Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditBefore the February 19 Wisconsin primary, which confirmed his front-runner status in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Illinois Senator Barack Obama went out of his way to associate his candidacy with the name of Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold.
It wasn't just about winning Wisconsin, although that undoubtedly was part of the calculus.
Obama wanted to secure the support of the substantial portion of Democrats nationally who, in polls conducted in 2006, indicated that they would back Feingold if he entered the presidential race. Internal polls by the various campaigns indicated that Feingold drew as much as 15 percent of the vote in a number of key states, coming mostly from anti-war and pro-civil liberties progressives.
Obama knew he needed the support of those highly engaged party activists. And so, in early February, he embraced an issue that mattered a lot to them: the defense of civil liberties.
Obama, Feingold and Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd did not want Congress to support the Bush administration's efforts to block civil suits against telecommunications firms for spying on customers.
"I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grass-roots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty," declared Obama, who indicated that he would support efforts to filibuster any attack on the ability of citizens to use the courts to defend their privacy rights.
Obama's stance helped him. It was cited in endorsements by prominent progressives and newspapers in Wisconsin and other later primary states. No doubt, it contributed to his landslide victory in the Badger State, where the Illinoisan won a vote from Feingold himself.
Yet, now that he is the presumptive nominee, Obama is standing not with Feingold, but with Bush and the special interests Obama once denounced. He says he'll vote for a White House-backed FISA rewrite -- which is likely to be taken up by the Senate this week -- in opposition to the position taken by civil liberties groups, legal scholars on the left and right and, of course, Russ Feingold.
That's bad -- not just because Obama is putting politics ahead of principle, but because he's calculating the politics wrong. As Feingold proved when he was overwhelmingly re-elected in a swing state in 2004, after casting the sole vote against the Patriot Act, standing strong for the Bill of Rights attracts rather than sacrifices votes.
Even worse is the deceptive claim that the "compromise" on FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) reached by the Bush administration and congressional leaders allows for meaningful scrutiny.
As Feingold says, "The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the president's illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity."
Despite what some apologists for this sellout by Democratic leaders might suggest, it is comic to claim that multinational corporations given civil immunity might still face criminal charges.
Citizens have always been in the forefront of tackling corporate crime. At best, prosecutors play catch-up. Providing telecommunications corporations with immunity from civil suits gives them blanket immunity. To suggest otherwise is to buy into a fantasy that would make America less free and less safe.
Russ Feingold knows that. So does Barack Obama.
It is unfortunate that they are not standing together on the right side of history -- and the Constitution.
Complete Convention Coverage »
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on the political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrick Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Wonkette
'Yet, now that he is the presumptive nominee, Obama is standing not with Feingold, but with Bush and the special interests Obama once denounced.' -- John Nichols -- The Nation -- 7 July, 2008
'I can no more disown him [Wreverend Wright] than I can disown the black community.' -- Barack Obama 18 March 2008
Posted by HonestLiberal at 07/07/2008 @ 1:21pm
>>>He says he'll vote for a White House-backed FISA rewrite -- which is likely to be taken up by the Senate this week<<<
Nichols, why don't you discuss the specifics of the "re-write", what is being re-written and why, and what precisely is being supported by Obama?
By hiding these details, you make Obama look much worse than he is, and I don't think progressives have an interest in doing that unless they want John McCain as our next president.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/07/2008 @ 1:37pm
The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
June 20, 2008 Obama: FISA Rewrite 'Too Important to Delay' @ 4:38 pm by Andy Barr
Citing what he called "marked improvements" in the legislation, Barack Obama voiced his support Friday for a deal reached on the Federal Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA) that passed the House earlier.
"It is not all that I would want," Obama said. "But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay."
Obama had previously opposed the FISA reauthorization because of a lack of "sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans."
Several of Obama's Democratic Senate colleague voiced stern opposition to the bill. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) called it the deal a "capitulation.
Obama said he would work with Senate Democrats to remove the telecom immunity provision.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/07/2008 @ 1:44pm
ACT NOW
From the Electronic Freedom Frontier Website:
"Judge Walker's decision makes clear that Congress is about to pass telecom immunity based on arguments that are just plain wrong. Congress should take the time to look at the facts, rather than be fooled by the myths. It should not to rush to judgment next week.
If you haven't already, phone your Senators now and urge them to vote against ending debate on the FISA bill, vote for the amendments to the bill that would strip or weaken the immunity provisions, and vote against final passage of the bill."
Capitol Switchboard # (202)224-3121
And much appreciation goes out to those who've taken a couple of minutes to make calls.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/07/2008 @ 2:16pm
By the way, the Senate is set to resume discussion on FISA tomorrow (Tues. 7/8).
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/07/2008 @ 2:23pm
John, you're gonna drive Metteyya and the rest of the Obamabots here nuts if you keep dissing the messaiah.
Let me do it.
Here are some of the issues Obama has flipped on recently:
NAFTA campaign-finance reform warrentless wiretaps flag pins gun control and soon, Iraq
At least with Hillary, you knew what you had.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/07/2008 @ 2:45pm
Response from Barack on FISA and Discussion with Policy Staff By Joe Rospars - Jul 3rd, 2008 at 4:38 pm EDT Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content
Barack is on the road today, but he wrote a response that he asked be posted on the blog. You'll find it below.
In addition, for the next 30 minutes or so, three members of our policy staff will be in the comments on this post to respond to any questions you have. Danielle Gray is our Deputy National Policy Director, Denis McDonough is a Senior Foreign Policy Advisor, and Ben Rhodes is Foreign Policy Advisor and Senior Speechwriter.
I hope that you'll join the discussion in the comments thread below, and continue to use the My.BarackObama.com tools as a resource for organizing in your local communities and around the issues that are important to you and to victory in November.
Here's the note from Barack:
I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.
This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.
But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility
The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The (PDF)recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.
The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I'm sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.
Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.
I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as President of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country's destiny.
Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.
So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in the months and years to come. Together, we have a lot of work to do.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/07/2008 @ 2:47pm
Oops, that's reader "TCollette" with 2 t's.
Not "Toni", the actress from New South Wales I suppose?
In any case, I admire her work.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/07/2008 @ 2:49pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/07/2008 @ 2:41pm
BKOOL,
You need to challenge YOUR OWN cynicism and doubt and support Obama rather than attempting to divide progressives to help John McCain and the Republicans.
Think about this:
KARL ROVE WANTS PROGRESSIVES TO BASH OBAMA AND DIVIDE THE PROGRESSIVE VOTE!
This is why the the Republicans keep twisting Obama's words, looking for some "imaginary" contradiction to piss off the progressive base.
If you have been following Rove as close as I have, you know he is a one trick "dive-and-conquer" pony. Division IS his game, and you therefore can't allow yourself to unwittingly be sucked into playing his game!
Posted by Metteyya at 07/07/2008 @ 2:56pm
...that was Rove is a one trick "divide-and-conquer" pony!
Posted by Metteyya at 07/07/2008 @ 2:59pm
Divide the electorate on terms favorable to a Republican election outcome.
USE YOUR HEAD!
We are much smarter than falling for this again.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/07/2008 @ 3:01pm
Metteyya,
"Using your head" should include not giving away your vote to a candidate who engages in politics as usual for the Democrats --i.e. win the nomination and hang the progressive base out to dry.
Bottom line:
Obama has a huge advantage over McLame, yet he refuses to forgo the standard tactics that were employed by Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry.
I strongly suggest that readers here take the time to view the British ducumentarian, Adam Curtis', four part series on the rise of sophisticated propaganda techniques in the 20th century, "The Century of the Self".
Simply google it and view online.
You won't be disappointed, I guarantee it.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/07/2008 @ 3:21pm
Posted by Metteyya at 07/07/2008 @ 2:56pm
And there's plenty of dumb progressives who will fall for it. There always are.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/07/2008 @ 3:32pm
And another thing......
Why don't we hear this message (or something reasonably close) from Obama?
One day when I was about eight years old, my mother tossed one of her frequent "out of the blue" questions at me:
"Ralph, do you love your country?"
"Yes, mother," I said, wondering where she was going with this.
"Well, I hope when you grow up, you'll work hard to make it more lovable."
Thus, began my education in the patriotism of deeds, the patriotism of advancing justice. The country was in the middle of World War II and the spirit of patriotism was engulfed by the war effort, by the heroics of our armed forces against the fascists, and, for my parents, by my brother Shaf's impending enlistment into the Navy.
Still, having come as teenage immigrants from Lebanon, during the Ottoman Empire and French mandate periods, my mother and father were very sensitive to any monopolization of patriotic symbols--flags, anthems, the July 4th holiday--to induce public obedience. They were wary of how many politicians would use and misuse these symbols to stifle dissent, hide abuses and manipulate public opinion. They rejected both political and commercial manipulation of patriotic feelings for narrow, often harmful self-serving ends.
Of course, the factory town of Winsted, CT where we grew up had its July 4th parade with marching bands, flags, proud veterans and assorted ceremonies. Its mile long Main Street was perfectly suited for these festivities. Plenty of fireworks in plenty of youthful hands too. We all had a general good time.
During one such Parade, it suddenly occurred to me that no one had ever marched holding up a large replica of the Declaration of Independence, which was the reason for the celebration that day. Other than being printed in its entirety by some newspapers, this bold Declaration whose eloquent assertion of human rights was heard around the world for many years, still is not front and center for historical recollection and contemporary contemplations.
My parents prized the freedoms they found in America, and they were alert to anyone who might try to diminish them. At his sprawling restaurant on Main Street opposite the textile factories, my father would always speak his mind. He was a constant critic of power – big business, government, local and national – and readily offered solutions.
His longtime customers and friends would sometimes say to him: "How do you expect to make a profit if you keep speaking out this way?" He would smile and say: "When I passed the Statue of Liberty, I took it seriously," cautioning them with this advice: "If you don't use your rights, you will lose your rights."
At the same time, he would challenge attempts to monopolize and debase our country's symbols of flag, pledge and anthem into an unthinking patriotism by politicians to cover their sins. As Dad often reminded anyone who would listen, our flag stands for the principles embodied in the last words of the Pledge of Allegiance – "with liberty and justice for all."
There has always been military patriotism. There is more and more commercialization of the Fourth of July. In our hometown, we were raised to respect and nurture a civic patriotism.
As my brother Shaf said many years later: "A true love for the community of human beings that is our country is expressed when each one of us helps define that patriotism by our deeds and thoughts working together." And, he set a wonderful example when in 1965 he founded the Northwestern Connecticut Community College in town.
Maybe we should start reserving time on the Fourth for assessing the ways forward toward expending those "inalienable rights – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/07/2008 @ 3:34pm
Am I going to be posting this every day?
This is the third "thread" now. Here is an article that points out the Constitution grants the President authority to do what he/she believes is necessary to protect the country against threats.
FISA is an intrusion on that authority. Thus, President Bush has done nothing wrong with warrentless wiretapping, and this "FISA" requirement is NOT ABSOLUTE.
Members of Congress can not impose rules that interfere with a President's constitutional authority. Now that we (at least some of us) are in a post September 11 era, it would appear the FISA "requirement" is detrimental to the President's ability to respond to and assess threats.
Maybe it was a well intentioned effort to limit the power of a President after Watergate. But we are not in a post-Watergate era any more, we are in a post September 11 era. It is not practical or wise to limit the power of a President to defend the United States of America.
But since the current President is George W. Bush, libs seek to do this anyway.
Since congressional rules and agreements can not superced the Constitutional authority of the President, it would appear this question is now resolved:
http://article.nationalreview.com/print /?q=NWFmYTZmNzYyNDhlN2ZjMD lZGFjODdlYzRiOWZjNzY=
Go find something else to complain about libs (this is a free country and you have a right to do that), but you have lost the argument on this one.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2008 @ 3:35pm
"Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise."
Posted by Metteyya at 07/07/2008 @ 2:47pm
See, here is the biggest falsehood the Bush administration, the media and now Obama are foisting on the public - that this is a choice between this bill or no surveillance at all.
Pure rubbish. FISA has no expiration date. FISA allows for surveillance "tools." Doing nothing will not result in "losing" anything at all.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/07/2008 @ 3:36pm
>>>Obama has a huge advantage over McLame, yet he refuses to forgo the standard tactics that were employed by Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry.<<<
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/07/2008 @ 3:21pm
Standard tactics?
If you mean attracting as many votes as you can, that politics is a game of addition, not subtraction, then sure Obama is attracting as much support as he can.
The difference is that Obama does NOT compromise his core progressive values to do this, and only engages in centrist rhetoric on occasion to reach out to more voters.
I do not know whether you have done the math, but self-described "progressives" are no where near to being a majority of the electorate, so the ONLY way a progressive can win the presidency of the United States is by reaching out to more voters.
If Obama took the stance you suggest and say "F.... all of you who are not progressive", how far do you think he would get?
Not very far, right?
I really think you should go back and study Obama's record in Illinois and HOW he got Republicans to support "progressive" legislation. It was NOT by alienating or demonizing them, but engaging them on the merits by making them feel that he fully understood and appreciated their concerns. He would often recast progressive ideals in moderate sounding language, and was very effective at getting broad support by doing this.
Even I have a hard time with this tactic, as it is MUCH easier for me to demonize those who are hurting ordinary Americans; but Obama is a much better man than I, and that is why he is running for president.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/07/2008 @ 3:39pm
You mean FISA goes back to the hsuB/cHeney admin ignoring FISA...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/07/2008 @ 3:43pm
Posted by Metteyya at 07/07/2008 @ 3:39pm |
Yes, we know. You've already condoned B.O's lying. Gotta lie to get elected you said. Or something close.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/07/2008 @ 3:44pm
>>>" Doing nothing will not result in "losing" anything at all.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/07/2008 @ 3:36pm<<<
What Obama would lose by allowing certain FISA wiretap provisions to expire is the Republicans would put him squarely in the "He won't keep America safe" box that they are trying awfully hard to put him in.
This FISA thing with Obama is a defensive political move, but as president, Obama will scrap whatever remaining language that could be abused by future presidents, which is NOT what you could say of McCain.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/07/2008 @ 3:47pm
Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2008 @ 3:35pm
So because someone from the NRO writes it, it must be true? Even though three federal judges (the only Article III judges to rule on the Bush Administrations' actions) have determined otherwise?
Would it please you if I linked to an article that made the opposite argument?
It wouldn't be hard.
True (and hardly controversial) that a law cannot supercede the Constitution, but merely saying that is not enough.
Where in Article II is the the authority for the President "to do what he/she believes is necessary to protect the country against threats?" I believe you and others are purposefully being vague here.
And while you are at it, please give a compelling reason why protecting the country against "threats" is (or should be) exclusively vested in the President?
If you can begin to tackle those issues, then we can have a debate. But if you are going to post (three times) some other writer's op-ed, I am not going to wast my time with his soundboard.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/07/2008 @ 3:49pm
Posted by Metteyya at 07/07/2008 @ 3:47pm
Which FISA wiretap provisions are expiring?
None.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/07/2008 @ 3:51pm
Gotta lie to get elected you said. Or something close. Posted by frankgrits at 07/07/2008 @ 3:44pm
Hmm. Kind of like you said of Hillary? Or was it condoning race bating because that is what needs to happen to get you elected? Oh pish posh right. That's in the past, the new holier than thou Frank would never condone lying and race baiting.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 3:53pm
I sent this letter to Senator Obama this morning. He can be reached through his website. Let him know how you feel.
Dear Senator Obama, I want to believe, but I find your support for this "compromise" FISA bill very troubling. I don't see how it doesn't give the Bush criminals and their telecom co-conspirators cover for their illegal anti-constitutional activities. I don't see how this bill slows them down at all in their collection of every piece of information on every single American. This is sanctifying "Total Information Awareness" (TIA), John Negroponte's dastardly, fascistic, program that we supposedly derailed, but here it is chugging right along as though it had never been thwarted, by another name. I believe you are making a political calculation here. I believe you think it's important to let Wall St. and corporate America ( those rabid dogs of greed who have depersonalized everyone outside their orbit, like the sociopaths they are and the Executive branch have consistently revealed themselves to be) know that they can feel comfortable with your candidacy, that you won't insist that they follow the laws of our land or that the laws can be changed to accommodate them, perhaps so that their media arms - networks, cable networks, dailies and weeklies, won't choose to subtly and not so subtly dismember you. I think that's a pipe dream - witness how they've reported the Campaign finance issue, repeatedly misstating your actions and positions and refusing to point out that McCain's actions (his securing of a loan to his campaign) on this same issue may actually be a prosecutable offense. How can you believe that this vote will appease them? They will do what they successfully did to Al Gore and John Kerry. They've already begun. Have you noticed that they've started to make you and John McCain seem similar? Through the summer and fall they will continue to make the case that your positions aren't too dissimilar, in fact, they'll say, you are basically the same, culminating possibly in something as shameful as the infamous Tweedledee and Tweedledum cover of Time Magazine in 2000 with half of Al Gore's face and half of the criminal George Bush's face made to look like one While they won't do that exactly, because it would be ridiculous and self-defeating, what they will do is artificially move the two of you closer and closer ideologically - they've already started on Iraq policy - until they make it seem like the only real difference is that one of you is a white guy and one of you is not. Please don't trust them to treat you more fairly as a result of this vote. They will savage you whatever you do. I read your statement on FISA, and I've listened to Russ Feingold and Christopher Dodd and listened to Mark Klein, the AT&T technician who detailed this program (and stunningly hasn't been called to testify before any committee in either chamber!) and you and I disagree. Nothing I've seen evidences that our ability to intercept potential "terrorist communication" is dependent upon the passage of this FISA bill. We have those tools now! I know there's information I don't have. I know there are calculations you are making knowing things I do not know. I know there is political wisdom in running to the center and I know that you are extremely clever, but I think you may be miscalculating here. The bottom line is, what you've said on this issue has not persuaded me that the Peoples' interests are at the heart of this decision you've made. I urge you to reconsider your vote tomorrow. Energy and excitement and belief in the change that you represent have been the fuels for your remarkable candidacy. If you cave to telecoms here, what's to keep us from believing that you'll cave to Big Oil and Big Pharma and Big Money and other special interests as president. That energy and excitement and belief has already begun to dissipate. It is harder today than it was three weeks ago to speak confidently about why I support you. I don't want to have to speak about a vote for you simply as a vote against John McCain and George Bush. Your argument for the support of the FISA bill is not compelling. If you have a better argument, please tell us. I believe a "yes" vote here sends the wrong message to the American people and to the world about your commitment to change and your understanding of the need to put an end to the rampant lawlessness that has characterized the Bush years. I am asking you to remember America. Thank you,
Posted by msvox at 07/07/2008 @ 4:28pm
Posted by msvox at 07/07/2008 @ 4:28pm
Oh you poor misguided stargazer.
First of all, there's not a chance in hell that B.O. will see your letter. Secondly, if he does, he'll just wipe his arse with it.
Waste of time.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/07/2008 @ 4:38pm
The political mistake that Obama is making is in blurring his message. Instead of clearly standing out as the CHANGE candidate, the PROGRESSIVE candidate, the CIVIL LIBERTIES candidate, the candidate who will fight for the WORKING and MIDDLE classes instead of the corporate elite, he has tried to blur his differences with McCain on issue after issue. As has been argued pretty persuasively in the past, if voters have the choice between a real Republican and a faux Republican, they will generally choose the real one.
Yes, McCain is selling much better with the public than the rest of the Republican brand, but Obama's moves will not stop the right-wing from attacking him as soft on terror, Iran, taxes, etc., etc. They would attack him as soft even if he promised to nuke Tehran the day after he was inaugurated. The way to deal with such attacks is to draw a CLEAR distinction between your positions and those of your opponent. Force the debates to focus on the fundamental issues, which favor the Democrats, and not on the minutiae of who favors what degree of wiretapping or will be tougher on Iran, which is playing in the GOP sandbox.
Independents are not always attracted by centrists, or else that great Centrist Party that some mainstream media pundits have been dreaming about for decades would have been founded with the Bill Bradley, John Anderson, Dick Lamm and Lincoln Chafee consigning the extremes of both parties to the electoral margins. Hasn't happened, won't happen. Instead, conservatives won by campaigning as conservatives (governing, not so much...). And liberals have usually done better at getting elected and staying in office when they don't pussy foot around about what they stand for.
If Obama is not careful, he risks not only losing his race but lowering Democratic turnout, which could otherwise result in a nationwide top to bottom sweep for the donkeys.
Not that I'm going to vote for any of them, of course. I'll be voting for one of the revolutionary socialist candidates. I just love following this stuff; it's even better than the NFL, or the Ins and Outs of the Catholic Church.
Posted by cka2nd at 07/07/2008 @ 4:39pm
Oh you poor misguided stargazer. First of all, there's not a chance in hell that B.O. will see your letter. Secondly, if he does, he'll just wipe his arse with it. Waste of time. Posted by frankgrits at 07/07/2008 @ 4:38pm
I'm sure all those letters you sent to Hillary were read post haste.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 4:47pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 4:47pm
Never sent Hillary anything exept my vote. Candidates don't read people's letters unless there's a threat of some kind or unless some campaign stooge finds something insightful in a letter or email and brings it to the andidates attention, usually some sad story that can be used politically. Do you people have any idea how many letters and emails campaigns recieve. It would take a year or more, full time to read them all. So much to learn and so little time.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/07/2008 @ 4:51pm
>>>Which FISA wiretap provisions are expiring?
None.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/07/2008 @ 3:51pm<<<
HMAN23,
This comes from the wiretap provisions of the PAA (Protect America Act), in which "surveillance orders" continue for one year from date of issuance, and therefore "sunset' on July 31, 2008.
Apparently, additional surveillance orders were issued in January of 2008, and those will sunset January of 2009
See below:
January 24th, 2008 Congress Stand Firm: Surveillance Continues Even If PAA Expires Posted by Cindy Cohn
The Administration has been in a full-court press to bully Congress into making horrible permanent changes to FISA -- including immunity for telecommunications carriers like AT&T -- based on the argument that critical surveillance of terrorists will be cut short or degraded if the Protect America Act (PAA) expires on January 31, 2008.
But no surveillance started by the PAA will end when the PAA expires. All of the spying done under the PAA will continue until at least July 31, 2008 even if the law goes to the dustbin of history on January 31, as it should.
The PAA provides that any currently ongoing surveillance continues until the "date of expiration of such order," even if PAA expires. "Orders" are what the PAA calls the demand for surveillance by the Attorney General or Director of National Intelligence (there's no court involved). These surveillance orders can be issued for up to a year at a time, and since the PAA is only 6 months old, every order issued under the PAA will still continue for at least six months, until July 31, 2008, even if the law expires. And a surveillance order issued on January 30, 2008 will allow continued surveillance until January 30, 2009.
Even immunity proponent Senator Rockefeller agrees on this point. In a press release he issued today (it's not online yet) he said:
"Our government will continue to have authority under the law until at least August of this year, and can even extend that authority until January 2009."
No surveillance will go dark on February 1 if PAA expires. None.
The Protect America Act is straightforward about this. First, the part where surveillance "orders" last a year:
Sec. 105B. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States
Then the fact that these orders remain in effect until they expire even if PAA ends:
Section 6 (b) Transition Procedures- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, any order in effect on the date of enactment of this Act issued pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) shall remain in effect until the date of expiration of such order ...
And even after that, the Administration can seek reauthorization for any order, and even seek new orders, if they just go the the FISA court. That's here:
(continuation of section 6(b) and, at the request of the applicant, the court established under section 103(a) of such Act (50 U.S.C. 1803(a)) shall reauthorize such order as long as the facts and circumstances continue to justify issuance of such order under the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as in effect on the day before the applicable effective date of this Act. The Government also may file new applications, and the court established under section 103(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(a)) shall enter orders granting such applications pursuant to such Act, as long as the application meets the requirements set forth under the provisions of such Act as in effect on the day before the effective date of this Act.
The Administration's time pressure on Congress is purely political theater. Congress should stand firm. www.stopthespying.org.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/07/2008 @ 4:55pm
So much to learn and so little time. Posted by frankgrits at 07/07/2008 @ 4:51pm
Uhh I never actually said that they read everything. I never even insinuated that. Once again Frank displays his massively infalted, for no good reason, ego.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 5:02pm
Hello Hman23,
Here are the excerpts from the Constitution, granting the authority to the President.
"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America"
and ..
"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.""
So the President is the chief executive and takes an oath to defend the country. You indicate that all the power for this should not be just with the President, but you can't run things by committee, especially during wartime.
And it is a good thing, because many members of what would be "the committee" have the wrong approach to how we should handle the threat of terror.
You indicated about the judges ruling. By now you must know judges can be (and often are) wrong, especially activist judges who are making law from the bench, which is not within their charter.
On a side topic, but somewhat related, there is another interesting tidbit in the Constitution:
"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."
So Habeas Corpus can be suspended after all, just like it was when Abraham Lincoln did it during the War Between the States!
So libs who have their hair on fire about Habeas Corpus, are wrong! How about that! What else is new?
Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2008 @ 7:43pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 5:02pm
Yes but you did make a juvenile comment abot me sending letters to Hillary though didn't you. Can dish it out but you can't take it. Ah, the perils of youth.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/07/2008 @ 8:22pm
besides, I was talking to msvox, not you.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/07/2008 @ 8:23pm
Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2008 @ 7:43pm
If you don't mind me putting my two cents in, a reasonably informed person wouldn't think that Dubya did his best to preserve the Constitution, let alone protect and defend it.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/07/2008 @ 8:26pm
I'll never forgive him for that display of mockery at the correspondents when he snickered that stupid snicker of his and made believe he was looking for missing WMDs. This the Commander In Chief did while our troops were dying.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/07/2008 @ 8:28pm
Yes but you did make a juvenile comment abot me sending letters to Hillary though didn't you. Can dish it out but you can't take it. Ah, the perils of youth. Posted by frankgrits at 07/07/2008 @ 8:22pm
Uhhh I took it perfectly well I think. I didn't complain I just pointed out how wrong you are as usual and how the fact that you were wrong was driven from your arrogance, ahh the deception of age meaning wisdom. Wisdom is not something given to you when you reach a certain age Frank. You obviously have yet to learn that yet though.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 8:29pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 8:29pm
Yeah, yeah, whatever.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/07/2008 @ 9:28pm
......politics is a game of addition, not subtraction, then sure Obama is attracting as much support as he can.
.....self-described "progressives" are no where near to being a majority of the electorate, so the ONLY way a progressive can win the presidency of the United States is by reaching out to more voters......
Posted by Metteyya at 07/07/2008 @ 3:39pm
"not subtraction"? You don't suppose Magic's handlers did some additions of picking up, say 20% of this/that group while knowing very well it would lose 10% of the progressive........What he is doing is just like "Let's Make a Deal", taking the small number of progressives who made him, and trading them for what's behind Door No. 2.
Your delusion knows no bound! So, you know the so-called "self-described "progressives" are no where near to being a majority of the electorate", so why would a President Magic, even if he was a `real' progressive, give a f*&k about such a small minority of the electorate? Do you actually think you will have a progressive Congress to `work' with a progressive Obama?
IF to be POTUS, I need to become UNhappy to appeal to unhappy electorate, believe me, I can be UNhappy and would stay UNhappy.....I can put off being my original HAPPY after 8 years.
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/07/2008 @ 10:30pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/07/2008 @ 10:30pm
Even though progressives don't make up a majority of the electorate, there are huge majorities around specific progressive issues. The thing is, the people who believe in these issues constitute the full range of political spectrum.
Did you know that a "majority" of self-described conservatives think Washington is too corrupt and primarily concerned with serving special interest groups rather than ordinary Americans? This is an example of where Obama cannot afford to alienate these conservatives if he wants to bring them onboard to support his efforts to fix our broken campaign finance system.
We are finding a growing number of moderates and conservatives believe climate change is real, and that citizens, government and businesses should act responsibly to protect our environment, reduce pollution, and reduce our carbon emissions that are exacerbating the problem.
We already know that 70% of the electorate favors ending the war in Iraq, and obviously this includes a lot of people that don't describe themselves as "progressive".
Again, if you study Obama's political history, he has a knack for identifying these "progressive" issues that have large majorities and then rallying these supporters around the issue regardless of party affiliation or self-identified politics. This is a powerful asset as a candidate and as president, and is the secret weapon to stop partisan bickering and gridlock to get the legislation enacted that we all care about.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/07/2008 @ 11:29pm
Yes, it is frightful to have McCain win the election. But if McObama is only slightly better, I would vote for Nader because he stands for something. Right now, can any of you boneheads tell me what Obama really stands for. If Obama continues the Iraq war and agrees with Scalia and Thomas, dilutes FISA, goes back on NAFTA, what is the difference? In about two weeks his clarifications took away the meat from everything he promised. Some people say he is consistent and people like me duped ourselves by not paying attention to the fine print. That is okay. I am sorry but now I ask what does he stand for? I want the complete story with the small print this time. Tell me what to expect under Obama?
Posted by rnagisetty at 07/08/2008 @ 09:05am
METTEYYA -
Thanks for your post. You made my point if you read it. No surveillance permissable under FISA is set to expire. None.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 10:29am
SJ -
You need to read your own post.
". . . defend the Consitution" is what the oath reads.
Reciting in conclusion that the President has "executive power" does nothing to define the limits of that power -- which is the issue at hand. And nothing you wrote supports any notion that protecting the country from threats rests solely with the executive branch.
Finally - Regarding habeas, you have purposefully framed the argument incorrectly. It is not that the President lacks any right to suspend habeas - he/she does. However, you yourself cite the only permissible reasons -- "Cases of Rebellion or Invasion." Has this occurred? Nope. So, again you are wrong.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 10:33am
Hman23,
Two points-
1. In the Constitution, the President is the leader, the one in charge. Yes, Congress has a role to play, however in recent times the Democrat role seems to have been (excepting Joe Lieberman) to do their level best to prevent the President from doing his job. But the President is the executive, and the one with the most authority. And the FISA requirement inhibits that authority, as we now know. Congress has a right to weigh in and try to influence what happens, but the final authority rests with the President.
And in this case the "remedy" (FISA) which may have been well-intentioned and grew out of Watergate, turns out to be out of order and wrong, overreaching by Congress in response to an event in the 70's but inappropriate anymore in dealing with current events.
This is the explanation, what part of this don't you understand? Or is it that you don't understand because you don't agree, because you want to inhibit the authority of a president when the president's name is George W. Bush, and you want to have available to you an argument you think you can use to claim that wrongdoing has occurred?
Is it your agenda that renders you inable to understand?
Then you said: "Finally - Regarding habeas, you have purposefully framed the argument incorrectly. It is not that the President lacks any right to suspend habeas - he/she does. However, you yourself cite the only permissible reasons -- "Cases of Rebellion or Invasion." Has this occurred? Nope. So, again you are wrong."
I normally do not try to get caustic in my blogs, but your comment is disgusting. It is sick. There are 2,974 people who I am sure would not agree with you, but can not post in on this blog to comment.
If you don't get that point, then look on the calendar on the wall or wherever you keep a calendar. My guess is that the date on your calendar (supposedly the current date) says September 10, 2001.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2008 @ 12:27pm
Correction,
I said above I had two points - I meant to put a 2 before the paragraph starting "Then you said: "Finally - Regarding habeas"
I forgot to put the 2 in because Hman23 ticked me off with his/her post, as you all can probably tell with my reply.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2008 @ 12:31pm
Hello Maskbeta,
Nice try, but it didn't work. This is the same thing that happens when anybody dare criticize Barack Obama or other liberals on their patriotism. We conservatives are told we have no right to do that, are sanctimonious, are saying leftists don't care, we are preaching morality, we are hypocrites, etc, etc. etc.
I am not saying Hman23 doesn't care about who died, but Hman23 is blind to the significance of what happened (and so are you) and Hman23 and many other leftists promote policy that would inhibit the ability of our country to prevent it from happening again.
And this thought and mindset is something to be opposed, because it is wrong.
It has been proven wrong over and over again in history, most recently as a result of World War II and what was not done beforehand, and then again on September 11, 2001.
Yes, liberals care, they constantly remind us of that. Caring doesn't solve problems, however, it just helps Democrats get elected when they should not be, and then the problems get worse. And it keeps going in circles because we are then told Democrats care and they will fix the problems that they caused to begin with or made worse to begin with, but who they blame anybody other than they for.
You then say "instead of admitting that there has been NO "invasion""
There is nothing to admit here - how are 4 aircraft plowing into One and Two World Trade, the Pentagon, and into the ground at Shanksville, Pennsylvania not an invasion?
Your declaring it is not an invasion does not make it so.
President Bush did say that this war would not be like wars in the past - the nature of the enemy and threats are different that anything we had encountered prior to recent times (including the latter part of the 20th century when we were attacked and at war but the President at the time chose to treat the attacks as a criminal matter rather than a war).
President Bush told us what to expect but libs are so busy condemning the man that they refuse to listen to what he has to say.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2008 @ 1:00pm
So sorry to tick you off SJ. I guess pointing out your failures in reading comprehension will do that to you.
MASK is quite correct. You fail to read even your own posts and run away from your very words.
When you can calm down enough, please admit that 9/11 was not an invasion or rebellion. An attack yes. If you cannot even have the intellectual honesty to do that, please tell us the territory that was conquered by the invading forces. And don't hide behind false outrage at my so-called lack of understanding about the victims of that attack. It really makes your arguments look very hollow.
Finally, since you know so much about Constituional law, give us a little but more than the President is "our leader." Even you admit that his power is not unlimited. But, again, you fail to offer any analysis defending your position.
I would even take a single example or explanation of how FISA is insufficient. We can start there.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 1:04pm
SJ -
You really need to read up on FISA and its provisions.
It wasn't FISA that led to 9/11. Had there been intelligence that would have led anyone to beleive a wiretap would have been helpful, a warrant under FISA could have easily been obtained. FISA would have even allowed for an emergency wiretap WITHOUT approval from the FISA court. FISA does not need fixing.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 1:09pm
I would add to my comment above about "the President at the time (the 90's) chose to treat the attacks (USS Cole, the Kobar Towers, first WTC attack in 1993, etc) as a criminal matter while he himself was engaging in criminal behavior, or covering up past criminal behavior. (Obstructing justice, lying, suborinig perjury, travelgate, filegate, campaign finance scandals, sexual harassment, Whitewater, rape, and this list could go on all day)
Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2008 @ 1:11pm
Oh yes. We I forget the other boilerplate response - it was Clinton's fault.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 1:17pm
Oh yes. I forgot the other boilerplate response - it was Clinton's fault.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 1:18pm
Hman23,
What does this sentence say?
"The 9/11 Commission concluded that errors in processing FISA surveillance requests likely contributed to the success of the 9/11 attacks."
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/071107_lewis.pdf.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2008 @ 1:24pm
Hman23,
9/11 WAS an invasion. When people who were not American kill 2,974 that is war and it is an invasion.
When Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah building in Oklahoma City, that was mass murder and domestic terrorism.
You are fixated on an invasion being an attack and conquest of land by a standing army.
I already explained that the nature of how attacks occur and how our enemies want to destroy us are different now than in the past.
You are simply parsing words by declaring an attack on America as not an ivasion. And it is absurd that we are not supposed to do anything to prevent future attacks, I guess. Other than send Jimmy Carter around the world to apologize for why "we made them angry", which is why liberals think 9/11 occurred in first place.
This is an amazing thing, that on this argument you think the Constitutional requirement is cast in complete stone to stipulate that an invasion is only if an enemy moves in and physically conquers terrority.
When you libs want the Constitution to be absolute, you declare it absolute. However, when you want it to bend and twist or be ignored altogether for other purposes, then you advocate that too.
So this Constitution that is so absolute in one case where invasion only means successful physical occupation of land, is "living and breathing" in many other cases - such as how a loose interpretation of privacy rights by judges going beyond their constitutional mandate and effectively making law from the bench- was used to make abortion legal everywere despite the fact that people or their elected representatives did not vote to make it so.
I guess the Constitution is whatever you libs want it to be, or not be, or ignored altogether, on the fly, as your ideological needs require.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2008 @ 1:39pm
On habeus and "rebellion or invasion", he also fails and tries some lame "You don't care about those who died on 9/11" dodge...instead of admitting that there has been NO "invasion" and NO "rebellion", ergo BY THE CONSTITUTION, his argument is false. Posted by Maskbeta at 07/08/2008 @ 12:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
It's what happens when, untutored; one can't even back out of a set of statements, gracefully. Having put forth said "argument" solely out of ignorance ... The propagandist's effluent of the Imperial president washed up on this "beach" and blindly regurgitated.
Posted by V at 07/08/2008 @ 1:42pm
You are fixated on an invasion being an attack and conquest of land by a standing army.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2008 @ 1:39pm
Find me any legal authority that "invasion" whould be read as you claim. Find me a single court that has so ruled.
Is your position truly that, because of 9/11, the President has the consitutional authority to suspend habeas - even for American citizens residing in this country? Does it go that broad? It must if you believe 9/11 was an invasion.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 1:46pm
What does this sentence say?
"The 9/11 Commission concluded that errors in processing FISA surveillance requests likely contributed to the success of the 9/11 attacks."
Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2008 @ 1:24pm
Easy. It says "errors in processing." It does not say there was any deficiency in FISA, its requirements or procedures. Just that people processing made errors. So, again, please give me an explanation as to how FISA, its framework, is insufficient.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 1:57pm
Reciting in conclusion that the President has "executive power" does nothing to define the limits of that power -- which is the issue at hand. And nothing you wrote supports any notion that protecting the country from threats rests solely with the executive branch.
Finally - Regarding habeas, you have purposefully framed the argument incorrectly. It is not that the President lacks any right to suspend habeas - he/she does. However, you yourself cite the only permissible reasons -- "Cases of Rebellion or Invasion." Has this occurred? Nope. So, again you are wrong.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 10:33am
HM,
SJ is absolutely correct and you and Mask are absolutely wrong.
the office of the presidency is the sole executive branch authorized to defend the nation.
To whom does the Secretary of Defense report to?
The National Security Council?
The Director of Homeland Security?
Who is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces?
What is the role of Congress?
Article. I.
Section. 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
They are legislators. Defense of the Nation is not a committee, despite liberal wishes.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/08/2008 @ 3:29pm
I wonder if I went into the homes of HMAN and MASK, while they or their families are at home, and blew up their plasma TVs and SUVs, plastering Green stickers everywhere and then HAPPily biked away, they wouldn't think of me guilty of a home "invasion".....since I had no intent to occupy their homes! Nice....just guilty of some misdemeanor property damage!
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/08/2008 @ 3:40pm
Hman23,
You said (about FISA) "Easy. It says "errors in processing." It does not say there was any deficiency in FISA, its requirements or procedures. Just that people processing made errors. So, again, please give me an explanation as to how FISA, its framework, is insufficient."
Actually, Hman23, Hard. Read this article, more from the 9/11 commission.
9/11 Commission: FISA Court Too Slow http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/20 06/1/30/90457.shtml
==============
Returning to the other topic, Habeas Corpus - You said above:
"Find me any legal authority that "invasion" whould be read as you claim. Find me a single court that has so ruled. "
This is getting absurd! A court is supposed to rule on what an invasion is?!
You on the left are too used to using courts as the tools to implement your policies.
I already explained that warfare has obviously entered a different mode now than in the past - the way the enemy seeks to kill us is different and thus our approaches and mindset need to be different.
The intent of the provision about Habeas Corpus is that the President has the right to suspend it to defend against threats.
I had told you that Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the War Between the States.
When you look at the history of this war, you see that an enormous amount of fighting took place in the South. There were battles in the North, the most famous being Gettysburg, but the amount of fighting in the North was minor COMPARED to fighting in the South.
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/ battles/bystate.htm
Now, given this and the fact that the Confederacy did not establish any real long term occupation of Northern terrority, was the prescence of Confederate troops in the North at any time significant enough to be called an invasion?
Or was Abraham Lincoln out of bounds by suspending Habeas Corpus?
Should Abraham Lincoln, obviously after the fact and for the record, be impeached and tried for "crimes"?
Jefferson Davis suspended Habeas Corpus in the Confederacy? Was this OK?
I obviously do not know. You do, though, and that is why I am asking you. You are the self professed expert on language and what the definition of what an invasion is. And also, as a lib, you are part of a group of people that seems to think they are the arbiters on what is or is not OK or to be.
Thus, a war historian's opinion about the extent of an "invasion" in the North would not be valid. Only the opinion of a lib, the only ones who can make the call, would be valid here.
So, as a lib, make the call so if people need to gear up to proscecue Abraham Lincoln they can get started ASAP.
And yes, Hman23, my sarcasm is OK because it is frustrating duking it out with you libs sometimes and I have to let off some steam. You the libs bring this on, already there is yet another article on this topic by Mr. Nichols in the hopper - probably plowing the same ground - and I will probably see you over there.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2008 @ 4:35pm
Hello Maskbeta
You said above "And finally it is YOU that want "the Constitution to be, or not be, or ignored altogether" what you want it to, as you tried to interpret it to mean that the President has extraordinary powers not ennumerated in the Constitution."
You imply the libs don't do this. If it is me that does this, then libs of course do not do it.
OK, so then you agree with me that there is NOTHING in the Constitution whatesoever that comments on the subject of abortion, much less the applicablity or legality of it.
And accoringly, you then agree with me that Roe v. Wade is an unconstitutional ruling and needs to be ruled as such and overturned, and that the question of abortion would be determined by local people in their respective states or municipalities or townships through their elected representatives (town councils, city councils, state legislatures, etc.)
So we are in agreement that the Constitution does not in any way guarantee a woman a right to "choose". (i.e., murder her baby).
Good. It is good you agree. It is great that we can agree on something.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2008 @ 4:44pm
"Now, given this and the fact that the Confederacy did not establish any real long term occupation of Northern terrority, was the prescence of Confederate troops in the North at any time significant enough to be called an invasion?"
Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2008 @ 4:35pm
The Civil War would fall under "rebellion." Which, if you scroll up, you will see is covered as an exception - different than "invasion."
Are you getting dizzy yet?
AND
"Jefferson Davis suspended Habeas Corpus in the Confederacy? Was this OK?"
Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2008 @ 4:35pm
MisfireYou would have to refer to the Articles of the Confederacy to see if it had a provision dealing with habeas, because the Confederacy surely did not operate under the U.S. Constitution. They seceded.
(Webmaster - I miss the ability to bold and italize; it makes it easier to quote others)
Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 4:57pm
Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2008 @ 4:35pm
And, SJ, your article discusses problems within the FBI and their procedures for obtaining FISA warrants. Not FISA itself. Try again.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 4:58pm
The intent of the provision about Habeas Corpus is that the President has the right to suspend it to defend against threats.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2008 @ 4:35pm
Cases of Rebellion and Invasion. What support do you have that the intent was "threats?" None, I suspect.
You did not answer my earlier question. If it can be suspended for "threats," do you think the president has the authority to suspend it for U.S. citizens residing in the U.S.?
Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 5:01pm
Sjchermak, Hman23 and lvliberty1: From my understanding of American history, including Constitutional history, you guys are seriously misreading the intentions of the framers when it comes to the powers of the President, and are giving the role of the "executive" a decidely modern, and even corporate, spin.
Yes, the President might have day to day management of the war as Commander in Chief, but you all seem to think that he or she should have sole right to set defense and war making policy, as if Congress and the Courts and the public that they represent do not exist. Did the framers only deem the famous checks and balances only necessary in matters of domestic policy? I doubt it.
Please correct me if I am completely off base here, lvl, since you seem to have some actual constitutional knowledge, and I'm not really able to do any reseach right now.
Posted by cka2nd at 07/08/2008 @ 5:12pm
Hman23,
You ask if I am getting dizzy. Why would I be dizzy - you are the one arguing about my comments on Habeas Corpus during the War Between the States, whether the North "invaded" and should Abe Lincoln be impeached.
Why are you contradicting arguments that were posted for the purpose of sarcasm?
As far as the thing about "invasion" and how it relates to 9/11 we are just going in circles here and I WILL get dizzy only if I allow you to let me.
If you do not see that what happened on 9/11 is how warfare is now conducted, at least how the Islamic radicals conduct war, and it certainly qualifies as an invasion and needs to be dealt with accordingly - then all I can say is I hope you never get elected President!
(Islamaphobia alert - I just committed a crime of Islamaphobia because I called the terrorists Islamic radicals - not allowable to offend Islamic sensibilities or imply that the people belonging to the religion of peace are radicals or terrorists, accoring to PC speech codes in place in public now. My punishment will be to write on the blackboard 100 times "Islam is a religion of peace and not all followers of Islam are terrorists and the ones that are have only become that way because we made them angry")
Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2008 @ 5:14pm
Posted by cka2nd at 07/08/2008 @ 5:12pm
I don't think you have a beef with me if you read my posts. Please don't lump me in with SJ and LIBERTY's reading of executive power.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 5:20pm
Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2008 @ 5:14pm
Oh, OK. You were only JOKING. Sure.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 5:22pm
You get what you bought but this time you bought it for all of us. That is wrong.
You ran with your idealism, not your brain and while half of the democrats disagreed; you insulted, cat-called, booed and put us down.
You got your way, your wonderful, eye-awakening, honest, pure candidate is the chosen one. Now you're unhappy? Tough. Who you going to vote for? McCain?
I am. 35 year democrat, my party is a shame and you are part of it. Enjoy.
Long before I would vote for the candidate of nothing, I will vote for the candidate of something. John McCain 08.
Posted by pansycritter at 07/08/2008 @ 6:41pm
SJ is absolutely correct and you and Mask are "absolutely wrong.
the office of the presidency is the sole executive branch authorized to defend the nation.
To whom does the Secretary of Defense report to?
The National Security Council?
The Director of Homeland Security?
Who is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces?
What is the role of Congress?
Article. I.
Section. 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
They are legislators. Defense of the Nation is not a committee, despite liberal wishes."
LL is, of course, overlooking all parts of the Constitution that don't support his argument. It is Congress that raises and maintains the armies, it is Congress that creates the UCMJ, it is Congress that creates the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, funds them and confirms those departments's top officials. It is Congress that declares war and lesser measures (marque and reprisal) and has the ability to delimit the scope of hostilities.
"If you do not see that what happened on 9/11 is how warfare is now conducted, at least how the Islamic radicals conduct war, and it certainly qualifies as an invasion and needs to be dealt with accordingly -"
A typically Orwellian attempt to redefine the English language. I defy you to find one English-language dictionary that considers an individual act of terror an invasion. Further, the Constitution gives Congress, not the President, the power to suspend habeas corpus.
"And yes, Hman23, my sarcasm is OK because it is frustrating duking it out with you libs sometimes and I have to let off some steam. You the libs bring this on,"
Actually, you do it because you are a scared little person who is willing to throw the Constitution out the window because you think there are Muslims hiding in your closet and because you regularly cop-out when asked to substantiate your position; leaving acting like a right-wing talk radio pundit the only mode of discourse of which you are capable.
Posted by brunowe at 07/08/2008 @ 8:08pm
Hman23,
My apologies. I meant to include 2Happy and confused his new handle with yours.
cka2nd
Posted by cka2nd at 07/09/2008 @ 10:06am