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."

Comments

You admire a politician?

[nurb432]

Man, you got more issues then you can even imagine.

Re:You admire a politician?

[voltel]

Man, you got more issues then you can even imagine.

Whatcha smoking? All politicians are honest, it says so right here in "All the government wants you to believe about Politicians". Now, I need to get back to rolling over and wagging my tail for the politicians who are fighting all thems terrorists.

Re:You admire a politician?

[packeteer]

I was under the impression that Obama is not perfect but that he would always admit if he was wrong and quickly qork towards the right direction. I think this will be a big test of him in my eyes. If he never turns around on this issue it means he is clearly as stubborn as the rest. If he can admit he is wrong then hes better than someone who started out agreeing with me more.

Re:You admire a politician?

[zappepcs]

Did you just say that if he screws you over, then says, oops I was wrong... it's ok? Put the crack pipe down! How is he going to fix this is the question, not whether he was wrong or not. wow.

Re:You admire a politician?

[BlackCobra43]

What COULD he do? As a Senator, he could only do 3 things;
Vote for amendments eliminating the immunity provision (He did)
Vote against the bill, denying law enforcements precious tools (He didn't)
Vote FOR the bill and bide his time (He did)

Make no mistake, Obama has clearly stated he is against granting the telecoms immunity; there's simply nothing yuo can do when OTHER blue dog democrats with cushy incumbent seats wantto retain their fat lobbyist paychecks and vote with their wallets. rather than their constituent's values, defeating perfectly logical amendments.

Re:You admire a politician?

[The_K4]

Your missing one: He can vote "Present".

Re:You admire a politician?

[AmaDaden]

He did, kinda http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/my-position-on-fisa_b_110789.html. He responded to the criticism but still held his stance. Basically it seems that to him it was more important to prevent future abuse then to vote for the power to punish past abuse.

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court.

So basically he voted for this to undo things from the bill from last year. If this bill failed a worse one was in the works that the Bush gang would have liked to see get passed. So I'm guessing if Dems started to vote ageist it GOP members (who wanted the worse one) would have voted ageist this one. The dems might have been able to dead lock things but that might have meant that the NSA could continue to do wire taps with out restriction. Personally I'm not at all happy about this but I think he did the best he could and I still think that he will do more to undo the abuse once in office.

Re:You admire a politician?

[Divide By Zero]

What COULD he do? As a Senator, he could only do 3 things;
Vote for amendments eliminating the immunity provision (He did)

Good.

Vote against the bill, denying law enforcements precious tools (He didn't)

"precious tools"? The ability to spy on Americans, in violation of their rights guaranteed by Amendment IV to the United States Constitution? It's not like the requirements to get a FISA warrant (someone with a pulse to stand in front of a secret court and say "gimme" at some point not necessarily before you started spying) were exactly onerous.

Vote FOR the bill and bide his time (He did)

He could have voted AGAINST the bill, knowing full well that it'll pass, but sticking to what he said he'd do, and differentiating himself from his unpopular predecessor and his main competition.

He could have SPOKE against the bill, supporting the filibuster and calling out those members of his Party that were letting people off the hook for committing felonies and letting the Government off the hook for violating the Constitution. He really does speak well, and he chose not to speak here.

The man would not have lost political capital by opposing the least popular President ever (?) and he wouldn't have lost a lot of financial capital because he doesn't need AT&T's money. He could have gained both (for keeping his word) and he failed. This was a losing move for Senator Obama.

Make no mistake, Obama has clearly stated he is against granting the telecoms immunity;

And Bush clearly stated that he was a uniter, not a divider, and that's what counts, right? What a politician SAYS means exactly zero. What he DOES is what counts, and this is what he did. This kind of behavior is what you take to the bank, not a statement.

there's simply nothing yuo can do when OTHER blue dog democrats with cushy incumbent seats wantto retain their fat lobbyist paychecks and vote with their wallets. rather than their constituent's values, defeating perfectly logical amendments.

Sure there is. You can lead. You can say, "No, I won't gut the Constitution. You all can, but I won't." The man is running to be the leader of 300-some million Americans and can't successfully convince 51 Senators to uphold an oath they all took to defend the Constitution.

Obama, today, lost my vote (which will be a write-in, probably Kucinich, because he sticks to what he believes in, he shares beliefs with me, and his wife's got that wood-elf hot thing going), and a hundred bucks that I'll send to the EFF instead. Call it a futile gesture, but I'm doing what I can do.

Re:You admire a politician?

[MightyMartian]

Ah, I see, so it's all those other Democrat's faults. Obama is just selling out on liberty as a reasonable measure.

Re:You admire a politician?

[Demiansmark]

As I went through the thread, thinking high level thoughts about the nature of politics and my reaction to Obama's vote, I got completely thrown off by your comment... She IS friggin' hott! http://blog.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/kucinich%20and%20wife.jpg

Re:You admire a politician?

[jedidiah]

Claiming some morally superior position doesn't mean a damn
thing if you aren't willing to actually act on it.

Obama should have been willing to start the fillibuster himself.
He's supposed to be a leader rather than a follower. This is
true of him just in his role of Senator. Nevermind asking to
be President.

At the very least he should have voted no on the bill and made
a nice speech on CSPAN.

He was given an opportunity to be counted amongst those that are
as he describe himself "not merely a part of the status quo" and
he failed.

Now his "new and progressive and different" rhetoric has been completely "busted".

Re:You admire a politician?

[Bomarc]

Or he could...
... Start making a stink about that fact that these companies violated the law, violated our rights, and now after the fact are looking to get a deal for it.

This morning I heard on the news that one senator (sorry didn't get his name) was holding up that the companies did the "Patriotic" thing by doing what bush had asked for. My response to this: If they were to do the patriotic thing, they would have gone public with the illegal request in the first place.

Perhpas a bunch of them should watch A Few Good Men, "Dawson: We were supposed to fight for the people who couldn't fight for themselves."

Re:You admire a politician?

[ishpeck]

The man is running to be the leader of 300-some million Americans and can't successfully convince 51 Senators to uphold an oath they all took to defend the Constitution.

He's not going to be the leader of the people. He's going to be the executive authority of the Union. He's going to lead the troops. But he has no direct authority over the law-abiding citizens of the country.

Re:You admire a politician?

[Qzukk]

"precious tools"?

Think Gollum.

Re:You admire a politician?

[MushMouth]

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.

Re:You admire a politician?

[ishpeck]

Unfortunately, the "right" direction depends on one's point of view.

I'm curious to know how you could believe that a man going back on his word -- breaking an agreement -- is somehow justifiable in anybody's moral code.

Re:You admire a politician?

[corbettw]

Obama has clearly stated he is against granting the telecoms immunity

He voted for the bill, ergo he favors telecom immunity. Case closed.

As someone once said, you can judge a man more accurately by his actions than his words.

Re:You admire a politician?

[roystgnr]

The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court.

FISA's authority here was already exclusive, as was recently reiterated in a Federal court by a Bush Sr. appointed judge. Obama voted for a meaningless provision. "I'll help you get away with doing something illegal this time, if you'll let me make it double-illegal for next time!" is not a compromise, it is idiocy. The only remaining question is whether Obama was dumb enough to believe this argument himself or just dishonest enough to try to trick his supporters into believing it.

My sympathies for those of you voting in swing states. Helping choose between John "I'd like to shred the Fourth Amendment" McCain and Barack "I'll shred the Fourth Amendment, but I'll feel sad about it" Obama is probably still important, but it can't be very fun.

Re:You admire a politician?

[DoctorFrog]

Actually Kucinich made it clear that he was saying the same thing you did - it was an Object, Flying, Unidentified. He was then asked "What do you think it was?" and replied "I have no idea."

However, he has an in-law who's a fairly successful (in the sense of 'profit-making') astrologer, and she whomped it up horribly, going on about how he felt a great sense of peace and all the usual woo-woo.

Guess which version the media keeps harping on?

Re:You admire a politician?

[imipak]

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.

Re:You admire a politician?

[bsDaemon]

Nelson Mandela blew up government buildings under direction of the Soviet-backed African National Congress. Whether he did it for the right reason or not, is not the point. The point is that he used violence to affect political outcome. That makes him a terrorist.

Obama is not, as far as I can tell, a terrorist. He's just a politician - and that means saying and doing whatever is convenient at the time. It's the same now as it always was.

History has provided, from time to time, true statesmen - but they are are far and few between - and their status is usually guaranteed or denied to to political considerations at the time.

David Ben Gurion was a terrorist who blew up buildings and assassinated British soldiers and officers, yet he's the hero of Israeli independence. Michael Collins was the same for Ireland, and you have your Nelson Mandela.

Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist who blew up a government building hoping to start a revolution. Instead of an honourary doctorate and a country, he got executed. Everyone likes to admire a winner; only "fanatics" and "extremists" admire losers who use the same tactics.

Either way, trying to compare Obama to Nelson Mandela has got to be some sort of corollary to Godwin.

Re:You admire a politician?

[roystgnr]

Once elected, Obama can enact REAL change and retroactively remove the immunity if it is even worth it.

Wow, it's as if the Republicans' fantasies about unlimited executive power and the Democrats' fantasies about Obama's goodness had a baby. A baby with fetal alcohol syndrome, who will never even be able to comprehend the SchoolHouse Rock version of "how a bill becomes a law"...

therefore Obama has made a shrewd political move insuring his electability.

Absolutely. He was against telecom immunity before he voted for it. There's no way the Republicans will ever be able to use that against him. He's nearly as electable as John Kerry, now!

The Republican propaganda machine THRIVES on perceived fears of terrorism; giving them prime ammunition like "Obama voted against finding terrists!"

That could have been awful. Instead they're now stuck with second-rate ammunition like "Obama voted against the Protect America Act for finding terrists, but caved after we courageous Republicans showed him who was boss!"

Idealist never achieve anything

The Bill of Rights looks pretty idealistic. Just because it'll be completely dismantled in the end doesn't mean it wasn't a very good achievement for a very long time.

Re:You admire a politician?

[RAMMS EIN]

``It's not like the requirements to get a FISA warrant (someone with a pulse to stand in front of a secret court and say "gimme" at some point not necessarily before you started spying) were exactly onerous.''

And that's the problem we have gotten into since 9/11. We _had_ laws and mechanisms in place to get the Bad Guys. Now, we have let governments grant themselves the power and the legitimacy to go after everyone.

Re:You admire a politician?

[The Master Control P]

Goddamnit, there were no fucking "precious tools" that would be denied without this bill. If you can't get the rubber stamp of the FISA court to approve your warrant, you've got less than nothing.

This is 100% about covering up the most massive, vicious, and egregious violation of the fourth amendment in the history of this nation. It has absolutely fucking nothing to do with surveilling terrorists.

Who supports FISA?

[seanadams.com]

Are there any American citizens (who understand what FISA is) that actually support it? I would think that even the right should be against it. If conservatives want to restore traditional American values, then surely preventing the government from using new technology to conduct widespread domestic spying is conducive to that goal.

With both congress and the president's approval rating hovering at below 20%, it is clear that the will of the people is not being represented. The only plausible explanation for FISA is that it is intended an means for the executive branch to seize an even greater imbalance of power, and/or to cover up widespread criminal activity that took place in the last eight years.

Re:Who supports FISA?

[martinw89]

Yes, and in the true sense of "conservative," one would want to LIMIT the power of the government. But the problem is that "conservative" today is a way to masquerade as someone one's not.

And don't get me started on the other side of the pond; they're just playing like they're fighting the bad politics.

Re:Who supports FISA?

[nomadic]

Are there any American citizens (who understand what FISA is) that actually support it? I would think that even the right should be against it. If conservatives want to restore traditional American values, then surely preventing the government from using new technology to conduct widespread domestic spying is conducive to that goal.

The right has this weird shifting thing going on. When they're in power the government is always right, and law enforcement should be able to do anything it needs to do. When they're not in power the government is eeeeevil, and law enforcement is made up of "jackbooted thugs."

Re:Who supports FISA?

[SputnikPanic]

Today's Republicans are not conservative, plain and simple. They're as "big government" as the Dems, the only difference is the flavor of said big government. I used to say that I leaned Republican and some issues, but now that's no longer accurate. I lean conservative on some issues, including this infuriating FISA bill.

Re:Who supports FISA?

[Nimey]

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.

Re:Who supports FISA?

[QuantumRiff]

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!)

Re:Who supports FISA?

[rockout]

The problem is not who supports FISA or what FISA really means to the average American; the problem for Obama is one of perception.

If he votes against this bill, he loses far more votes in the middle of America (both the literal and political middle) than he's going to lose from the left (and the coasts) by voting FOR the bill. That doesn't excuse his vote for it, and I wish he had voted against it, but giving McCain and the right an easy attack point ("Look! He's soft on the terrerrsts!") probably isn't something he can afford at this point.

Sadly, the best we can hope for is change after he's actually elected president, because being perceived as soft on terror while he's running for president may actually cost him that position.

Re:Who supports FISA?

[morgan_greywolf]

Today's Republicans are not conservative, plain and simple. They're as "big government" as the Dems

• That's why I prefer the terms statist and non-statist. You either want a big government intervention or you don't.
• Democrats want the government to redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor.
• Republicans want the government to redistribute the wealth from the poor to the rich.
• Democrats want the government to censor the politically incorrect.
• Republicans want the government to censor anything 'immoral' or 'indecent'.
• Democrats want a mommy state.
• Republicans want a theocracy.

Take your pick.

Re:Who supports FISA?

[Shakrai]

I support the FISA amendment. It's a good compromise. Read the thing before judging.

Obama's own statement explaining why he supports it suggests otherwise:

"I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses."

Indeed. We've now set a precedent for the Executive Branch to violate the law and not be held to account. Nobody is going to be held accountable for past violations of FISA -- not the current administration, not the telecommunications companies, not the intelligence agencies, nobody. Given all that I'd really like to hear Obama explain why future administrations are going to follow the restrictions contained in this FISA bill?

This is a dark day.

Re:Who supports FISA?

[OwnedByTwoCats]

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.

Which is why the framers of the constitution left declaration of war to the House of Representatives. And approving treaties to the Senate.

Re:Who supports FISA?

[Hatta]

Careful there. When you say FISA, I think you mean "the emasculation of FISA". Until yesterday FISA was supposed to provide judicial oversight of all domestic surveillance. This is what most Americans want. After yesterday, I don't know what FISA's supposed to do anymore.

Re:Who supports FISA?

[pla]

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.

Funny, that.

Most small-scale human-committed crimes occur either spontaneously or out of necessity. Killing a cheating spouse, stealing to make a living, downloading Chinese Democracy, that sort of thing. Harsh punishments thus do not act as a deterrent to such crime. Simple as that. People either do not consider the consequences before hand, or decide the benefits outweigh the risks.

Now here, with the telecoms, we have a situation where harsh punishment would very much deter similar future cooperation with illegal requests from the government... And yet, as far as I can tell, that seems like exactly the reason our congresscritters don't want to punish them? Because it might make them actually obey (or at least think twice about) the law next time a black helecopter lands in the CEO's back yard?

Sick.


I have to agree with the FP on this one... I weakly supported Obama as not too offensive to most of my views. I feel rather strongly on this issue, however, and his vote in this situations has reduced him from "passable" to the all-too-common "lesser of two evils".

Re:Who supports FISA?

[drmerope]

I would think that even the right should be against it. If conservatives want to restore traditional American values, then surely preventing the government from using new technology to conduct widespread domestic spying is conducive to that goal.

Apparently you do not understand the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

This roe over domestic spying is a smear no more fair or accurate that the swift boat campaign against Kerry. It simply is not a true characterization of the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP). The whole idea behind TSP is that NSA intercepts communications over US based fiber infrastructure originating at foreign sources. Any intercepts of US persons are accidents and discarded. Further, no evidence accidentally collected on a US person may be used in court, nor may it be communicated to any officer of government investigating any crime but terrorism.

Calling this domestic spying does severe semantic damage to our language, and THAT is a danger to our freedom. Newspeak people.

FISA's role in this endeavor is whether TSP requires court orders preceding each and every intercept. The FISA courts cannot authorized "domestic spying". There is not a domestic spying component to these programs.

Re:Who supports FISA?

[Wrath0fb0b]

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.

Re:Who supports FISA?

[martinw89]

And that's exactly my point. Politicians are striving for "looks" rather than the best interest of our country on both sides. In the primaries, when looks were not influenced by the political right as much, Jeremiah Wright suddenly became a problem for Obama. But Barack didn't do the best for his "looks" at first, he went to great lengths to not personally attack Wright. Anybody remember his speech? That speech inspired me a great deal; in fact a little of that hope caught on with me.

But now I see that Obama is not going to hold press conferences on important matters and deliver well written speeches. His biggest group of supporters did not want him to sign this bill yet it seems that his campaign put more thought into a crazy mega church preacher than our government spying on us. To them, it was a simple logical decision. This can be soft on terror, so don't do it. Yes Obama made that small attempt at amending the bill, but there was no big speech, there was no hope. It was literally "I'll try, but don't expect much. Sorry guys."

Re:Who supports FISA?

[truthsearch]

We were dealing with a weird red-tape issue

You call it red tape. I call it my constitutionally protected rights. And that's why most people here will disagree with you.

Re:Who supports FISA?

[Snocone]

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".

Re:Who supports FISA?

[fredrated]

"broad military issues should be left with strong leadership, not with bureaucracy"

          The founding fathers said congress declares war, not the president

"International terrorism is primarily a military - NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT - matter"

          As another has said, this requires investigation, not a military strong point

"We don't need warrants against spies"

          funny, the Constitution says nothing about exceptions for spies

"Communications of internationals, like it or not, are NOT covered by the US Constitution"

          sure it is, where it says we are not to be survailed without a warrent.

Why do you hate Americas freedoms?

Re:Who supports FISA?

[pla]

Take your pick

Okay, how about "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary..."?

Re:Who supports FISA?

[SputnikPanic]

I was at Monticello very recently, and I saw Jefferson's grave. If I had listened closely, I probably would have heard sounds of rotational movement emanating...

Re:Who supports FISA?

[quanticle]

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.

Bills

[pclinger]

When you vote for a bill you don't get to pick and choose what sections you are voting for. It's all or nothing.

Obama voted for an amendment which would remove the telecom immunity provision of the bill, but it didn't pass. So instead of voting to take a way a tool in our war on terror, he voted for the bill as a whole.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/07/10/MN3H11ME7C.DTL

As his campaign manager said:

Sen. Obama has said before that the compromise bill is not perfect. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, Sen. Obama chose to support the FISA compromise."

Opponents, including Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., argued that a legal exemption is at best premature, because details of the wiretapping program are not yet fully known. But a Dodd amendment that would have stripped out the immunity title received just 32 votes, all of them from Democrats, including Obama, along with Sen. Bernie Sanders, independent-Vt.

Re:Bills

[Rinisari]

If you don't like the entirety of something, you shouldn't vote for it!

Why?

Eventually, someone will hold you responsible for the part(s) you didn't like, and all you can say is, "But I didn't like that part," to which they will respond, asking, "Then why did you vote for it?"

This is why legislators like Ron Paul vote against things: if they don't like the whole thing, they vote no, no matter how important any one part of the whole is.

Re:Bills

[TheGratefulNet]

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.

Re:Bills

[maztuhblastah]

So instead of voting to take a way a tool in our war on terror,

Don't be deceptive. FISA has worked fine for 22 years -- there's no reason it suddenly needs to be updated now. The only thing this bill removes is judicial oversight and accountability. It's not as though it's challenging to get approval for a legitimate tap from the FISA court -- they've only ever rejected a handful of requests. It's also not about the need to tap in an emergency: FISA makes provisions for that too. Taps can be placed for 72 hours without a warrant in the event of an emergency, all that has to be done is that the tap be reported and a warrant sought after the 72 hours.

No, this bill is about removing judicial oversight, removing accountability, and removing the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Re:Bills

[Knara]

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.

Re:Bills

[betterunixthanunix]

And if that is truly the case, then it shows Obama's true colors. This bill does not introduce a vital new tool or method for law enforcement to track down the "bad guys." It only removes restrictions on existing methods, and so now we have even fewer protections from our government. If this is the goal Obama really sought, then he is not promoting the sort of "change" that I am really interested in. This is the compromise: Obama wants to loosen restrictions on how investigations will be performed, so he is willing to allow telecom companies to be immune from prosecution for their role in assisting the government in ignoring restrictions on how investigations may be performed.

Then my friends wonder why I am voting third party.

Re:Bills

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"Nothing would ever get done if everyone in Congress refused to vote for anything that contained a provision that they didn't agree with."

That would be an ideal country to live in. The greatest politicians in history have been the ones that did not do anything. No bad ideas made reality, no debts paid back to campaign financiers, no added restrictions on individual rights. It's the ones that think they need to change the world - acting on their definition of "the Greater Good" - that you must worry about.

Note: This is not flamebait. It is the truth.

Re:Bills

[n0-0p]

As I've commented elsewhere, the original FISA bill was written 30 years ago in the days before large global networks. As such, there has been a growing ambiguity as to whether the law dictates the manner of collection on systems inside the U.S. or just the parties targeted. The intelligence community has spent nearly 20 years trying to get clarification on this issue. Now they have it, along with additional oversight measures to prevent abuses.

Judicial review hasn't been removed, so the USSID 18 targeting criteria remain as strong as ever. Further, a warrant is still required to collect on any U.S. citizen or person located inside the U.S. While the emergency period has been extended past the PATRIOT Act's 72 hours to a full 7 days, a warrant still must be applied for and approved within that window regardless of the duration of collection.

On balance, it's a reasonable bill with reasonable protections. The telecom provision is bunk, but not a deal-breaker because oversight is expanded and criminal liability still exists. Of course, the effectiveness of the oversight will need to be assessed over time. But I don't understand why anyone who's read the different FISA bills and is familiar with title authority would be freaking out over this.

Re:Bills

[stewbacca]

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.

Lesser evil

[NetDanzr]

The only thing Obama has going for him this week is that McCain is matching him misstep for misstep.

That's why we always vote for Lesser Evil, not the Greater Good.

Re:Lesser evil

[kentrel]

One of those "morons" went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Bush goes on to destroy America's reputation overseas, severely hurts her economy, and is responsible for sending more Americans to their deaths than were killed in 9/11.

Voting for the Lesser Evil certainly works, eh?

Democratic Party

[Darkness404]

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

Well, now that Obama has the party nomination, he can't possibly manage to get anything done. Now he has to support all the things Hillery wanted done, while making sure that he seems Conservative enough to attract some of the republicans that don't like McCain. If Obama tries to be different, he risks alienating long-time democrat supporters, if he tries to be the same he risks alienating all the people who want to vote for him for change.

Here's a hint:

[tyler.willard]

If a higher office candidate has a "D" or an "R" next to their name, they aren't progressive.

That probably goes for any letter, but those two in particular.

Sigh...

[bigstrat2003]

FTFA: "Every time I wonder whether I can ultimately vote for Obama in November, given all of his political cave-ins, McCain does something new to make sure I have to."

Thanks for propping up the good ol' two-party system there with your thinking, ma'am. Seriously, there are other bloody candidates out there, and if you don't think you should vote for Obama or McCain, then vote for one of them! It really gets tiring listening to the thinking exhibited by most people, which locks us into the hellhole of a political party system we have.

Change starts with you, and all that.

Re:Sigh...

[moosesocks]

The best hope we have of ditching the (current) two parties would be to reform the current election system, and support IRV or priority-based voting.

The gist would be that you could vote
1) Nader (only as an example!!!!)
2) Obama
3) McCain
4) Paul

If you wanted Nader to win, but would be happy with Obama, and *really* didn't want Ron Paul in office. If Nader fails to reach a simple majority, your vote goes to Obama. If he fails to reach a simple majority, it goes to McCain, and so on and so forth.

Personally, I'm pretty irked at Obama about this, but it's not going to change how I vote. Looking at the bigger picture, Obama's got a whole lot more going for him than against.

The EFF announced a new round of court cases today to challenge this law, which should hopefully make it through to the Supreme Court, where the law is almost certain to be struck down, even with a conservative majority of justices.

Fudged the bucket

[Drakin020]

The guy seriously fudged the bucket with me. I actually had some amount of faith in this dude.

This was the big test to see if he would collapse under the pressure of the telecoms. More money was offered so he decided to go with it.

I am very upset over this but I should not be surprised. He is just another politician. (But lesser of the two evils)

My letter submitted to Obama's website

[MasterOfMagic]

Senator Obama: Because of the miserable failure that George W Bush has been, I have been placing the candidates for this presidential election under strict scrutiny. Until yesterday, I was proud to tell my friends that I supported Barack Obama for President of the United States. Now, I fear that my interests and your interests are not aligned and I can no longer lend you my support. Yesterday, while you did vote for the Dodd amendment, you failed to support a filibuster, and you failed to vote against the revised FISA bill that does for the telecom companies who have implemented surveillance against the American people what Gerald Ford did for Nixon. Being President of the United States means sometimes taking an unpopular stance on an issue despite the outcry of the public. It sometimes means thinking in the long term instead of the short, 24-hour sound-bite news cycle. What you have done today is embolden the elements of the government that tapped Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and handed them a fresh set of excuses to listen to the phone calls and Internet traffic of the American people. Maybe things work differently in Washington. Maybe the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the president have sworn to Representatives and Senators not to listen to their calls. Maybe the Republicans have sworn to the Democrats not to sabotage them like in the '70s during Watergate. Out in America, away from the halls of power, what protection does the citizen have against those who would gladly violate their expectation of privacy? Might I remind you that the president that suggested this bill also lied to start a war, approved the torture of innocent civilians, and believes himself to be above the law. What you did today was sell The People down the river for political capital. I hope you are proud of yourself. I am not proud of you. You are no different than any other politician, using the politics of fear to get what you want. The only sort of Hope you offer is False Hope - the worst kind because by the time it is identified as such, it is too late. A humble citizen, MasterOfMagic (I put my actual name, but I'm not going to post it here)

Re:My letter submitted to Obama's website

[Digital Vomit]

A humble citizen, MasterOfMagic (I put my actual name, but I'm not going to post it here)

Don't worry; you're secret's safe with us, Asmodarius, Keeper of the Eight Circle.

Its no wonder FISA Stinks....

[mengu]

In Swedish FISA means to Fart...

He lost a $1K donation from me

[maynard]

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.

A multi-cave

[pzs]

It's not just FISA, there's also the death penalty for child rapists (is that "progressive"?), pulling out of public financing, and even being inflammatory on abortion despite being pro-choice in the past.

I think I agree with the Huffington Post. Is this the guy everybody got excited about?

I am a libertarian

[kipin]

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.

Re:I am a libertarian

[Palshife]

I love it when people invoke The Ron Paul with Dr. in front. Is it to make me believe his experience as a gynecologist will help transform America into a utopia?

Re:Tool in a war on what?

[Lemmy Caution]

I think you underestimate the power of chocolate.

Re:Good time...

[Nutria]

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

Re:Look on the bright side

[brkello]

Even after following your link to a conservative website I fail to see how what he said is so unreasonable. He is basically saying that we should be like the rest of the world and have our children learn multiple languages early on. Spanish would be fairly useful since there are many people in the US that speak Spanish.

This is my problem with conservative personalities these days. They try to take these things out of context to make it seem like what Obama says is horrible. But every time I look at the full transcript of what he says, he comes off extremely reasonable. This link didn't even hide the context. So really, what's the big deal?

The Honeymoon Is Over

[telbij]

he is "no doubt" a progressive, just one who now supports the scandalous FISA "compromise" and Antonin Scalia's views on gun rights and the death penalty, no longer plans to accept public campaign funding, and wants to make sure women aren't feigning mental distress to get a "partial-birth" abortion

The rest of those things don't bother me much at all. I don't expect to share that many viewpoints with anyone, to me those are all small potato personal value judgements that people can reasonably disagree about.

The FISA bill is what is really disappointing. It's amazing how overnight it's completely destroyed my opinion of Obama. When is a politician going to have the courage to stand up and point out the simple absurdity of shredding our own constitution, trampling human rights, and sparing no legislation to cover our own asses to fight a threat that is statistically insignificant? The terrorists must just be laughing in their caves right now. Are we such pussies in America that we can't rely on real intelligence and police work to fight terrorists?

This isn't a partisan issue at all, it's the absolute insanity of our times. Obama really sounded like he understood that, then he turns around does the exact opposite. It's not about flip-flopping per se, it's about pretending to know what the biggest, scariest, most obvious problem is in this country, then turning around and pandering to bamboozled middle america huddled in fear thanks to 7 years of fear-mongering by an incompetent who was just trying to muddle through a job that was way wayyy beyond him. If Obama had stuck to his guns (if he even understood the point of what he was saying), he could have used the bully pulpit to bring rationality back to America ala "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Unfortunately now his rhetoric has become hollow. I still think he may redeem himself as president, but his most powerful tool, his voice, is now castrated.

If you don't like what he did

[Alzheimers]

Tell him so.

It's not the issue, it's the meta-issue

[A nonymous Coward]

The problem is that Obama depicts himself as different from all other politicians, that he claimed he would support a filibuster over telecom immunity, and that he voted to cut off filibuster.

He flat out reneged on an important promise, apparently because he wanted to "move to the center", "accept the compromise (sic)", and "appear tough on terrorism".

All he really did was show that he is just another ethically challenged politician.

Re:It's not the issue, it's the meta-issue

[joggle]

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.

Re:It's not the issue, it's the meta-issue

[DaveV1.0]

Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.

Re:please explain...

[DaveV1.0]

It is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

It is the laws that govern how the government may snoop on communications made by people who are not citizens of the United States.

centrist

[fermion]

As bad as this is, it is likely necessary. It is called moving to the center.

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.

Before Everyone Goes Off the Hook on this One

[Knara]

Perhaps you want to actually read what the man has to say about it:

I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The (PDF)recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once Iâ(TM)m sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics,

I admire certain politicians

[spun]

There are some admirable politicians out there. The fact that you are unwilling to look at their individual behavior, and simply tar them all with the same brush, marks you as intellectually lazy and fundamentally dishonest.

Re:I admire certain politicians

[ColdWetDog]

There are some admirable politicians out there.

No, you're thinking of Statesmen. Those are dead politicians (Berkeley Breathed).

Re:I admire certain politicians

[saider]

"Lord knows we need more statesmen."

The answer is right there

[Weaselmancer]

Vote against the bill, denying law enforcements precious tools (He didn't)

Why not vote against it?

Why not punish the people who draft bills that are too broad in scope or have insane riders on them and let them know that if they want laws passed they should learn to be concise? Or how about actually standing up for their constituents?

What the hell is wrong with the government working for the people it's supposed to represent for a freaking change?

Obama has clearly stated he is against granting the telecoms immunity; there's simply nothing yuo can do when OTHER blue dog democrats with cushy incumbent seats wantto retain their fat lobbyist paychecks and vote with their wallets.

WRONG. Yes there is. How about voting your conscience rather than rolling over and taking it up the tailpipe? This is supposed to be a leadership value?

Please don't think I'm a Republican when I type this, but if this is Obama's idea of "Change" - well, it looks like the same old same old to me.

Re:The answer is right there

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not vote against it?

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.

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.

Re:The answer is right there

[urbanRealist]

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.

Re:The answer is right there

[MrMarket]

Why not vote against it?

You need to weigh more than just telecom immunity when considering this vote. I'm not saying he made the right vote

Perhaps the 4th Amendment?

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.

Re:The answer is right there

[zippthorne]

Change AND hope in the same sentence! Audacious.

Re:The answer is right there

[Zenaku]

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. If you vote against it, your opponents will pick out all the sensible provisions of the bill that no sane person could disgree with (I'm not saying there are any in this case, haven't read the bill) and plaster the airwaves with attack ads about how you opposed all of these obviously good provisions. If you vote for it, you will be passing into the reprehensible provisions of the bill that have come along for the ride.

That's WHY the bill is written to be overly broad in the first place. It's called politics and it sucks. Doesn't help to blame "the author" either, because the damn things are authored by committee -- amend it to add this, amend it to reword that, etc.

Re:The answer is right there

[KenSeymour]

There are two sides of national politics, principles and compromise.

Senator Obama reversed himself on retroactive immunity because he felt the FISA bill was a good compromise.
I can't site it but I remember him being quoted as saying there were adequate protections
in the bill and that overcame his objections to retroactive immunity.

Where this is a change from the past seven years is this:

Our current president is known for is never changing his mind no matter what happens. People used
to think that was a virtue, but look what has happened. Bush will say over and over that he will
veto a law that contains "X" where X is some principle he is against. As a result, there has been
no movement on some issues.

Obama is showing that he is the opposite. He will compromise with people he disagrees with and
change his mind. Some may see that as expedient. I see that as a good alternative to having
two groups stand on opposite sides of the room never reaching an agreement while big problems
go readdressed.

As a lifelong Democrat with left of center views, I struggle between being pissed off at
Democrat Senators (like Dianne Feinstein) who often vote against my own opinion and also
wanting all these legislators to work together and make some headway against the growinglist of problems our country faces.

Sure I'm upset at retroactive immunity. But I can't vote on only one issue because I think
that the environment, the deficit, the falling dollar, rising oil prices, immigration,
health care are also important.

The struggle for me is that on the one hand, I want Democrats and Republicans to work together
to solve some of these problems. On the other hand, I'm not always happy with the result.

If a politician signals that they are never going to change their vote, then no one bothers
to change the bill in order to get your vote.

If you can find someone who sticks to their principles and never changes their mind, go ahead
and vote for them. But that sounds like what we have had for the last 7+ years -- same old same old.

Re:The answer is right there

[rumcho]

Well, it's not as bad as you make it out to be. That's why he's a senator - he can write legislation that is not broad but very specific. Obama needed to vote NO on this FISA bill and propose another one. What's so difficult? "You're damn if you do and you're damn if you don't"? Bullshit!

Re:The answer is right there

[MindStalker]

Good things about the bill
1) It closed many loopholes that allowed the warrentless wiretaps in the first place.
2) Requires further wiretaps to follow at least some process (process isn't perfect but its better than the lack of process before).
Bad things about the bill.
1) Provides retroactive immunity to telecoms, it doesn't provide forward immunity though.
2) Expands wiretapping provisions over the old laws, but as I said earlier previously the old laws were ignored completely... Shrugs.

Re:The answer is right there

[mattwarden]

Don't be ridiculous.

1) Bill is submitted with Rider Amendment #7.
2) Bill fails.
3) When asked, people who voted against the bill say they would have voted for it if not for Rider Amendment #7.
4) Bill is submitted with a revised amendment or absent the amendment.

If you vote for the damn thing anyway, why would politicians ever fear adding on seriously controversial rider amendments???

Obama... Grow a spine!

Re:The answer is right there

[Lumpy]

Tough call? did you even READ the bill? Voting No on that pile of crap was an easy thing to do.

Deny Law enforcement needed tools? HUH? how the hell do they need those tools? They have all the tools they need right now.

Re:The answer is right there

[dgatwood]

It's not a tough call at all. There's no grey area here. A bill is either good or evil. Period. Allowing telecom immunity is tantamount to saying that a guy who raped and murdered a child but spends every weekend volunteering at the homeless shelter and helping underprivileged kids is a great choice for a babysitter because he knows how to watch kids.... A bad rider on a good bill makes it a bad bill. One bad apple spoils the barrel and all that.

More to the point, not only is Obama a hypocrite, everyone who did not vote against this bill voted AGAINST the will of the American people---against the voters who elected them---and voted against the U.S. Constitution. Thus, they are twice hypocrites to the oath they swore before Congress:

"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. So help me God.".

Can someone explain how any bill that retroactively grants permission for companies to conspire with illegal actions by the federal government to spy on its citizens and subvert the fourth amendment can possibly be interpreted in any way other than as a direct attack on the U.S. Constitution? Seriously? Anyone?

Everyone who voted in favor of the FISA legislation is also, IMHO, a traitor against the United States and is guilty of treason:

"whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

Their actions are directly aiding and abetting terrorists by reducing the freedoms that those terrorists despise, thus effectively winning the terrorists' war from within our own government without the bad guys having to lift a finger. The whole lot of those Senators and Representatives should have their citizenship revoked and be ejected from this country for their disloyalty to the Constitution and to the American people.

Do your part. Vote to impeach Congress. Whoever the incumbent is, regardless of your party affiliation, vote for the other candidate. We have to send a message to our government that the public will not roll over and allow our rights to be trampled upon. We must do it NOW before it is too late. And elect an independent for President. But please, not Ron Paul....

Re:The answer is right there

[Chris Burke]

he's a constitutional scholar - retroactive immunity is Ex Post Facto and unconstitutional under Article I Section 9 US Constitution.

so in effect that language in the bill is powerless and Obama knows it

Um... No, because in Constitutional cases the Ex Post Facto clause has always been interpreted to mean that you can't make a previously legal action retroactively illegal, then charge someone with a crime for taking the action during the time in which it was legal.

Making things that used to be illegal retro-actively legal is considered acceptable, and often it's a good thing such as preventing people who helped slaves escape from being prosecuted for that criminal act after slavery was abolished.

However all this law really does is make the telecoms immune from civil lawsuits. It doesn't change whether or not their actions were legal, it simply prevents anyone from taking them to court over it, unless they're a government prosecutor bringing a criminal case. I don't think the case for unconstitutionality is very strong.

Re:The answer is right there

[MushMouth]

1) It closed many loopholes that allowed the warrentless wiretaps in the first place.

No it doesn't, these loopholes were NEVER legal, they were illegal, should be investigated, and will be until the president pardons everyone in six months. The illegality of these loopholes was upheld just last week by a federal judge appointed by Reagan (but confirmed during Bush 41's term)

2) Requires further wiretaps to follow at least some process (process isn't perfect but its better than the lack of process before).

There was certainly a process before, it was handled by the Judicial branch of the government, now it is all handled by the Executive, with only the oversight of the Executive branch. In other words the foxes are guarding the henhouse.

Re:The answer is right there

[dgatwood]

That's as much an overly simplistic view of terrorism as the Bush view of it. There are many reasons that they hate us, and different people in those organizations are in it for different reasons. Al Qaeda in Islamic states works in much the same way as the KKK works in the U.S. They look for the issue of the day---reasons for people to be angry at a particular group of people---and then exploit that issue to attract members, who they then indoctrinate into a culture of hate.

Some members of Al Qaeda joined because they were angry over military bases, sure, but far more militants joined because they hate our support of Israel. Far more than that hate us because our country is relatively wealthy and is seen as being greedy (and to some degree, rightly so). Far more people than that hate our general tendency to interfere in the way Arab countries are run, our interference in wars, etc. Still others are determined to spread strict adherence to Sharia (Islamic holy law) worldwide and hate the fact that the U.S. law is so thoroughly different. That last group are the ones who are pretty much going to hate us until we turn into a totalitarian state....

If you really want to combat the problem, you have to take a three-pronged approach. The first, unfortunately, is attacking the immediate threat, which we did to some extent in Afghanistan. It wasn't a pleasant war, but it was arguably necessary.

The second is a policy issue: we need to make a lot of changes in the area of foreign policy to improve relations with the Muslim world, not the least of which is bullwhipping Israel every time they do something stupid like launching missiles into a neighboring country and killing 200 people because some Palestinian killed a single police officer somewhere. We're far too tolerant of such knee-jerk Israeli actions, and the sooner our foreign policy reflects that, the better. We also need to reduce our dependence on oil from that region. This won't in any way make anyone hate us less, but it will at least discourage future U.S. leaders from letting future foreign policy decisions be dictated by oil needs.

The third, ironically, is to promote better understanding of the Muslim religion among Muslim people in the MIddle East. By better educating Muslims about what the Qur'an does and does not say, it will in thwart the perversion of the Qur'an into a text of hatred and war by these terrorists and encourage people to actually follow the teachings of Muhammad (which do not encourage hate or wars, but rather encourage caring for others and behaving in a morally upright fashion).

Funny, ever since we removed our bases from Saudi Arabia (Bush's pals you know), we haven't been attacked. Hrm cause and effect?

By that standard, our war on terrorism has also been completely successful. After all, since we started making people strip down and take off their shoes at airports, nobody has carried a bomb onto an airplane. So it must be working. (This despite the fact that the last bomb on a U.S. airplane prior to the Richard Reid incident was Pan Am Flight 103 way back in 1988....)

P.S. The last Al Qaeda attack on U.S. interests was in 2005. Three American hotels in Jordan were bombed. That was more than 2 1/2 years after the U.S. pulled out of Saudi military bases. So no, it almost certainly is not cause and effect....

At this point it would not matter.

[khasim]

Kind of like voting for a war ... and then opposing it.

The time for thoughtful consideration is BEFORE the damage is done.

Words are cheap.

Re:At this point it would not matter.

[Shakrai]

Well then, I have to differ with you - a vote for anybody but Obama is a vote for McCain.

It's exactly that line of reasoning that allows the major parties to ignore any issue not important to the swing-states that control the outcome of Presidential Elections in this country.

Don't get me wrong. I used to believe as you do. Go dig into my comment history. I used to rail against people that claimed the Democrats and Republicans are the same and those that voted for Nader. How the hell could you honestly believe that GWB is the same as Al Gore? Al Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

I'm long past those days though. What's the point of caring about healthcare, education, abortion, foreign policy or any of the areas where Republicans/Democrats actually disagree if neither party gives a damn about our rights? Let's review:

1st Amendment: Not defended strongly by either party. See free speech zones
2nd Amendment: Not defended by most Democrats.
4th Amendment: Not defended by most Republicans.
5th Amendment: Not defended by most Republicans.
9th and 10th Amendments: Completely ignored by both parties. Does these even exist in their worldview?

The American experiment ends when people start ignoring the parts of the Constitution that they don't like. Both major parties are guilty of this. Neither of them deserve my support until they change their ways.

I disagree with a lot of what Ron Paul stands for but now I find myself wishing I had given him the money instead of Obama. No, I can't vote for Obama in good faith. Not after today.

How about: Show Moral Backbone?

[EgoWumpus]

He voted FOR the bill. Nevermind he said that he would never vote for a bill that granted immunity. Nevermind that this bill is the last chance at exposing Bush's misdoings regarding the wiretapping scandal. The key is that it undermines individual protections; and he voted for it in favor of executive branch power.

He did NOT need to vote for the bill. The idea that law enforcement is denied 'precious' tools has been debunked time and again. All it denies is oversight - which is a terrible, terrible idea. The original FISA bill allowed for wiretaps with warrants, warrants that are easy to get, even after the fact. Instead, he has opted for blind trust in the executive branch.

There is always something you can do; he didn't need to vote for the bill. It would have been an easy thing to do - the bill still would have gone through. Make no bones about it; he's shifting to the middle in hopes of picking up swing voters who swallow the purple punch and believe the current Administration's rhetoric about how this is 'vital' to national security, or we're all DOOMED. It's overblown propaganda, and people need to recognize that.

Finally, let me note that he's not 'biding his time'. There is nothing he can do now; the bill has to be repealed by Congress or the Supreme Court. It's not like once he's President he can wave a magic wand and make the bad thing go away. More to the point, even if he could, voting for the bill does nothing to increase his ability to do so. It's entirely gutless move.

Re:How about: Show Moral Backbone?

[swillden]

He voted FOR the bill. Nevermind he said that he would never vote for a bill that granted immunity. Nevermind that this bill is the last chance at exposing Bush's misdoings regarding the wiretapping scandal. The key is that it undermines individual protections; and he voted for it in favor of executive branch power.

Of course he did.

He's suddenly faced with the prospect that there's a very good chance -- better than 50/50, IMO -- that he's going to be the next Executive. So now he realizes that executive power is a Good Thing.

Of course it is. If you're calling the shots. The prospect that Obama is going to have such power scares me more than Bush having such power (and Bush having it scares me plenty).

What's wrong with FISA?

[sweatyboatman]

What is wrong with FISA that the current bill fixes?

This bill changes nothing except now what the Bush administration did illegally, it can now do legally. And the fact that they were doing it illegally before is also, actually, legal.

The only thing this does is confirm that the CIA/NSA can do whatever they want regardless of the law and if they get caught, Congress will bail them out.

Re:Because....

[quanticle]

Because the bill passed, while not a good bill, is STILL better than the present law.

How? As far as I can tell, the new FISA bill the same or worse in every respect. It loosens restrictions on government spying, creates loopholes that could be used to have unconstitutionally broad spying programs, reduces judicial oversight, and, finally, adds immunity for past wrongs (effectively turning this into an ex post facto law).

Tell me again, how is this law an improvement?

Wake up people.

[crhylove]

This is just ONE of MANY examples proving that Obama is a total stuffed shirt who only says the right things, and almost never does them.

If he was a REAL candidate of hope and change, who actually gave even a passing nod to the constitution, or even any of the tenets set forth by Franklin, Jefferson, and the other geniuses who set up our system, he would not be a "realistic" candidate, and he certainly wouldn't get so much air time on corporate TV.

All you Obama fans had a real guy representing the stuff you really wanted. His name was Kucinich, and his wife is totally hot.

Oh, and he's the one in congress delivering impeachment papers day after day, too.....

But what he doesn't have is CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSN, and Rolling Stone completely sucking his cock. There's a reason for that, too. He's the real deal, unlike stuffed shirt Obama, who talks the talk and then sells the constitution out for corporate and political power every time. Just like the FISA thing.

You people claiming it's a simple mistake that he will work to correct are idiots. The FISA thing is an OBVIOUS choice, actually talked about DIRECTLY in the fourth amendment.

You people claiming Republican's are far worse are also idiots. They are exactly the same. They just don't even SAY the right things. Well, they say the right things for old people and people who talk to invisible men in the sky, but then they vote pro corporate and pro fascist just like the Democrats. There is NO difference. The party lines are both the same: The bottom line for Viacomm, AOL/Time Warner, Bertelsmann, News Corp, and Disney.

We get the leadership we deserve

[slashdotlurker]

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.

Foxes guard the henhouse, worse in every way.

[MushMouth]

Unless you are comparing it to the statutes of the "Protect America Act" this law is significantly worse, and does nothing to protect our safety. But it is worse than the PAA, because the statutes of that law expire, which puts us back to the fine FISA act which was passed in 1975. There is nothing that this new law adds to the '75 FISA act which protects our safety. What it does is allows the Executive Branch full power to break the law as it sees fit, with the only oversight coming from the Executive Branch, this law would make the Watergate affair legal.

Re:Look! His NUTS are already spoken for by Right

[snoyberg]

Oh, what are his true colors? I was under the impression he was an African American.