can be put. Sorry for the link to rawstory. I couldn't find it easily on the YT so just ignore the raw BS and watch the vid.

        http://rawstory.com/news/2008/As_FISA_heads_toward ...
      • noahhoward, on 07/09/2008, -4/+1"Right. So then why do we need to amend FISA legislation? "

        To restore oversight to the program.
      • fyngyrz, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8Noah; the 4th requires probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, BEFORE a warrant with a description of what is being searched for, or that which is intended to be seized, can be issued, at which point search or seizure may proceed.

        FISA provides for wiretapping *FIRST*, not even an application for a warrant, for up to 72 hours. This tosses aside the requirements of probable cause, oath and affirmation and subjects your privacy to nothing but the whim of the wiretapping agent or agency. Which is *exactly* the kind of behavior the 4th amendment was intended to protect the people from.

        Also, there are no "exceptions" in the fourth amendment; it says no "unreasonable" search or seizure, and then it tells you what is reasonable by specifying "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It ALSO says that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

        Now, I put it to you and anyone else who supports warrantless wiretapping in any form, FISA or otherwise: How are you supposed to be "secure against unreasonable searches " if the government can listen to you on any whim that strikes their fancy? Under FISA, literally NOTHING stops them from wiretapping you. Now, AFTER they have tapped you, if they want to continue, yes, they need to talk to a judge -- but they've already tapped you. They can't "un-hear" what they've heard, your privacy -- your security against being tapped -- is right out the window.

        FISA ignores the 4th amendment. That's why it should be cast aside as unconstitutional legislation. Any congressperson who supports FISA is directly violating their oath:

        "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."

      • MWeather, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4"You do know that the 4th amendment already provides some exceptions for warrantless searches right?"

        Yeah, like if you have probably cause, like you see a suspect run into a house. Otherwise, you need a warrant.
    • relic180, on 07/09/2008, -8/+26It's important to remember that the Dems and Repubs are not really two seperate parties, and when it comes to saving the asses of their big corporate bosses they both have only one thing on their minds. You can bet that it doesn't involve protecting the constitutional rights of their constituents.
      • easypie, on 07/09/2008, -32/+0Stop posting long replies, assholes!!
      • relic180, on 07/09/2008, -12/+4Are you ***** kidding me??
      • ISIfunded911, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4It is time for people to start taking seriously the fact that so many politicians are members of the CFR, Bilderberg,...and to do everything to stop all those people next time they try to get elected.
    • pianomahnn, on 07/09/2008, -7/+6Slowly losing? It seems like an all out sprint to the end.
    • AnarkeIncarnate, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5You thought there were sides? Sure, there are sides. Thems and Not Us.
    • michaelb1, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3I believe we can make an end run around this whole issue.

      Step 1: Don't use your phone.
      Step 2: There is no step 2.

      This will make the governments job easier because anyone using a phone is a terrorist or a political enemy of the current governmen and thus easily detained and shipped overseas for "questioning".
    • pinchduck, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4As a reminder, Reid crowed about how "The Patriot Act is Dead" weeks before helping to pass legislation to eliminate the sunset clauses on it. The Republicans set the ball on the tee and the Democrats punted it through the goal. Both parties suck. I am glad to see that there is support for punishing those who curtail our rights.
    • richbleak, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1This concept and these comments show exactly why the Democrats will always lose to Republicans. American political contests have nothing to do with doing and saying exactly what you believe. You have to concede to the sensibilities of the morons that litter this countryside. Save your principles for when you actually get elected. Notice how Bush's presidency has been nothing like his initial campaign? That is because Republican politicians and Republican voters understand what is required to come into power in our ridiculous system. I thought Democrats were suppose to be the smarter party? Why aren't we savvy enough to understand this? STFU, get Obama elected, and sit back while we get appropriate Supreme Court nominations, progressive policy that will actually get past a veto, and the ability to investigate the sins of the past 8 years.
    • BeefBaron, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Obama voted to support it.
    • dave11980, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2When are you guys going to grow a ***** brain and realize that the democrats and republicans are pretty damn much two salesmen arguing about how to sell you a ***** sandwich?
  • neognostic, on 07/08/2008, -20/+4These people are clueless, note that quote below from the article, that the Republicans have no power. Hello! The Republican President stated that he would veto the bill if the amendments weren't in it, it is the Republicans in Congress and the Senate who hold the power to over ride the veto, and they chose not to do it. Looks like they didn't get a passing grade in the Junior High School Government class.
    FTA -"Hamsher says the effort is aimed at Democrats, because that's the party in control of congress. "They will have the power," she says. "From our perspective, Chris Carney, or a Republican, it doesn't make any difference -- they're both voting bad on a variety of issues. But Republicans have no power, and Chris Carney in the center will."
  • Stevanoski, on 07/08/2008, -6/+33As they should be.
  • JFallon126, on 07/08/2008, -9/+14Isn't kind of ironic that they're using Richard Nixon's resignation date? He was, after all, granted immunity by Ford.

    Just sayin.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3More than Ironic. Bush is pushing a bill that pre-immunizes him and his cronies from prosecution for war crimes. Which was recently discussed by Digg and Cafferty on CNN>
      • SatoriSeeker, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1That was an old video - it passed in 2006
  • theNazz, on 07/09/2008, -10/+16Why can't we just show every member of the Bush Administration who took money from the offending corporations and have them removed from the vote for conflicts in interest?
    • relic180, on 07/09/2008, -8/+9We'd have removed so many people by the time we were done that we'd have to start pulling bums off the street to fill a the empty positions.
      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5But how would we notice any difference?
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8You say that like pulling bums off the street at random to replace corrupt congressmen is a bad thing.
    • Stevanoski, on 07/09/2008, -3/+24Oh there are plenty of Democrats too, but you don't want to have them removed for their conflict of interest. Shows you are more concerned about politics than freedoms.
    • vexingmodstwo, on 07/09/2008, -1/+13Um... Maybe I'm misreading your comment but are you under the impression that members of Congress are part of the Bush administration?
    • oxymoron69, on 07/09/2008, -4/+2Make it equal, scratch the government you have now and start again.
      The rest of the world could relax, you could start again with a REAL democracy, free from
      corporate meddling.

      But the USA never will, they'll fall and destroy 3/4 of the planet in their death throes.
      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 07/09/2008, -2/+5Some of us are TRYING to clean house. In the meantime, seeing as you have no corruption in your country, could you please start working on an eternal fuel source and a fountain of youth? kthxbai
  • phreak79, on 07/09/2008, -13/+6Good. For a company founded on the principals of liberty and freedom its a sad state of affairs that such things are even being considred.
  • BlankVerse, on 07/09/2008, -12/+10My personal opinion is that they shouldn't just target the Democrats who voted for the bill, but instead they should also hold accountable any Republicans who voted for the Wiretap Bill--especially those in a competitive race with a Democratic competitor who has denounced the bill.

    Otherwise it will just looks like the netroots are pissed off at the Democrats because they aren't doing the netroots' bidding. If the general public adopts that opinion, then the ad campaign is likely to backfire.
    • relic180, on 07/09/2008, -8/+6Exactly. Why would people even think of accepting that half of the corporate party doesn't have to hide their disdain for voters and voters rights at all?
    • DooM, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6Very true, but I think it would be easier to pull in right wingers and republicans to the venture done the way they're doing it and singling out the lefties and democrats. Maybe not a good PR move but definitely builds momentum faster and we're out of time, frankly.
  • OneLife33, on 07/09/2008, -10/+22I just pledged. I believe the title on Digg is incorrect because the website doesn't signle out Dems or Repubs, just "key enablers".

    We need more cooperation from so called "right - wingers" and "liberals". When it comes down to it we are all AMERICANS and have a vested interest in protecting our rights and liberties. This FISA issue is just one example where everyone who knows about this needs to join-up - it is so easy to participate now.
  • OC73, on 07/09/2008, -5/+52Yes, punish Obama.
  • jbenson2, on 07/09/2008, -6/+44What? No mention of the Junior Senator from Illinois caving to President Bush?

    The media must have made a simple mistake when they overlooked the Messiah.
  • an0nymous, on 07/09/2008, -8/+16Good. Regardless of your politics, the constitution must be defended.
  • BobbyVan, on 07/09/2008, -5/+58Shamefully, Sen. Barack Obama is giving cover to Democrats on this issue. His craven decision to support FISA (after saying he would support a filibuster that granted telecoms immunity) has killed chances of stopping this bill. We should focus 100% on attacking Obama for his FISA position. If Obama starts to see someone like Nader gaining support, that would pull Obama back to the left, where he belongs. That's the only thing that can save the bill, and our civil liberties.

    I can't believe I fell for Obama's crap. I'm sick of allowing myself to be fooled by politicians.
    • loganro, on 07/09/2008, -6/+19Obama is a horrible, horrible person..I agree with you.
      "I can't believe I fell for Obama's crap." That is the problem. Too many people are giving in to every word this disgusting individual says. Maybe, in the near future, people will realize they are making a huge mistake by supporting disgrace to our great country.
    • EvilJelloMan, on 07/09/2008, -7/+15Then you should have voted for Mike Gravel, the only dem running who had a long history of telling the corrupt politicians to shove it up their asses. He didn't just talk the talk, he walked the walk too. Which, of course, is exactly why the media marginalized him and made sure he had no chance to have his voice heard.
      • ISIfunded911, on 07/09/2008, -1/+7Exactly right: Gravel...and Kucinich.
        But it is not too late: you can campaign against Obama and vote for Nader.
        Just like conservative/libertarians can campaign against McCain and vote for someone else.
        It is time to vote for for the right people instead of voting for the lesser of two evils. Time to grow balls gentlemen!
    • noahhoward, on 07/09/2008, -11/+2What exactly is wrong with Obamas position on the FISA bill? He's going to fight the immunity clause but the greater text of the bill is more important, seems like a pretty sensible compromise to me.
      • noahhoward, on 07/09/2008, -13/+2Can someone tell me how it isn't or are you just not capable of anything but all-or-nothing hardheadedness?
      • BobbyVan, on 07/09/2008, -2/+14This bill allows the President to grab all incoming and outgoing international communications without a warrant.

        The ACLU says it represents “an unprecedented extension of governmental surveillance over Americans.”

        Obama, sounding on Friday a lot like Bush, said: “Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay.”

        Here’s what Bush said the same day as Obama: The bill “allows our intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor the plans of terrorists abroad, while protecting the liberties of Americans here at home.”

        But it doesn’t protect our liberties, and Obama ought to know that.

        http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx0602408
      • noahhoward, on 07/09/2008, -12/+3"This bill allows the President to grab all incoming and outgoing international communications without a warrant."

        GIVEN REASONABLE CAUSE. REASONABLE searches and seizures ARE supported by the 4th amendment. The bill does nothing to our liberties and it DOES give us important tools to defend our nation.

        "Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay.”
        Did you ever think that perhaps, when EVERYONE is taking action to guard against 'Legitimate threats' that there ARE legitimate threats?

      • BobbyVan, on 07/09/2008, -0/+10Who decides "reasonable cause"??? Not a judge. That's the problem. There's no check on this authority. Obama is losing me. What makes him any different? I'm becoming convinced that Democrats care more about power than advancing a liberal agenda. They have learned nothing.
      • noahhoward, on 07/09/2008, -8/+2"Who decides "reasonable cause"??? Not a judge. "

        Why would you think that? There is still oversight but you don't have to go through the warrant process, you will still have to explain your actions to a court at some point.
      • noahhoward, on 07/09/2008, -3/+3Something else to think about regarding the immunity. If immunity is removed then what? Bush vetos it and pardons the telcos anyway. What are we left with? The telcos are off the hook AND Bush has no oversight.
      • ISIfunded911, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2"The bill does nothing to our liberties and it DOES give us important tools to defend our nation. "
        Who the ***** are you kidding? Did you know that Al Qaeda was not a creation of Bin Laden, but the name of the database shared by the CIA and friendly Arab secret services? Qaeda means base. Al Qaeda = the base= the database.
        It is the database of the people recruited by all these secret services to go fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is totally infiltrated by several secret services.
        9/11 a surprise my ass!
        http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va& ...
        Don't you know that when the Berlin wall the US military-industrial complex (and the CIA/NSA/...) needed to quickly replace the almighty Commies with a new horrible threat to justify their huge budgets? Don't you understand that they killed JFK because he started talking about putting an end to the Cold War? Don't you understand that those ***** are ready to covertly fund terrorists to better convince couch potatoes that they need to be afraid and sign blank checks to the military-industrial complex and to the CIA/NSA?
      • noahhoward, on 07/09/2008, -3/+2Right, of course how silly of me. 9/11 was a republican plot to make themselves look bad and loose all the power they worked so hard to get. No, Al Qaeda was not created by Osama Bin Laden, it was created by Abdullah Yusuf Azzam in 1988 and it has attacked plenty of places other than America.
    • br0ck, on 07/09/2008, -10/+4Obama supports the bill because it adds FISA court oversight back to Bush's wiretaps. Why is everyone in favor of letting Bush continue warrantless wiretaps? Isn't the government supposed to have checks and balances? Bush has even said he'll sign the bill and return to FISA oversight, but unfortunately he'll veto the bill if it exempts telecoms from civil lawsuits, and getting a 2/3 override is nearly impossible in a 50/50 senate.
      • noahhoward, on 07/09/2008, -9/+3Give it up we're on digg. Allowing Bush to break the law is a small price to pay for making sure telecoms get sued into obivion.
    • Brownds, on 07/09/2008, -2/+8If you get fooled by a politician then you are just that, a fool. NEVER take any politician at face value. They all want the same thing, money and power their party is just a tool to get it.
      • noahhoward, on 07/09/2008, -11/+3I'm not electing a politician, and I'm not a cynic, I'm electing a leader and I choose leaders based on leadership qualities not some ***** imaginary political squabble.
      • ISIfunded911, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Kucinich, Gravel, Nader, Paul, are the exceptions that confirm the rule.
    • AnarkeIncarnate, on 07/09/2008, -2/+7You had a chance to vote for the genuine article. You fell for the fabulous sales pitch. Next time.....think Ron Paul.
      • noahhoward, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4Actually I voted for Ron Paul.
      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4You voted for Paul but see no problem in a FISA system? My head is ready to asplode
  • Pittance, on 07/09/2008, -10/+22How about we punish ANYONE who supports an unconstitutional bill? Or do republicans get the green light to give the finger to the founding fathers?
    • Brownds, on 07/09/2008, -2/+11It's not just Dems bro. The American people need to get out of their comfort zone and vote for change in both parties. As of right now there is no difference between the 2 parties they all work for the same corporation.
      • ssn697, on 07/09/2008, -4/+4Yes, there is a difference between the parties. Maybe not a great a difference as you or I would like to see, but saying there is no difference is childish drivel.
  • mishaco, on 07/09/2008, -12/+2dont do it ! this circular firing squad that the democratic party will not help come the election and only helps republicans to aim better. cant we wait uintil after november to chastise the people we want to be elected ?
    • Brownds, on 07/09/2008, -3/+4You do realize that this is a much bigger issue that Republicans vs. Democrats right? We need a complete over haul in both parties. Vote out all of the corporate dick vacuums.
    • DooM, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3No. We can't. That in itself sets a precedent for future lawmakers that they just have to wait until an election is imminent and then they can pass all the garbage laws they want because the electorate will be afraid to speak about it.

      F that.
  • hamobu, on 07/09/2008, -7/+25The only way to punish democrats is to vote for someone else. Democrats need to vote for greens, even if that means higher likelihood of republicans winning. Without credible threat of loosing votes, democrats will slowly drift to the right.

    Same is true of republicans, only from the other direction.
    • noahhoward, on 07/09/2008, -11/+3So the best solution to the democrats becoming more like the republicans is to let the republicans win?
      • hamobu, on 07/09/2008, -1/+7Yes! But you have to think of the future beyond next election. If you keep voting for lesser of two evils, than you will always have two evils.

        Another analogy: during cold war, the only way to prevent nuclear war was to assure the other guy that you will retaliate if attacked. Sure that would mean the end of humanity, but without this threat the other guy would be more likely to attack. Same thing here. The only way to preserve our freedom is to make democrats know that we are willing to let republicans win if democrats to not do the right thing.
      • ISIfunded911, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2hamobu, I still find you naive. You still believe that two evils can become good.
        The real solution is for people to become members of the Green party and of the Libertarian party, and to campaign against the two evils until we get rid of them. They are too deeply rotten to be saved, let us get real!
    • Hockey13, on 07/09/2008, -6/+1I hate comments like these. The political spectrum is more complex than just "left" vs. "right."
      • hamobu, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2It is a simplification for the sake of discussion. I know that the political landscape is more complex.
      • Hockey13, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1A simplification for the sake of discussion is still a simplification. If that simplification ignores the reality that it's impossible to place people on a straight line somewhere between "left" and "right," then it's a useless simplification that does not help the discussion.
      • hamobu, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Hockey13> In English language you can never say anything exactly. You have to infer some things from the context of conversation. If I say something like: "I want to see a girl naked". I probably meant that I want to see a girl while she is naked, and not while I am naked. However both meaning are possible from a sentence itself.
  • easypie, on 07/09/2008, -9/+1Wiretap Bill, Wiretap Bill
    Went up the hill
  • kjizzle, on 07/09/2008, -3/+24Oooohhh bloggers. They're really in for it now.
    • bigsteve, on 07/09/2008, -1/+11We will use our HIGH PROFILE...........bloggers....


      *****.
    • squaredUP, on 07/09/2008, -7/+4I wish there were other ways to hold these people accountable, but sadly I think that going through the normal channels isn't going to work anymore...

      Obama and McCain are the same thing just with different speaches. Anyone have any ideas on another way to force change? I guess "all options are on the table..."
    • lpferris, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3Bloggers get a bad rap, but I don't see anyone else stepping up to make a difference. Blogs are just about the last truly independent media outlets, and are definitely the only media outlets that tell the truth. How about you get out of 2003 and start giving bloggers the respect they deserve?
      • kjizzle, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3My point is that the real bread and butter of american voting, people like my mom and dad, approaching retirement and what not, probably don't even know what a blog is, much less consider it anything more than angsty whining.

        there are plenty in that age group that do know what a blog is, but i guarantee that most either don't or are out of touch with online outlets and are more in tune to cable news, etc.

        now if the AARP latched on...then it'd be a different story
      • Morchades, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Actually, trying to get the support of groups like the AARP for stuff like this is a great idea. You'd get the old and the young behind the same movement, and between the two they'd bring in all the people in the middle. And that is something bloggers can do, research and contact these organizations.
  • dan.stryker, on 07/09/2008, -6/+20Vote obama down, that traitor!
    • noahhoward, on 07/09/2008, -14/+4Yeah! That way we end up with McCain! Moron.

      Oh yeah and FYI, Obama doesnt support the illegal wiretaps. He's actually got a very sensible position on the issue.
      • thedarkwolf, on 07/09/2008, -2/+15whatever he supports he has still come out in favor of these FISA provisions that authorize warrantless wiretaps and give immunity to telecoms for breaking the law. He can say anything he likes about his reasonable positions, but unless he can act on his words they are meaningless.
      • thegreenspanput, on 07/09/2008, -2/+9I hope Obama wins so that I can say "I told you so" in 2 years.
      • noahhoward, on 07/09/2008, -12/+2"whatever he supports he has still come out in favor of these FISA provisions that authorize warrantless wiretaps and give immunity to telecoms for breaking the law. He can say anything he likes about his reasonable positions, but unless he can act on his words they are meaningless."

        The 4th amendment supports REASONABLE warrantless searches. Obama supports REASONABLE warrantless searches what is the ***** problem here? The provisions in FISA repair some of the damage done by the Bush administration and are important for the security of the nation, whether you THINK they are or not, they are. Also Obama DOES NOT, DOES NOT, DOES NOT support telco immunity but recognizes that the IMPORTANT legislation immunity has been attached to will not pass without it. It is called compromise and it is is important in getting your way, let it go now and take it down when the situation is in your favor.

        All of you little kiddies need to grow up and start paying attention to the big picture. The world doesn't work in the ideal way you all think it should, end of story.
      • fyngyrz, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3"The 4th amendment supports REASONABLE warrantless searches. "

        No. It doesn't. Here's the fourth, in its entirety:

        "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

        Where it says unreasonable, it then goes on to define what reasonable is; and that is:

        (1) Probable cause (evidence of lawbreaking)
        (2) Support of oath or affirmation (responsibility of the reporter)
        (3) Description of target (explicit targeting of searches / seizures)
        (4) Warrant (a judge must concur in writing -- centuries of common law)

        THAT is what comprises the conditions required for a "reasonable" search or seizure. THAT is the standard that overcomes the stated right to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." Why in the world do you think it is there, otherwise? Do you think they were just writing to admire the flourishes of their pens? If none of this is required, then why would they say it was?

        The argument that the 4th allows for "reasonable warrentless searches" is utterly unsupported by any sensible reading of the amendment. It's just the kind of pathological sophist nonsense a lawyer would try to pull, but the constitution is not legislation; it is plain text written with the express intent of restricting government power by first enumerating what it can do (section eight) and then forbidding it from doing the kinds of things King George III had been doing (via the bill of rights.) If you can honestly contemplate that the amendment, in the midst of a list of ten explicitly and obviously designed to protect the rights of the people FROM the government, empowers the government to arbitrarily search the people, then you have lost all sense of context and you need to start over.


  • sportsstar67, on 07/09/2008, -16/+6This organization sounds like as big a group of idiots as the new Campaign for Liberty folks
  • digitallysick, on 07/09/2008, -10/+9I agree, regardless of who you support for president i think we can all agree that we have less freedom in America now. The telcos caved into the government, we should hold the government accountable for wiretapping.
  • noahhoward, on 07/09/2008, -12/+4Why just Democrats? If we could stop being partisan for a second perhaps we could solve some problems.
    • swrostmore, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Why just Democrats? Because running attack ads against Republicans is redundant, since they are likely to lose anyway.
      Since we are looking at the certainty of a large Democratic majority in Congress, and a probable Democratic White House, it makes sense to target only the party which will be holding power.
  • politicalfan28, on 07/09/2008, -10/+1Dennis is the man!!!!!!
    HIS latest message link http://impeachment.kucinich.us/petition/
    OFFICIAL impeachment petition link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7IHtv4qxpw
  • ericjohnson0, on 07/09/2008, -3/+15Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com: "In the past 24 hours, specifically beginning with the moment Barack Obama announced that he now supports the Cheney/Rockefeller/Hoyer House bill, there have magically arisen -- in places where one would never have expected to find them -- all sorts of claims about why this FISA "compromise" isn't really so bad after all. People who spent the week railing against Steny Hoyer as an evil, craven enabler of the Bush administration -- or who spent the last several months identically railing against Jay Rockefeller -- suddenly changed their minds completely when Barack Obama announced that he would do the same thing as they did. What had been a vicious assault on our Constitution, and corrupt complicity to conceal Bush lawbreaking, magically and instantaneously transformed into a perfectly understandable position, even a shrewd and commendable decision, that we should not only accept, but be grateful for as undertaken by Obama for our Own Good."

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/21/ ...
    • Ljay90, on 07/09/2008, -11/+6What changed Obama's mind? The new bill actually gives the courts oversight over the whole process. So as long as the courts stay 'pure', then they can keep the wiretaps in check. That was the compromise.
      • riseabove, on 07/09/2008, -8/+5OMG, TRUTH = AUTOBURY
      • MrErr, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6Individuals and even corporations need to stick to the constitution even if the government asks them otherwise. These companies did not do that and violated our privacy. They should be punished for it. Even though with this bill, from here on there will be more oversight, in reality there will be less oversight because people know that if they break the constitution, they can get away with it. This bill is a case where the debate seems to be in the details while missing the whole forest.
      • Ljay90, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4That's the gamble [assumedly] Obama and other democrats are taking with judicial oversight. With that in play, someone just needs to bring this issue up with the courts, and hope that judicial review shoots this thing to hell where it belongs.
      • michaelb1, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4What changed Obama's mind? The new bill actually gives the courts oversight over the whole process. So as long as the courts stay 'pure', then they can keep the wiretaps in check. That was the compromise.

        Since your post was buried I reposted it. There's no way people will bury this one also. It's highly unlikely.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2I'm just praying that Obama is trying to act like a Pig to get into the Hog house. After that, maybe he will show some backbone.

      But these power groups own the Media, and if Obama were showing too strong a move away from the Plutocracy, then they'd be calling him a "radical nut."
  • riseabove, on 07/09/2008, -9/+2See, Obama is a uniter, both neo-cons and liberals are coming together to smear him and anybody who doesn't agree with them.
    • thegreenspanput, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2I don't care to unite with anyone who I don't want to unite with, OK?
  • thegreenspanput, on 07/09/2008, -8/+0W is too powerful. Best to just submit at this stage in the game.
  • monsterette, on 07/09/2008, -3/+4Well...seems like if there is a cause to do it - litigation/criminal acts - but not warrantless spying, lawless surveillance, or harassment just because the technology is available....
  • Arkonnan, on 07/09/2008, -5/+5Aren't they a little too late for this? Democrats should have been held accountable in 2006 after they made grand promises to get elected to congress, then turned around and became GOP cum dumpsters.
    • ISIfunded911, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Exactly: they all are pitiful puppets of the military-industrial secret services complex.
      Vote Greens or Libertarians if you are willing to face the truth!
      And get rid of your ***** TV once and for all! TV made Obama and McCain popular!
  • fancypantscz, on 07/09/2008, -5/+6I would really like to think this is the very beginning of a fundamental shift away from our current two-party conspiracy... I mean political system.

    I will read what these bloggers have to say and watch what this PAC does and if it really puts my best interests and our liberties first, I will contribute, support, and promote. But if I sense a lack of transparency or old school partisanship, they get nothing but criticism.

    Working only against Democrats, despite the rational that Dems are the ones who will be wielding power next cycle is an awkward first step. Wouldn't it also make sense to also support the libertarian elements in both parties?
  • Robart, on 07/09/2008, -2/+10Obama doesn't want to vote this down. The power will belong to him after November. Thats change. Right?
    • riseabove, on 07/09/2008, -6/+5well it sure won't be mccain in november, you can bank on that.
    • wilywondr, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Well he voted to remove the telecom immunity from the bill, which is what every one of the senators should be against. Giving immunity to someone/something before you even know what it is that they did is just plain stupid.
  • ncolgan, on 07/09/2008, -7/+4Isn't this what the ACLU and EFF are for?
    • fancypantscz, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3True if we are really going to stand up against the two party conspiracy and make them respect our rights it is going to take more than a few Strangebedfellow MONEYBOMBs and include the formation of many longterm multidimensional alliances.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2They already have their hands full trying to deal with their respective target issues.
  • tonyteetime, on 07/09/2008, -4/+0Make it harder on those bastards : communicate via snail mail !!
  • DiscoLando, on 07/09/2008, -2/+9It's very encouraging to see people demand justice and liberty without stupidly following party lines.
  • scabbers, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3If they change the drug laws, can they make them retroactive too and release all the prisoners?
    • fyngyrz, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Certainly they can. Do you think they will?
  • brstilson, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5And just how are they going to punish those Democrats? Send them a sternly-worded letter?
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2No. Support Democrats who are running against them in the next election.
    • texpundit, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1It's what the UN would do... >_>
  • JSolo, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4It is this sort of issue - lying, two faced politicians flipping their perspectives on a whim, that made me stop funding Obama and start funding Nader. Obama turned out to be mostly hype, just as every other politician stated, once he supported FISA.

    How can voting the same as a Republican really be change? What words were said to Obama to convince him that this is the right thing to do? Either way, an error in his judgement as serious as this is not forgivable. He is an utter disappointment.
  • Pedwidget, on 07/09/2008, -3/+3You want to punish the Demoncrats that actually have a tiny lick of sense?

    Figures. DIGGidiot Libnut Stupidity as usual.
    • fancypantscz, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4No the idea is to punish Democrats and Republicans who support retro active immunity for telecoms And if Democrats lack the sense to appose this toxic legislation then they are in a dereliction of duty and don't deserve to be in office.

      DIGGidiot Libnut Stupidity is a lot better than supporting the demise of your own liberties.
    • Rizzob23, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1I agree. These democrats are the ones who actually understand the needs of national security. Why should telecoms be held liable for following orders from the government? They can't be held hostage by nutcases who feel they are entitled to hundreds of millions because of warrentless spying. To those who think they are "losing their freedoms" because of this bill, I say move to Iran, where the warm, comforting, humane bosom of Islamic law could allow them to better appreciate how much freedom we actually enjoy in America.
  • Jadinlee, on 07/09/2008, -1/+13While I support Obama in almost every way, I cannot overlook his support of the FISA bill. Unless "I" take a stand on principle, I am no better than what I criticize. Therefore, I will no longer vote for Obama if he supports this bill. In my mind, that one act violates his oath of office. There's no way I'm voting for McCain... but neither can I vote for a candidate who has already proven his inability to defend our constitution.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/09/2008, -3/+2Look, Kucinich had ZERO chance of becoming President because he was honest.

      Obama has to look like a stinking pig, to get in the hog house. There is no other way. I think it sucks, but if you want another Justice Soutter or Thomas on the Supreme court -- then don't support a democrat.

      Write a letter to him and send in $2 and say, it would have been $250 if he went against the FISA bill.

      You do not have a choice in this imperfect world but to hold your nose and vote. Just imagine Karl Rove laughing with glee and Rush Limbaugh lighting up another stogy when you think about NOT supporting Obama. Fascism will win if we try to make Perfection the enemy of the Good.
    • wilywondr, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1They have not even voted on it yet. So WTF are you talking about? I can tell you that he just voted for an amendment to strip the telecom immunity from the bill, but I am sure that does not matter to you since you have already made up your mind(about events that have not taken place yet).

      With your psychic abilites do you gamble much?
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/09/2008, -4/+2We have to work within the current system to provide change. Holding Democrats feet to the fire will work. Because NOBODY has been punished in 20 years for selling out to big business, big war, big Pharma and the like. That is the problem.

    The Republicans have always been for the elite. And the Democrats are middle of the road. How often do we need to hear the media say; "Well, a reasonable Democrat wouldn't oppose the new FISA bill." to Get how Elitist the Media and Republicans are. So we have to start with the Democrats, because at least their is some recognition of the "common good." That means, things that benefit most of the people. The Libertarians and Reps do the same redistribution of wealth, by only spending money on the elite.

    >> Sorry for the following diatribe, but I think people need to understand this "lost" knowledge that even some of the greatest economists understood (most of them are free-market cool-aide drinkers).

    People need to understand how taxes work in an economy. The percentage of your tax taken isn't as much an issue if EVERYBODY has to pay it. Short term, it is -- but it just becomes the relative bar over a few years -- the cost of business. It is the relative taxation that matters to keep money from pooling. Then, it is important on what the government spends money on. And again, it is the relative percent. The government will ALWAYS socially engineer society -- the concept of "non-interfering" government is only pitched by the Elitists who want monopolies to run things. Most of the Energy, Media, Military and Pharma companies have what are called "interlocking directorates" -- the person on the board of directors from Google at Apple computers, has an influence to shape a market. But when you have someone from Shell on the board of Exxon -- that is a cartel.

    There is no competitive free market amongst the big "infrastructure companies" -- and AT&T got handed back its monopoly in exchange for helping BushCo spy on Americans. And more than likely, this information has helped them extort politicians and help friendly corporations. Think how much company info gets pushed around on the net.

    I'm presenting this as a sketch of what the issue is. Average folks have no business voting for Republicans -- but they sucked everyone in with the silly wedge issues and good marketing -- since they help all the major corporations that actually own the media. How some reporter votes doesn't matter -- it's how the owner of his company is invested. Duh. If someone tells you they were a good christian, and then mugs you -- is that Christianity at fault, or is it that people who want to mug you hide behind something that presents a good image. The media is not Liberal. Not even NPR anymore.

    >> So we have to get the power back to the Democrats 100%. And work to take it over after that. We can get oversight with one group attacking another. Democrats might have enabled Republicans, but THEY pushed the torture, the war for profit, and the attack on Democracy. Meanwhile, we replace the Lieberman's, Pelosis and the other DINOs over time. There isn't any other way in this two-party system to achieve it short of a revolution. The only means to accomplish this, is to organize over the web. MoveOn.org is the most maligned political action community around -- that's because it is the most effective. In November, I highly recommend that people support MoveOn and join up with a group to call people on a phone tree.
    • fancypantscz, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2"There isn't any other way in this two-party system to achieve it short of a revolution. The only means to accomplish this, is to organize over the web."

      Very true... However, entrenching the Democrats in power is no revolution and if what you are trying to achieve is the representation of the voter's interests rather than private interests in federal government then I'm afraid your plan is foolhardy. The Bush administration with active Republican support has done great damage to the US and the constitution. However, if you assumed that the Democrats were going to repair this damage, I think this very issue of FISA legislation should clue you in to what is really going to happen... more of the same.

      The only way to get real change is to create a completely transparent and independent political party from the ground up. It may take a generation to do so but honestly we have no other choice if we what the US to remain a democracy in anything other than name.
  • Rizzob23, on 07/09/2008, -6/+2All this hating on the FISA bill... The terrorists are already very hard to track, and you people are screaming bloody murder. Just wait till they set off nukes in American cities and our society collapses. You don't know what oppression is. We'll chastise FISA and other spy programs, plant our heads in the sand, and let our enemies sneak in and murder us by the millions. Then we'll complain against the government for not "doing something."

    As always, be sure to bury my unhip, unpopular opinion.
    • wilywondr, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4They are already here and they are coming for you. You need to stick your head back in the sand and hide from the world. They already can and could do something without retroactive immunity. That is why the FISA Act was put in place in 1978.

      You will be buried for being wrong.
    • akatsuki, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Aaah... poor scared little person. You do realize that the terrorists now have your IP address and they might just track you down and torture you and kill you? Best to stay at home and hide in a closet somewhere.
    • Rizzob23, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Buried, and with ad hominem attacks to boot! At least in this one predictable way, you guys never disappoint.
      Our leaders from both parties realize what is at stake, and they put national security over political pressure from restless malcontents.
      Thanks for warning me about the terrorists coming to get me. In gratitude, I'll let you in on some information to which I am privy: Our government is spying... ON YOU!!!
  • wilywondr, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Is anyone able to access http://www.democraticunderground.com this morning? When I run a tracert my connection is killed at 209.8.108.37 . This IP is a company named Beyond The Network America that is located in Herdon, VA. I am sure people will say I am being paranoid, but it is very odd that I cannot access this sight this morning when I have had no problem accessing it in the past. From what I have found on the internet about this company in the last 1/2 hour it appears that this is what they do.

    Let me know if any of you are able to access http://www.democraticunderground.com at this time.
    • JSolo, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1BtN/PCCW does not proving dedicated hosting, etc. - they only provide transit and IP. So if the site is down, it is not necessarily their fault unless it's one of their infamous "router hiccups" they have every now and then.
      • wilywondr, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1I never said they were hosting the site. They are the owners of the IP/router where my connection is being stopped on it's way to the democraticunderground.com server. The entire functionality of the internet is based on the fact that if a router is having a "hiccup" then the preceding router should take an alternate route. This re-routing should occur in moments, not hours. This is not happening and I believe this is being done purposefully to prevent people from accessing democraticunderground.com this morning. I am only able to attempt to connect to the site from a couple different locations which is why I am here asking if anyone can access the site. I would like to know if this problem is only from the locations I am trying to connect from or if this is occurring across the world. When I attempt to connect from a different location the route is stopped at 216.158.2.2. This IP belongs to Consult Dynamics, Inc.

        Are you able to access the site?
        When you do a tracert where is your connection being stopped?
  • crackberri, on 07/09/2008, -4/+2OMG, OMG, I have lost all my freedoms! What a bunch of ***** who can't even speak France....
  • mishaco, on 07/09/2008, -3/+2yes , i agree . this issue is much bigger than a couple of overbearing , near irrelevant political parties . but , if the republicans win , there will be no chance of rectifying the situation . the only way out of this mess that still president bush has put us in is through the election of a democratic president .

    the election has to come first . righting the ship is a close second , after the election .
    • vexingmodstwo, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3Put down the Kool-Aid...
    • mishaco, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1pick up an interest in helping your country overcome the worst president in history .
  • Robart, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3Wow mishaco you keep holding on to that dream right off the cliff with all the other lemmings.
  • sportsstar67, on 07/09/2008, -4/+2This organization sounds like as big a group of idiots as the new Campaign for Liberty folks
  • mrdjames, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3Why not start by punishing Obama?
  • hylas, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Also:

    Digg - Bush Dog Opposites- Those Who Got it Right:

    http://digg.com/political_opinion/Bush_Dog_Opposit ...

  • bandito707, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2"Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of
    Pennsylvania (1759)
  • danthemansmith, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2Punnish them all. Congress sucks. The mafia would give us better representation.
  • ironpirate, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Will the Obama sheep still vote for him?
  • SatoriSeeker, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1You can count the number of real patriots in congress on a single hand.

    Don't get fooled next time we have a chance to vote people!

    Kucinich, Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, and the like are marginalized by the media because they represent real change. Do not let your views of the players be painted for you by the mainstream media. Get as many real facts as you can and form your own conclusions. The answers become much clearer that way.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.