Five Myths About the New Wiretapping Law or why it's worse than you think

B

blackascoal

The Force is With Me
Democrats are the weakest group of spineless pussies ever assembled.

Sometime today, the Senate is likely to approve the most comprehensive overhaul of American surveillance law since the Watergate era. Unless you're a government lawyer, a legal scholar, a masochist, or an insomniac, chances are you haven't read the 114-page bill. Don't beat yourself up: Neither have most of the 293 House members who voted for it last week. Ditto the mainstream press, who seem to have relied chiefly on summaries provided by the same lawmakers who hadn't read it.

Myth No. 1: This bill is a compromise.

Myth No. 2: We need the bill to intercept our enemies abroad.

Myth No. 3: The courts will still review the telecom cases.

Myth No. 4: The Democrats must fold because of the November election.

Myth No. 5: The law will be the "exclusive means" for surveillance.

expanded upon at link --

http://www.slate.com/id/2194254/?from=rss
 
From the article:

"Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., calls the deal "a capitulation," and he's right. Why else would the White House express its approval so quickly, after a full year in which President Bush petulantly vowed not to sign any legislation that obliged him to concede too much? Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., offered an honest appraisal: "I think the White House got a better deal than even they had hoped.""

That's just scary.
 
LadyT said:
From the article:

"Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., calls the deal "a capitulation," and he's right. Why else would the White House express its approval so quickly, after a full year in which President Bush petulantly vowed not to sign any legislation that obliged him to concede too much? Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., offered an honest appraisal: "I think the White House got a better deal than even they had hoped.""

That's just scary.
Click to expand...

Absolutely it's scary .. so what in the hell is this about?

Obama Supports FISA Legislation, Angering Left

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) today announced his support for a sweeping intelligence surveillance law that has been heavily denounced by the liberal activists who have fueled the financial engines of his presidential campaign.

In his most substantive break with the Democratic Party's base since becoming the presumptive nominee, Obama declared he will support the bill when it comes to a Senate vote, likely next week, despite misgivings about legal provisions for telecommunications corporations that cooperated with the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program of suspected terrorists.

In so doing, Obama sought to walk the fine political line between GOP accusations that he is weak on foreign policy -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called passing the legislation a "vital national security matter" -- and alienating his base.

"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program," Obama said in a statement hours after the House approved the legislation 293-129.

This marks something of a reversal of Obama's position from an earlier version of the bill, which was approved by the Senate Feb. 12, when Obama was locked in a fight for the Democratic nomination with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Obama missed the February vote on that FISA bill as he campaigned in the "Potomac Primaries," but issued a statement that day declaring "I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty."

Sens. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) continue to oppose the new legislation, as does Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). All Obama backers in the primary, those senior lawmakers contend that the new version of the FISA law -- crafted after four months of intense negotiations between White House aides and congressional leaders -- provides insufficient court review of the pending 40 lawsuits against the telecommunications companies alleging privacy invasion for their participation in a warrantless wiretapping program after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

more at link --
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/20/obama_supports_fisa_legislatio.html

That part that I boldened is exactly why Obama is bending over for this further intrusion into civil liberties.

I smell weakness.
 
This doesn't surprise me at all.

While I always thought Obama was a strong, electable candidate, and I appreciated his opposition to the war, I knew he was kind of a mushy "centrist" when it comes to stuff like this.

The three candidates I really liked - Dodd, Edwards and Kucinich - were totally against this FISA capitulation crap.
 
Cypress said:
This doesn't surprise me at all.

While I always thought Obama was a strong, electable candidate, and I appreciated his opposition to the war, I knew he was kind of a mushy "centrist" when it comes to stuff like this.

The three candidates I really liked - Dodd, Edwards and Kucinich - were totally against this FISA capitulation crap.
Click to expand...

He's weak and easily bullied.

He had an entirely different position on this legislation during the primaries. He praised those who are still standing against it and ready to filibuster the vote.

I hope his poll numbers drop and contributions slow down.

I'm not in the Obama Fan Club. I support him because of his positions .. but if he's too weak to hold a position, what the fuck good is he?

Hopefully he gets the message.
 
blackascoal said:
Democrats are the weakest group of spineless pussies ever assembled.

Sometime today, the Senate is likely to approve the most comprehensive overhaul of American surveillance law since the Watergate era. Unless you're a government lawyer, a legal scholar, a masochist, or an insomniac, chances are you haven't read the 114-page bill. Don't beat yourself up: Neither have most of the 293 House members who voted for it last week. Ditto the mainstream press, who seem to have relied chiefly on summaries provided by the same lawmakers who hadn't read it.

Myth No. 1: This bill is a compromise.

Myth No. 2: We need the bill to intercept our enemies abroad.

Myth No. 3: The courts will still review the telecom cases.

Myth No. 4: The Democrats must fold because of the November election.

Myth No. 5: The law will be the "exclusive means" for surveillance.

expanded upon at link --

http://www.slate.com/id/2194254/?from=rss
Click to expand...

I’m really kind of flabbergasted about what Obama did on this. And the author is right – he’s screwed now. His own base is not going to let this go, and if he were to vote against this bill now, McCain would attack him by saying he was taking his marching orders from moveon and that you can’t trust the guy.
 
yeah Im not happy about it.


I think he is doing it to get elected.


He cant really get anything done without getting elected.


Im still going to stand strong for him to get him elected.


Once hes elected I hope they go back and redo this one.


I really think this was done the way it was done to get the issue out of the election process so the republicans could not use it to get traction.

I dont like it but I also know part of what has kept the democrats out of power was how the republicans can play a certain percent of the population.

They can still cheat with the machines this year and will. Obama has to do what he has to do to get elected. Once the playing field is equal again and they cant cheat in the elections I will take a harder line about this stuff but that can not happen untill the dems get elected and fix the system.
 
Dungheap said:
Well, he didn't. He didn't vote on it. Sat it out. Refused to take a stand when he could have.

This raises serious questions about Ron Paul. I'm not sure he has what it takes to be president.
Click to expand...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul463.html

Statement on FISA

by Ron Paul

Statement on HR 6304, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments before the US House of Representatives, June 20, 2008


Mr. Speaker, I regret that due to the unexpected last-minute appearance of this measure on the legislative calendar this week, a prior commitment has prevented me from voting on the FISA amendments. I have strongly opposed every previous FISA overhaul attempt and I certainly would have voted against this one as well.


The main reason I oppose this latest version is that it still clearly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens’ communications without a search warrant. That US citizens can have their private communication intercepted by the government without a search warrant is anti-American, deeply disturbing, and completely unacceptable.


In addition to gutting the fourth amendment, this measure will deprive Americans who have had their rights violated by telecommunication companies involved in the Administration’s illegal wiretapping program the right to seek redress in the courts for the wrongs committed against them. Worse, this measure provides for retroactive immunity, whereby individuals or organizations that broke the law as it existed are granted immunity for prior illegal actions once the law has been changed. Ex post facto laws have long been considered anathema in free societies under rule of law. Our Founding Fathers recognized this, including in Article I section 9 of the Constitution that “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” How is this FISA bill not a variation of ex post facto? That alone should give pause to supporters of this measure.


Mr. Speaker, we should understand that decimating the protections that our Constitution provides us against the government is far more dangerous to the future of this country than whatever external threats may exist. We can protect this country without violating the Constitution and I urge my colleagues to reconsider their support for this measure.
 
Epicurus said:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul463.html

Statement on FISA

by Ron Paul

Statement on HR 6304, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments before the US House of Representatives, June 20, 2008


Mr. Speaker, I regret that due to the unexpected last-minute appearance of this measure on the legislative calendar this week, a prior commitment has prevented me from voting on the FISA amendments. I have strongly opposed every previous FISA overhaul attempt and I certainly would have voted against this one as well.


The main reason I oppose this latest version is that it still clearly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens’ communications without a search warrant. That US citizens can have their private communication intercepted by the government without a search warrant is anti-American, deeply disturbing, and completely unacceptable.


In addition to gutting the fourth amendment, this measure will deprive Americans who have had their rights violated by telecommunication companies involved in the Administration’s illegal wiretapping program the right to seek redress in the courts for the wrongs committed against them. Worse, this measure provides for retroactive immunity, whereby individuals or organizations that broke the law as it existed are granted immunity for prior illegal actions once the law has been changed. Ex post facto laws have long been considered anathema in free societies under rule of law. Our Founding Fathers recognized this, including in Article I section 9 of the Constitution that “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” How is this FISA bill not a variation of ex post facto? That alone should give pause to supporters of this measure.


Mr. Speaker, we should understand that decimating the protections that our Constitution provides us against the government is far more dangerous to the future of this country than whatever external threats may exist. We can protect this country without violating the Constitution and I urge my colleagues to reconsider their support for this measure.
Click to expand...


Why can't they vote in abstentia or remotely via webcam or something? With todays technology, this makes no sense to me.
 
he primaried on a relatively centrist platform. I fully expect him to stay centrist especially on the issues that got him the independent votes.

If he doesn't he will not last more then 4 years.

Face it guys. allot of you are extreme left and not the majority.
 
Last edited:
Dungheap said:
Well, he didn't. He didn't vote on it. Sat it out. Refused to take a stand when he could have.

This raises serious questions about Ron Paul. I'm not sure he has what it takes to be president.
Click to expand...
Well, you are getting Ron Paul and you're going to like it!
 
Chapdog said:
he primaried on a relatively centrist platform. I fully expect him to stay centrist especially on the issues that got him the independent votes.

If he doesn't he will not last more then 4 years.

Face it guys. allot of you are extreme left and not the majority.
Click to expand...

:p

eff you!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top