What on earth are you talking about? Much of the criticism of Obama on FISA has been from firm Obama supporters.

There is truth in what Leroy said and what dijamo said (God, I hate it when that happens!).

Yes, it is, dijamo, and that's what has me confused. There is GREAT consternation about Obama's abandoning the fight against the immunity provisions of FISA ----- but, although I keep asking, no one has been able to tell me why fighting those provisions is important. I've been staring at them and asking questions and reading whereever I can -- just because so many Obama supporters seem upset -- and I cannot figure out what there is to be so upset about.

It seems to me (and it's not an uninformed opinion) that either the telecoms are IMMUNE (by the current bill) or they don't have immunity but are found NOT LIABLE because they were following apparently lawful government orders. There isn't really much difference -- just some papers filed and a motion to dismiss.

It's not the telecoms that violated the law and the Constitution, it's the government. Suing the telecoms will get folks a bit fat zero and does a fine job diverting attention from the real wrong-doer.

So why are so many Obama supporters turning against him on this? I honestly cannot figure it out.

It's like tournament fishing, Leroy!

Sorry for the disruption to the echo chamber! Please continue with your dittos.

Okay, I'll accept your language: Why are people so "angry" at Obama? Why are they "putting pressure on him to vote against the bill if it includes immunity"? Why are they saying they "will no longer support him because of FISA"?

I have no problem with Obama being questioned - we should all question our leaders and let them know when we dislike what they are doing? But if you (or one of those angry, pressuring supporters) got to talk face-to-face to him and started out by saying "I strongly disapprove of your voting for a FISA bill that contains retroactive immunity for the telecoms because ____________", what would come after "because"? Surely if folks are that angry, so angry they are threatening not to support him, they know why. Don't they?

I'm a lawyer; I'm very familiar with civil and governmental liability; and I can't see how the telecoms would ever be LIABLE ...... so who the heck cares if they do or don't get immunity?? Why should Obama stage a big battle fighting against something that doesn't make a difference?

The more I look at it, the more I probe the issue, the more I read statements from those like Russ Feingold who seem to think it's important, the more it seems like a big, really smelly red herring that got dragged across the trail to keep us from looking at the real culprit (the Gov't) and holding *it* accountable.

So -- other than the fact that an awful lot of people SAY the immunity issue is important -- why is it important? I've been asking this again and again and have not gotten an answer that makes sense.

The only on point answer I've gotten was that by allowing lawsuits against the telecoms, it would be possible to have discovery and find out details about what information was turned over, what was done with the information, etc. But in real life that's very, very unlikely. ---- The telecoms have an absolute defense: they were obeying apparently lawful orders of lawful authority. Feingold himself acknowledges that they had written orders done up all properly -- The government didn't have to give them a warrant because the law provided that a warrant could be obtained afterwards. (That's where the gov't, not the telecoms, broke the law -- they didn't a warrant either before or after the fact.) So .... the only discovery needed would be to produce a copy of those orders. Case dismissed.

Also, no one has been able to explain why a 1983 ("civil rights") action against the US Government for violating the FISA law that was in existence and thereby violating 4th Amendment rights wouldn't be a much more logical course to follow if the goal is to get discovery *and* to stop the government (not the telecoms) from continuing to break the law.

So, until someone can answer those very simple and real-life questions, I'm certainly not going to condemn Obama for declining to take on that (meaningless) battle. And I have to wonder why his supporters would be so ready to become angry, put pressure on him, or threaten not to support his candidacy for something that, I'm coming to believe, they don't even understand.

Note: when I started looking into this, I was assuming along with everyone else that retroactive immunity for the telecoms was a *big deal.* I just wanted to know how it worked so that I could be as justifiably angry as everyone else. I truly do believe in questioning authority and I don't expect Obama to be perfect. (In fact, I NOW wonder why the heck he ever promised to fight it in the first place!!! - Maybe he, also, was assuming that because there was such a big to-do, it must be important.) However, as Moynihan pointed out, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not to their own facts. I can't find the facts in this issue to support any anger or indignation or loss of faith or disillusionment. If there are some facts, I trust someone on this board will enlighten me.

"The telecoms have an absolute defense: they were obeying apparently lawful orders of lawful authority. Feingold himself acknowledges that they had written orders done up all properly -- The government didn't have to give them a warrant because the law provided that a warrant could be obtained afterwards. (That's where the gov't, not the telecoms, broke the law -- they didn't a warrant either before or after the fact.) So .... the only discovery needed would be to produce a copy of those orders. Case dismissed."

Exactly. By making them the bad guy, you're putting a white hat on the truly guilty. Sure you want to do that?

I sometimes wonder if some of us Democrats would rather have something to rail AGAINST than something to hope FOR. I hope I'm wrong. I'm against those tactics :-)

That should be "pre 9/ll state".

readytoblowgasket, bslev, and dijamo ---
I notice that while bemoaning those who "stifle dissent" and demonize anyone who questions our leaders, you've taken a discussion about why folks should (or should not) be angry with Obama over FISA and turned it into your OWN version of "Shut up and go away" and name-calling (snake oil salesmen, poor writing, unhealthy for democracy, etc.)

Only you're saying it to anyone who is bold enough to defend Obama or even, simply, to ask questions about the subject of all that anger (FISA) in an effort to try to figure out if the anger is justified.

I didn't get into this discussion to defend or condeming Obama -- or anyone who wants to condemn or defend him. I want to know what the issue is, so that I CAN figure out who is wrong or right, wise or foolish. I'm simply asking a question. What -- factually, legally -- is so bad about granting retroactive immunity to the telecoms? How does that act - which is the focus of so much of the anger - going to hurt our ability to defend our civil liberties? Why is it important that Obama, and others, make a stand and fight to keep that provision from being enacted into law?

I agree with you that it's a fine and wonderful thing to question our leaders and our candidates. But a question should be paired with an answer.

So, again, I'm asking those who are so angry at Obama over this ..... and those like the three of you who defend so strongly those who are angry ..... If they, or you, start a sentence with "I strongly disapprove of Obama voting for a FISA bill that contains retroactive immunity for the telecoms because ____________", what comes after "because"?

readytoblowgasket, bslev, and dijamo --- I notice that while bemoaning those who "stifle dissent" and demonize anyone who questions our leaders, you've taken a discussion about why folks should (or should not) be angry with Obama over FISA and turned it into your OWN version of "Shut up and go away" and name-calling (snake oil salesmen, poor writing, unhealthy for democracy, etc.)

Abso-fucking-lutely!

This saves me a rant. I can go make coffee now....

I personally dont like Hillary. I like Nader but not as a politician. I LOVE my privacy and civil rights more than I LIKE Obama. His turn around on this has me really pissed. That's not to say I'm going with McCain or a third party now, but I won't be giving money to people who couldn't give a shit about my rights.

dijamo, thank you very much for giving a substantive answer to my concern (I'm igoruing the 21 posts that followed!) .... and I think you pin-pointed the heart of the matter, and this is the part relevant to telecom immunity:

>>>2. The telecom companies that complied (there were ones that did not) violated the laws regarding the privacy of their customers BY TURNING OVER INFORMATION WITHOUT LAWFUL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY.

I trust you will agree that if they in fact HAD lawful government authority, they were actually required to turn over the information, could be in trouble if they did not do so, and would not be liable to the individuals whose information they turned over. If they did NOT have lawful authority, then they would have violated the statute and, by its terms, would be liable to the people whose information was disclosed.

Do we have to be able to sue the telecoms to find out if they had lawful government authority? I don't think so. Please hear me out and if I take a wrong term somewhere, let me know.

So would have constituted lawful authority? An order from the appropriate government official, couched in the correct language. Even Russ Feingold acknowledges that each telecom was given such an order. Did it have to have an attached warrant? No. The statute in effect provided that the gov't could get one before ording the information turned over OR get a warrant after the fact.

So, you're a telecom, you are given a lawful order, you comply with it, and then *the government* violates the statute (and therefore privacy rights) by failing to get that after-the-fact warrant. How is the *telecom* liable in this scenario? And if the telecoms can't be liable, then why is immunity (or lack of immunity) a big deal?

(Qwest and the others who refused to turn over the material did so only **after** it became clear that the government was engaged in a consistant pattern of violating the law (by not getting that after-the-fact warrant).... At that point, they had a "good faith" basis for refusing to comply, for questioning the lawfulness of the order. But that was still a risky position for a telecom to take, and the law does not require any of us - individuals or corporations - to be heroes. The fact that one telecom didn't turn it over doesn't mean that those who followed the letter of the law and disclosed the information are going to be liable.)

This is more than just my opinion or something I heard from someone. I've worked for 20+ years in the field of civil and governmental liability, as an attorney (which Tena is also - and I too wish I could find your conversations with her, dijamo. Damn this awkward TPM format!) Well-established legal principles are "facts" that should be considered .... especially when everyone is making important decisions based on their understanding of a legal concept, immunity.

It was the government, not the telecoms, who broke the law here. And the government can be sued for constitutional violations under 42 USC 1983. (Why is no one talking about that? Is this laser focus on telecom immunity really just a misperception ... or a deliberate red herring? I have no idea, but the thought does occur. It certainly seems to have gotten a lot of Obama supporters yelling at one another.)

I think it's wonderful that so many of the people who are angry at Obama over this issue are still willing to support him because of the bigger picture. But is it necessary, in this instance, to go into that "hold your nose" territory??

I think it's fine and wonderful to question him ... but isn't the next step to find out the answers to those questions? And wouldn't it be a crime if he lost some supporters, and lost the enthusiasm of other supporters, for something that, in truth, didn't matter at all?

That's the only way he can be defeated, you know. Pick-pick-pick, little by little, slowing the donations, fewer people going door to door, fewer phone calls made, more shrugged shoulders, more "I can't explain" when supporters are asked to defend certain positions, more nasty back-and-forth between people who supposedly have a common goal.

Can't we at least agree that it's important to find out and agree on the relevant FACTS before forming our opinions and stalking off into different corners to yell names an insults at one another? I've been asking this same *factual* question on every remotely-relevant thread for about a week now ... only dijamo and one other person have been willing to address the question of why telecom immunity is a bad thing. What's wrong with this picture?

I guess whoever said that we get the government we deserve may have been right ... unfortunately.

Elizabeth2:

To answer your question about what comes after "because," I would have to share more information about FISA first. I hope the links I provide here are helpful. Also, I can only answer for myself, not for others who are "angry" about Obama's position on FISA.

1. Qwest was approached on Feb. 27, 2001, to participate in the domestic surveillance program. Qwest refused to comply with the govt's request, believing it to be both inappropriate and unlawful. You can read about that here. In its inception, the spying program had nothing to do with terrorism, yet it is now being cast as essential in the "war on terror." If I were face-to-face with Obama, I would ask him point-blank why he's perpetuating this lie and why he is complicit in misrepresenting the date that the program began (everyone keeps saying it began after 9/11; it began before 9/11).

2. Given that Qwest found the surveillance program unlawful, the telecoms that did comply with it should not be granted immunity. If the court cases against the telecoms are allowed to proceed, we would learn more about how the govt broke the existing law, namely, how intrusive and extensive the surveillance was. Obama himself has stated that the law was "clearly" broken. If I were face-to-face with Obama, I would ask him how he can say the law was broken when the administration claims repeatedly the surveillance was lawful and no court has determined law-breaking to be a fact. Is Obama just speaking carelessly? That seems impossible. Furthermore, I would ask Obama why he takes no action when laws were, to his mind, clearly broken. This frankly shocks me.

3. We can't hold the govt accountable until we learn what the govt actually did. Again, one way to learn what the govt did is by allowing the civil suits against the telecoms to proceed. The lawsuits exist to ultimately force some accountability from the govt, not from the telecoms. Is it the best way? I don't have enough information to say, so I would ask Obama directly what he thinks is the best way to hold the Bush Administration accountable.

4. The new FISA Amendments provide for bigger and wider-ranging data-collection programs (further infringing on 4th Amendment rights) and they nullify the judicial review of the NSA program(s?) from 2001 to the present (preventing the checks and balances built into our system). You can read more about this here.

As you might see, Elizabeth, your question is too big for any one person to answer.

Obama is wrong to support this FISA amendment because it doesn't restrict or limit the government's ability to spy on us, it expands it. All the DoJ has to do is certify they will obey the law and entire programs of data collection will be okayed. This expands warrantless wire tapping and is unnecessary and inexcusable.

I am less concerned about Telecom Immunity that most people because I don't believe they will ever be held liable anyway even if it comes to a jury verdict. the only reason to oppose telecom immunity is that we suppose the telecom's, unlike the Administration, might actually turn over subpoenaed documents and won't be so flagrant in their disregard for the law. That's a big supposition unsupported by the fact that all telecoms except Qwest knowingly and flagrants violated the law and continued to do so even after they were caught. Clearly they know they are above the law and all Telecom Immunity does is confirm a known fact. Holding them accountable is a lost cause.

However, we must not allow the wholesale creation of datamining programs on the word of DoJ officials who merely have to swear they don't intend to break the law - to collect our conversations and emails in one big sweep - without specific warrants or targets. That's the danger of thsi bill. People are focusing on the least important part of the bill and ignoring that it just plunges a dagger into the heart of the 4th Amendment.

Just peeked back in and, to my delight, there are real information-filled posts. Thank you all, very much. Sadly I won't get to digest them until tonight, at which time I'll *try* to find this thread and respond. But wanted you to know it's seen and appreciated. Next on the agenda: reading and (hopefully) understanding.

Lamont...no. You don't have it straight. Just thought you should know.

And...this is gratis...you're one of the losers that's working hard to help Obama become a loser. Again...just thought you should know.