Obama Social Networking Group Seeks to Apply Pressur on FISA
There is a new group on barackobama.com that was created with the intention of pressuring Mr. Obama to reconsider his stance on FISA Modernization H.R. 6304.
The group is over 1600+ members in just 2.5 days, and is on pace to be one of the largest by the beginning of next week. Please come and join the effort, post a letter to Mr. Obama in the group blog explaining your feelings on his dramatic and inexplicable reversal of position.
Hey look, we know it's a long shot, but Mr. Obama has claimed that he would have had the judgement and moral certitude to vote against authorizing force in Iraq. We see this as just such a moment, and he is not showing the leadership he promised, when he said he would filibuster any bill with telecom immunity, which is arguably the LEAST dangerous thing in this bill. The outright evisceration of the 4th amendment is another.
If you're interested in assisting this effort, you can find the group here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA
Ask Senator Obama to make a principled stand NOW, while it still matters.
Protect the 4th Amendment this 4th of July and Preserve Independence.
The group is over 1600+ members in just 2.5 days, and is on pace to be one of the largest by the beginning of next week. Please come and join the effort, post a letter to Mr. Obama in the group blog explaining your feelings on his dramatic and inexplicable reversal of position.
Hey look, we know it's a long shot, but Mr. Obama has claimed that he would have had the judgement and moral certitude to vote against authorizing force in Iraq. We see this as just such a moment, and he is not showing the leadership he promised, when he said he would filibuster any bill with telecom immunity, which is arguably the LEAST dangerous thing in this bill. The outright evisceration of the 4th amendment is another.
If you're interested in assisting this effort, you can find the group here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA
Ask Senator Obama to make a principled stand NOW, while it still matters.
Protect the 4th Amendment this 4th of July and Preserve Independence.
Advertisement
I just don't know where to start with this. You are comparing FISA to a WAR? Seriously? Wow. And you think this bill "eviscerates" the Fourth Amendment? Strong word. So now meet the burden you set for yourself. Don't just say it because Glenn Greenwald told you it was true; prove it.
Go through it item by item, and articulate how it "eviscerates" the Fourth Amendment Hint: In order for it to "eviscerate" the Fourth Amendment, it will have to go substantially, SUBSTANTIALLY farther than any other statutory provision or legal precedent. So you might want to include some case law here.
Tell me how this goes farther than suspicionless automobile checkpoints (legal under the 4th Amendment). Tell me how this goes farther than drug sniffing dogs sniffing you at a county fair, or sniffing your car in a parking lot, or sniffing your child's school locker without any suspicion. Tell me how this goes farther than the government being able to put a tap on my phone without first getting a warrant from the rubber stamp court (already legal since 1978). Tell me how this goes farther than RICO.
Please, enlighten us.
June 28, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not a comparison between a war and FISA. This blog portrays the FISA choice as an opportunity for Obama to show that leadership and judgement he so much talked about during the Primaries and that got him elected as the nominee.
If the Telecom Immunity was something that needed filibustering before he was elected, its needs filibustering after.
The link above is not working, I hope this one does:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA
June 28, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"elected?" Don't you mean "nominated"? He hasn't been elected, does not have a bully pulpit until he gets elected.
The bill refers back to the Fourth Amendment and states unequivocably that all parts of the bill must be in accordance with the Fourth Amendment.
So, let's withdraw support from Obama, the only power he can actually wield right now. Let's weaken him, let's give McCain his "soft on terrorism" meme against Obama. And let's have the McCain Supreme Court adjudicate the constitutionality of the Fourth Amendment. Which was eviscerated over 40 years ago, and damage has been done by every President since, including Bill Clinton.
At least this bill makes the FISA court relevant again. Bush will ignore it I'm sure, but we have a bill which will make that harder to justify.
Do I want a perfect Fourth Amendment? Of course. But I have to ask you -- and this is from as avowed a liberal as you're ever going to find -- are there any ways you can put forward that can help us avoid terrorist attacks? Solve the problem of the intelligence agencies not communicating with one another? Addressing new technology and how it is used by potential terrorists? Of course eviscerating the Fourth Amendment is not the answer, but these are the questions that will come up in editorials, debates, town halls. What is the Left doing to make sure we minimize terrorist attacks? And when Bush trumps up a terrorist attack in October, you bet the Right will be laying these questions at Obama's feet.
He's not Superman. We get him elected, we give him a Congress that can get something done. And here's a newsflash: the rebuilding of Congress is going to take 12 years minimum. And no one is going to be more effective at making that happen than Barack Obama.
I repeat: the Fourth Amendment has been broken for generations. Obama giving the Republicans a meme to shatter his candidacy by standing up to this one bill is not going to fix the Fourth Amendment, and will contribute to President McCain.
I'm going to donate another $25. Because THAT's the power that we can give him right now, that he can use to change the trajectory of this broken country.
The Fourth Amendment included, in time.
June 28, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where I said "elected," I meant elected as the nominee of the Democratic Party.
I am not asking him to be Superman. Just to stick to what he said. We believed him. We believed he had a back bone and we supported him for that; instead of supporting Hillary. And he won.
Do you think that if, during the Primaries, he had said that he would support this FISA bill he would have had as much support???
June 28, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is from someone left-of-center who has worked with the Dept of Homeland Security:
The government doesn't need an expanded set of powers to effectively deal with terrorism. The government still doesn't use all the means it currently has to fight terrorism (e.g. turf wars between FBI and CIA).
Do not so easily give up your civil liberties for the vague promise of a boogie man out there.
Remember that the original laws regarding FISA were set up because Richard Nixon used the apparatus of government to deal with political enemies and spy on the citizenry.
Obama is caving to the fear mongering we have seen in the past 8 years to win elections. He should redefine the issue. This is important and will say whether he really is a leader or merely a triangulator.
Because it's not going to end here.
June 28, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do I want a perfect Fourth Amendment? Of course. But I have to ask you -- and this is from as avowed a liberal as you're ever going to find -- are there any ways you can put forward that can help us avoid terrorist attacks?
So it was okay to wiretap MLK Jr. because there wasn't any other way to bring down the Iron Curtain?
The first step is realizing that this entire frame is bullshit--the threats we face today are radically smaller than those we faced in earlier times.
As others mention, the problem is not the intelligence agencies lack of information, but a lack of capacity to connect the dots. Glutting the agencies with more data will just make the problem worse.
We could end torture and respect the civil rights of Muslims so that they might be willing to cooperate with us in finding bad actors. If Sunni Iraqis of all people are willing to cooperate with us in fighting AQI after we removed a Sunni leader from power, that demonstrates that Muslims can be worked with, that the worst actors can be isolated.
We could build educational and employment opportunities for unemployed youths around the world, and deprive radicalism of its source of labor, or at least demonstrate the sincerity of our intentions.
We could end plans to build permanent bases in oil producing Mid East states and deprive the terrorists of a valuable propaganda tool.
And most of all we should stand for the principles of freedom at all times, not just when it's convenient and safe--not just when the person claiming the rights is a white Christian. There are aspects of our sexualized culture that offend them, but which we insist we must tolerate because of the First Amendment. But if we now toss aside the Fourth Amendment because Muslims are scary, what lesson is there for Muslims to learn but that the Constitution and the liberal freedoms of the Englightenment are nothing but a hypocritical sham--in full force when a Christian claims them, but tossed aside when a Muslim claims them. If you expect Muslims to respect our supposed land of freedom and liberty, then you'd better act like you respect those principles.
We could win the national security argument, but we'd have to actually try to win it. Obama promised to do that. I hope he comes to his senses.
June 29, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here was John McCain's making your point today:
http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/06/28/mccain-says-obamas-word-cannot-be-trusted/
June 29, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
And another question:
Since you know this is going to pass no matter what; that Obama could not stop it under any circumstances, why does it matter how he votes?
Hear me out: Does it matter that he vote "no" because this is a litmus test? You want him to fall on his sword over something that will happen no matter what he does, so he can prove his bona fides? In other words, you don't trust him?
Do you believe that if he voted "no," the "yes" voting Democratic senators will change their vote to "no"? Because that won't happen. He's Obama, not a magician. That won't happen.
So if you know he has no power to stop this, and that by registering a vote of "no" he could (I stress the word "could") be putting his chance of being elected in serious peril (particularly in the event of an October surprise), why would you want him to vote no?
I think this has very little to do with Telecom immunity (if people were so mad at telecoms they would give up their iPhones and cancel their contracts with At&T and Verizon en masse, which they haven't done), and even less to do with FISA (as evidenced by the fact that the original, highly intrusive FISA has existed with nary a complaint for decades), and this is about winning.
Its about wanting to beat the other side. Its about not losing again. Its About getting Bush before he leaves office. Its About Bush not getting every thing he wants all the time. Its about jealousy, anger, resentment, frustration, bullying and a feeling of helplessness. Its about our side standing strong over one goddamn thing before that facist leaves office.
And this issue is the one we are focusing on because this was the one issue that, for a fleeting moment, the Dems stood strong on. It was brief, it was beautiful, and now its gone and we're mad as hell.
And in typical Democratic fashion, we are taking it out on the one guy we need the most, and the one guy who has the most to lose by making the wrong decision. We are, by and large, giving the Senate and the House a free pass and focusing our wrath on the one guy who is running for the one office that has the most practical power and the most potential to bring change.
We need to knock this shit off.
June 28, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with the idea that this is about winning. This is about moving to the middle to not appear soft on terror. Except that won't stop accusations of being soft on terror anymore than the vote to authorize force in Iraq did.
Ask John Kerry and Hillary Clinton how that worked out for them. Raw Story has Jonathan Turley talking about the 'Evisceration' of the 4th amendment.
Firedog lake has John Dean discussing his views on the dangers of this bill. And of course YouTube has Feingold, Dodd, and Kucinich (among others) on the senate floor arguing against the bill.
So I'm not going to give you my arguments, I give you there's. If you won't take it from them, you wouldn't take it from me.
I fundamentally disagree though that "knowing this is going to pass" is reason to shut up and let it happen. It's the fact that many of us have pursued our objections with the bill that empowered Dodd and Feingold to be able to delay this, however slightly, through procedural motions.
Obama made some specific statements regarding Telco Immunity, which many of us would like to see him stand behind and fulfill. As THE nominee, he has the ability to help shape the debate in a way that few can right now.
But we're not ONLY asking Obama to act. At this link here there are suggestions of many different things to do, including having everyone call their specific congress person and letting them know that this issue means something to you.
Unless it doesn't.
June 28, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
that should read "I give you theirs." I hate when people mix there and their, you're and your, etc.
June 28, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jonathan Turley, for all his brilliance, said the Constitution was in shambles and the United States would fall to ruin because Bill Clinton got a blow job and lied about it and it was vitally necessary to impeach him.
That kind of purity should not be dictating our every move.
We need to stop the circular firing squad that loses us elections.
June 28, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
That kind of purity? We only want the same purity that Obama was talking about very recently when he said he would filibuster any bill granting telecom immunity (retroactive, to boot!)
He has flipped-flopped on this very important issue and that is wrong.
I will support Obama. Because he is the Democratic Nominee. Because I don't want McCain.
But at this point, Obama seems to be other than who he said he was.
So please, stop the spinning. We had enough of that in the Primaries. He convinced us that he was different, remember?
June 28, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've said this about Obama:
And this about Hillary:
How are these different from McTroll talking points? Maybe I didn't get THAT memo.
June 28, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Ripper,
If it pleases you, you can accuse anyone who doesn't agree with you of being a McTroll.
I won't try to stop you.
In the second quote -which you hunted and rescued- I state that I won't donate to Hillary. I have my reasons. If you have your reasons to donate to her, go and do it.
As an Obama supporter, I am very dissapointed. I choose to look up to my leaders with open eyes. You can choose to look up to them blindly.
It's a free world.
June 29, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
In your accusatory post, you forgot to include any reasons why Obama's previous words re filibustering any bill with immunity are now not valid.
June 29, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
You do understand that Turley, Dean, and Greenwald have political agendas, don't you? And they are counting on the fact that their listeners/readers know very little about Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and won't question them. I also wonder when was the last time Turley stood in a trial court next to a meth addict with a record a mile long, arguing to an ELECTED judge that he should be let go because the police had no reasonable suspicion to stop his car? My guess: hasn't happened in awhile. I like Turley, but he needs to get into the trenches before he preaches like he's God.
And you didn't answer my question: Since Obama cannot stop this, and it could cost him dearly, why is it so important that he, more than anyone else, vote no? Why Obama, who has the most to lose by getting this wrong? And don't give me that nonsense about him being the nominee so its important for him to stand on principle, no matter the outcome. What's important is for him to get elected!
June 29, 2008 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
June 29, 2008 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, great news, the Fourth Amendment isn't violated by warantless wiretapping. Fantastic. I guess we don't need to pass retroactive immunity, then. Oops, they still want retroactive immunity? Well, I guess that indicates people denying that this violates the Fourth Amendment don't know what they're talking about.
It's pretty simple what's happening here. Pelosi, Reid, et. al. want to cave on this because they think it means the issue will go away. If Obama, the nominee, indicated that he wasn't going to let this go away, then they would have no reason to go along with the compromise.
Obama's cave on FISA is disgusting for exactly the same reason McCain's cave on the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was disgusting--because the realities of political pressure and signaling massively inflated their power on a specific issue, but they chose to trade that for political convenience.
At least McCain's sell out actually worked--it was the only way he could win the GOP nomination. Obama's sell out is not only a flat out flip flop of his earlier promise to support filibuster any bill containing retroactive immunity, but most of the public opposes warrantless wiretapping and this just makes him look Kerry-esque. It demonstrates not just a lack of resolve but a lack of political strategy. He's not just a sell-out, he's a stupid sell out.
Just because you choose to sell out doesn't mean anyone's buying.
June 29, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's Feingold's agenda? And why can't he tell the bluedogs to fall in line. Democrats have the majority. He should be leading. Siding with the Republicans? That's change?
June 29, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't say it better than you just did. Thanks, libgirl, for being a voice of sanity/
June 28, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Second that.
June 29, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am glad to hear people are still trying to be heard. I already removed myself from his site over this.
If we can't stop this, what do we do if the congress does bring up a vote to give authority to take military action against Iran? Seriously?!
June 28, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you mean "if " congress votes to give authority for military action against Iran? That happened months ago. Hillary voted yes. War is in the works.
June 29, 2008 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not about one vote in a losing cause or purity or consistency, it's about leadership. Obama has the opportunity to further re-define what national security means but has instead chosen to accept the Republican definition on this issue and fall in line.
June 29, 2008 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is all a method to discredit. There hasn't even been a vote yet.
Obama said in January that he would SUPPORT the filibuster of telecom immunity. Which he did!
Again, with H.R. 6304, he said he would work on stripping this immunity from the bill.
He supports H.R. 3773. Why shouldn't he?
It's one of the best pieces of legislation against executive oversight of wiretapping.
It's so irresponsible for people to post on this with full knowledge that they're misinformed.
People are like "duh...I don't want the telcom companies to get immunity from civil prosecutions...because I want some monies for the phones and services and At&T credit cards...duhhhh... that I continue to use...so they can continue to wiretap me in the same matter as the last 9 years...duhee hee"
Surreal.
And it's amazing that McCain's astroturfing trolls and the PUMA's and Paulista's feign ignorance to Charlie Black's role in all of this.
The Paulistas are really teeth grinders. They first can't organize sufficiently to have a winning campaign because their mandate is Screech R'Us. So they bust up the Republican convention and split the party. Go to the Obama website to split the party. Then go to Barr and support him. Though he supported the war and the Patriot Act. But now doesn't. But that's ok. Because the telecom immunity isn't. And Obama isn't. Right now. Kinda. This week.
It'll recycle itself all over again, same method of disruption...different screen names. All through Obama's presidency.
June 29, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is good.
All the Defeat Monkeys, Masochists, Resentful Hillbots and Closet Naderites are assembling themselves in one location which Obama can avoid like the plague.
I just wish it was a barn so I could lock the doors and torch it.
June 29, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is very liberal and progressive of you:
Kill them all who don't agree.
June 29, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. Forgot. Another group for the barn... Humorless Off-Campus Pinchturds.
Thanks for reminding me!
June 29, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever makes you happy...
June 29, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congress gave authority to treat the Iran National Guard as terrorists and to that effect, yes, there is a king of authority out there. However congress is contemplating granting more formal authority.
June 29, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink