Obama Backing FISA "Compromise"

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre
Forced them to do it? What were they going to do, take them to court?

Pressured them to do it is a better phrase. There's evidence of government contracts being used for leverage among other things, as I recall.

And it was wrong for the government to put them in the position of having to tell the government 'no' to an illegal request.

How would you like a police officer to tell you he can't break into your neighbor's house to search for evidence, so would you do it? And if you don't the police will be unhappy with you.

Just more apologizing from Craig. His Democrats can do no wrong. Rights for Americans? Pffft, we don't need no stinkin' rights!

Bamacre, don't be an idiot, please. I'm against this bill, and I've posted that I disagree with Obama and that I called my congressman to ask him to push for outing Pelosi as speaker.

You then say that that equals that it's just 'apologizing', and that I'm saying Democrats can do no wrong?

I described how the government improperly, I said it was "wrong", pressured telecoms and you say that I was *against* rights for Americans? DId you get a head injury?

Uh uh, but I bet when you go to the booth in November, you're gonna vote for someone who holds corporate interests as a higher priority than the Bill Of Rights.

I guess the real question is which candidate doesn't hold corporate interests as a higher priority than the Bill of Rights? :disgust:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre
Forced them to do it? What were they going to do, take them to court?

Pressured them to do it is a better phrase. There's evidence of government contracts being used for leverage among other things, as I recall.

And it was wrong for the government to put them in the position of having to tell the government 'no' to an illegal request.

How would you like a police officer to tell you he can't break into your neighbor's house to search for evidence, so would you do it? And if you don't the police will be unhappy with you.

Just more apologizing from Craig. His Democrats can do no wrong. Rights for Americans? Pffft, we don't need no stinkin' rights!

Bamacre, don't be an idiot, please. I'm against this bill, and I've posted that I disagree with Obama and that I called my congressman to ask him to push for outing Pelosi as speaker.

You then say that that equals that it's just 'apologizing', and that I'm saying Democrats can do no wrong?

I described how the government improperly, I said it was "wrong", pressured telecoms and you say that I was *against* rights for Americans? DId you get a head injury?

Uh uh, but I bet when you go to the booth in November, you're gonna vote for someone who holds corporate interests as a higher priority than the Bill Of Rights.

I shouldn't even write back to you at all when you act like such a jerk as to so badly misrepresent what I said, and then not to take any responsibility for it.

But what's this latest point - that I'll still vote for Obama? Yes. Of course you make an excellent point that I should reject the candidate who at least pays lip service to opposing amnesty, in order to help the guy who *embraces* amnesty get elected, and that this should be the only issue I use in deciding my vote, even if McCain were better.

We have two nominees to pick from, and I can defend picking Obama despite disagreeing with his action on this issue, as I have.

I asked you not to be an idiot, and I see chose to go ahead anyway.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Sponsor:
Rep. John Conyers [D-MI]

Cosponsors:
Del. Donna Christensen [D-VI]
Rep. Darlene Hooley [D-OR]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX]
Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D-NY]
Rep. Silvestre Reyes [D-TX]
Rep. Ciro Rodriguez [D-TX]
Rep. Robert Scott [D-VA]

What is this list with no explanation about?

It's sure not about the 'copromise' telecom bill discussed in this thread. Conyers voted no.

I didn't check the others, but to answer my own post above, the one Republican to vote no, I've never heard of him, Tim Johnson of Illinois.

Here's Conyers on the issue of amnesty:

From what I have seen from the Justice Department documents so far, there is no need to provide amnesty to telecommunication companies who are protected under current law, as long as they and the government are acting accordingly. I have not seen anything that leads me to believe, as the president seems to believe, that providing amnesty to these companies is a more compelling public interest than our constitutionally-protected right to privacy. We must maintain our civil liberties and give the government the tools it needs to collect intelligence information, but I do not believe telecom amnesty is necessary in order to accomplish that goal.

 

[bamacre]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-3773

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Ron Paul's statement on H.R. 3773: FISA Amendments Act of 2008

Mr Speaker, I rise in opposition to this latest attempt to undermine our personal liberties and violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. This bill will allow the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens? communications. In effect, it means that any American may have his electronic communications monitored without a search warrant.

As such, the bill clearly violates the Fourth Amendment, which states:

?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.?

The assurances in this bill that Americans will not have their communications monitored without warrant are unconvincing. The bill merely states that the government should do its best to avoid monitoring Americans if possible. We have seen how meaningless such qualified prohibitions have been as we recount the abuses over the past several years.

Just today, we read in the news that the federal government has massively abused its ability to monitor us by improperly targeting Americans through the use of ?national security letters.? Apparently some 60 percent of the more than 50,000 national security letters targeted Americans, rather than foreign terrorists, for surveillance.

This is what happens when we begin down the slippery slope of giving up our constitutional rights for the promise of more security. When we come to accept that the government can spy on us without a court order we have come to accept tyranny.

I urge my colleagues to reject this and all legislation that allows Americans to be spied on without a properly issued warrant.

It's really too bad Ron Paul didn't pay more attention in economics class, because I like his stance on civil liberties. But he's too much of a "libertarian" on economic issues for me to like him, regardless of how libertarian he is on civil liberties.

 

[NeoV]

ignorant post of the month nominee:

"What is McCain's stance on telco retroactive immunity?"


"And what does that have to do with Obama voting for it?"

thanks Genx, entertaining as always....

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm very disappointed in Obama over this. While I'm sure he opposes it, he's only offering token resistance. As some people might have guessed this is one of the most important issues to me, and so... urgh.

1: He complains about people buying elections and swears he will only use the 85 million public dollars for his campaign.

No, he didn't. That was conditional, and the conditions did not happen.

The conditions were that both candidates would only use the 85 million in public funds which is all McCain is using.

Obama has now fully backtracked on that position because it is apparent he can raise 500 million plus.

Please don't try to dispute this Craig, I'm not saying he lied or any other overly harsh word that you lefties like to use to the righties.

But if you truly can't see that he backtracked 100% on this issue then you really have a man crush.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-3773

Uh, ya? The bill you linked was a 2007 bill I don't think had amnesty (all the amnesty opponents I checked voted for it, all the Republicans I checked voted against it).

The 'compromise' bill discussed in this thread is H.R. 6304, not H.R. 3773.

Mix them up?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm very disappointed in Obama over this. While I'm sure he opposes it, he's only offering token resistance. As some people might have guessed this is one of the most important issues to me, and so... urgh.

1: He complains about people buying elections and swears he will only use the 85 million public dollars for his campaign.

No, he didn't. That was conditional, and the conditions did not happen.

The conditions were that both candidates would only use the 85 million in public funds which is all McCain is using.

Obama has now fully backtracked on that position because it is apparent he can raise 500 million plus.

Please don't try to dispute this Craig, I'm not saying he lied or any other overly harsh word that you lefties like to use to the righties.

But if you truly can't see that he backtracked 100% on this issue then you really have a man crush.

The quotes I've seen have Obama saying he'd 'see if they could agree on common ground rules' and similar statements, but always keeping the option open not to do it.

Here is one such story with that sort of info, for example Obama keeping the option open here:

Last year, Mr. Obama sought an advisory ruling with the Federal Election Commission to see whether the campaign could opt out of public financing in the primary and accept it in the general election. It was merely an inquiry, he said, not a pledge to accept the financing.

The story reports McCain calling on Obama to join him in using public financing (something McCain created an issue over whether he had to use it, by reportedly using public financing as collateral for a lona); shortly after the McCain campaign said it had decided not to use public financing, and spent over the limit. Then they said they were using it again.

The issue I'm addressing isn't whether Obama has decided to use private financing because it's in his interest to do so, but whether the quoted statement in the above attack is right.

I have not seen him 'pledge to use public financing' unconditionally as reported in the attack.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-3773

Uh, ya? The bill you linked was a 2007 bill I don't think had amnesty (all the amnesty opponents I checked voted for it, all the Republicans I checked voted against it).

The 'compromise' bill discussed in this thread is H.R. 6304, not H.R. 3773.

Mix them up?

I did. But this one was sponsored by a Democrat, too...
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6304

Sponsor:
Rep. Silvestre Reyes [D-TX]

Cosponsors
Rep. Peter Hoekstra [R-MI]
Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX]

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: bamacre
Ron Paul's statement on H.R. 3773: FISA Amendments Act of 2008

Mr Speaker, I rise in opposition to this latest attempt to undermine our personal liberties and violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. This bill will allow the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens? communications. In effect, it means that any American may have his electronic communications monitored without a search warrant.

As such, the bill clearly violates the Fourth Amendment, which states:

?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.?

The assurances in this bill that Americans will not have their communications monitored without warrant are unconvincing. The bill merely states that the government should do its best to avoid monitoring Americans if possible. We have seen how meaningless such qualified prohibitions have been as we recount the abuses over the past several years.

Just today, we read in the news that the federal government has massively abused its ability to monitor us by improperly targeting Americans through the use of ?national security letters.? Apparently some 60 percent of the more than 50,000 national security letters targeted Americans, rather than foreign terrorists, for surveillance.

This is what happens when we begin down the slippery slope of giving up our constitutional rights for the promise of more security. When we come to accept that the government can spy on us without a court order we have come to accept tyranny.

I urge my colleagues to reject this and all legislation that allows Americans to be spied on without a properly issued warrant.

It's really too bad Ron Paul didn't pay more attention in economics class, because I like his stance on civil liberties. But he's too much of a "libertarian" on economic issues for me to like him, regardless of how libertarian he is on civil liberties.

Right, because the two parties are doing such a great job with the economy now.

But really, are you holding economic policy in a higher regard than your civil liberties? I don't know too many wealthy slaves.

If politicians had more respect for our rights, and had a more sane foreign policy, we wouldn't need to debate economics.

 

[Vic]

Oh no, we'd always debate economics. Scarcity is a law of nature.

 

[bamacre]

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/n.../35731res20080619.html

H.R. 6304, THE FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008 (6/19/2008)

The ACLU recommends a no vote on H.R. 6304, which grants sweeping wiretapping authority to the government with little court oversight and ensures the dismissal of all pending cases against the telecommunication companies. Most importantly:

? H.R. 6304 permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing.

? H.R. 6304 permits only minimal court oversight. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what or where will actually be tapped.

? H.R. 6304 contains a general ban on reverse targeting. However, it lacks stronger language that was contained in prior House bills that included clear statutory directives about when the government should return to the FISA court and obtain an individualized order if it wants to continue listening to a US person?s communications.

? H.R.6304 contains an ?exigent? circumstance loophole that thwarts the prior judicial review requirement. The bill permits the government to start a spying program and wait to go to court for up to 7 days every time ?intelligence important to the national security of the US may be lost or not timely acquired.? By definition, court applications take time and will delay the collection of information. It is highly unlikely there is a situation where this exception doesn?t swallow the rule.

? H.R. 6304 further trivializes court review by explicitly permitting the government to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever it gathered in the meantime.

? H.R. 6304 ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping programs over the last 7 years. The test in the bill is not whether the government certifications were actually legal ? only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that they were, all the cases seeking to find out what these companies and the government did with our communications will be killed.

? Members of Congress not on Judiciary or Intelligence Committees are NOT guaranteed access to reports from the Attorney General, Director of National Intelligence, and Inspector General.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Rainsford
...

It's really too bad Ron Paul didn't pay more attention in economics class, because I like his stance on civil liberties. But he's too much of a "libertarian" on economic issues for me to like him, regardless of how libertarian he is on civil liberties.

Right, because the two parties are doing such a great job with the economy now.

No, you're right, they aren't doing so hot either. But at least they acknowledge that economics is not magic, and sprinkling free market dust on everything is not the solution to all of our economic problems.

But really, are you holding economic policy in a higher regard than your civil liberties? I don't know too many wealthy slaves.

If politicians had more respect for our rights, and had a more sane foreign policy, we wouldn't need to debate economics.

I think economic policy is extremely important, I just don't happen to think good economic policy needs to look exactly like good civil rights policy. There is obviously a balance between freedom and government on both issues, but when you're talking about the greatest benefit for the individual, I think civil liberties call for a LOT less government than economic policies do.

A government that gives a lot of leeway on civil liberties results in free people, while a government that's extremely hands-off with economic policies results in large corporations being free to do whatever they like, which is not at all the same thing.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
A government that gives a lot of leeway on civil liberties results in free people, while a government that's extremely hands-off with economic policies results in large corporations being free to do whatever they like, which is not at all the same thing.

That is not necessarily true. They would still have to abide by the law. And yes, we do need some government regulation, but a moderate amount. What we have today allows corporations to effectively act above the law, in some sense.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-3773

Uh, ya? The bill you linked was a 2007 bill I don't think had amnesty (all the amnesty opponents I checked voted for it, all the Republicans I checked voted against it).

The 'compromise' bill discussed in this thread is H.R. 6304, not H.R. 3773.

Mix them up?

I did. But this one was sponsored by a Democrat, too...
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6304

Sponsor:
Rep. Silvestre Reyes [D-TX]

Cosponsors
Rep. Peter Hoekstra [R-MI]
Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX]

Reyes is from frickin' Texas. Can we pass a law, no more politicians from Texas for 100 years? Anyway, it was a Republican bill that some key democrats agreed to.

Jay Rockefeller is largely to blame as well.

It's not news that many democrats were in support of this bill. It was your naming the people like Conyers who are AGAINST amnesty that was a problem.

Here are a few links as the bad direction with the bad democrats built up recently:

Early May warning

Early June warning #1 and #2

This bill is a good example of why I talk a lot about the importance of the battle in the democratic party to stop the corporatist takeover, and support the progressives.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
LOL change

:laugh:

So true. This is the "change" we are getting. He took a backstep on funding and now the telco immunity too. Look forward to seeing more of the same. McCain isn't any better, but I'm going to have a good time laughing at all the one who voted for these numbnuts thinking something would "change" for the better. Isn't going to happen.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Sawyer
LOL change

:laugh:

So true. This is the "change" we are getting. He took a backstep on funding and now the telco immunity too. Look forward to seeing more of the same. McCain isn't any better, but I'm going to have a good time laughing at all the one who voted for these numbnuts thinking something would "change" for the better. Isn't going to happen.

It would be nice to have a president who actually has real integrity.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Which is nearly the same thing as voting for McCain...and more importantly, EXACTLY why Republicans are using the approach they are to attacking Obama. They know McCain is a terrible candidate who isn't going to energize the right or draw voters from the left, so the only strategy left is to depress liberal turnout and hope enough Republicans still go the polls. And the way they do this is by trying to sell Obama as more of the same and virtually identical to McCain. Which, despite Obama not being perfect, is hardly the truth.

At the end of the day, reality has to set in. Barring something really strange, either Obama or McCain is going to be our next president. There are no isolated issues, EVERYTHING should come back to which one you would rather see in the White House.

Nearly the same? Umm, this isn't 2004. Obama has already essentially won this election. McCain as just a person is the least bit charismatic and the only thing he has to run on is the war - which isn't going well. Also, the last eight years of unsuccessful Republican Rule hasn't scored any brownie points with the American People.

Sorry, but I think this move is bullshit. By far and large Americans have become immune to the FUD present by the GOP Machine. There isn't a damn good reason I've seen as to why this is a good move.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Vic
Oh no, we'd always debate economics. Scarcity is a law of nature.

No it's not. Everybody can have everything they want. The Republicans and Democrats told me so.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Rainsford
...

It's really too bad Ron Paul didn't pay more attention in economics class, because I like his stance on civil liberties. But he's too much of a "libertarian" on economic issues for me to like him, regardless of how libertarian he is on civil liberties.

Right, because the two parties are doing such a great job with the economy now.

No, you're right, they aren't doing so hot either. But at least they acknowledge that economics is not magic, and sprinkling free market dust on everything is not the solution to all of our economic problems.

But really, are you holding economic policy in a higher regard than your civil liberties? I don't know too many wealthy slaves.

If politicians had more respect for our rights, and had a more sane foreign policy, we wouldn't need to debate economics.

I think economic policy is extremely important, I just don't happen to think good economic policy needs to look exactly like good civil rights policy. There is obviously a balance between freedom and government on both issues, but when you're talking about the greatest benefit for the individual, I think civil liberties call for a LOT less government than economic policies do.

A government that gives a lot of leeway on civil liberties results in free people, while a government that's extremely hands-off with economic policies results in large corporations being free to do whatever they like, which is not at all the same thing.

*Psssst*

Large corporations exist because of government, not in spite of. When will economic leftists understand that?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Sawyer
LOL change

:laugh:

So true. This is the "change" we are getting. He took a backstep on funding and now the telco immunity too. Look forward to seeing more of the same. McCain isn't any better, but I'm going to have a good time laughing at all the one who voted for these numbnuts thinking something would "change" for the better. Isn't going to happen.

It would be nice to have a president who actually has real integrity.

Yeah but those types are "loony" :laugh:

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/n.../35731res20080619.html

H.R. 6304, THE FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008 (6/19/2008)

The ACLU recommends a no vote on H.R. 6304, which grants sweeping wiretapping authority to the government with little court oversight and ensures the dismissal of all pending cases against the telecommunication companies. Most importantly:

? H.R. 6304 permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing.

? H.R. 6304 permits only minimal court oversight. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what or where will actually be tapped.

? H.R. 6304 contains a general ban on reverse targeting. However, it lacks stronger language that was contained in prior House bills that included clear statutory directives about when the government should return to the FISA court and obtain an individualized order if it wants to continue listening to a US person?s communications.

? H.R.6304 contains an ?exigent? circumstance loophole that thwarts the prior judicial review requirement. The bill permits the government to start a spying program and wait to go to court for up to 7 days every time ?intelligence important to the national security of the US may be lost or not timely acquired.? By definition, court applications take time and will delay the collection of information. It is highly unlikely there is a situation where this exception doesn?t swallow the rule.

? H.R. 6304 further trivializes court review by explicitly permitting the government to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever it gathered in the meantime.

? H.R. 6304 ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping programs over the last 7 years. The test in the bill is not whether the government certifications were actually legal ? only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that they were, all the cases seeking to find out what these companies and the government did with our communications will be killed.

? Members of Congress not on Judiciary or Intelligence Committees are NOT guaranteed access to reports from the Attorney General, Director of National Intelligence, and Inspector General.

Ahhh the sweet smell of gestapo!

The Gestapo had the authority to investigate treason, espionage and sabotage cases, and cases of criminal attacks on the Nazi Party and Germany. A law passed by the government in 1936 gave the Gestapo carte blanche to operate without judicial oversight. The Gestapo was specifically exempted from responsibility to administrative courts, where citizens normally could sue the state to conform to laws. As early as 1935, however, a Prussian administrative court had ruled that the Gestapo's actions were not subject to judicial review.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-3773

Uh, ya? The bill you linked was a 2007 bill I don't think had amnesty (all the amnesty opponents I checked voted for it, all the Republicans I checked voted against it).

The 'compromise' bill discussed in this thread is H.R. 6304, not H.R. 3773.

Mix them up?

I did. But this one was sponsored by a Democrat, too...
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6304

Sponsor:
Rep. Silvestre Reyes [D-TX]

Cosponsors
Rep. Peter Hoekstra [R-MI]
Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX]

Reyes is from frickin' Texas. Can we pass a law, no more politicians from Texas for 100 years? Anyway, it was a Republican bill that some key democrats agreed to.

But hey, your man LBJ was from Texas.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

But hey, your man LBJ was from Texas.

I know. Despite how much I like some of his policies, like eliminating racial discrimination in the law and poverty reduction, I was specifically thinking of him, too, because of Vietnam.