The Beat

Feingold, Dodd Take Steps to Filibuster FISA

posted by John Nichols on 06/24/2008 @ 10:24pm

U.S. Senators Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, and Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, will take steps to filibuster a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) reform proposal that provides retroactive immunity to telecommunications corporations that violate the privacy rights of customers by sharing information with illegal spying programs.

Feingold and Dodd, longtime critics of the immunity provision, made their move after members of groups such as TrueMajority.org and Democracy for America urged senators to use procedural strategies to try and block the rapid progress of Bush administration-backed legislation that would bar consumer lawsuits against telephone companies that are guilty of spying on Americans.

"This is a deeply flawed bill, which does nothing more than offer retroactive immunity by another name. We strongly urge our colleagues to reject this so-called ‘compromise' legislation and oppose any efforts to consider this bill in its current form. We will oppose efforts to end debate on this bill as long as it provides retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that may have participated in the President's warrantless wiretapping program, and as long as it fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans," declared Feingold and Dodd.

"If the Senate does proceed to this legislation, our immediate response will be to offer an amendment that strips the retroactive immunity provision out of the bill. We hope our colleagues will join us in supporting Americans' civil liberties by opposing retroactive immunity and rejecting this so-called ‘compromise' legislation."

Speaking with Amy Goodman on the radio program Democracy Now, Feingold elaborated on the plan to fight the immunity scheme. "We are going to resist this bill," he said. "We are going to make sure that the procedural votes are gone through. In other words, a filibuster is requiring sixty votes to proceed to the bill, sixty votes to get cloture on the legislation. We will also --- Senator Dodd and I and others -- will be taking some time to talk about this on the floor. We're not just going to let it be rubber-stamped."

Goodman pressed Feingold, specifically asking him to confirm that he would attempt a filibuster.

"That's what I just described," said the Wisconsinite, who chairs the Constitution subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

To be maintained, a filibuster must be supported by more than two fifths of the 100 senators. If opponents of a filibuster can muster 60 votes, Feingold and Dodd will fail -- a distinct possibility, as key Democrats in the Senate have made moves to compromise with the Republican White House on this issue. (Dodd's attempt to filibuster an earlier version of the legislation in February gained only 29 supporters, far less than the 41 required to prevent a bill from advancing.)

But the news that a filibuster effort would be made was cause for celebration among activists who were worried that no senators would be willing to take extraordinary steps to battle an extraordinary assault on the 4th amendment to the Constitution.

"We spoke; they listened," TrueMajority online director Matt Holland said of the decision to filibuster. "Senators Dodd and Feingold understand that we don't have to break the law to keep America safe. It doesn't take secret surveillance to understand that the greatest threat to our liberty comes not from foreign elements but rather from those would undermine the basic principles and values that keep our nation strong."

Holland explained that, "The White House guarding our right to privacy is like the fox guarding the hen house. We're pleased that Senators Dodds and Feingold are standing up to this inanity. Now it's time for others in the Senate to join them and remove the immunity provision. Americans just don't like being spied on."

TrueMajority had urged Feingold, Dood and U.S. Senator Barack Obama, D-Illinois -- all past champions of efforts to block the immunity provision and related assaults on the ability of citizens to challenge corporate and governmental abuses.

Abandoning a previous commitment to lead the fight to protect privacy rights, Obama has indicated that he will vote with the Bush administration to undermine those rights.

Feingold describes Obama's choice as a "wrong vote" and "regrettable."

Instead of aiding George Bush's attack on the 4th Amendment, Feingold said of Democrats in the Senate: "We should be standing up for the Constitution."

Comments (164)

  1. Finally, Mr Nichols and I can agree on something...

    giving major props to Russ Feingold!

    And Obama was disappointing. What did he think that the 527s will go "light" on him for supporting this or heavier if he didn't???

    Posted by Mask at 06/24/2008 @ 10:38pm

  2. This just proves the phone companies are not as smart as banks. They should have sent Dodd more money.

    Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 06/24/2008 @ 10:43pm

  3. OBAMA is voting to help tear up the Fourth Amendment? What is going on? He is a Constitutional Law professor for God's sake! Police may only conduct a search if pursuant to a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate upon probable cause. This part of the PATRIOT Act has been unconstitutional from day one. God damn, Obama knows better. I've spent my hard earned money and harder-earned time helping him get elected. What the hell is he doing. Someone please wake up Pelosi, Reid and Obama. This is the U.S. Constitution they are voting to tear up. Again.

    Posted by guanabana at 06/24/2008 @ 10:48pm

  4. And where is that exemplar for all of progressive humanity, Barak Oschlocka, on this one? Just where you'd guess a poseur like him would be: On the wrong side of the issue. Its time for progressives to pull the chain on this clown and line up behind Nader.

    Posted by john lowell at 06/24/2008 @ 11:01pm

  5. Posted by guanabana

    "I've spent my hard earned money and harder-earned time helping him get elected. What the hell is he doing. Someone please wake up Pelosi, Reid and Obama."

    With all due respect, sounds like its you that needs to wake up. Vote Nader.

    Posted by john lowell at 06/24/2008 @ 11:04pm

  6. john lowell - I desperately wanted some politician to believe in; I am very frightened for the future my two kids will face in this shell of a representative democracy. I bought into Obama and "hope." If Obama votes to shred the 4th Amendment, he can go to hell. I will vote for Nader. You are absolutely right.

    Nothing - certainly not political expedience - provides a worthy excuse for Obama or Pelosi or Reid to knowingly violate the U.S. Constitution. We place our trust in these people - and they piss on us like the ants we are. Go to hell Barack. Thanks for nothing.

    Posted by guanabana at 06/24/2008 @ 11:20pm

  7. Its time for progressives to pull the chain on this clown and line up behind Nader.

    Posted by john lowell at 06/24/2008 @ 11:01pm

    Sooo you want McCain to be elected?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:23am

  8. Vote Nader.

    Posted by john lowell at 06/24/2008 @ 11:04pm

    You must be asleep. Because Nader will only ever get enough votes to be President in a dream.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:24am

  9. John Lowell + Guanabana = Republican Operatives.

    Posted by Benchrest at 06/25/2008 @ 12:26am

  10. Relax.

    This thread is fast accumulating Nader shills... advertising with the sole purpose of obfuscating Obama's latent credibility. Who would want to do that?...:^) Of course the American people don't wish to be 'spied on'... and this remains self evident, as it vividly conjures up remembrances of Nixon's Watergate no-nos...

    But terrorism is a real issue... not just some neo-con extremist's excuse for martial law... and must be addressed in a way that impinges upon American freedoms to the smallest degree possible. Mistakes were made, and IMHO, it is best if we don't let them get the better of us.

    That we have witnessed the irksome excesses of the post 9/11 'Bush Doctrine' with an increasingly cynical dismay... may be causing unreasonable doubt to surface at an untimely moment like this.

    At this critical 'tipping point' in America's 'self analysis'... don't throw the baby out with the bath water... Look around you and witness the situation we must leave. It is from this place... with these political and economic realities... with these broken progressives, and those spent neo-cons... that we must rebuild our fabulous heritage... the one that was built upon "Freedom and Justice for All".

    Stop your barking... it's time to leave the doghouse... all you beautiful and innovatingly intelligent American people... we need you. We're gonna have to work together on this.

    Posted by ttr at 06/25/2008 @ 12:56am

  11. I will not vote for McCain either. I will not vote for any candidate who willingly votes to shred the 4th Amendment or any other part of the U.S. Constitution. However, citizens of a representative democracy are indeed able to gradually vote their own democracy out of existence - it's an option inherent in the democratic system. Let's hear from you folks who will support Obama or McCain in spite of each man's decision to violate the 4th Amendment. Your responses will likely will be based on variants of the "lesser of two evils" theory.

    Posted by guanabana at 06/25/2008 @ 01:09am

  12. "But terrorism is a real issue... not just some neo-con extremist's excuse for martial law... and must be addressed in a way that impinges upon American freedoms to the smallest degree possible"

    nevertheless, very serious federal laws were broken. there is simply no doubt about that.

    second, if this bill represents an evisceration of the 4th amendment, which many constitutional scholars have proven to be true, then how can any reasonable patriot (and i use this term literally) support it?

    is it patriotic to support the ability of government to spy on its own citizens, without any oversight or accountability?

    this issue is very clear cut to me, and that we are even discussing it proves that we, as a country, have become at least minimally fascist.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/25/2008 @ 01:30am

  13. Obama put himself up for sale, and now we're seeing the results.

    He wants power & glory, and these he'll get.

    What he'll do with his power, we're now learning. And it's rather inglorious.

    Obama is as signed on to the imperial project as McCain, the difference is more one of style & cosmetics than substance.

    If you enjoy empire abroad, you better learn to love fascism at home, as the 2 are inseparable.

    Posted by sloper at 06/25/2008 @ 01:55am

  14. by darladoon

    --is it patriotic to support the ability of government to spy on its own citizens, without any oversight or accountability?--

    No. I appreciate and indeed share your concerns, but it is alleged that the (FISA) reform proposal has in fact added some real accountability while allowing retroactive immunity to the telecoms... saying in a sense that we can't change history but we can learn from it... and improve on it.

    Posted by ttr at 06/25/2008 @ 02:00am

  15. what the new fisa bill asks of americans is this:

    "just trust us (the US government) to do the right thing"

    "we would never, ever abuse your constitutional right to privacy. "

    how many people in this forum support warrantless sureviellance?

    Posted by darladoon at 06/25/2008 @ 02:01am

  16. ttr, let's put aside the not-so-insignificant issue of telecom immunity for a second....and ask whether it is constitutional to permit a group of individuals (the executive branch) to spy on americans without any oversight.

    what is your understanding?

    second, on the issue of telecom immunity: the telecoms broke a very serious federal law at the request of the president.

    and yet they are seeking to rewrite the law.

    again, i have to ask, what is your understanding?

    to me, it seems clear: if you break the law, you pay the price. bush broke the law, and the telecoms broke the law. if they don't pay the price, then what, i must ask, is the entire point of having laws?

    or a constitution?

    Posted by darladoon at 06/25/2008 @ 02:05am

  17. The vote in the senate will be Friday (as I'm hearing it). I have sent an email to my Senator Bingaman asking him to vote NO and also support the efforts of Senator Feingold to filibuster this bill. Senator Bingaman on the radio today says he will vote NO. I urge you to contact your senators and express your views. It will take many people to stop this and it starts with you and I.

    Posted by manyearss at 06/25/2008 @ 02:08am

  18. Heard that the bill's sloppy language would grant civil immunity but not criminal? An Obama-administration AG might be able to bring criminal prosecutions against the phone companies later? And that Obama has vowed to work to remove the immunity provision in the Senate? Nichols hasn't told you any of that. Maybe any effort to strip the provision will come up short and the bill will quietly be let through, but the story doesn't end there.

    Posted by scottbp at 06/25/2008 @ 03:26am

  19. [John Lowell + Guanabana = Republican Operatives] = Benchrest is a simple minded Fool

    By the way, it is damned encouraging to see sharply intelligent posters on this thread vigorously speaking out on the FISA fiasco, and Obama's deeply disturbing complicity with the White House's agenda.

    I've been sounding the alarm on Obama's multiple shocking recent capitulations for the last couple of weeks here at The Nation.

    I know that Obama seems like a nice guy and all, but Jezus Kryst people, wake up and smell the concrete already.

    This is no time for pussy footing around, wringing our hands, or lamely spouting "What about McCain?".

    Let's apply maximum pressure on Obama NOW.

    The credible threat of lost votes to Ralph Nader's campaign is absolutely a surefire and effective way to signal our anger and dismay with Obama's conduct thus far.

    With McCain looking more and more like the road kill he surely is, we have little to lose, and possibly our Republic to regain if we act in full throated unison.

    By the grace of Carlin, let's get crackin'!

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/25/2008 @ 04:03am

  20. Oh, and by the way, the Capitol Switchboard number is:

    (202)224-3121

    Please take the time today to call both of your Senators and urge them to vote NO on this shitty FISA/telecom immunity bill --and if you are certain that your Senators are already hopeless, call someone else's Senators that may be on the fence to get them moving in the right direction.

    Make no mistake folks, this is a big one.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/25/2008 @ 04:15am

  21. <b>Bolds</b>

    <i>Italics</i>

    I see we have time stamps now, how about getting html tags working too?

    Anyone?

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/25/2008 @ 04:29am

  22. I liked Obama. I was glad Obama defeated Hillary Clinton. I thought Obama was a few degrees to the left of Gore and Kerry.

    But alas, I'm wrong. Obama is the twin brother of that other DLC loser, Harold Ford.

    Every four years Nader keeps asking us, "What is the fail standard for this party?" And every four years, those who would enable the Democratic Party to enable loony right-wing elements like Bush & Cheney justify things as they are.

    I say fuck 'em. I'm voting for Nader.

    "But do you want McCain to be president?"

    Yes, if that's what it takes to destroy the Democratic Party.

    Posted by KSP556 at 06/25/2008 @ 06:05am

  23. Yes, if that's what it takes to destroy the Democratic Party.----Posted by KSP556 at 06/25/2008 @ 06:05am

    And the rest of us with it???

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2008 @ 08:44am

  24. Yes, if that's what it takes to destroy the Democratic Party.

    Posted by KSP556 at 06/25/2008 @ 06:05am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Obama must have been seated next to and sharing notes with John Yoo during his constitutional law class in law school.

    Voters should be thinking about how to check and balance this big Democratic Party party anticipated for this fall. A Republican executive branch versus a Democratic legislative branch is worthy of discussion.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/25/2008 @ 09:12am

  25. OneVote, it's really disappointing that Obama has moved so far right so soon (on Israel, Cuba, NAFTA, FISA/spying issue, etc.), especially when you consider, from a strictly political-pragmatic perspective, he hasn't needed to.

    Posted by KSP556 at 06/25/2008 @ 09:17am

  26. Make no mistake folks, this is a big one.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/25/2008 @ 04:15am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Indeed it is. We are not only talking about the 4th Amendment, but the 1st Amendment as well. The chilling effect on the 1st Amendment will be an inevitable result. Politicians have proved time and time again they can't be trusted to serve the best interest of the people.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/25/2008 @ 09:24am

  27. [John Lowell + Guanabana = Republican Operatives] = Benchrest is a simple minded Fool

    Let's apply maximum pressure on Obama NOW

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/25/2008 @ 04:03am

    Simple minded for simple scenarios.

    It will be Obama or it will be McCain. Period.

    You work to get one elected or you work to get the other elected. Period.

    If this offends your delicate progressive sensibilities, I don't care.

    The man has his plate full right now trying to win. Try applying maximum pressure AFTER he wins.

    Posted by Benchrest at 06/25/2008 @ 09:28am

  28. OneVote, it's really disappointing that Obama has moved so far right so soon (on Israel, Cuba, NAFTA, FISA/spying issue, etc.), especially when you consider, from a strictly political-pragmatic perspective, he hasn't needed to.

    Posted by KSP556 at 06/25/2008 @ 09:17am | ignore this person | warn this person

    I totally agree. His "left leaning and progressive" message was selling just fine, even to many true conservative voters who are disgusted with the criminals that call themselves the Republican party. His polling numbers and campaign war chest indicate absolutely no need to abandon his platform for a move to the right. What we are getting is the "insider" push to right, and this ought to be yet another wake up call that the puppet masters control the shots, not the voters.

    I didn't like Obama initially because I didn't trust that his oratory would match his conviction and unfortunately, it appears that my fears are confirmed. My support for him came more from distaste for Clinton and the DNC establishment. Now, it looks like we are getting another wolf dressed in sheep's clothing.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/25/2008 @ 09:34am

  29. IMHO, all this jumping up and down about the FISA bill is all smoke and mirrors. The government has no intention of going after the entire telecom industry because a few of you think the 4th amendment got pissed on in the process. The government knows pretty much that any legal intanglement with Ma Bell will have disasterous consiquences.

    Communication, Transportation and the Military are the industries this government relies on most.

    Posted by ACook at 06/25/2008 @ 09:43am

  30. And the latest obscenity are the impending, AIPAC sponsored House and Senate resolutions on war with Iran coming up next week. Does any serious person believe that after his recent full court grovel at the AIPAC congress a couple of weeks ago Barak Obama is likely to vote against the Senate version? Think now, this is a war authorizing resolution and its coming up next week and 90% of Democrats are more concerned about Michelle's dress or McCain's flip flops. Here's a prediction written on the wind for you: With our manufacturing industries utterly gone, the dollar about to be abandoned as the world's reserve currency, our financial and credit systems approaching ruin, unemployment and inflation rising, and with our Middle Eastern fortunes determined by the captivity of our political institutions to a lobby acting for all intents and purposes as an agent of a foreign power, the United States faces calamity of unimaginable proportions. And with a people pleasing empty suit as President, that calamity is certain to be realized. Progressives need to vote for Nader for the sake of sanity. Please, bring an end to this silly illusion of Democratic Party reliability, please.

    Posted by john lowell at 06/25/2008 @ 09:55am

  31. Whoever is going to be the President is going to keep all the powers he can get. Constitution? Sure, but we're talking IMPERIUM here, and executive power is its own law (privi - lege = private law).

    What could possibly have made anyone think that the pretty one would do any different from the wrinkly one?

    The Dems don't have it, the Reps are slightly worse. At base they are ONE THING.

    Don't vote Nader. Go out and organize some REAL politics. Link up with others who can see the swindle. Create a mass movement. It will take years of your life. But the once-great US of A deserves it. Meanwhile it may be strategic to vote Obama... but it won't make all that much difference, will it?

    Posted by mikecope at 06/25/2008 @ 10:03am

  32. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:35pm

    Under your rationale, what laws or constitutional protections, then, are worth fighting for if the government is capable of breaking any law it wants?

    With your attitude the sucessful fight to restore habeas should never have been fought because the government can violate it whenever it want to do so.

    Although suits against the telecoms had hurdles, how can you be so sure none would have been sucessful? Many think it is quite clear that they violated the law. Shouldn't there be a day in court? Granting immunity ensures nobody will win a case.

    You are not being practical, you are capitulating.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 10:16am

  33. Yeah, voting for Nader sure will teach those dems a lesson, just like it did in the last 3 right?

    Posted by agentweez at 06/25/2008 @ 10:17am

  34. Interesting...

    "In any case, its progressives that I've urged to support Nader."----Posted by john lowell at 06/25/2008 @ 12:48pm

    Why aren't you urging that EVERYBODY vote for Ralph Nader, not just "progressives"?!??!?

    (BTW, addendum to my original assessement...it IS possible lowell is a Naderite cultist, but I'm still betting GOP plant!)

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2008 @ 10:18am

  35. Interview with Jake Tapper of ABC News, 16 June 2008:

    TAPPER: OK, last one, and that is same-sex marriage is now going on in California.

    OBAMA: Right.

    TAPPER: You oppose same-sex marriage.

    OBAMA: Yes. ...You know, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I also think that same-sex partners should be able to visit each other in hospitals, they should be able to transfer property, they should be able to get the same federal rights and benefits that are conferred onto married couples.

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 06/25/2008 @ 10:20am

  36. Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 1:48pm

    None of your examples support a conclusion that a roving wiretap would have been helpful. The Maryland instance had nothing to do with the lack of a wiretap. It was a lack of information concerning visa status. Neither did the Minnesota investigation. It was an FBI decision not to seek a warrant to search the computer.

    "You are asking me to prove what is somewhat the unprovable, . . ."

    I believe the burden is on you. You are the one arguing for a limitation of constituional protections.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 10:22am

  37. I don't think you can prove that they have been of no benefit now or that the lack of security measures were harmful prior to 9/11. All you can do is make your case based on your logic, and I am doing the same with my logic.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 1:48pm

    Ahh but that's the the problem here SJ. The burden of proof is on you to show that these measures have actually made us more secure. We are arguing that there has been no need for this protection because it has not actually protected us. It is not based on hypotheticals it is based on the fact that there have been no terror attacks.

    In order for you to prove that it has protected us you have to prove that it has stopped an attack. That's the problem here. If we gave all of our rights up due to hypotheticals then we would have no rights because you can make hypotheticals for any situation. I can say the right to freedom of speech could end up causing a violent overthrow of the government. I could say that the right to assemble could cause people to come together in radical groups meant to destroy America.

    Hypotheticals are not good enough to curtail the rights of Americans and to tear up the Constitution. The burden of proof is on those who are attempting to subvert the Constitution and since it can't be proven that the destruction of the Constitution is actually keeping us safer then it only follows that it should not be changed.

    By the logic you are using the only way to be safe is for military law to rule. They could then stop every crime all the time. Haebas Corpus should be thrown out because occasionally people who get off for crimes are actually guilty. I know the examples I am using are extreme but that is the potential of where this logic based on hypotheticals can take us.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 10:23am

  38. Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 1:48pm

    I also think you are being purposefull vague when you refer to "security measures."

    We are talking about warrantless wiretaps here.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 10:23am

  39. Paging METTEYYA!!! Paging METTEYYA!!!

    We need our resident Obama backer to give us the explanation for his disgraceful capitulation.

    I am looking forward to reading his post on this one.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 10:28am

  40. The Constitution doesn't permit Congress to pass Ex Post Facto Laws. Here is what I pulled from the Constitution: Section 9 - Limits on Congress

    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

    The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

    No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

    The bill is unconstitutional and these people who are suppose to uphold the Constitution and took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution from all enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC should know this. I think they all need a kids copy of the Constitution so they know what they can and CAN'T PASS!!! Here's the site I found this on:http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html PASS IT ON!!! LET YOUR SENATORS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! IF NECESSARY READ THE PART IN THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF.

    BTW EX POST FACTO MEANS AFTER THE FACT: SO THEY CAN'T PASS A LAW THAT MAKES A CRIMINAL OFFENSE(WIRETAPPING...)LEGAL WHEN THEY WERE DOING IT. THAT IS BASICALLY THE RETROIMMUNITY CLAUSE IN THE FISA BILL. THEY DON'T HAVE A CONSTITUTION TO STAND THIS BILL ON.!!!

    Posted by rommey38 at 06/25/2008 @ 10:28am

  41. Democrats in Congress are pathetic. Democrats are the majority, yet Congress gets higher approval ratings from Republican voters.

    Go figure.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 10:30am

  42. >>>Abandoning a previous commitment to lead the fight to protect privacy rights, Obama has indicated that he will vote with the Bush administration to undermine those rights.<<<

    I do not know where John Nichols is getting his information, but it is obviously NOT from Obama!

    June 21, 2008, 12:20 PM Obama: I'll Fight To Strip Telecom Immunity From FISA Posted by David S Morgan|

    (CBS/AP) - Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., issued a statement in support of the House's update of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but said he would try to strip a provision granting immunity to telecommunication companies when the bill comes to a vote in the Senate next week.

    Obama said there is "little doubt" that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, "has abused [its] authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders."

    "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.

    "[The bill] does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/25/2008 @ 10:32am

  43. ""since"???? what kinda of Superior Intellect spelling is that.....I bring up your degree because you think your a 3rd rate Dr.Phil....what a fucking joke of a lib"

    Hmm funny you insulting my intelligence when you have proven that you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of punctuation. I'll correct your sentence for you since you seem to want to get into an argument about typos.

    "Since!?" What kind of(kinda is not a word) spelling(A. superior intellect should not be capitalized. B. superior intellect spelling doesn't even begin to make sense.) is that? I bring up your degree because you think you're(your is possessive, you're is you are.) a third(I would use the word here instead of the number) rate Dr. Phil. What a fucking joke of a liberal.

    Learn English before you start insulting people you moron.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 10:37am

  44. Progressives to vote for Nader is insanity.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/25/2008 @ 10:42am

  45. Posted by emile duBois at 06/25/2008 @ 10:42am

    They do not seem to get it.

    Posted by Benchrest at 06/25/2008 @ 10:43am

  46. "Apparently there was information on a computer in Minnesota that if the authorities had been given the right to search the machine they might have uncovered information that would have pointed to the possibility of 9/11. "

    The authorities chose not to go to FISA. Their failure to even take that step is at fault, not the FISA law.

    "The Maryland trooper did not have access to information about this individuals visa status and how he was in violation of reporting in as required, all the person got was a speeding ticket, which was found in the rental car at Newark after 9/11."

    Which has nothing to do with warrantless wiretapping.

    "I am making a hypothetical case, and I know I am, but it seems to me from what I have come across that the security measures may have prevented 9/11, people have made this case, and that they perhaps have prevented another 9/11."

    In short, you are, again, copping out when it comes to actually substantiating your case.

    "I don't think you can prove that they have been of no benefit now or that the lack of security measures were harmful prior to 9/11. All you can do is make your case based on your logic, and I am doing the same with my logic."

    Except, by that logic, there is no need to give the government that type of power since there is no proof that it is needed.

    Rommey38

    The ban on ex post facto laws refers to criminalizing conduct that took place before the law took effect; it has no effect on civil suits.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 10:46am

  47. Under your rationale, what laws or constitutional protections, then, are worth fighting for if the government is capable of breaking any law it wants?

    With your attitude the sucessful fight to restore habeas should never have been fought because the government can violate it whenever it want to do so.

    Although suits against the telecoms had hurdles, how can you be so sure none would have been sucessful? Many think it is quite clear that they violated the law. Shouldn't there be a day in court? Granting immunity ensures nobody will win a case.

    You are not being practical, you are capitulating.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 10:16am

    No. Here is my rationale Hman. I am against warrant-less wiretapping. But let's work on stopping that. Not telecom immunity. The problem is this, even if you win, you lose. Why? No one will ever investigate these companies thoroughly. This will turn out to be exactly like the Bush administration investigations, oil company investigations and many others that have been lodged but never followed through on. It's not capitulating if you realize a fight can't be won so you turn your energy to another. The first thing you learn to do when you learn to fight is you learn to fight smart, without emotion. You pick your fights carefully and if a fight can't be won you learn when to back down in order to attack another point and bring down your opponent that way. If you are fighting someone bigger than you, you don't attempt to have a battle of strength because you will always lose. In this case you are fighting a group of companies that an intricate part of the workings of the United States.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 10:49am

  48. I made a typo on my post above,

    When I said "I don't think you can prove that they have been of no benefit now or that the lack of security measures were harmful prior to 9/11. All you can do is make your case based on your logic, and I am doing the same with my logic."

    I meant "lack of security measures were NOT harmful"

    To Hman23 - When I refer to security measures I am talking about the whole mix of having information, not just wiretaps, as was the case with the Maryland traffic stop where visa status information was not available. And in the Minnesota computer the warrant could not be granted in a timely manner.

    To Hman23 and Cccomfo1 - if security measures prevent terrorists from even planning a terrorist attack, then you can't prove that a specific attack was stopped because it may have never been planned or the idea hatched in the first place. If we have to set limits so you have to prove specific terror attacks were stopped, then you are allowing terrorists to go too far down the road.

    I certainly have seen no sizeable reference or outcry in the public media of specific U.S. citizens minding their own business and not engaged in terrorist activities who are complaining their rights were infringed upon as a result of these security measures.

    The complaints have been that these actions were taken, and not complaints from large numbers of people with specific cases where they believe wrong has been done to them.

    If this was the case, I believe the media would be spotlighting them 24/7 instead of reporting (negatively) on gas prices and the economy.

    Abraham Lincoln suspended Haebas Corpus during the War Between the States and he said the Constitution was not a death sentence.

    You have the need to protect civil liberties and you have the need to protect our country from massive attack here at home, and it is not an easy balancing act, but one that the U.S. over the years has navigated through a lot better than a lot of other countries in the world.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 10:51am

  49. >>>Abandoning a previous commitment to lead the fight to protect privacy rights, Obama has indicated that he will vote with the Bush administration to undermine those rights.<<<

    I do not know where John Nichols is getting his information, but it is obviously NOT from Obama!

    June 21, 2008, 12:20 PM Obama: I'll Fight To Strip Telecom Immunity From FISA Posted by David S Morgan|

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/25/2008 @ 10:32am | ignore this person | warn this person

    That doesn't mean a damn thing. He'll vote to strip telecom immunity but will he vote for or against it the bill if that amendment doesn't pass?

    Further, telecom immunity isn't the only problem with the bill, as hman's post indicates. Obama is clearly willing to ignore all those other shortcomings in support of a bill that does undermine privacy rights. Nichol's statement is well-founded.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 10:53am

  50. >>>Paging METTEYYA!!! Paging METTEYYA!!!

    We need our resident Obama backer to give us the explanation for his disgraceful capitulation.

    I am looking forward to reading his post on this one.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 10:28am<<<

    HMAN23,

    My post a couple of entires above speaks for itself!

    Obama has NOT CAPITULATED ON ANYTHING, and will be the KEY player in the senate in removing telecom immunity from the bill.

    Nichols and some so-called "progressives" have decided that they are going to bash Obama at even the slightest hint of centrism no matter how specious the claim or tenuous the logic.

    These Obama-bashing efforts are calculated to split the progressive vote and bolster Ralph Nader's ill-advised presidential run, and this ONLY helps Republicans retain the White House. Why would these so-called progressives want to do that given our experience in 2000 with Gore? Gore certainly would have won the presidency had progressives united behind him instead of backing Nader.

    These short-sighted progressives need to WAKE THE F..K UP! This is serious business, and the more we waste time on Obama-bashing, the more we create the prospect of another 4-8 years of Republican rule!

    I don't know about you, but I am tired of these Republicans in the White House. If another Republican wins because of the shortsightedness of "progressives" like John Nichols, I am out of here!

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/25/2008 @ 10:55am

  51. "of specific U.S. citizens minding their own business and not engaged in terrorist activities who are complaining their rights were infringed upon as a result of these security measures. "

    Since the administration uses the "state secrets privilege" to block any information on that, the fact that you haven't heard of any cases proves nothing.

    Further, there is a huge difference between a large chunk of the country being in open, armed rebellion and a gang of criminal conspirators, so your Civil War analogy is ludicrous.

    You also have offered no argument as to why warrantless wiretapping which preserve the executive branch from any oversight is necessary.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 10:58am

  52. libzr-You are the only one who is anti American with your desire to see your fellow Americans killed and,no,the authorities do not agree with your hope that Americans are killed in another attack,which is fortunate for all Americans.Personally,I don't mind if they listen in on my 900 sex line calls because I get off on that so my thing is about freedom because I don't like fear to be a reason to tighten up on freedom.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 06/25/2008 @ 11:00am

  53. "These Obama-bashing efforts are calculated to split the progressive vote and bolster Ralph Nader's ill-advised presidential run, and this ONLY helps Republicans retain the White House. Why would these so-called progressives want to do that given our experience in 2000 with Gore?"

    Now you've gone off into tin-foil hat land.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 11:05am

  54. I certainly have seen no sizeable reference or outcry in the public media of specific U.S. citizens minding their own business and not engaged in terrorist activities who are complaining their rights were infringed upon as a result of these security measures.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 10:51am

    That's because these complaints will never be reported. I know a guy from Pakistan. Who got his door kicked in by the FBI and his house raided. They never found anything and he was never accused of a crime.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 11:06am

  55. This is issue is slightly moot sadly. Bush has already found ways around this bill to begin with. The NSA bill is classified so we can't possibly know what it gives them the power to do. However if there truly is a suspected terrorist living in the US the government is just going to take them anyway and then make the evidence later. It's the sad truth but they don't give a damn about red tape or the Constitution. The CIA or FBI will pick them up and no one will ever know what happened to them. This isn't a conspiracy theory either. This is entirely within the bounds of the government to do.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 11:14am

  56. Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 10:51am

    SJ. I mean this in the nicest of ways, you need to think before you actually give up your rights. You are throwing away rights at the specter of a ghost. As brunowe pointed out Civil War is a little different than a few people in another country. When half of the country at war with he country then I understand the suspension of Habeas Corpus. When there are a couple of people in another country you can't support giving up rights. There have been people attempting to destroy America since it's birth and it's the same for ever country. Does that mean every single country should be in military law all the time? Why didn't Reagan do warrantless wiretapping when we were at war with Russia? The threat of nuclear obliteration is much more poignant than a smaller terrorist attack.

    You have given very few strong arguments for why we should rip up the Constitution. You have given hypotheticals alone. If hypotheticals is enough for you to give up on everything America stands for just to afford yourself a little peace of mind then fine I can't stop you however I wish you would stop and think and say to yourself, "If a terrorist attack 7 years ago has caused me to have a willingness to give up all of my rights to the specter of an enemy then didn't the terrorists win?"

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 11:15am

  57. >>>Now you've gone off into tin-foil hat land.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 11:05am <<<

    Tin-foil-hat land? Did you read the posts on this thread? Here are a few samples:

    >>>Progressive need to support Ralph Nader so that an end can be brought to this awful agony.

    Posted by john lowell at 06/25/2008 @ 11:36am

    I say fuck 'em. I'm voting for Nader.

    "But do you want McCain to be president?"

    Yes, if that's what it takes to destroy the Democratic Party.

    Posted by KSP556 at 06/25/2008 @ 06:05am

    The credible threat of lost votes to Ralph Nader's campaign is absolutely a surefire and effective way to signal our anger and dismay with Obama's conduct thus far.

    With McCain looking more and more like the road kill he surely is, we have little to lose, and possibly our Republic to regain if we act in full throated unison.

    By the grace of Carlin, let's get crackin'!

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/25/2008 @ 04:03am |<<<

    A VOTE FOR NADER IS A VOTE FOR THE CONTINUATION OF GEORGE BUSH!

    And Obama-bashing by progressives CREATES MORE VOTES FOR NADER!

    When will we LEARN?

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/25/2008 @ 11:16am

  58. Now you've gone off into tin-foil hat land.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 11:05am

    He is as bad as Frankgrits.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 11:16am

  59. Obama seems to combine idealism with pragmatism. we could all do with that.

    any TV commentator who "confuses" Obama with Osama should be immediately fired.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/25/2008 @ 11:17am

  60. What about Hillary?

    Will she be joining the fillibuster? She has lots of time & energy on her hands these days.

    Or will she be on the same side as CheneyBush, again.

    Might not have been much differrence between her & Obama after all.

    Posted by sloper at 06/25/2008 @ 11:18am

  61. Yes, tin-foil hat land. Nader's campaign isn't going anywhere, and you still haven't answered my questions re Obama--

    1) Will he vote for the bill if the telecom immunity provision isn't removed?

    2) Why does he praise a bill that has so many objctionable provisions in addition to telecom immunity?

    Substantive objections aren't Obama-bashing, except to an Obama-bot.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 11:18am

  62. Also the FISA bill ends up, as ACook said, to be nothing but smoke and mirrors. They will NEVER go after our entire telecommunications network. Hell they won't even go after George Bush and his group of law breakers that forced the telecom companies to allow them wiretaps. Why then do you think they would go after an infrastructure that is much much more important to us than a President who is about to be out of office? That's the the reason that many Senators who were against the FISA bill to begin with are now for it. They realize, unlike many of the American people, that A. the government will never ever attack telecom companies and B. if they really wanted to take someone without a warrant there is no one to stop them. All you gotta do is take the person, make up some evidence, bribe or blackmail a judge and boom you have your case won.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 11:18am

  63. I think ALL progressives should take the advice of one of the posters above and save your Obama-bashing for AFTER he gets elected; otherwise, he may NEVER get elected!

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/25/2008 @ 11:19am

  64. "My vote isn't about self-respect ..."

    Well that's certainly clear enough, isn't it. How then are we to describe your vote, then, as a act of self-hatred?

    "... it is about the preservation and protection of the country I love."

    You wouldn't mind if I reach for the dramamine and a suitably large bag would you?

    "I would rather see my country slowly change into what I want it to be with less than perfect candidates doing the work, than see my country turn into a fascist nation because I voted to make myself feel good."

    Yeah, the changes likely will be slow in coming alright, so slow, in fact, that I haven't seen any arrive at all since the Democrats took control of the Congress in 2006. But to conclude that the country isn't already fascist with the connivence of those very "less than perfect" candidates you intend to support, even though you hate yourself for it, is the very definition of naivete. Not much "realism" there, I'd say.

    "Don't get me wrong. I would love to have many many different parties"

    Somehow, I'd doubt that. In any case, we already have many different parties, its just that some are suppressed by those you're inclined to support.

    "Basically would you are saying is that your self-respect is more important to you than the future of this nation ... " to protect our children from people like George Bush ... "

    I see no distinction between self-respect and the good of the country. As a matter of fact, the good of the country is in large part dependent on the self-respect of voters.

    " ... to protect our children from people like George Bush ... "

    ... and Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, and Hitlery Clinton, and Barak Obama and Steny Hoyer and ...

    "If Nader actually ever stood a chance of winning I would vote for him ... "

    Sure you would, you just keep believing that, son. If a candidates winning - or, if in 1948, Harry Truman's, for that matter - were conditioned on people believing he was going to win, Tom Dewey would have been President.

    "I am an independent Progressive. One who realizes that in order to actually win the fight I have to let my own ego lose sometimes."

    I know, I know, you're losing yourself to find yourself. And I'd thought Christ died 2000 years ago.

    Posted by john lowell at 06/25/2008 @ 11:21am

  65. libzr-I told you what the problem was in the rest of the post.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 06/25/2008 @ 11:30am

  66. Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 11:18am

    Q:Will he vote for the bill if telecom immunity is NOT removed? A: I certainly hope not.

    Q: Why does he praise a bill that has so many objectionable provisions in addition to telecom immunity? A: I don't think Obama's actual comments, which were omitted by Nichols in his story, could be construed as "praise".

    Does this sound like praise?:

    >>>Obama said there is "little doubt" that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, "has abused [its] authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders."<<<

    FISA succeeds or fails based on WHO is president and how rigorous the oversight. Obama has indicated that as president, he will have "very rigorous" oversight of the FISA program to prevent abuse. Either you believe in his commitment to preventing privacy abuse or you don't.

    I know I have a LOT more confidence in Obama over-seeing FISA than any Republican. And the pending FISA statute requires court oversight, which was missing with Bush, and where court orders are not available because of time constraints, these court orders must be received within a "reasonable" time after the wiretaps begin. Whether you accept this or not, this is a HUGE change from the Bush implementation of FISA in which court orders were never sought.

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/25/2008 @ 11:30am

  67. Here's an example of what I had mentioned earlier of the vacuity with which most Democrats concern themselves. A war resolution in prospect at the moment and The Nation's, David Corn, writes about McCain not being qualified for the presidency because he doesn't use a computer!

    http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/davidcorn/

    Caught up in the imbecile enthusiasms associated with the contentless candidacy of Barak Obama, Corn hasn't managed meaningful commentary in months. It requires little to satisfy some it would seem. Progressive need to support Ralph Nader so that an end can be brought to this awful agony.

    Posted by john lowell at 06/25/2008 @ 11:36am

  68. Let's not deceive ourselves here folks. If you are a suspected terrorist the Constitution will protect about as well as the paper it is written on will protect you from a fire.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 11:39am

  69. Why do I feel that this verifies that the corrupt corporate new con pervy repubs have a solid hold on the SCOTUS:

    "The Supreme Court on Wednesday also cut the $2.5 billion punitive damages award in the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster to $500 million.

    The court ruled that victims of the worst oil spill in U.S. history may collect punitive damages from Exxon Mobil Corp., but not as much as a federal appeals court determined.

    ...

    A jury decided Exxon should pay $5 billion in punitive damages. A federal appeals court cut that verdict in half."

    http://tinyurl.com/6jgwxj

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2008 @ 11:39am

  70. Progressive need to support Ralph Nader so that an end can be brought to this awful agony.

    Posted by john lowell at 06/25/2008 @ 11:36am

    Ahhh. I love your enthsiasm to support a man who never has, doesn't and never will have a chance of being President. He could have 3 lifetimes worth of time to run and he would still never make it into office. Good times.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 11:42am

  71. This vote is a litmus test.

    retroactive immunity=fascism

    Posted by ROBinDALLAS at 06/25/2008 @ 11:45am

  72. Thanks, Mettayya...

    This obnoxious and sinister doubting... like a creature finally released from punitive internment... is toxic and corrosive to the very 'movement' that spawns it. Just look at all the negativity that has been thrown about on this issue in the last few days... Most of it misspent transferral nonsense.

    Wiretapping is wrong... but this administration is on the way out. Let it go, and start the 'new world process' rolling forward.

    Don't waste your energy on Dinosaurs...;^)

    Posted by ttr at 06/25/2008 @ 11:46am

  73. Posted by john lowell at 06/25/2008 @ 09:55am

    "I'm John McCain, and I endorsed this ad"

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2008 @ 11:51am

  74. So George W. Bush is proclaimed wrong for not having these measures in place prior to September 11, 2001 and he is also wrong for putting them in place after September 11, 2001.

    As you can see, the real problem here is that the left sees George W. Bush as always wrong, no matter what he does.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 12:23pm

    Nice try. Bush sat on his ass and ignored intelligence of a possible attack against the United States. This is documented. It's not this 20/20 hindsight bullshit. I believe he told one of the intelligence officials, "consider your ass covered" after the intelligence official tried to warn him of possible attacks.

    So, W is guilty at a minimum of being a lazy arrogant asshole who did nothing before Sept 11th. After Sept. 11th, he's been guilty of plotting an attack against Iraq and using Sept 11th and Osama Bin Laden as a fear trump card to dupe the American people and congress into giving him what he wants.

    I notice that Afghanistan is still in shambles and Bin Laden, the guy from Saudi Arabia, is alive and well and will eventually die from his kidney problems, not W's devotion to bringing him to justice.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/25/2008 @ 11:52am

  75. The hsuB/cHeney admin, like most criminals, aren't all that interested in going after other criminals, as they're pretty busy securing their own crimes to be that distracted...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2008 @ 12:01pm

  76. "FISA succeeds or fails based on WHO is president and how rigorous the oversight. Obama has indicated that as president, he will have "very rigorous" oversight of the FISA program to prevent abuse. Either you believe in his commitment to preventing privacy abuse or you don't."

    That is simply incorrect. We are a government of laws and not men. If he opposed to the abuse of wiretapping, he should be opposed to this law. You act like a true cultist in basing your argument on Obama's virtues.

    Further, the statue allows the administration to bypass the warrant requirement for seven days if they claim exigent circumstances; there is no review of individual warrant applications, only the general procedures; the government can continue a wiretap even if the application is denied as long as the ruling is under appellate review. There is no reason for the Executive Branch to have this authority; not even a blind faith in the virtues of a President Obama.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 12:05pm

  77. Posted by john lowell at 06/25/2008 @ 11:21am

    Look, guys, as with CRABWALK....don't fret too much about these either (A) die-hard cultists of Ralph or (B) GOP posers trying to stir up a little Election 2000 action to save McCain.

    Nader got 2.7% of the vote in 2000 (2,882,955 votes)...

    in 2004, after seeing just FOUR years of "there is no difference between Gore and Bush"....he got 0.38% of the vote (465,650 votes).

    after EIGHT years of Bush, McCain promising more of the same, and THE most exciting Democratic nominee in 40 years...

    what do you figure Ralph will pull? Especially since he is running AGAIN as an Independent and was soundly rejected by the Greens?

    So, have some fun with john lowell, if you want....but he's either crazy or an agent provocateur....but not relevant.

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2008 @ 12:09pm

  78. Posted by ROBinDALLAS

    "retroactive immunity=fascism"

    Precisely. What we need isn't a return to the earlier FISA arrangements, what we need is a denazification program of the type the Soviets instituted in their zone of occupation in Germany in 1945-46.

    Posted by john lowell at 06/25/2008 @ 12:14pm

  79. " Somehow, I'd doubt that. In any case, we already have many different parties, its just that some are suppressed by those you're inclined to support."

    For one you know nothing about me. So what information do you have to doubt that? I have said multiple times that if a candidate is viable and carries my beliefs then I would vote for them yet you have gone against everything I said with absolutely nothing more than an assumption. They are not suppressed by anything more than a lack of voters. If third parties could actually get votes they would get votes. People know who they are and know they exist they just don't vote for them. Nader is the most famous of them and he still can barely get enough votes to get on 6 state ballots.

    "Well that's certainly clear enough, isn't it. How then are we to describe your vote, then, as a act of self-hatred?"

    Like I said before it's about practicality. I gain self-respect from knowing that my vote is actually helping me and not hurting me.

    "You wouldn't mind if I reach for the dramamine and a suitably large bag would you?"

    Grow up.

    "I see no distinction between self-respect and the good of the country. As a matter of fact, the good of the country is in large part dependent on the self-respect of voters."

    Bush does things out of self respect that are not for the good of the country. What you think is respectful of yourself is not neccesarily good for the country. I guarantee you most everything Bush has done he has done because he thinks it's right and that gives him self respect however what gives you self-respect to fight for is a lot different than what gives him self-respect so according to you argument which one is right?

    "Sure you would, you just keep believing that, son. If a candidates winning - or, if in 1948, Harry Truman's, for that matter - were conditioned on people believing he was going to win, Tom Dewey would have been President."

    Again you attack me while knowing nothing about me. You build straw-man arguments. Truman was obviously viable because he got enough votes to run against Dewey. Nader is not because he can't even get enough votes to run on all the state ballots.

    "I know, I know, you're losing yourself to find yourself. And I'd thought Christ died 2000 years ago."

    No where did I say that you have to lose yourself to find yourself again you make an ass out of yourself because you have to resort to BS tactics instead of addressing my main point. I have to be willing to compromise in order to get what I want because anyone who knows anything about politics knows that the only way to get what you want is through compromise. I never claimed to be a martyr so what is the Christ reference?

    You based you entire argument on breaking up my argument into simple part so you didn't have to address the main point. This is typical of someone who doesn't actually have a response to the main point of what you are saying. I did it to you because you set up the rules. However I will now address your main point and then give my main point.

    Your main point is that a vote for Nader IS the best thing for this country.

    Here is why you are wrong in my eyes. Like I said before. If Obama dropped out of the race. Nader would never collect more than 20-30% of the vote. Not because people are voting against him because he is independent like you like to think in order to prop up your ego. It is solely because he is too extreme to net independents, moderate demos and moderate Repubs. You HAVE to get these groups in order to win an election. Nader can not get these groups therefore he can not win. Which means McCain wins and we get 4 more years of Bush.

    My main point is that a vote for Nader does not get us any closer to fixing the damage done by Bush, because Nader no matter how stacked in his favor things are, can never win. He can't win independents and they make up about 20% of the electorate. So why not vote in order to see SOME of what you want passed rather than voting to stroke your ego and then seeing McCain win and have more of your rights taken away and more money thrown into these wars?

    Nader has run 4 times now and every time has gotten shot down. At this point you have to concede that if you have run 4 times and none of those netted you more than 6% of the electorate then your chances aren't too good to get a Presidency. Hell everyone knows who Nader is and everyone knows his politics yet he still hasn't even netted enough votes for him to make it on the ballots for all 50 states. If you have that kind of notoriety and yet you still fail to make it on that many ballots then you are never going to stand a chance.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:14pm

  80. I don't know about you, but I am tired of these Republicans in the White House. If another Republican wins because of the shortsightedness of "progressives" like John Nichols, I am out of here!

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/25/2008 @ 10:55am

    Metteyya, Look at what is really going down versus what you want to have going on. Obama is presently catering to the right and pretty much ignoring HIS BASE.

    Why is it that the dems feel that they have to cater to the religious bigots and rednecks of this country? Why not just stand for what they stand for, run an honest platform that the majority of dems want and let the chips fall where they may?!

    If 8 years of Bush's policies, and McCain's guarantee of following in W's footsteps aren't enough to get McCain voted down, this country deserves exactly what it gets.

    Obama needs to look at himself in the mirror and decide who he wants to be when he grows up. Being president means he'll have to eventually pony up and stand for something other than people with a lot of money, or he's no democrat. At least not the democratic party that I used to know.

    His other option is to become another piece of crap, bought off, middle of the road, rethug in the hip pockets of AIPAC and bowing to the likes of these religious fanatics who are no better than the religious fanatics in the ME strapping bombs to themselves.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:15pm

  81. What I can't fathom is the lame ass dems compromising with the ever uncompromising White House. W and Cheney think the word compromise means to do exactly what they want or nothing. The dems need grow a friggin spine, and tell the W and the telecommunications companies what they can do with their retroactive immunity clause. Good for Feinghold and Dodd. Look to see the rethug spin machine to go into full gear on this one though.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:18pm

  82. full gear on this one though...Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:18pm

    Sorry, meant to say, full B.S. gear on this one.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:20pm

  83. The hsuB/cHeney admin, like most criminals, aren't all that interested in going after other criminals, as they're pretty busy securing their own crimes to be that distracted...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2008 @ 12:01pm

    hsuBfools, It's professional courtesy. You know one criminal not ratting out another one. That's why they want to ram this FISA immunity bill.

    This is what kills me. If they grant immunity to the telecommunications companies, then if someone tries to get to the bottom of what happened and who broke what laws, they won't have any teeth in the law to require the telecommunications companies to talk.

    If, however, there are no immunities granted, then Joe Bob working for company X can cut a deal with the fed to sing like a bird to the justice department (of the future hopefully) which may in fact land W and Cheney and the boys in some really hot water.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:22pm

  84. Phew!

    Dammed if you do and dammed if you dont!

    No civil liberties destruction or constituion shredding has taken place as a result of the changes in our security approach since September 11, 2001.

    What has occurred is no further terrorist attacks here at home.

    One of the reasons September 11 may have happened is because these measures were not in place before then. Stuff such as the "wall" (Jamie Goerlick's wall keeping law enforcement and Justice Department from communicating) were dismantled.

    Now, of course, many on the left condemn George W. Bush from allowing September 11 to happen. And since the reason it happened is because security measures were not in place, you would think putting them in place would be the right thing to do and everybody would agree.

    You would thing wrong! It was the right thing to do but many on the left condemn George W. Bush and John Ashcroft, etc. (Probably Karl Rove and the "neocons", too) for putting these measures in place.

    So George W. Bush is proclaimed wrong for not having these measures in place prior to September 11, 2001 and he is also wrong for putting them in place after September 11, 2001.

    As you can see, the real problem here is that the left sees George W. Bush as always wrong, no matter what he does.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 12:23pm

  85. Obama seems to combine idealism with pragmatism. we could all do with that.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/25/2008 @ 11:17am

    So legalizing the Bush administration's past illegal and unconstitutional eavesdropping activities, ignoring the Fourth Amendment, dismantling FISA, and immunizing telecoms from blatantly illegal activity is pragmatic?

    I cannot agree.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:30pm

  86. Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 12:05pm

    I think this "automatic stay" of denied FISA applications pending appellate review will not survive senate scrutiny. Like most stays pending appeal, it should be the appellate court or the lower court that grants a stay based on meeting the legal requirements for a stay.

    And you are wrong - we are a government of men and women, not laws. I do not know what your experience is, but a law is only as good as the person interpreting and enforcing it. Many great laws are undermined by bad interpretations by men with bad intentions, and many poor laws have been limited in their effect by very good men whose interpretations or enforcement decisions have produced the correct result.

    FISA was essentially a good law that was supposed to be a tool used to prevent terrorists attacks, but was interpreted by bad men with bad intentions who simply wanted to invade the privacy of others.

    Improving FISA to prevent privacy abuses is something the senate will now take up, but we should all be mindful that there really are terrorists out there that want to harm America and Americans, and we therefore need the proper tools to prevent such harm without abusing our constitutional rights.

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/25/2008 @ 12:30pm

  87. As you can see, the real problem here is that the left sees George W. Bush as always wrong, no matter what he does. ----Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 12:23pm

    Or the right who sees George Bush as always right, no matter what he does.

    Also..."the measures" weren't in place in the 90s and we got the 1st WTC bombing in 1993...and nothing more at home until 2001.....explanation?

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2008 @ 12:34pm

  88. Hman23

    I was speaking in more general terms.

    on this issue I'm with you.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/25/2008 @ 12:34pm

  89. Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 12:23pm

    Nonsense. There were security measures in place before 9/11. FISA has existed since 1978. If the administration had information and a need for a wiretap that could have possibly thwarted the attack (hypothetically), they could have easily gotten a warrant through the FISA framework.

    I am also not aware of a single potential attack that was uncovered through the use of warrantless roving wiretaps on the broad scale that was done.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:40pm

  90. As you can see, the real problem here is that the left sees George W. Bush as always wrong, no matter what he does.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 12:23pm

    Actually there are holes in your post. First of all there is no proof that any of that is the reason 9/11 happened. In fact there is more proof to say that they knew it was coming and stood by and didn't act. Which means that the security we had at the time was more than ample it's just the government didn't bother to activate it. They then used their lack of action as a platform to launch their curtailing of the rights of Americans.

    It has nothing to do with political bias it's just that some on the right like to believe that the reason we have had no terrorist attacks is because of the shredding of the Constitution even though there are no facts to support that claim. I would like you to give me the proof that terrorists have attacked the United States post-911 and failed due to illegal wiretaps and warrant-less searches. If you can give me that evidence I will concede to the superiority of this plan. However what I will not do is submit to to your bear repellant method of thinking. By that I mean, if you lived in LA and I told you I would sell you bear repellant to keep the bears away and you bought it and no bears came near does it mean that the repellant worked, or is it because there are no bears in LA? The intelligent person would say it is because there are no bears in LA.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:41pm

  91. Posted by emile duBois

    Then . . . peace be with you.

    :)

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:41pm

  92. So legalizing the Bush administration's past illegal and unconstitutional eavesdropping activities, ignoring the Fourth Amendment, dismantling FISA, and immunizing telecoms from blatantly illegal activity is pragmatic?

    I cannot agree.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:30pm

    The reason Emily is right is for the reasons stated before. They will never ever be investigated. So ought as well get limits put in place now.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:42pm

  93. "Like most stays pending appeal, it should be the appellate court or the lower court that grants a stay based on meeting the legal requirements for a stay."

    It the Senate strikes it, it certainly won't be thanks to Obama, who hasn't made any statement of opposition to it.

    I am not wrong on us being a government of laws. We are supposed to rely in enforced limits on what people in power can do; not on their self-imposed limits. This is why we have a checks-and-balances system. The idea that we can accept a bad law just because it's going to be Obama administering it is antithetical to our very idea of constitutional government.

    "and we therefore need the proper tools to prevent such harm without abusing our constitutional rights."

    We already have the proper tools. None of what is in the version of FISA that passed the House is necessary to improve it. Again, Obama hasn't made any statement on "improving" FISA except on telecom immunity.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 12:43pm

  94. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 11:42am

    "Ahhh. I love your enthsiasm to support a man who never has, doesn't and never will have a chance of being President. He could have 3 lifetimes worth of time to run and he would still never make it into office."

    Yes, Cccomfol, never one to accept the usual presupposition that one need not disembowel oneself spiritually by supporting the unprincipled, I've chosen authenticity over power. You may wish to consult yourself along these same lines. In any case, its progressives that I've urged to support Nader.

    Posted by john lowell at 06/25/2008 @ 12:48pm

  95. Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 12:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    As usual, there are gaps you could drive a truck through.

    First, to impute the lack of attacks in the US to warrantless wiretapping overlooks the damage done to al-Qaida in Afghanistan, a more likely factor.

    Second, unless you have a list of people the NSA has listened too, you have no basis for gauging whose rights were violated. We do know that such a program is an illegal violation of the FISA law.

    Third, there was nothing in the commission report that said that the FISA warrant requirement was a factor. The problem inhered to a large extent in the institutional strike between the FBI and the CIA and the Bush administration's relative indifference to stateless terror groups.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 12:51pm

  96. This is one of the faults of idealists. You don't know which battles are worth fighting. This is a losing battle. No one will ever be investigated. In an ideal world law breakers would be dragged in and prosecuted. This is not an ideal world. It is more practical to get this out of the way now than to keep fighting a losing battle.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:59pm

  97. Yes, Cccomfol, never one to accept the usual presupposition that one need not disembowel oneself spiritually by supporting the unprincipled, I've chosen authenticity over power. You may wish to consult yourself along these same lines. In any case, its progressives that I've urged to support Nader.

    Posted by john lowell at 06/25/2008 @ 12:48pm

    I am a progressive but I am a realist as well. I realize that best chance I have of getting my policies in front of Congress is to support the people who can win. You go ahead and vote for Nader. You are doing a lot less for the progressive cause than I am because you are working o give Republicans the power. It may make you feel all tingly inside but votes cast for Nader are part of the reason we are in this mess to begin with. Al only needed a couple hundred more votes in order to win outright but Nader had those votes.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:02pm

  98. It might be helpful for them to explain in detail why this compromise is such a bad bill. The only specific that is mentioned is that it basically provides the retroactive immunity -- and it is not at all clear that they would be held liable in the cases at hand-- but nothing else.

    How about some hard facts to go along with all the silly shrieking.

    Posted by J. Saxon at 06/25/2008 @ 1:04pm

  99. Posted by libzRfreaks at 06/25/2008 @ 1:02pm

    You are an idiot. Please go away. Anyone who starts a post with "You stupid fucking libz are so ego-centric you think the govt wants to listen in on you having phone sex and making 900 calls...." Needs some electro shock therapy and anti-aggression classes.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:05pm

  100. Haven't seen this on the NYTimes site yet, but the BBC reports that Bill Clinton today at long last endorses Obama.

    And the Obama campaign today announces that it's asking its fundraisers to give $10M to help pay off the Clinton debt, of which at least $12M comes out of the Clintons' pocket ... & they're worth over $100M net.

    Is this what Obama supporters donated for? A $10M payoff to Bill Clinton in exchange for his grudging endorsement?

    Worth it?

    Obama increasingly reveals himself as offering too little substantive change.

    Posted by sloper at 06/25/2008 @ 1:09pm

  101. They will never ever be investigated. So ought as well get limits put in place now.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:42pm

    You realize that you are using circular logic, right?

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:13pm

  102. METTEYYA -

    You say we should refuse to speak critically of Obama before the election? I don't think so. If he doesn't hear the opinion, what would you expect him to do?

    As to your answers to BRUNOWE's good questions, I have some follow-up:

    Q:Will he vote for the bill if telecom immunity is NOT removed? A: I certainly hope not.

    Will you say anything critical if he does vote for it?

    Q: Why does he praise a bill that has so many objectionable provisions in addition to telecom immunity? A: I don't think Obama's actual comments, which were omitted by Nichols in his story, could be construed as "praise".

    Who cares what he SAYS. It is how he votes.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:16pm

  103. How about some hard facts to go along with all the silly shrieking.

    Posted by J. Saxon at 06/25/2008 @ 1:04pm

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

    • 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.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:18pm

  104. The current Democratic Congress is more popular with registered Republicans than registered Democrats.

    This says it all.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:18pm

  105. Hello Cccomfo1

    I do not see the threat we face as a few people in a different country.

    Radical Islam is a very widespread problem. I would recommend reading the book "America Alone: The End of the World as We Know it" By Mark Steyn

    Radical Islam is integrating itself into a lot of the world. This is not the same as the threat from Soviet Russia. The Soviets had spies, some undercover in the U.S., some in our own agencies such as the FBI or CIA, but the movements and actions in our country of the Soviets were a lot more well known.

    If someone was from the Soviet Union they were known to be a security risk to begin with.

    As Mr. Steyn points out in his book, Radical Islam is not associated with one country. There have been terrorists, for example, those who bombed the London Underground, who were native to the country (the UK) they committed the terror act against. These British citizens became converts to Radical Islam and then adopted the goal of jihad afterwards. They did not immigrate into the UK nor were they just visiting.

    Thus, it is much harder to define and identify the threat to specific individuals who can be watched or even restricted because they are from the country of "the enemy"

    Our country needs more ability to battle this, not less. And this threat, from a worldwide perspective, is very real.

    People who adhere to these same principles of jihad and death and destruction killed 150 kids in Beslan in Russia in 2004. So the principles of jihad are not aimed just at the United States.

    Up until recently, except for isolated people here and there, the people who were out to destroy the United States were specific countries we were at war against at certain points in time, or that we were in the "Cold War" against, in the case of the Soviets.

    The threat now is a whole different kind of threat comprised of an ideology but not localized to a country or a region. This threat is real, big time, and not just towards us, and will get worse if we let it.

    I just do not agree that I am giving up all my rights, and I think the threat is significant enough (it is very serious) that provisions be made for our country to effectively deal with it, to save the lives of innocent Americans and others.

    And as far as ripping the Constitution, I need to step back and talk here in an overall perspective, which includes all the issues of the day, not just this.

    By and large (but not absolutely, I know) most of the people who are upset on the security issue are people on the political left. In other venues and on other issues, the political left advocates a different view of the Constitution and on the role of the judiciary then I do. It (the Constitution) is looked upon as a flexible thing, open to interpretion, by a judiciary who has many times since the Warren court acted beyond their charter as the Constitution specifies.

    As a result, there is more and more encroachment by Government on people's lives and personal freedom, and law has come into being without the people themselves having a say.

    These things are done supposedly to help people, improve their lives, and correct past injustices, but others can claim that they have done no good and have made things worse for all (including those who are "helped") as a result, and that the way to improve peoples lives is not through more government control over all of our lives.

    On one of the "third rails" of issues, the subject of abortion, there are legal scholars who are pro-choice but admit now that Roe v Wade was "bad law"

    This whole subject (domestic policy) is off the subject of this particular "thread" but I bring it up to point out how many who are concerned about the Constitution and power and rights and freedom in the case of security measures and the need to fight our modern-day enemies have no problem advocating policy that results in taking power and rights and freedom away from the people in many other cases.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 1:19pm

  106. You realize that you are using circular logic, right?

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:13pm

    I am saying they will never get investigated so there is no point in yelling about this.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:25pm

  107. Libzr-Your calling for another terrorist attack in order to kill Americans who have views you disagree with is,by definition,treason.Your post is being saved and forwarded to the proper authorities.Derangement syndromes are named after the people who have them so why do you support a POTUS that you admit is deranged?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 06/25/2008 @ 1:26pm

  108. By and large (but not absolutely, I know) most of the people who are upset on the security issue are people on the political left.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 1:19pm

    Really???

    http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/24106leg20060208.html

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:26pm

  109. if security measures prevent terrorists from even planning a terrorist attack, then you can't prove that a specific attack was stopped because it may have never been planned or the idea hatched in the first place. If we have to set limits so you have to prove specific terror attacks were stopped, then you are allowing terrorists to go too far down the road.

    I certainly have seen no sizeable reference or outcry in the public media of specific U.S. citizens minding their own business and not engaged in terrorist activities who are complaining their rights were infringed upon as a result of these security measures.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 10:51am

    SJ, when people loudly trumpet the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks since 9/11, I always reply "Yes, and there have been no Martian attacks, either." Correlation does not equal causation.

    I know that when TSA confiscated my half-used 6 oz tube of toothpaste last week, it did nothing to increase the security of the country, yet somehow this "security measure" is part and parcel of why you feel we are so secure. Correlation does not equal causation.

    Let's change a few words to see how untenable your "no terrorist attacks since 9/11" logic is...

    If security measures prevent Martians from even planning a Martian attack, then you can't prove that a specific attack was stopped because it may have never been planned or the idea hatched in the first place. If we have to set limits so you have to prove specific Martian attacks were stopped, then you are allowing Martians to go too far down the road.

    I certainly have seen no sizeable reference or outcry in the public media of specific U.S. citizens minding their own business and not engaged in Martian activities who are complaining their rights were infringed upon as a result of these security measures.

    Posted by Balrog at 06/25/2008 @ 1:28pm

  110. Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:16pm

    We will see how he votes. Obama has been a consistent advocate for protecting civil rights abuses and I know that FISA is no exception.

    The Republicans are trying to put Obama in a position of allowing conversations from terrorists to go unmonitored so they can continue their scare tactic in this campaign that "Obama will not keep America safe".

    You guys really need to view this in terms of this election cycle and campaign, and what is required to win; and trust that Obama is not interested in violating anyone's civil rights and will prevent such abuse as president.

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/25/2008 @ 1:28pm

  111. Where did you get your degree nitwit...Kmart???

    Posted by libzRfreaks at 06/25/2008 @ 1:10pm

    That doesn't even begin to make since Libz. When was my degree ever brought up? Or where I went to school at all? Also although I do have a dgeree it shows your lack of intelligence in believing that a college degree is what makes or proves you intelligence. Anyone who has been to college has seen some idiots graduate. Anyone who has participated in life has seen some very intelligent people with no college degree, Spieldberg, Bill Gates etc.

    Trying thinking before you type it may get you a little farther.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:29pm

  112. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:25pm

    They are being investigated. There are suits pending. This bill will end those suits.

    And Congress would investigate if there were more members like Dodd and Feingold. So why can't we yell about Reid, Obama and the rest?

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:29pm

  113. sloper at 06/25/2008 @ 1:09pm

    this is a gesture of party solidarity, and by no means unprecedented.

    what's wrong with dems sticking together?

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/25/2008 @ 1:32pm

  114. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008

    "I am a progressive but I am a realist as well."

    Oh, that's how we're to see you, is it? And here I'd thought you were just a standard issue, garden variety Democrat.

    "You are doing a lot less for the progressive cause than I am because you are working to give Republicans the power."

    Yeah, I've often felt that one's vote has something to do with self-respect. You wouldn't seem to share that view.

    "Al only needed a couple hundred more votes in order to win outright but Nader had those votes."

    You'll excuse me, of couse, but Ralph only needed a couple million more votes in order to win outright but Al had those votes. You go ahead and vote for Obama. It may make you feel all tingly inside but votes cast for Gore are part of the reason we are in this mess to begin with.

    Posted by john lowell at 06/25/2008 @ 1:35pm

  115. You realize that you are using circular logic, right?

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:13pm

    Here's my point. All those things you listed above will be done whether the legislation is passed or not. No one will actually win a case against the telecoms. No one will impeach Bush. If they want to do an illegal wiretap they will. If they want to arrest you for the information on it they will. Anyone who knows anything about black ops knows that they don't need anything beyond orders to come to your house and make sure you are a terrorist by the time they either shoot you or drag you out kicking and screaming. I am not for the gutting of the Constitution but I am also practical enough to know which battles are worth fighting.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:35pm

  116. >>>You say we should refuse to speak critically of Obama before the election? I don't think so. If he doesn't hear the opinion, what would you expect him to do?

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:16pm<<<

    I just think the focus should be on McCain, not Obama, as Obama-bashing only helps the Republicans retain the Whitehouse.

    Why don't you give him a chance to govern? Why jump the gun on "hints and flashes" of centrism when we all know from his 8 year record in Illiois that he is as progressive as they come?

    Why jeopardize his chances of getting there by focusing on your fears rather than your hopes?

    We all know that NO ONE can openly run as a progressive and win the White House - at least not yet. So why don't you understand this practical reality and allow Obama to do what he has to do to win and then see how he governs?

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/25/2008 @ 1:38pm

  117. and trust that Obama is not interested in violating anyone's civil rights and will prevent such abuse as president.

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/25/2008 @ 1:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    No, we DON'T have to trust him. We are completely free to judge him on his actions.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 1:40pm

  118. Like alot of people I am outraged by the actions of our congress with regard to this FISA "Compromise". I have been a long time supporter of Obama and was even more outraged to hear that he was in support of this piece of garbage. I wrote to his campaign expressing my disappointment and outrage that he would support a bill that would clearly be in violation of our 4th Amendment. Not only was he a Constitutional law professor but a CIVIL RIGHTS attorney!! What is he thinking??? Doesn't the 1978 FISA Law provide for the protection against foreign or domestic attacks without violating our Constitution and our rights?? If civil action against the telecom's is the only recourse to holding them and this administration accountable for violating the law then, so be it! If there's one thing I am absolutely sure of with this administration it is that they will ALWAYS find a way to either ignore the law or bend it in their favor. For any senator to support this bill is only inviting Bush to continue with his abuse of power.

    I have also contacted, by phone and email, both of my senators urging them to vote NO on this bill. I would also urge everyone to contact Dodd and Feingold in support of their efforts to stop this bill from going through.

    If anyone thinks that McCain won't continue the Bush/Cheney expansion of executive powers then I would suggest reading "Broken Government" by John W. Dean. Since the days of Nixon it has been the goal of the republican party to "redisgn the federal system" and put in its place a conservative philosophy of "autocratic presidentialism". Their goal is to gain control and then keep it. If that were to happen we eventually wouldn't be able to tell the difference between us and China, IMO. What's really scary about this is that it seemed so benign in the beginning but when you look beneath the surface you begin to realize that the efforts by this administration have done a great deal of damage already to our Constitution and our civil rights. So, for those who say that they will vote for Nader, McCain or Barr it would be at the expense of our Constitution and our civil liberties.

    At this point, voting for Obama, even with his support of the FISA "compromise", isn't a matter of voting "for the lesser of two evils", it is a matter of preserving our Constitution and preventing the republicans, from destroying our democracy, as we know it. I hope that the republicans don't see the inside of the White House for a thousand years after what this president has done!!

    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

    Benjamin Franklin 1706-1790

    Posted by Payne_7617 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:46pm

  119. Hello Hman23 and Cccomfo1,

    With respect to no terror attacks since 9/11 here at home and if the new security measures are the reason why - I certainly do not have specific examples of these, I would not in any way be privy to them. I would imagine there are things the general public does not know and won't for many years.

    Where I am coming from is that I have read instances where maybe had those measures been in place 9/11 maybe could have been stopped.

    Apparently there was information on a computer in Minnesota that if the authorities had been given the right to search the machine they might have uncovered information that would have pointed to the possibility of 9/11.

    Also I have read where a Maryland State Trooper stopped one of the eventual 9/11 hijackers as he was speeding on I-95 northeast of Baltimore, heading to New Jersey. (Where he got on a plane in Newark two days later for the one-way trip he took without the plane landing). The Maryland trooper did not have access to information about this individuals visa status and how he was in violation of reporting in as required, all the person got was a speeding ticket, which was found in the rental car at Newark after 9/11.

    And I have read how the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York warned about the possible bad effect of Jamie Gorelick's wall on future abilities to prevent terror.

    These point to how had the security measures been in place maybe 9/11 could have been stopped.

    And thus since the security measures are in place now maybe something in the way of a terror attack got curtailed before it even got off of the ground.

    I have read where there are cases how, with the more agressive law enforcement, people with suspicious backgrounds are monitored more closely and perhaps even denied entry to the US or deported from the US and thus these people are not in a position to start planning let alone execute a terror attack.

    There may have been terror attacks that otherwise would have been occurred that never got off of the drawing board or to the planning stage in the first place. Thus there is no ability to know about things that didn't even get started in planning in the first place.

    I have read this information over time and since I do not store each article I come across, and since I am not at my normal computer anyway, I can not pull these examples up "on a dime" if you will, to prove my argument.

    I am making a hypothetical case, and I know I am, but it seems to me from what I have come across that the security measures may have prevented 9/11, people have made this case, and that they perhaps have prevented another 9/11.

    You are asking me to prove what is somewhat the unprovable, because there are events that may never have gotten past the planning stage to begin with, and thus there is no public list of planned terror attacks ready for execution that have been stopped in time.

    You may consider my argument weak but I would make the same case that it would be a weak argument to assume that the security measures have had no impact at all, either. It seems logically that security measures have been of benefit.

    I don't think you can prove that they have been of no benefit now or that the lack of security measures were harmful prior to 9/11. All you can do is make your case based on your logic, and I am doing the same with my logic.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 1:48pm

  120. You'll excuse me, of couse, but Ralph only needed a couple million more votes in order to win outright but Al had those votes. You go ahead and vote for Obama. It may make you feel all tingly inside but votes cast for Gore are part of the reason we are in this mess to begin with.

    Posted by john lowell at 06/25/2008 @ 1:35pm

    Here is your problem. Even if Gore dropped out and Nader was the only one left he would not have won. Nader is too extreme for Independents to vote for him which means he can't win. Democrats only make up 38% of the electorate which means you need 13% of independents in order to win. Nader can never get that amount. He doesn't stand a chance. My vote isn't about self-respect it is about the preservation and protection of the country I love. I will vote for the person who will do the best job of protecting the things I find important and will take steps to move this country towards a direction I like. I would rather see my country slowly change into what I want it to be with less than perfect candidates doing the work, than see my country turn into a fascist nation because I voted to make myself feel good.

    Don't get me wrong. I would love to have many many different parties. Sadly it is not realistic. Basically would you are saying is that your self-respect is more important to you than the future of this nation to protect our children from people like George Bush because if enough of your type vote for Nader we will have 4 more years of Bush in the form of McCain because even if Obama dropped out and told his entire constituency to vote for Nader, Nader would still lose because the extremes never win in this country. If Nader actually ever stood a chance of winning I would vote for him however he doesn't so I would rather see my policies make it through than me feel self-righteous because me casting my vote out of self-respect is me being selfish.

    "And here I'd thought you were just a standard issue, garden variety Democrat."

    Actually if you look at the meaning of a Garden variety Democrat you are by definition that. You fight battles that can't be won just so you can make yourself feel better. I am an independent Progressive. One who realizes that in order to actually win the fight I have to let my own ego lose sometimes.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:49pm

  121. Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 1:19pm

    I want address the last portion of your post instead of the first because the first will jsut keep us going around in circles. I would like specific examples where the left has directly defied the Constitution as this FISA bill does. This FISA bill is in DIRECT opposition to the Constitution. The government make laws in order to oversee certain aspects of life as an INTERPRETATION of the Constitution is a little different than directly going against the Constitution toward a PERCEIVED threat. Again the threat is perceived you only know as much as you are told. If radical Islam is such a threat then why weren't they trying to blow us up in the 50's? I think this threat is not nearly as big of one as it is being conflated to be.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:54pm

  122. I just checked opensecrets.org and the communications and electronics industry is now giving three to one for Democrats. A deal will be made in their favor.

    I have also come up with a list why conservatives should vote for Obama:

    1. While in the state senate he procured public funds for faith based institutions. Take that, Dobson!!

    2. He opted out of public financing so the big money will be assured a stronger voice.

    3. He gets the bulk of his money from the right people. Lawyers, banks and that great catch-all: Retired.

    I'm starting to think the Republicans can't lose this November. They have both candidates.

    Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 06/25/2008 @ 1:56pm

  123. Poor Mettayya!

    Your defense of the indefensible is laughable. We should "trust" Obama to oversee FISA? Just as we should "trust" him when he promised directly and clearly that he would filibuster ANY telecom immunity? (October, 2007 - go look it up.)

    He is ALREADY being corrupted by Power, and he isn't even elected yet!

    He is just like Any Other Politician - say ANYthing to get elected, and then DO anything to hold on to power!

    Screw Obama!

    Posted by sjduskin at 06/25/2008 @ 1:56pm

  124. Poor Mettayya!

    Your defense of the indefensible is laughable. We should "trust" Obama to oversee FISA? Just as we should "trust" him when he promised directly and clearly that he would filibuster ANY telecom immunity? (October, 2007 - go look it up.)

    He is ALREADY being corrupted by Power, and he isn't even elected yet!

    He is just like Any Other Politician - say ANYthing to get elected, and then DO anything to hold on to power!

    Screw Obama!

    Posted by sjduskin at 06/25/2008 @ 1:57pm

  125. >>>No, we DON'T have to trust him. We are completely free to judge him on his actions.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 1:40pm<<<

    On his actions as PRESIDENT, not his actions in a campaign where he has to overcome republican attacks from the right in order to win.

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/25/2008 @ 1:58pm

  126. This whole subject (domestic policy) is off the subject of this particular "thread" but I bring it up to point out how many who are concerned about the Constitution and power and rights and freedom in the case of security measures and the need to fight our modern-day enemies have no problem advocating policy that results in taking power and rights and freedom away from the people in many other cases.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 1:19pm

    Hmm I posted a response before this but it appears to have vanished. Let me do this again.

    I am going to answer the second part of your post because I believe in reference to the first part that we have said all we can and we will just continue going in circles if we keep going.

    I would like examples of where the left has used DIRECT opposition the Constitution to get things done. The FISA bill is in direct opposition to the Constitutional need for a warrant. Interpreting the Constitution is not quite the same as directly opposing it.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 2:06pm

  127. >>>No, we DON'T have to trust him. We are completely free to judge him on his actions.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 1:40pm<<<

    On his actions as PRESIDENT, not his actions in a campaign where he has to overcome republican attacks from the right in order to win.

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/25/2008 @ 2:10pm

  128. a campaign where he has to overcome republican attacks from the right in order to win.

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/25/2008 @ 2:10pm

    It takes a vast amount of trust to believe that Obama's current stance on FISA is mere campaign pandering and that, once in office, he will revert back to his Constitutional roots, however, I find it easier to trust Obama to do this than McCain.

    Posted by Balrog at 06/25/2008 @ 2:22pm

  129. Posted by Balrog at 06/25/2008 @ 2:22pm

    I don't think Obama is "pandering" with the FISA issue, I think he just has to be mindful so that he does not feed into the Republican "Obama Can't keep America Safe" message they are trying to get across to the American voter.

    I think he will fight to remove telecom immunity and fight to strengthen oversight and limit abuse of the automatic stay language. We know the Bush administration routinely abuses provisions of this sort, so it makes sense to treat a denial of a FISA application like any other denial of relief and require a formal stay petition before a court to get a stay.

    Ultimately, he does not want to be seen as someone who voted for or allowed terrorists' communication to go unmonitored, but I think there are ways to do this within the framework of the Constitution.

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/25/2008 @ 2:37pm

  130. I don't think Obama is "pandering" with the FISA issue, I think he just has to be mindful so that he does not feed into the Republican "Obama Can't keep America Safe" message they are trying to get across to the American voter.

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/25/2008 @ 2:37pm

    That is called pandering where I come from.

    pander |ˈpandər| verb [ intrans. ] ( pander to) gratify or indulge

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 2:54pm

  131. Hello Cccomfo1,

    We are at war, a war we did not start.

    The Constitution grants the President authority in time of war to take action in defense of the country. This would include disrupting enemy commnuications. If warrantless wiretapping is necessary to stop efforts by our enemies that could lead to attacks against us, then the authority is there to do that. And previous presidents have conducted warrantless surveillance and have taken other actions that outside of wartime would not have been tolerated.

    The left has used direct opposition to the Constituion to get things done because the mechanism to get these things done has been by loose judicial rulings that are so loose that they cross beyond just interpretations of the law to effectively making law that didn't exist before. And the judicial branch does not have the authority to make law. The executive and legislative branches make law, the judical branch rules if it is legal or constitutional, and that is the system of checks and balances in the Constitution.

    You have judges now saying it is OK to consider foreign law/practices or current societal norms in the process of making judicial rulings.

    Yet law itself is not cast in concrete. New laws are enacted, others modified, and others struck from the books by town councils, state legislatures and the U.S. Congress, and the Constitution can be amended itself and has been many times.

    So if law needs to be changed or disposed or if new law needs to be enacted, there are procedures and methods for doing that. Loose judicial rulings are NOT an appropriate method for doing that.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 3:47pm

  132. <i>We are at war, a war we did not start.

    </i>

    With what country are we at war?

    Posted by Balrog at 06/25/2008 @ 3:59pm

  133. So if law needs to be changed or disposed or if new law needs to be enacted, there are procedures and methods for doing that.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 3:47pm

    What should happen to those who don't follow those procedures and methods?

    Posted by Balrog at 06/25/2008 @ 4:02pm

  134. "We are at war, a war we did not start.

    The Constitution grants the President authority in time of war to take action in defense of the country."----Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 3:47pm

    SJ, couple of questions-

    1. When will the war end?

    2. If you answered an indetermintable amount of time ("could take years and years")...

    then you have effectively ceded broad powers to the President ad infinitum, haven't you?

    3. If you answered less than "years and years"....when?

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2008 @ 5:06pm

  135. "We are at war, a war we did not start."

    Actually we did start the war in Iraq.

    "The Constitution grants the President authority in time of war to take action in defense of the country. This would include disrupting enemy commnuications. If warrantless wiretapping is necessary to stop efforts by our enemies that could lead to attacks against us, then the authority is there to do that."

    No, the President's actions during war are subject to the law the same as anyone elses. It is Congress that sets the parameters for hostilities with its war-declaring power, it is Congress that is empower to establish the rules and regulations of the armed forces. SCOTUS said this in the 50s with the Youngstown Steel Case. Further, the actions against al-Qaida are only a war in Afghanistan. Elsewhere, we are talking about disrupting criminal conspiracies.

    "The left has used direct opposition to the Constituion to get things done because the mechanism to get these things done has been by loose judicial rulings that are so loose that they cross beyond just interpretations of the law"

    On the contrary, it's Bush who once referred to the Constitution as a scrap of paper. Further, SCOTUS decision in the Boumediene case wasn't making law, it was a valid interpretation.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 5:12pm

  136. "Why don't you give him a chance to govern? Why jump the gun on "hints and flashes" of centrism when we all know from his 8 year record in Illiois that he is as progressive as they come?

    Why jeopardize his chances of getting there by focusing on your fears rather than your hopes?

    We all know that NO ONE can openly run as a progressive and win the White House - at least not yet. "

    Sorry, but pointing out his mistaken positions isn't bashing. Further, the idea that we should consider his records except for when he's running for President is ludicrous.

    "so it makes sense to treat a denial of a FISA application like any other denial of relief and require a formal stay petition before a court to get a stay."

    No it doesn't, in this case the denial means the administration doesn't yet have permission to eavesdrop. What your suggesting would be like saying that the police can kick down a door even though they've been denied a search warrant as long as the issue is on appeal.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 5:16pm

  137. Is it acceptable for Congress and the President to violate Constitutional protections without an Amendment to the Constitution, or is it not?

    That is the one and only question that counts.

    Posted by guanabana at 06/25/2008 @ 5:49pm

  138. Actually, it may just be a separation of powers issue. There is case law that allows warrantless searches of anyone crossing the border because of the country's particular interest in border crossings. Electronic transmissions may be subject to the same consideration; consequently it's more a question of the extent to which the executive branch is bound by FISA.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 6:07pm

  139. Is it acceptable for Congress and the President to take action which violates Constitutional rights without an Amendment to the Constitution that makes the action Constitutional?

    Posted by guanabana at 06/25/2008 @ 6:28pm

  140. would u libz rather still have saddam and his 2 evil sons still filling mass graves and running rape rooms????

    Posted by libzRfreaks at 06/25/2008 @ 6:21pm

    President Bush and Vice President Cheney have been quite busy using their military, intelligence and paramilitary proxies to fill mass graves and run rape rooms in Iraq for the past 5 years.

    Posted by guanabana at 06/25/2008 @ 6:43pm

  141. Posted by guanabana at 06/25/2008 @ 6:43pm

    Everybody pretty much Ignores "Libz" and his various Hotmail account aliases.

    He's one of those Rantin' Righties who only know what he hates (i.e. anybody left of himself, including some Republicans) and not much else.

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2008 @ 7:01pm

  142. Oops. My bad. Didn't know this was a Repubican Rovian blog posing as a progressive blog.

    I'll close the door behind me. Should I turn off the light too?

    Posted by LaPlante at 06/25/2008 @ 7:26pm

  143. Hello Balrog,

    You ask "With what country are we at war?"

    I explained that up above. We are at war with terrorist who threaten us, most of which is consists of elements of radical Islam, but also other threats, such as the threat Saddam posed.

    You ask "What should happen to those who don't follow those procedures and methods?"

    The answer is to vote them out of office or don't vote them in to begin with. In other words, do not vote liberals into office who advocate that it is OK to use the judiciary to make law. Instead, vote conservatives into office who will appoint constructionist judges to the bench who will follow their constitutional role.

    Hello guanabana,

    You ask "Is it acceptable for Congress and the President to take action which violates Constitutional rights without an Amendment to the Constitution that makes the action Constitutional?"

    The answer is - that is not happening in this case - the Constituion grants the President the ability to do what is necessary in wartime - thus Constitutional rights are not violated since it is the Constitution itself that gives the President authority.

    Hello brunowe,

    You said "Actually we did start the war in Iraq."

    Two things about that -

    1. We technically were still at war with Saddam from the Gulf War. Saddam never complied with any UN resolutions demanded of him, thus it was Saddam's fault we had to go in again.

    2. The War on Terror comprises more than just Iraq - or stopping Saddam in Iraq. Terror attacks have gone on for a long time now against us and also against other countries, as I pointed out above with the Beslan massacre. We have now realized we are at war, and the terrorists started it.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 8:10pm

  144. "the Constituion grants the President the ability to do what is necessary in wartime - "

    No it doesn't, it only grants him the position of Commander-in-Chief, essentially the supreme military commander. The scope of the war inheres in Congress's funding power, its declaration of war power and its power to establish the rules and regulations of the armed forces.

    "We technically were still at war with Saddam from the Gulf War. Saddam never complied with any UN resolutions demanded of him, thus it was Saddam's fault we had to go in again."

    We didn't HAVE to go in again. Further, the Gulf War was covered by Security Council resolutions, the most recent of which before the war stated that the Security Council remained seized of the matter. It wasn't our prerogative to go in unilaterally.

    "2. The War on Terror comprises more than just Iraq - or stopping Saddam in Iraq. Terror attacks have gone on for a long time now against us and also against other countries, as I pointed out above with the Beslan massacre. We have now realized we are at war, and the terrorists started it."

    Iraq had nothing to do with the struggle with Islamist militants. Second, the Beslan massacre was a part of the Chechen war. That doesn't make going after plotters in Europe or here anything but a matter of crushing criminal conspirators.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 8:25pm

  145. So if law needs to be changed or disposed or if new law needs to be enacted, there are procedures and methods for doing that. Loose judicial rulings are NOT an appropriate method for doing that.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 3:47pm |

    The problem with your definition of the Presidents ability to suspend rights in order to fight a war is that he has not met the prime directive in order to do this. There has to be a state of military law in order to implement this. We are not in a status of military law therefore he can not Constitutionally take rights away.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/26/2008 @ 02:51am

  146. Also SJ. We are not at war. There has been no formal declaration of war. There WAS when we went to Iraq. However that war was declared a victory a long time ago. So no, we are not formally at war. Like was said before we are combatting criminal syndicates, like the mob but more powerful.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/26/2008 @ 02:53am

  147. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

    Benjamin Franklin 1706-1790

    Posted by Payne_7617 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:46pm

    Agreed. The rethugs keep talking about how tough they are and all this flag waving crap when in fact, they are a bunch of cowards worried that someone is coming to get them. They are so worried that they will give up all of their rights to keep the boogy man away.

    Ten to one says half them have a night light in their rooms or keep the hallway light on with their doors cracked open a little.

    I expect that from my children, but I don't expect that grown men and women would act in such a fashion.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/26/2008 @ 03:08am

  148. Hello Cccomfo1,

    We are at war, a war we did not start.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 3:47pm

    Are you for real?! We damn sure did start the war in Iraq. You know, pre-emptive war. If that isn't starting a war, then please tell me what the hell is. Sadam was no threat at all to the security of the United States. Bin Laden was and still is.

    How stupid can you be. Iraq never attacked us. If anyone did attack us, it's Saudi Arabia and your good buddy W in the White House is busy holding hands in kissing the royal Saudi's asses.

    This war on terror is a F*&$ing joke!! We are no safer now than we were on 9/11. There are multiple ways people can attack this country, and the U.S. is a free country with relatively open borders. If someone is hell bent on killing Americans, guess what, they'll succeed.

    The best defense the U.S. can stage against something like that is to threaten any harboring countries of folks who would do something like this that we would visit the death and destruction placed upon our people 1000 fold back on the country responsible for the attacks. They would think twice before funding nutcase extremists then.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/26/2008 @ 03:21am

  149. And the judicial branch does not have the authority to make law. The executive and legislative branches make law, the judical branch rules if it is legal or constitutional, and that is the system of checks and balances in the Constitution.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 1:19pm

    I agree with you, but you might want to ask Justice Scalia his opinion on that matter.

    During the 2000 election fiasco, Scalia told Charlie Rose in an interview that the Supreme Court called an end to the vote counts not because of any laws, but rather that they thought the United States was a joke around the world not being able to determine it's next president, so they put a stop to then and there.

    Now, becuase something is embarassing is a bullshit reason to abandon a vote recount for the office of the presidency of the United States. Had they completed the recount, maybe the United States wouldn't have had to face the humiliation of having W as president for two terms.

    Scalia is about as activiist as a judge as you can be. He's not interpretting the law, he's actively trying to redefine the laws on the books and bend them to meet a conservative agenda. He pretty much came out and admitted to it in the interview. So much for blind justice.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/26/2008 @ 03:37am

  150. Hi Wolfgang1,

    Your wishful thinking that "W" wouln't have been President if the recount had been completed is just that - wishful thinking.

    Any analysis of the Florida situation shows that President Bush would have won the recounts (recounts that would have been beyond the limits election law provided for) anyway.

    So President Bush would have been President unless Algore had continued to press for recount after recount and the Florida supreme court had continued to grant them.

    Was Algore going to keep going forever with this?

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/26/2008 @ 03:56am

  151. Posted by sjchermak at 06/26/2008 @ 03:56am

    If "Bush would have won the recounts"...

    then if Gore got "recount after recount"...

    every recount would have further strengthened Bush's position and eliminated all doubt....wouldn't it?

    Posted by Mask at 06/26/2008 @ 08:48am

  152. You ask "What should happen to those who don't follow those procedures and methods?"

    The answer is to vote them out of office or don't vote them in to begin with. In other words, do not vote liberals into office who advocate that it is OK to use the judiciary to make law. Instead, vote conservatives into office who will appoint constructionist judges to the bench who will follow their constitutional role.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2008 @ 8:10pm |

    Man, you really have the blinders on. I'll be more direct: What should happen to President Bush, who self-admittedly committed literally thousands of felonies by NOT getting warrants for wiretaps, as dictated by the laws in effect at the time?

    Posted by Balrog at 06/26/2008 @ 08:55am

  153. Go ahead Vote for Nader and then get John McCain I dare ya all. If you think past 8 years was bad the next 4 will be a nightmare. Global warming you can forget anything happening on that front. The war in Iraq we'll be there for 100 years, Civil Liberties you aint see NOTHING yet.

    This is why I cant stand democrats, republicans, progressives, liberals the left all of them they literally make me want to vomit its just a matter of gradiation. They live in their naieve parochial world they think life is perfect life is black and white you do the right thing always only the right thing is what they decide is the right thing. They dont want a president who applies judgement who weighs all sides who try to be fair to all bases no they want a president that do what they want. they want a puppet then they rush to people like Nader who they think represent them and over and over again they become a footnote in history while the environment continues to deterioriate as they continue the search for their perfect candidate that no one can possibly live up to and win. Good luck with getting Nader elected I see more floods tyhpoons and hurricanes in your future and less Civil Liberties.

    Carol

    Posted by harriscrl3 at 06/26/2008 @ 09:07am

  154. So President Bush would have been President unless Algore had continued to press for recount after recount and the Florida supreme court had continued to grant them.

    Was Algore going to keep going forever with this?

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/26/2008 @ 03:56am

    Greetings sjchermak,

    So, I'll play along with you and say that W would have won the recount anyway.

    Since the vote was close enough, by law, to require a recount, then why no do the recount and follow the law? Since, as you say, W would have won anyway, then W would have won straight up. But that is not what happened and you know it. The recount was never completed, and it wasn't done properly.

    There's a possibility to that Gore may have won the recount which would have probably forced the state of Florida to either redo the whole process again, or count the votes again, but with the whole world watching, not just Mrs Harris on the rethug payroll.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/26/2008 @ 09:14am

  155. Carol

    Posted by harriscrl3 at 06/26/2008 @ 09:07am

    You are correct about the Nader thing to a certain degree. But here's the funny thing, if there's a funny thing about this. McCain shouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning this election.

    If the American people are this damned stupid as to vote for completely failed policies for 12 years straight, we deserve the ass kicking on the world stage that we'll get and have been getting.

    The rethugs only care about profit and profit alone, but the problem is that you can't run a government that way. And for you rethugs out there thinking the market solves all, please tell me how much tax money the U.S. doles out to the pentagon and NSA. That money is then doled out to defense contractors, but it's part of your paycheck being doled out and wasted in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Israel and the list goes on and on.

    Can't you conservatives get it through your heads that the biggest welfare recipients from the U.S. government are the defense contractors, oil companies and foreign governments playing ball with international corporations which in turn are screwing American citizen over the coals?!

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/26/2008 @ 09:23am

  156. which in turn are screwing American citizen over the coals?!

    Posted by Wolfgang1

    block that metaphor

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/26/2008 @ 11:54am

  157. Hello Wolfgang1,

    You said "Since the vote was close enough, by law, to require a recount, then why no do the recount and follow the law? Since, as you say, W would have won anyway, then W would have won straight up. But that is not what happened and you know it. The recount was never completed, and it wasn't done properly. "

    Huh?

    I am talking about the 2000 election and the situation in Florida. What election are you talking about?

    You seem to forget about Florida election law. Recounting had taken place, according to Gore specifications. At some point election law prescribes that the recount process stop, especially after it yielded the same result as before.

    The election was certified, but then the Florida Supreme Court, a left leaning court, engaged in judicial activism and, despite election law, made law from the bench and said continue.

    The U.S. Supreme court then reviewed the situation, and since the Florida court had no basis to make law from the bench to keep recounting going, vacated the ruling. This made George W. Bush the duly and properly elected President of the United States.

    You say the original election was close enough to require a recount. And Algore asked for a recount, so there was a recount, done according to Algore specifications.

    Don't know where you came up with what you said occurred, but it was a beaut. Trying to re-write history on the fly, I guess.

    Note: It didn't work!

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/26/2008 @ 12:16pm

  158. Don't know where you came up with what you said occurred, but it was a beaut. Trying to re-write history on the fly, I guess.

    Note: It didn't work!

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/26/2008 @ 12:16pm

    That's crap and you know it. Half the votes weren't recounted, they were retallied, not recounted.

    Once again, if things were all on the up and up, why were W, Harris, Bolton and the rest of W's cronies afraid that the rest of the nation see the final results of a recount? Why was it so imperative to stop the recount. If it would have produced the same results, Gore would have had to conceed and walk away.

    This was a damned power grab and nothing more. W forced his way into the oval office with a mission from his superiors to go into Iraq before 9/11 even took place and nothing was going to stop them, not even losing the election.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/26/2008 @ 1:18pm

  159. Hello Wolfgang1,

    Thanks for posting back.. I will take the opportunity to paste in what actually happened in 2000, not what you say happened.

    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884144.html

    2000 Election Chronology

    Tuesday, Nov. 7--Election Day. Pundits have predicted a tight race between Texas governor George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore, but few expect one of the closest elections in U.S. history. By early evening, it's clear the election hinges on Florida.

    Wednesday, Nov. 8--Gore calls Bush at approximately 3 A.M. to concede, but retracts the concession shortly after, because Bush's razor-slim lead prompts an automatic recount. He leads Gore by about 1,210 votes out of nearly 6 million cast in Florida. Meanwhile Gore leads in both the national popular count and the electoral college. An unusual amount of votes for third-party candidates in Palm Beach County leads to disputes over the county's "butterfly ballots." A number of ballots in other counties are disqualified because the chad > the small piece of paper punched out of punch-card ballots--did not fully detach from the ballot.

    Thursday, Nov. 9--Gore's camp requests a hand recount of the approximately 1.8 million ballots cast in Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, Broward, and Volusia counties, Democratic strongholds. Friday, Nov. 10--Florida's automatic recount is completed. The Associated Press reports that Bush has retained his lead but only by 327 votes.

    Saturday, Nov. 11--The Bush team, led by former secretary of state James Baker, files suit in federal court to block Gore's request for a hand recount. Monday, Nov. 13--Florida secretary of state Katherine Harris announces she will not extend the Nov. 14 deadline for the submission of all state results, excluding absentee ballots from overseas. A federal judge in Miami rejects Bush's efforts to halt manual recounts. Bush appeals the decision.

    Tuesday, Nov. 14--Harris postpones certification of the state's votes until Nov. 15, so Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Broward counties have time to prepare an explanation of why they should hand count their ballots.

    Wednesday, Nov. 15--Harris decides that no county offered adequate evidence to justify further hand recounts. Florida Supreme Court denies a request from Harris to stop the hand recounts. Certification is again postponed. Thursday, Nov. 16--Bush's lawyers present written arguments to the U.S. federal appeals court in Atlanta to end the manual recounts. Gore's team files a counter motion.

    Friday, Nov. 17--The Florida Supreme Court blocks Harris from certifying election until it rules on the Democrats' motion to include hand recounts. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denies the Republicans' motion to stop manual recounts on constitutional grounds.

    Saturday, Nov. 18--With a tally of absentee ballots, uncertified count has Bush ahead of Gore by 930 votes. Tuesday, Nov. 21--Florida Supreme Court rules that results of hand counts of ballots in Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Broward counties must be included in the vote tally if the counts are completed by Nov. 26.

    Sunday, Nov. 26--Harris certifies Bush as the winner of Florida's 25 electoral votes, with a 537-vote lead over Gore. Gore pledges to challenge certification in court. The tally does not include results from Palm Beach County, which finished its hand recount hours after the deadline.

    Monday, Nov. 27--Gore contests the Florida results in a circuit court in Tallahassee.

    Wednesday, Nov. 29--Leon County Circuit Court judge N. Sanders Sauls orders that all ballots from Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties be sent to Tallahassee for a hearing on whether the hand count, which was incomplete at the time of the court-ordered Nov. 26 deadline, should be included in the final vote tally.

    Thursday, Nov. 30--Florida lawmakers, voting along party lines, recommend holding a special session to name the state's 25 electors if the election dispute is not resolved by Dec. 12, six days before the electoral college meets. Friday, Dec. 1--The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on whether the Florida Supreme Court acted properly when it forced the Florida secretary of state to accept manual recounts submitted after the legal deadline. The Florida Supreme Court denies Gore's appeal to immediately begin recounting ballots and rejects motion filed by some Palm Beach County citizens who questioned the integrity of the "butterfly ballot." Gore requests a count of approximately 14,000 "undervotes" from Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties.

    Monday, Dec. 4--Judge Sauls rejects Gore's contest of the election results, saying the vice president failed to prove that hand recounts would have altered the results. Gore appeals to the Florida Supreme Court. U.S. Supreme Court asks Florida Supreme Court to explain why it ordered Harris to accept results submitted after the Nov. 14 deadline mandated by state law, thus returning the case to Tallahassee. Thursday, Dec. 7--Gore's legal team appeals Sauls's ruling. Bush's lawyers argue that the decision should stand. Friday, Dec. 8--The Florida Supreme Court, ruling on Gore's appeal, orders manual recounts in counties with large numbers of undervotes. Bush appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court and seeks injunction to stop recounts. In two separate lawsuits, Leon County Circuit Court judges refuse to throw out absentee ballots from Seminole and Martin counties that had been disputed by Gore.

    Saturday, Dec. 9--The U.S. Supreme Court votes 5–4 to halt the hand recounts and sets a hearing for Dec. 11. Florida Supreme Court hears appeal on whether absentee ballots in Martin and Seminole counties should be counted.

    Tuesday, Dec. 12--The U.S. Supreme Court rules in Bush v. Gore 7–2 to reverse the Florida Supreme Court, which had ordered manual recounts in certain counties. The Court contends that the recount was not treating all ballots equally, and was thus a violation of the Constitution's equal protection and due process guarantees. The Supreme Court of Florida would be required to set up new voting standards and carry them out in a recount. The justices, however, split 5–4 along partisan lines about implementing a remedy. Five justices maintain that this process and the recount must adhere to the official deadline for certifying electoral college votes: midnight, Dec. 12; other justices question the importance of this date. Since the Court makes its ruling just hours before the deadline, it in effect ensures that it is too late for a recount. The decision generates enormous controversy. Those objecting to the ruling assert that the Supreme Court, and not the electorate, has effectively determined the outcome of the presidential election. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes in a scathing dissent, "the Court's conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court's own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States."

    Wednesday, Dec. 13--In another decision, Florida Supreme Court decides not to hear an appeal from Gore asking that absentee ballots from Martin and Seminole counties be thrown out. In televised speeches, Gore concedes, and Bush accepts the presidency.

    Monday, Dec. 18--Electoral college representatives meet in state capitals and cast votes to select president.

    Wednesday, Jan. 5--Congress meets to tally electoral college results.

    Saturday, Jan. 20--George W. Bush sworn in as 43rd president of the United States.

    So now we both know what really happened. Kind of speaks for itself, doesn't it.

    I know, I know... Information Please almanac is run by Karl Rove and is spreading lies ordered up by the chickenhawk neocons!

    There was an automatic recount, as perscribed by law. Gore requested a hand recount.

    NOTE THAT: Gore's lawyers never successfully justified how hand recounts would have altered the outcome. Thus they were denied but were eventually allowed to start anyway. This was correctly cut off.

    Read that again as I quote myself - "Gore's lawyers never successfully justified how hand recounts would have altered the outcome."

    The burden was on Algore to prove they were necessary. He did not do this.

    Now this is the part that gets good - "The U.S. Supreme Court rules in Bush v. Gore 7–2 to reverse the Florida Supreme Court, which had ordered manual recounts in certain counties. The Court contends that the recount was not treating all ballots equally, and was thus a violation of the Constitution's equal protection and due process guarantees. "

    So there it is - that is the crux of this whole thread - Liberals wanted the Florida election process to violate the Constitution!

    When libs want something to be, it is supposed to be, the Constitution be dammed. But when libs do not think something should be, then they totally wrap themselves around the Constitution every which way but sideways!!!

    Up above you said of my arguments "That's crap and you know it."

    Actually, they were not "crap". I knew it already, you know it now, and everybody else here does too!!

    Have a good day, Wolfgang1

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/26/2008 @ 1:43pm

  160. SJCHERMAK

    Of course you didn't take into account the 5-4 vote on the remedy. The point is that the SCOTUS issue with the timing of the recount was complicated by the fact that it issued an unnecessary stay of the recount--thus making it harder to meet any deadline. You also don't take into account the so-called "Brooks Brothers Riot" in which Republican operatives were flown in from outside Florida to intimidate the Miami election officials out of completing the recount. It's decidedly hypocritical to object to a manual recount because there isn't time to complete it when Republican operatives went out of their way to stop or slow it down.

    In fact, had there not been those interferences, a statewide recount standard could've been set up and the manual recount could've gone forward, thus satisfying the Equal Protection Clause.

    As the consortium of newspapers that did their own recount later determined, had there been a full state-wide recount, Gore would've won.

    Indeed, you can see the confidence that the SCOTUS majority had in its own decision when it said: "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." So what we have is an unprecedented one-shot application of the Equal Protection Clause by Justices who were sudden converts to its application.

    But as we know, you neither know the Constitution nor care much about it.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/26/2008 @ 2:16pm

  161. it was a coup d'etat

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/26/2008 @ 2:27pm

  162. Just as vile was the attempt of the Gore campaign to continue to attempt to keep out the absentee ballots of military service members who were stationed overseas. This reflects the left's true contempt for our military men and women.

    Posted by lvliberty1

    you're a liar. the issue with the military ballots was the ones postmarked late, among other deficiencies. also Gore did NOT make an issue of it and they were allowed. again, you are a craven liar.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/26/2008 @ 3:40pm

  163. the ballots should NOT have been allowed.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/26/2008 @ 3:41pm

  164. No it didn't. Florida law actually mandates a manual recount if either sides asks for it. The issue was if it could be done by the deadline. Given the level of understandin of any constitution that you have chronically shown, I don't think we need to take your pronouncement too seriously.

    Frankly I don't think anyone who wants to keep US troops in an unjusitified war ought to be getting self-righteous about other people's contempt for veterans.

    Nor did you let the facts get in your way. Both campaigns challenged absentee ballots based on lack of proof that they had been mailed on time.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/26/2008 @ 3:45pm

John Nichols John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

Archives

  1. November 2009

  2. October 2009

  3. September 2009

  4. August 2009

  5. July 2009

  6. June 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

House Passes "Historic" Health Reform | Pelosi secures necessary votes, but only after accepting unsettling limits on abortion rights demanded by anti-choice Democrats.
John Nichols
24 Comments

» Editor's Cut

Around The Nation | Obama, one year on. Plus: Jeremy Scahill takes your questions, and a new video series from The Nation.
Katrina vanden Heuvel

» The Notion

Injustice in Illinois | Prosecutors in Illinois should be more concerned with an innocent man behind bars than journalism students' grades.
Ari Berman
28 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

Obama Fails in Middle East | Clinton delivers the ultimate diss to Abbas.
Robert Dreyfuss
128 Comments

» Act Now!

Equality Across America | This week, young LBGT activists are staging a National Week of Initiative.
Peter Rothberg
16 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Thursday | Dying laptops, recapping the election, the Dow, and the Yankees with the World Series.
Eric Alterman