Slashdot Mirror
Obama Losing Voters Over FISA Support
Corrupt writes "I've admired Obama, but I never confused him with a genuine progressive leader. Today I don't admire him at all. His collapse on FISA is unforgivable. The only thing Obama has going for him this week is that McCain is matching him misstep for misstep."
the greater of two evils starts winning. If everyone always voted for the lesser of two evils instead of holding themselves politics, the evils would diminish instead of grow.
It went to the ACLU instead.
I've left the Democratic Party and I won't vote for Obama any longer. Both parties are completely irresponsible and don't deserve any support. Further, I'd support general strikes and mass protests to demand our supposed "inalienable rights" back. They've been alienated from me, a citizen, and I'm pissed off about that.
Apparently so. Every time I see this discussed online, there are people who say things like "the telecoms shouldn't be punished for doing as the government asked", ignoring the illegality, that Qwest didn't go along, etc.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Who supported Dr. Ron Paul and came to the conclusion that I would vote for Obama because I believed he would change the world's opinion of the United States.
However, after his vote on FISA, I have decided to throw my vote to Bob Barr, whereas I was previously planning on voting for Obama.
I hope others who were planning on voting for Obama decide to do the same.
The political culture in this country scares me, and I am very afraid of where we are headed. It is a shame to see the Constitution mocked like this. The only hope I have left is in the judicial system which I hope has the balls to stand up to the power grab and strike it down as unconstitutional.
If I can not smoke in heaven, then I shall not go. -- Mark Twain
the only 'tools on terror' are the blooded ones that can't seem to read or comprehend history.
there is NOTHING that wiretapping will do to prevent those that hate us from doing damage to us. any 'terr-a-wrist' worth his salt is already using subchannels, hidden info in plain sight (steganography) or just regular old pedestrian encryption.
at this point, the door locks only keep honest people out. and tracking honest people is NOT going to bank you any 'terr-a-wrists'. its only going to harm the freedom base of the people you are TRYING TO PROTECT.
the logic is flawed: "we must vote for this or we lose the WHOLE bill". yeah, so? then lose the whole friggin bill, then! this all-or-nothing shit is bad for us and always has been. justifying that we need SOME 'tools' is just ignorant when the tools you are using have NOTHING to do with what you are advertising them as. same as using a garden hose to solder circuit boards. yes, a hose is a tool, but it won't do any good in soldering. wiretapping won't catch a single 'bad guy' but it sure will ruin what we had left of our right to free speech.
we don't even have to wait a generation to see the chilling effects. already, everyone I know is CAREFUL about what they write online (or their e-journals), what they say over the phone and even what photos they take and publish. if that's not a chilling-effect in operation, I don't know what is.
roll back the WHOLE notion of wiretapping. its not useful, its intrusive and its too abusable against non-criminals (ie, us!). the 'benefit' is not clear and the abuse is all too clear. this 'tool' should be destroyed and never used again. yes, I'm really serious - the right to free speech is near to the right to breathe air and drink water. it should be considered HOLY and not fucked with. kill our ability to communicate freely and we are not a free society anymore.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
And nothing would have been the right move. Obama caved in on this topic and it's just as evil and just as stinky as what his opponent has done.
If you're going to use altruism and idealism as "values", then you have to stick by them. That's what Obama sold me, and now he's taken them back. Now he's the lesser of two evils. That sucks.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Here's what I, as a conservative, support. FISA may reach a bit too far:
1. National security is the realm of the Commander-in-Chief - NOT congress, and broad military issues should be left with strong leadership, not with bureaucracy. We don't need warrants against spies and those doing war against us.
2. International terrorism is primarily a military - NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT - matter. Its roots are in a conflict against governments and people as a whole, not against individuals, thus putting it in the realm of the military.
3. Communications of internationals, like it or not, are NOT covered by the US Constitution. Anything that travels across borders has ALWAYS been an open book to ALL countries. Most/all communications travel in this manner now...even when one international calls another, it can travel through US systems. We DON'T need a warrant to listen to that.
All this being said, we DON'T need to be listening to people who aren't on watch lists and the like. However, the military needs to do its job with as few roadblocks as possible.
We also need to protect US citizens' rights as guaranteed by the Constitution when they are not - nor intending to commit - acts of terrorism (or crimes, for that matter). We were dealing with a weird red-tape issue, and an administration that may have taken a step or two too far - allegedly, may I remind everyone, because we really don't know who they were or weren't listening to - in their zeal to fight terrorism. We forget that the current administration can have one of two interpretations - the whole "blood for oil" argument, but there are also MANY actions of this administration which have been zealously adamant about defending from international terrorism, with many mistakes, big and small, made along the way to achieve that goal.
Sorry, bit of a rant and rather a rough draft, but I wanted it to be said...
not to be in the US.
Oh, please. Australia banning Fallout 3, Canadian judge overruling a parent's normal punishment, and Britain is officially insane.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/11/america/hate.php
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=6aaf855a-47e3-4e3f-8709-5b53dcfffff0
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2008/06/25/noindex/nbaby.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2008/06/25/noindex/nchild.xml
I'll stick with the imperfect USA.
Canada, being so close to the US, still appears to have a little sense:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080628/steyn_commission_080628/20080628?hub=TopStories
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
My parents were big time republicans, my dad was in the leadership for his city's republican party. They would always talk about how the government needs it, and the president wouldn't do anything bad, etc.. I would always ask (this was over a year ago) if they were then OK with Hillary Clinton having those abilities, (man do those republicans hate her!) and they would get really, really mad. I think it finaly sunk in to them that they can't trust one person to follow the laws we have created, but everyone from that day on. Seems to have really changed their opinions on the matter. (My dad even became gung-ho for Ron Paul!)
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
The problem is that, unlike many state legislatures, the US Congress has no rule (nor will it ever) against adding riders on bills that are not related to the main proposal. Additionally, there's only so much time to actually legislate during a session, so mashing bills together is pretty necessary.
It's not an ideal system, but running the federal government more or less requires it.
Also, I think there should be some sort of phrase that describes invoking Ron Paul, sort of like Godwin's Law.
McCain likely has 10-15 states because he is conservative, older, and his opponent is not white. Obama might have 5-10. Therefore Oboma has to reassure the people by making them aware that he was born inside the contiguous united states, in fact the heartland, unlike his opponent, and he will not shake things up too much.
Which means allowing this miserable fiasco to continue, at least for a while, and not waste too much time looking back. The republicans can waste billions of dollars on impeachments, et al, beacause they have the support of the people who live on beliefs, not facts. And this is where the issue is.
George Bush was elected on a platform of Christianity, that he had been saved by the power of Jesus. People trust him. He is not too smart, and, like the populous, often works from beliefs rather than facts. So he was elected instead of Gore, who is more of a let's explore the possibilities type of guy, even if the possibilities do not come to fruition, it was fun talking about them. But that is too complex and too easy to attack. In any case, many people trust Bush and think that anything he does is ok.
More importantly, many people believe that foreign terrorists are the danger, or at least non-christrian terrorist, and specifically every Mosque in the world is base for attack on the US, which makes Mosques on US soil an issue. Many people trust Bush to do anything to fight against these threats, and protect the American Way of Life. In fact, the only reason Bush is having trouble now is that he has failed to protect our way of life, we are now forced to buy small cars, and the weak dollar means that we can no longer be so arrogant. But that does not mean Bush is not the most moral man in the country, and what he does comes from a good place.
So Obama voted for an act that in the scheme of things is probably no worse that anything else Bush has done in his best effort to end the traditional transparency and public responsibility that should characterize a democratically elected government. He did this as insurance against a Bush style ad in which is is implied that black men should be kept in prison indefinitely, because giving them a second chance at rehabilitation is too dangerous. He did this as insurance against the late Jesse Helms type ad, in which it is implied that if a black man has power, no white will be able to get a job.
At the end of the day Obama is unlikely to be any more or less moral than any other president. I like him because, unlike many in the US, I like to have leaders who are intelligent and can think and articulate their own thoughts so the rest of the world does not think we are all uneducated bigoted red necks who run to our churches at the first sign of trouble, or at least to our guns.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
While I strongly object to the telecom immunity provisions, I support the substantive amendments to FISA regarding the wiretapping provisions. Of course, I would certainly vote against the bill as-is.
The rationale for amending the substantive provisions of FISA is pretty straightforward: the original statute had a bug where purely international communications passing through the US could not be bugged on US soil without a warrant, but if you tapped the very same cable in int'l waters, it was legal. This distinction makes no sense whatsoever -- the location of the wiretapping equipment should not be relevant.
Secondly, neither the original FISA nor any other provision of law ever prohibited interception of a foreign to foreign phone call, even if the physical interception happens on US soil. That same foreign-to-foreign communication would require a warrant, however, if it was written in a email that was retrieved from storage inside the US. Again, a distinction that makes no sense -- the mode of communication ought not to be relevant.
Thirdly, the new bill still provides that a court order is necessary if a target is inside the country OR a US citizen. In fact, the old FISA did not require a warrant to target an American citizen outside the country, whereas the new bill does -- an expansion of protection for our citizens traveling abroad.
If anyone wants to show me any provision of this bill that provides for the warrant-less wiretapping of American citizens, I'd be glad to see it. Until then, that characterization is unfounded. See the analysis at Balkinization (who opposes the reforms, btw, so you can't accuse me of getting information from a friendly source!): http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/guide-to-new-fisa-bill-part-iii.html
Of course, it's utterly contemptible that Pres. Bush didn't go to Congress in 2001 and get the law fixed instead of just ignoring it. That fact, however, is strictly independent of the merits of the reforms. Simply pursuing a goal illegally (immorally and in unbelievable disregard for the rule of law) does not actually materially change the merits of the goal itself.
Yes, and in the true sense of "conservative," one would want to LIMIT the power of the government.
You misunderstand "conservative". The true sense of "conservative", and the only one it should retain for political discourse to have any objective meaning whatsoever, is to avoid change. Thus it is correct to label as "conservative" those who defended absolute monarchy against its removal, and those who defended the Communist Party of the USSR against its removal, although both of those are as far from limited power as one could imagine.
And, indeed, a great deal of the positions referred to as "liberal" in current U.S. political discourse are, in fact, conservative. A misunderstanding helped not in the slightest by the universal usage of "conservative" as a synonym for "evil" by those self-identifying as "liberal". And vice versa, of course.
Limiting the power of the government is most correctly -- or at least, most understandably -- referred to these days as a "libertarian" policy. This is also referred to as "classical liberal", to distinguish the original philosophy referred to as "liberal" from its current meaning, which it seems in the vast majority of cases works out to "utterly totalitarian, but in service of ends we feel are good, namely stomping out any disparity among individuals".
1. National security is the realm of the Commander-in-Chief - NOT congress, and broad military issues should be left with strong leadership, not with bureaucracy. We don't need warrants against spies and those doing war against us.
The legislature is supposed to write laws, and the executive is supposed to enforce them. For instance, if the Congress passes a law saying that President Bush cannot torture people (such as treaties like the Geneva Conventions or the Convention Against Torture), President Bush is required to enforce that law (specifically, the War Crimes Act of 1996).
The Congress should not tell the President what to do, but rather what cannot be done. Reasonably, I think you would agree with this.
Further, I would imagine that if the administration said "so and so is a spy", a warrant would be given in short order, so I do not see a warrant as an excessive burden of proof, especially given the extensive intelligence abuses of the 50s and 60s.
2. International terrorism is primarily a military - NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT - matter. Its roots are in a conflict against governments and people as a whole, not against individuals, thus putting it in the realm of the military.
I agree with this entirely. Unfortunately, the USA PATRIOT Act removed the barrier between foreign intelligence and law enforcement, allowing evidence obtained from FISA warrants (or the lack thereof) to be used by the FBI. I think this sets a dangerous precedent whereby a future President could potentially have the FBI criminally prosecute someone for acts unrelated to terrorism that were uncovered co-incident with investigation into "terrorism".
3. Communications of internationals, like it or not, are NOT covered by the US Constitution. Anything that travels across borders has ALWAYS been an open book to ALL countries. Most/all communications travel in this manner now...even when one international calls another, it can travel through US systems. We DON'T need a warrant to listen to that.
You're exactly right, we don't need a warrant to listen in on communications between foreign entities. In fact, we never have. 50 USC Section 1802(a)(1) authorizes the Attorney General to eavesdrop on foreign-to-foreign communications without a court order.
We were dealing with a weird red-tape issue, and an administration that may have taken a step or two too far - allegedly, may I remind everyone, because we really don't know who they were or weren't listening to
Right, this is why John Ashcroft (when he was Attorney General), James Comey, and a significant amount of the top echelon of the DOJ were about to resign en masse during the Intensive Care Showdown on March 11, 2004.
What would make hardcore GWOT supporters threaten to resign over a program that was still not public at the time? One must wonder how horrific a violation of the law must be to motivate such dedicated followers to such extreme ends.
:(){
Exactly. I couldnt have said it better myself. I didnt like Hillary too much, but with Bill (even the evil petty Bill that seems to have resurfaced) as "co-President" I would have had much more faith on the rebuilding of this country than this frankly all-flash-no-substance Obama. Didn't the country (much less Democrats) learn anything about voting for a cult of personality? Republicans (and Naderites) did for Bush, and look how that turned out
As the presumptive nominee of the majority party, he should have the power to stop any legislation. If not he is the wrong guy for the job. With any pressure by Obama this bill never makes it out of committee.
I don't think just because you renege on a promise you are ethically challenged. For example, Bush Sr promised not to raise taxes but was forced to when needing to increase funds to pay for a war. It was a stupid promise but I think he was right to change his position when circumstances changed. Bush Jr, on the other hand, promised to cut taxes and stayed with that pledge no matter what. I think he was given every reason to legitimately change his position on this (the supposed trifecta) but never did. In this case I think the latter is much more ethically challenged than his father.
However, in Obama's case I can't think of a good reason why he should have changed his vote and almost certainly was just doing political pandering.
Obama didn't cave on FISA. He just looked at the core issues.
Take a look at http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051220-5808.html
If we assume that article has correctly identified what was happening, the core issue becomes how to get massive, automated wiretapping under judicial control. The article states that there aren't enough judges to process all the warrants needed under the old FISA law using the new technology. So instead of fixing the law, the administration ignored it. Bush and Cheney should be impeached over this, but that isn't going to happen.
A major purpose of the telecom lawsuits was to get discovery going and find out what was happening. The investigation ordered by the new law is also supposed to do that. However, if the article is right we know what was happening. Enough was said publicly about a variety of matters for the author of the article to figure out the underlying technology.
Let's give Obama credit for focusing on the core issues and working to get them fixed. If he gave on the immunity sideshow, that's just part of the imperfection that he said was there in the compromise.
Or how about actually standing up for their constituents?
I voted for Obama in the primary because his rhetoric of change really made me feel hope for the future of this country. His support for this FISA bill has thrown that hope out the window. Where before I was actively trying to persuade others to vote for Obama, I'm now trying to discourage it. I don't want McCain to win, but at the same time, someone has to have some principles somewhere along the line and I'm not giving up mine. I'm standing up for myself and not supporting Obama any longer.
I've seen a lot of things, but I've never been a witness.
there is NOTHING that wiretapping will do to prevent those that hate us from doing damage to us. any 'terr-a-wrist' worth his salt is already using subchannels, hidden info in plain sight (steganography) or just regular old pedestrian encryption.
Yeah, so those people in the industry (imagery analysts, linguists, cryptographers, et. al.) should just do nothing? Something tells me you have no insight to the amount of success our intelligence experts are having against the "terr-a-wrists". Do you even realize that run-of-the-mill, junior ranking enlisted soldiers are exploiting those things you say can't be exploited EVERY...SINGLE...DAY (to include your bonus word of steganography)?
My company provides a suite of tools that exploit all these supposedly amazing tricks the enemy is using, with great success. To sit back and say "nothing can be done" is defeatist and capitulatory.
I have, twice. But for you, here's the list again: Dennis Kucinich. Paul Wellstone. Jimmy Carter. Nelson Mandela. Kim Campbell.
Tar away.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I have never admired a politician in my life (get a life !). I have admired statesmen, but they then need to be dead 50 years or more.
I was going to vote for Obama for President this fall. Politically, I am an independent who has voted Republican a few times and Democrat fewer times. Mostly, I stay home (voting third party is meaningless in the system we have). I also think that we need to start repairing the Constitutional enforcement ASAP. Enough damage has been done over the past 40 years (when was the last time Congress declared war ?).
Here he comes along, this fellow trained in constitutional law, and I say, ok, maybe I will give him a chance. Voted for him in the New Hampshire primary. Was happy when he finally put the Clinton machine to bed and started the campaign. I do not buy for a moment that he has been tacking to the center. He has long been a supporter of faith based initiative (his career as a community organizer was nothing but a faith based initiative). I have concerns about separation of religion and state, but with sensible safeguards like hiring constraints etc., those issues can be dealt with. His position on guns has changed but it does not matter either way for me. The second amendment is safe and since I do not own a handgun, I admit I do not follow this issue very closely.
However, the fourth amendment is perhaps the second most amendment (after the first amendment) in our country. It (used to) places restrictions on unreasonable search and seizure by the government. It has become more and more toothless and yesterday, it was effectively carved out of the constitution by legislators who had no legal right to do so (changing the constitution in such fundamental ways requires a constitutional amendment - but who has the time these days for the people to actually express their opinion - like Gonzalez is supposed to have said about something related, this is so "quaint"). In the modern world (just look at the farce playing out in Europe with the countries bold enough to reject a constitution disguised as a treaty), laws do not matter as much. They can always be incrementally extinguished.
Who is responsible for all of this ? WE ARE. Why ? Let me know how many Senators (and House members) who voted to gut our Constitution again get re-elected in fall.
As to Obama, well, he just lost my vote yesterday. It does not matter whether he collects enough focus group flack to apologize for it at some point in time or says his vote was wrong, I am done with him. I know his vote would not have made that much of a difference (though the moral statement would have been massive), but he had the opportunity to act on his conscience yesterday. He did not. I will not be doing the same in November. My ballot on the question of the President, will be blank. Down ticket, it will depend on what my representatives did in Congress.
And Mr. Barack Constitutional Law Obama, it does not appear that you were paying attention in class. Grant of retroactive immunity is unconstitutional in itself :
Article I section 9: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed". It just remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will educate the Congress on the matter. Given recent history, I am not overly optimistic.
Far left ideology? Man you Americans have some strange ideas about what left-wing ideology means. "hard left" where I live would mean slashing military expenditure to perhaps 5% of the current levels, instituting proper free healthcare everywhere, proper free education everywhere,.. actually HARD left would mean making private education illegal. Try googling "socialist workers party" for some hints at what "hard left" really means.
So how would you characterize a platform that slashes military spending to perhaps 1% of current levels; gets the government completely out of health care (Medicaid has arguably been a major source of the problems that exist); gets the federal government completely out of education, and encourages states to offer vouchers/grants for use at accredited schools (primary through post-secondary); legalizes drugs and regulates them similar to alcohol; and phases out social security, housing subsidies, etc., encouraging states to pick up those issues in the way they see fit?
Oh, and after balancing the budget and erasing the deficit, slashes taxes because all that money is no longer needed for military, welfare and education spending.
The lousy thing about the left/right continuum is that both ends are heavily statist. There's no room in it for those of us who love freedom and independence.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The religious right isn't running the Republican party
I disagree. I think the religious right has far more influence now than it did in Reagan's era. Their consistent support, combined with their ability to turn out the vote on election day was a significant factor in both the 2000 and 2004 elections, increasing their influence considerably. This influence was solidified by their alliance with the neo-conservatives over the war in Iraq.
kooks on the far left are running the Democrat party.
Again, I beg to differ. The Democratic party of today is far more centrist, both on economic and social matters than it was before. Today, more than ever, you see Democrats that are questioning of issues that, in the past, would have been core Democratic principles. Issues like corporate tax breaks, pro-choice abortion stances, and affirmative action, to name a few.
The way I see it, its the Republican party that has become more extremist, while the Democrats have moderated many of their opinions.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
It seems to me one of the great problems about elections is that extremely complex issues get boiled down to ten words. This is a perfect example of that.
I think you're correct but not for the reasons you believe. I see this vote as a calculated political move for his campaign because he knows that it would otherwise be reduced to a scrolling headline saying he voted against fighting terrorism. He supported an amendment that he knew wouldn't pass so that people like some of the apologists in this thread can say that he tried. Then he voted exactly opposite of how his campaign promised he would, in an attempt to move his campaign more toward the right. I believe that his campaign underestimated the fallout from the same folks who pushed him past Hillary in the primaries, but the reality is that these same people are not going to jump ship to McCain.
You need to weigh more than just telecom immunity when considering this vote. I'm not saying he made the right vote (it really is a tough call in my opinion), but reducing the bill solely to telecom immunity is to greatly misunderstand things.
The problem with this sentiment is that telecom immunity was a huge issue and one that didn't need to be tied to this bill. With Obama making an unambiguous statement about what we would do in this case, he failed himself and his supporters by doing exactly the opposite.