"It's like letting the get-away driver off the hook because the Bank-Robber told him that robbing banks is legal".
By that logic, considering that the bank robbers in question are known to shoot people who disobey them in the face with shotguns... aside from the whole President of the United States of America (and friends) thing...
Sen. Leahy of Vermont pretty much encapsulates my view on the issue. I think the greater, far sadder issue is that at the end of the day, no matter what, Bush and his administration will get away with all of the "bank money" regardless.
While I can not defend Obama and the democrats on this, I am curious what his options were. What do you feel would have been the "right decision" to make on this issue?
If you don't feel tough enough to vote against it, you can always vote "present". It's the vote that was the straw that broke the camel's back fro Kris. I just quit taking Barack seriously when he threw Jeremiah Wright under the bus (that moment I compare to the miniseries "V", when the chick peels back her mask, reveals the lizardman underneath, and eats a guinea pig.)
No votes on cloture and on the bill itself, that was the right decision.
Remember, if the "FISA reform" bill had died, the President would still have power to conduct emergency wiretaps without warrant for 72 hours before going before the FISA court... a court whose proceedings are kept secret from the American people... a court which has rejected fewer than a dozen requests for warrant to spy, total, since its founding in the late 1970s.
In short, pre-reform FISA was nothing more than a rubber stamp anyway... and still Bush and his cronies wanted more power. They wanted the power to spy on anybody, any time, for any purpose.
Kris you are obviously delusional! The group of semi intelligent apes the occupy the house and senate have no other agenda but to get away with as much as they can! They have, many years, ago voted themselves above the law! Its no long the tax payers money , but the senatorial and congressional slush fund. Face it they all don't give a shit about the voters, only big business and how much they can get under the table. It's more important we send billions overseas, or waste millions on studies, and committees that serve no purpose other then to give appointees a job, and to waste money. But every year they vote themselves a pay raise.
I could rant on Kris, but there is no point. Like hoping that there will be a change for the better.
PS, actually its not the congressmen and senators that are semi-intelligent, its the voter.
OK...my only question is, rather than listening to the Pundits and the Media, did you read what Obama wrote in his blog about this? It makes me understand his reasoning a little more, and it's not a deal breaker in my support for him, not as much as it would be for, say, a Civil libertarian such as yourself.
Here are excerpts of what Obama said on his blog (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/gGxsZF/commentary):
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 I’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.... ...Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.
Point 1: The Inspector General is appointed by and under the authority of the President, and thus will obey the President or be fired- as Nixon and Dubya have demonstrated.
Point 2: Congressional oversight has proven utterly useless under Dubya, who has thumbed his nose at a Congress unwilling to even consider impeachment, the only punishment the Constitution allows them to levy.
Point 3: The power to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the US already existed prior to this bill. This bill was not necessary in the first place- unless you want the Presidency to have the power to spy on anyone for any reason.
Clearly you simply haven't learned the same lessons Obama has learned on the streets of Chicago's South Side as a community organizer...
Or the lessons Obama learned from Mary Sue of Michigan who lost her job when the steel mills closed down and had to work two minimum wage jobs while attending school and raising her 3 kids on only 2 hours sleep a night while suffering from a debilitating sickness that went untreated because she simply couldn't afford healthcare.
Stop me if I missed anything...
So from what I'm reading now, it's starting to sound more like the Republicans let the genie out of the bottle for Dubya to run amok, and now that Obama is primed to take office, Barak is showing more reluctance to put the cap back on the bottle than the Republicans are...?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-07-10 10:10 am (UTC)By that logic, considering that the bank robbers in question are known to shoot people who disobey them in the face with shotguns... aside from the whole President of the United States of America (and friends) thing...
Sen. Leahy of Vermont pretty much encapsulates my view on the issue. I think the greater, far sadder issue is that at the end of the day, no matter what, Bush and his administration will get away with all of the "bank money" regardless.
While I can not defend Obama and the democrats on this, I am curious what his options were. What do you feel would have been the "right decision" to make on this issue?
no subject
Date: 2008-07-10 10:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-10 02:52 pm (UTC)Remember, if the "FISA reform" bill had died, the President would still have power to conduct emergency wiretaps without warrant for 72 hours before going before the FISA court... a court whose proceedings are kept secret from the American people... a court which has rejected fewer than a dozen requests for warrant to spy, total, since its founding in the late 1970s.
In short, pre-reform FISA was nothing more than a rubber stamp anyway... and still Bush and his cronies wanted more power. They wanted the power to spy on anybody, any time, for any purpose.
And they got it- thanks in part to Obama.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-10 03:01 pm (UTC)Delusional
Date: 2008-07-10 01:21 pm (UTC)Its no long the tax payers money , but the senatorial and congressional slush fund.
Face it they all don't give a shit about the voters, only big business and how much they can get under the table.
It's more important we send billions overseas, or waste millions on studies, and committees that serve no purpose other then to give appointees a job, and to waste money. But every year they vote themselves a pay raise.
I could rant on Kris, but there is no point. Like hoping that there will be a change for the better.
PS, actually its not the congressmen and senators that are semi-intelligent, its the voter.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-10 04:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-10 09:24 pm (UTC)Here are excerpts of what Obama said on his blog
(http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/gGxsZF/commentary):
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 I’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....
...Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-10 09:35 pm (UTC)Point 1: The Inspector General is appointed by and under the authority of the President, and thus will obey the President or be fired- as Nixon and Dubya have demonstrated.
Point 2: Congressional oversight has proven utterly useless under Dubya, who has thumbed his nose at a Congress unwilling to even consider impeachment, the only punishment the Constitution allows them to levy.
Point 3: The power to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the US already existed prior to this bill. This bill was not necessary in the first place- unless you want the Presidency to have the power to spy on anyone for any reason.
Doesn't look like a new direction from here.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-11 06:04 pm (UTC)Or the lessons Obama learned from Mary Sue of Michigan who lost her job when the steel mills closed down and had to work two minimum wage jobs while attending school and raising her 3 kids on only 2 hours sleep a night while suffering from a debilitating sickness that went untreated because she simply couldn't afford healthcare.
Stop me if I missed anything...
So from what I'm reading now, it's starting to sound more like the Republicans let the genie out of the bottle for Dubya to run amok, and now that Obama is primed to take office, Barak is showing more reluctance to put the cap back on the bottle than the Republicans are...?
no subject
Date: 2008-07-11 06:20 pm (UTC)No, the reading is that the Republicans love an imperial President... and Obama apparently has no problem in becoming an imperial President.