Why, Obama?

[kray]

Does anyone get why he voted for FISA? He's got some explaining to do to some ticked off Dems.

orders came from the top down. apparently the fisa bill does not grant CRIMINAL IMMUNITY to telecoms or the administration.

let's be clear, obama did oppose the civil immunity, and voted to get that out, but that did not work.

obama's stance on this is very smart and principled. This version of the bill requires that any wiretapping requests MUST go through the FISA court. NO MORE LOOPHOLES. this means you WILL NOT BE SPIED ON without a court approving it. this upholds the 4th amendment in a serious way, and that is why it passed with obama supporting it.

if only democrats would get more informed rather than repeating what they hear on the news without doing research for themselves...

[cutout]

I'm just saying that the idea that he's in trouble with the left is exaggerated

Lots of commentary by Obama supporters on Obama's own site seem to indicate he's in some trouble, at least temporarily -

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA/

[Son of Dorvid]

Wouldn't it be constitutionally tricky to prosecute the telecom companies after the fact, anyway?
They did find the loophole, after all.

That the current version of the bill is forward-looking, seeking to ensure no abuse of the FISA court by the White House, shouldn't that be enough for civil libertarians?

Even if the government has enough credible evidence to legally or illegeally tap your phone-line, it is only as a means of gaining evidence.  It all still has to hold up in a different court than FISA.  I guess I just don't see the possibility for anything really invasive upon civil liberties, provided the FISA folks have total authority over the decision and the President can't change that.

Please correct me if I'm simplifying or not properly seeing both sides of this thing. 
I have no intention of defending everything Obama says or does, but this seems like a reasonable stance for him to take.

I'm just trying to get a better handle on this Swedish Fart Bill.

[kray]

I'm just saying that the idea that he's in trouble with the left is exaggerated

Lots of commentary by Obama supporters on Obama's own site seem to indicate he's in some trouble, at least temporarily -

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA/

or it indicated they don't think too deeply about it.

mccain can't criticize him on it. if he voted against it he would have had something to criticize him on...obama's reasoning is completely sensible. see the forest from the treeees.

the left is not going to vote against obama because he voted to uphold the 4th amendment, surrendering only civil liability to telecoms, who were no doubt bullied by the bushies anyway. the problem is that a few top democrats who were informed about the wiretapping could be implicated. don't fault obama, fault the democrats who were briefed and did nothing to stop it.

intelligence (ha) committee members:


   John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia
Chairman       Christopher S. Bond, Missouri
Vice Chairman
   Dianne Feinstein, California       John Warner, Virginia
   Ron Wyden, Oregon       Chuck Hagel, Nebraska
   Evan Bayh, Indiana       Saxby Chambliss, Georgia
   Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland       Orrin Hatch, Utah
   Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin       Olympia J. Snowe, Maine
   Bill Nelson, Florida       Richard Burr, North Carolina
   Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island         
               
     
          
Harry Reid, Nevada, Ex Officio
Mitch McConnell, Kentucky, Ex Officio
Carl Levin, Michigan, Ex Officio
John McCain, Arizona, Ex Officio

[kray]

Wouldn't it be constitutionally tricky to prosecute the telecom companies after the fact, anyway?
They did find the loophole, after all.

That the current version of the bill is forward-looking, seeking to ensure no abuse of the FISA court by the White House, shouldn't that be enough for civil libertarians?

Even if the government has enough credible evidence to legally or illegeally tap your phone-line, it is only as a means of gaining evidence.  It all still has to hold up in a different court than FISA.  I guess I just don't see the possibility for anything really invasive upon civil liberties, provided the FISA folks have total authority over the decision and the President can't change that.

Please correct me if I'm simplifying or not properly seeing both sides of this thing. 
I have no intention of defending everything Obama says or does, but this seems like a reasonable stance for him to take.

I'm just trying to get a better handle on this Swedish Fart Bill.

you are exactly right. the future is what is really important and that is where this bill is actually good.

prosecution against anything this administration has done is unfortunately a tough thing to pull off. they shred, delete, and hide evidence like it's no one's business.

[cutout]

Not to get off-topic, but this man has just threatened to cut Obama's nuts off.

[kray]

Not to get off-topic, but this man has just threatened to cut Obama's nuts off.

and weezy has beef with mr. sharpton http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.7108/title.lil-wayne-vs-al-sharpton

what is the world comin to?

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fb2mxFZzhuw[/youtube]

[Shaggy 2 Grote]

See, I gotta admit that there is something Marxist going on here: we are out of land.  Maybe Obama represents a fundamental transformation of the American myth of the infinite frontier. 

[AllisonLeGnome]

I just don't understand people's overreactions to this vote. I can understand the rationale for voting for the bill (even though I didn't personally agree with it), but even if I couldn't see the other side of the issue I can't imagine jumping to the conclusion that this one decision means we should completely give up on Obama. It's not exactly like he suddenly turned into a McCain clone.

[Shaggy 2 Grote]

Wow, this is a good thread.  The FOT are smart.

[Gilly]

Wow, this is a good thread.  The FOT are smart.

Totally agree. I know a lot of you don't like discussing politics on a comedy board but from what I've experience the most rational and well thought out discussion I'm involved with occurs with you guys.

[mokin]

I think the people who are most disappointed at Obama are the ones who see him as the ultimate Democratic Ideal. As much I wish he was the best of Kennedy, FDR, Carter, and Clinton, without any flaws, he's not. He's a politician.

As other people have pointed out, when you look at the details it's not a poor decision. It's not ideal, but you can't expect it to be, especially with a Republican president and a large Republican minority in Congress. The trouble is that most people aren't looking at the details and just see Obama as the physical manifestation of hope.

[Sarah]

It just reminds me of how Democrats for years have ceded ground to the right in order to try to prove that they're not a party of weak-kneed, reckless liberals, when standing their ground and asserting their principles might have been the right way to proceed in the first place.

This has been driving me nuts for years, Fido.

This FISA business just makes me think that it'll be sooner rather than later that I'll be forced to withdraw to rural New Mexico or North Dakota and live off of the grid, communicating only by telegram.

Why not Lubec?

[Omar]

He won't fuck us over, he's Mr. November.

[Oogie]

Why?

Because he's a douchey politician like any other.

October 24, 2007

Obama's campaign manager:

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/obama_camp_says_it_hell_support_filibuster_of_any_bill_containing_telecom_immunity.php

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/09/fisa_vote/index.html

There's no hope from Obama. Just another dick head.