Just imagine if Illinois Senator Barack Obama had kept his primary-season pledge to take the lead in opposing efforts by the Bush administration to rewrite the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to protect the president and telecommunications corporations that cooperated with his illegal warrantless wiretapping schemes.

Obama could have stood on the floor of the US Senate Tuesday, claiming all the attention that is accorded the likely nominee of the Democratic party for president to leap over the spin doctors and speak directly to the American people about the need to defend our constitutionally-defined right to privacy.

Had Obama kept his commitment to join Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold and Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd in a filibuster to prevent an abusive "FISA Amendments Act" from being enacted, he could have appealed to the Democrats, Republicans and independents, the liberals and conservatives, who understand that this legislation is at odds not just with the Bill of Rights but every standard of corporate responsibility.

Obama might even have spoken as well and wisely as did Feingold, when he urged the Senate on Tuesday to embrace the Feingold-Dodd amendment to strip Title II of the FISA Amendments Act, which provides immunity to telecom companies that allegedly participated in the president's illegal wiretapping program.

Here is what Feingold said:

Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Dodd's amendment to strike the immunity provision from this bill, and I want to thank the Senator from Connecticut for his leadership on this issue. Both earlier this year when the Senate first considered FISA legislation and again this time around, he has demonstrated tremendous resolve on this issue, and I have been proud to work with him.

Now, Mr. President, some have tried to suggest that the bill before us will leave it up to the courts to decide whether or not to give retroactive immunity to the companies that allegedly participated in the president's illegal wiretapping program. Make no mistake – this bill will result in immunity being granted, because it sets up a rigged process with only one possible outcome.

Under the terms of this bill, a federal district court would evaluate whether there is substantial evidence that a company received "a written request or directive … from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community … indicating that the activity was authorized by the president and determined to be lawful."

But, Mr. President, we already know from the report of the Senate Intelligence Committee that was issued last fall that the companies received exactly such a request or directive. That is already public information. So under the terms of this proposal, the court's decision would be predetermined.

As a practical matter, that means that regardless of how much information the court is permitted to review, what standard of review is employed, how open the proceedings are, and what role the plaintiffs are permitted to play, the court will essentially be required to grant immunity under this bill.

Now, proponents will argue that the plaintiffs in the lawsuits against the companies can participate in briefing to the court. This is true, but they are not allowed access to any classified information. Talk about fighting with both hands tied behind your back. Mr. President, the administration has restricted information about this illegal wiretapping program so much that roughly 70 members of this chamber don't even have access to the basic facts about what happened. So let's not pretend that the plaintiffs will be able to participate in any meaningful way in these proceedings -- in which Congress has made sure that their claims will be dismissed.

This result is extremely disappointing. It is entirely unnecessary and unjustified, and it will profoundly undermine the rule of law in this country. I cannot comprehend why Congress would take this action in the waning months of an administration that has consistently shown contempt for the rule of law – perhaps most notably in the illegal warrantless wiretapping program it set up in secret.

Mr. President, we hear people argue that telecom companies should not be penalized for allegedly taking part in this illegal program. What you don't hear is that current law already provides immunity from lawsuits for companies that cooperate with the government's request for assistance, as long as they receive either a court order or a certification from the Attorney General that no court order is needed and the request meets all statutory requirements. But if requests are not properly documented, FISA instructs the telephone companies to refuse the government's request, and subjects them to liability if they instead decide to cooperate.

When Congress passed FISA three decades ago, in the wake of the extensive, well-documented wiretapping abuses of the 1960s and 1970s, it decided that, in the future, telephone companies should not simply assume that any government request for assistance to conduct electronic surveillance was appropriate. It was clear that some checks needed to be in place to prevent future abuses of this incredibly intrusive power – the power to listen in on people's personal conversations.

At the same time, however, Congress did not want to saddle telephone companies with the responsibility of determining whether the government's request for assistance was legitimate or not.

So Congress devised a system that would take the guesswork out of it completely. Under that system, which is still in place today, the companies' legal obligations and liability depend entirely on whether the government has presented the company with a court order or a certification stating that certain basic requirements have been met. If the proper documentation is submitted, the company must cooperate with the request and is immune from liability. If the proper documentation has not been submitted, the company must refuse the government's request, or be subject to possible liability in the courts.

This framework, which has been in place for 30 years, protects companies that comply with legitimate government requests while also protecting the privacy of Americans' communications from illegitimate snooping.

Granting companies that allegedly cooperated with an illegal program the new form of retroactive immunity that is in this bill undermines the law that has been on the books for decades – a law that was designed to prevent exactly the type of abuses that allegedly occurred here.

Even worse, granting retroactive immunity under these circumstances will undermine any new laws that we pass regarding government surveillance. If we want companies to follow the law in the future, it sends a terrible message, and sets a terrible precedent, to give them a "get out of jail free" card for allegedly ignoring the law in the past.

Mr. President, just last week a key court decision on FISA undercut one of the most popular arguments in support of immunity -- that we need to let the companies off the hook because the state secrets privilege prevents them from defending themselves in court. A federal court has now held that the state secrets privilege does not apply to claims brought under FISA. Rather, more specific evidentiary rules in FISA govern. Shouldn't we at least let these cases proceed to see how this plays out, rather than trying to solve a problem that may not even exist?

And that's not all. Mr. President, this immunity provision doesn't just allow telephone companies off the hook. It also will make it that much harder to get to the core issue that I've been raising since December 2005, which is that the President broke the law and should be held accountable. When these lawsuits are dismissed, we will be that much further away from an independent judicial review of this illegal program.

On top of all this, we are considering granting immunity when roughly 70 members of the Senate still have not been briefed on the President's wiretapping program. The vast majority of this body still does not even know what we are being asked to grant immunity for. Frankly, I have a hard time understanding how any Senator can vote against this amendment without this information.

Comments (90)

1. Why bother with what Obama "might" have done?

   He didn't do it.

   Focus on what he did do.

   He sold out progressivism.

   He sold out the Constitution.

   He sold out We the People. We who sent in all those small donations.

   After all, where else can we go? Canada? McCain?

   A sell-out, Obama, so he can be the next ... not president ... but neo-emperor.

   Posted by sloper at 07/08/2008 @ 3:40pm

2. More about FISA. Face it. The way the wiretaps was handled was illegal. No one as been able to show evidence to the contrary. Now Bush is once again attempting to cover his ass so he can get away with it.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/08/2008 @ 3:43pm

3. 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. - Barack Obama

   Posted by Metteyya at 07/08/2008 @ 3:44pm

4. Nichols,

   It really comes down to Feingold having the freedom to speak his mind because he is not under the scrutiny and practical reality that Obama faces as a candidate for president.

   If Obama made the same speech and votes against the compromise, Republicans put him in the "He won't keep America safe" box, and he loses with Middle America in November.

   Unfortunately, Middle America is easily frightened and they already have questions of whether a "black" man will keep America safe. Rove and Co is trying to exploit this, and plan to use Obama's FISA vote to do that if he votes against it.

   Just imagine the TV ad that depicts a terrorist on the phone scheming another attack on America, and the narrator saying "Obama voted against the law that would have prevented this attack - John McCain will make sure every conversation with a terrorist is monitored to keep America safe".

   Posted by Metteyya at 07/08/2008 @ 3:58pm

5. Katrina vanden Heuvel said on Stephanopoulos (6/29, viewable online), "I'm shocked, …shocked that Obama has turned to the center."

   -----------------------

   In that case, Ms. Heuvel is a chump. She was certainly an apologist for Obama as he zigzagged his way through a number of issues during the primaries. And now she's shocked when it concerns a subject particularly close to her heart?

   Posted by seattler0cks at 07/08/2008 @ 3:59pm

6. My flip-flopper can beat up your flip-flopper!

   Posted by yutsano at 07/08/2008 @ 4:31pm

7. One thing he COULD be saying is "see you in criminal court."

   Posted by midnight04 at 07/08/2008 @ 4:45pm

8. "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."

   Read: "I can get away with selling out the left on this issue--and many more in the future--because no matter what, my opponent is so much worse that you'll still have no choice but to vote for me."

   Posted by joyfulspark at 07/08/2008 @ 4:53pm

9. Actually, make that "selling out the American people." As Barack has pointed out time and again, "we may call ourselves Democrats and Republicans and independents, but we are Americans first"--and Americans of every political stripe are being stripped of their civil liberties by this bill.

   Posted by joyfulspark at 07/08/2008 @ 4:56pm

10. >>>Read: "I can get away with selling out the left on this issue--and many more in the future--because no matter what, my opponent is so much worse that you'll still have no choice but to vote for me."

    Posted by joyfulspark at 07/08/2008 @ 4:53pm<<<

    WRONG!

    READ: "I am not going to fall for the 'he won't keep us safe trap' being set by the Republicans because I intend to WIN this election in November and roll back ALL of Bush's abuses, including FISA"

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/08/2008 @ 5:00pm

11. Everybody,

    Actually, what is happening here is that Barack Obama probably realizes that he could actually be elected President.

    And if he is, then he will have to deal with the issues (and the threats) as they are in the real world, not in the world of lib wonder and utopia and angst and guilt and class/race warfare and anti-capitalism envy and hatred, where the solution to all problems is to tax the rich and punish the guilty (determined by libs) for crimes against the "people" and the "workers"

    And if he has to deal with the treats dealing with them effectively WILL MATTER and will be far more IMPORTANT than pleasing his "base" (angry leftists and marxists)

    He probably is beginning to realize that preventing another September 11 will have a higher priority than making sure angry leftists still like him.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2008 @ 5:01pm

12. HAPPY -

    No defense of Obama from me on this one.

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 5:03pm

13. SJ -

    If you are not too dizzy from tripping over your own words, I have some responses for you on the previous Nichols thread.

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 5:04pm

14. "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."

    That majority of KEY issues is now a shrinking minority of issues on which true progressives can agree with Obama.

    joyfulspark calls it: progressives have nowhere else to go.

    Progressives are de facto disposable.

    It's the triangulation tango all over again, except this time it calls for accommodating 2 wars abroad & a shredded Constitution at home, right from the 1st step.

    Posted by sloper at 07/08/2008 @ 5:05pm

15. Posted by Metteyya at 07/08/2008 @ 3:44pm

    Rather than me stealing from Glenn Greenwald, you and others should read his point-by-point response to Obama's statement.

    He makes quite clear the number of falsehoods within Obama's statement.

    http://tinyurl.com/5vjwkn

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 5:10pm

16. Am I mistaken, or didn't the much vilified Hillary Clinton (new and improved now that she was out from under Bill's shadow--or was that the Hillary who could never be Hillary the 'left' so hated) vote against the offensive FISA stuff? Wouldn't she have been the better pick? Was there any real reason beyond the left's own misogyny that Hillary was so villified? I sure hope we win, and I sure hope we can keep Obama true to his seeming principles--the ones that brought him this far in the race. Next time, be nicer to the middle aged broad in the pant suit, okay?

    Posted by populismworks at 07/08/2008 @ 5:11pm

17. Hello Hman23,

    You are the one being tripped up by my words, as you will see when you read my latest reply to you on the other Nichols "thread"

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2008 @ 5:21pm

18. Yes, SJ. You really got me there. You were only joking and being sarcastic before.

    You still haven't answered my last question (asked three times now):

    Do you believe the presdient has the authority to suspend habeas corpus as for U.S. citizens residing in the U.S. because of 9/11?

    Yes or no?

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 5:25pm

19. READ: "I am not going to fall for the 'he won't keep us safe trap' being set by the Republicans because I intend to WIN this election in November and roll back ALL of Bush's abuses, including FISA"

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/08/2008 @ 5:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    If that were true, then he would be taking the right stance at the right time, which is NOW that this bill is going through the Senate, where he is 1 of only 100 people in the country who have the power to do anything about it. If it were true, then he would be redefining what safety means and challenging the radical, even fascist notion that "security" necessitates surrendering basic civil liberties.

    The point you are trying to argue is a stretch and requires blind faith in the idea that Barack will miraculously decide to govern by all these progressive principles when he becomes president, even as his stated and voting positions are increasingly in opposition to them. He is a phenomenal speaker and, beyond what is explicitly in his message--which to me seems like a lot of fluff for "sorry, agree to disagree on this one"--there is room for interpretation, but there is only so much room. This is especially true if you expect a politician whose entire candidacy is based on a promise of transformational change to actually deliver on that promise and call out the radical distortions of truth that have framed political discourse in the U.S. since at least the Reagan Administration.

    Posted by joyfulspark at 07/08/2008 @ 5:40pm

20. Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 5:10pm

    Not stealing anything from Greenwald.

    His "legal" analysis is somewhat OK for the non-attorney (and well below par as legal scholarship), but he has absolutely NO CLUE concerning the political fallout of allowing the PAA surveillance orders to expire, and this fallout is independent of whether Obama voted against the PAA.

    What Greenwald, Nichols and other progressives fail to consider is that always standing on principle is not necessarily the way to gain power to reform the system, especially in presidential politics when you have an opposition campaign that practices Rovian politics. Sometimes you have to "appear" to sacrifice the principle in the short run to get the principle enacted later on - like playing dead until you get in a position to whack your attacker over the head!

    NO ONE, not ONE progressive save Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/3/12425/59527) has responded to the "political" issue of having to face Republican attack ads that claim "Obama won't keep America safe".

    Kos, to his credit, at least pointed to a special election in Illinois where these ads proved ineffective at stopping Foster from winning. But Il-14 district AIN'T Middle America!

    As the primary contest already demonstrated, the upper Midwest is NOT the same electorate as the upper South, Appalachian, or Corn belt. This is where Kos' analysis fails.

    I would be happy to read a thoughtful analysis here on The Nation of the demographics in key areas where Obama HAS TO win, and whether the "Obama won't keep America safe" ads would be effective there.

    That is the the only analysis worth reading on this FISA issue, but no one at The Nation seems to have a clue concerning this angle. Most (not all) have bought into this mainstream media superficial analysis that Obama is moving to the center.

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/08/2008 @ 5:44pm

21. [You are the one being tripped up by my words, as you will see when you read my latest reply to you on the other Nichols "thread" Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2008 @ 5:21pm]

    Can I help you up off the ground? Is your leg supposed to bend that way? It reminds me of your pretzel logic.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/08/2008 @ 5:49pm

22. Well, 'ol Obama is doing his best to get Nader some votes.

    Keep kow-towing O. Beg for those tel-com donations till it hurts.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/08/2008 @ 5:50pm

23. Posted by joyfulspark at 07/08/2008 @ 5:40pm

    Obama has to WIN to bring about transformational change. If he loses by blindly holding onto principle all of the time, what was the point of running?

    I know there are some candidates that run for office to highlight some principle, even though they have no shot at winning, but that is not what Obama's candidacy is about.

    Winning so that we are in a position to enact transformational long-term change is the where the Obama campaign has to be, otherwise it is all for naught.

    This does not mean that you do a Nixon and throw all principles out the window, but if you know the FISA debate will NOT end with this bill, and that you will have many more shots to reform it as a senator or enforce it in a way that is consistent with our civil rights if you are president, then why not focus on this greater war as opposed to one battle?

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/08/2008 @ 6:08pm

24. Posted by Metteyya at 07/08/2008 @ 5:44pm

    METT - His legal analysis is better than OK. He is a constitutional lawyer and given your lack of a counter, I'd say you have to admit he has the law right and Obama has it wrong.

    On the political side, why are you supporting Obama's rush to the so-called middle? There is nothing centrist about supporting the decay of Fourth Amendment rights. Can you come up with any real solid evidence that Rovian tactics you are so scared of would actually work in 2008? It's not that hard to counter the attacks he would face. Look at how easy of a time I am having with our friend SJ. It's quite simple. Bush broke the law. The telecoms broke the law. FISA allows for surveillance of terrorist activity. FISA is not expiring. FISA has provisions that allow for emergency wiretaps without FISA court authorization.

    Ask John Kerry'ws former staff how moving to the middle and runnign scared from Karl Rove worked out in 2004.

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 6:12pm

25. Posted by Metteyya at 07/08/2008 @ 6:08pm

    Or, he could get the law right as one who writes laws, not "deal with it" as president. That would most likely entail opening the FISA legislation for debate again, or opting for a ChimpCo method, the signing statement.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/08/2008 @ 6:18pm

26. Ask John Kerry'ws former staff how moving to the middle and runnign scared from Karl Rove worked out in 2004. Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 6:12pm

    Or that guy that "lost" to Ralph Nader, what was his name?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/08/2008 @ 6:22pm

27. Has any evidence been produced that shows that the information gleaned illegally by and from the tel-coms was used to prevent any serious "invasion" of the US?

    If FISA is the standard set by the courts interpretation of the 4th amendment, and Bush violated FISA regulation, is he not guilty of violating his oath of office, SJ? Especially if his illegal action produced no protection of the country?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/08/2008 @ 6:26pm

28. Hman23,

    Your question "Do you believe the presdient has the authority to suspend habeas corpus as for U.S. citizens residing in the U.S. because of 9/11?

    Yes or no?"

    My Answer: Yes

    Another question to you - who do you think Habeas Corpus should apply to, anyway?

    Why should Habeas Corpus apply to somebody who is not an American citizen and commits an act of terror (i.e., invades) our country?

    They commit acts of agression and mass murder and you want to give them full legal protection under our laws?

    You are going overboard with this, Hman23!

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2008 @ 6:28pm

29. Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 6:12pm

    It would take me a lot more time and space than I have here to counter his legal analysis. But since the legal analysis is NOT the issue, I continue to focus on the political reality.

    It is hard for me to believe that you are serious when you say "Obama won't keep us safe" ads will NOT be effective if the PAA orders are allowed to expire on July 31st with a defeat (not enough votes) or delay of the new FISA legislation. Nearly 15% of the electorate still believe Barack is a Muslim, and the "will keep us safe" issue is where he is polling the WORST, particularly in some key battleground states.

    This IS the political reality that no one is addressing.

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/08/2008 @ 6:35pm

30. Those of you criticizing Katrina Vanden Heuvel have it all wrong. Her "shocked, shocked" line was clearly a reference to the famous scene in Casablanca where Captain Renault claims he is "shocked, shocked" to learn that gambling is taking place at Rick's, when in fact he not only knew about it but was participating himself. In other words, KVH is saying that OF COURSE Obama was going to move to the center once he got the nomination. I'm not defending Obama here, just pointing out that directing your ire at KVH is silly.

    Posted by Trapped_in_a_Red_State at 07/08/2008 @ 6:38pm

31. SJ, it sure looks like the Supremes disagree with you. (This is the SCOTUS that has overturned more federal, state and local legislation than any other version of the court I can remember)

    Here is the simplest answers I can give as to why habeas should be granted to prisoners held by the USA:

    1: 755 "of the most dangerous" "terrorists" were taken to GITMO Cuba. Roughly 250 remain. Many of the 500 released were held for years without charges brought against them. Without the basic right of "seeing the corpse", how will you know that only guilty people are still being held?

    2: Habeas is not just a right for US citizens, it is a human right recognized as being fundamental to free societies, something the USA is supposed to be fighting FOR, not against.

    FISA:

    As a "conservative", I would think that SJ would be against giving the federal government, which includes the Education Dept, Energy Dept, HUD and the Dept of Labor, more power to snoop into personal and private accounts. A few years ago it was shown in court that federal appointees used guvt access of records to influence international bidding in favor of a former client.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/08/2008 @ 6:48pm

32. Another reason basic rights need to be granted and protected:

    News from another communist America hater:

    [WASHINGTON -- The Army general who led the investigation into prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison accused the Bush administration Wednesday of committing "war crimes" and called for those responsible to be held to account.

    The remarks by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who's now retired, came in a new report that found that U.S. personnel tortured and abused detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, using beatings, electrical shocks, sexual humiliation and other cruel practices.

    "After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes," Taguba wrote. "The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

    Taguba, whose 2004 investigation documented chilling abuses at Abu Ghraib, is thought to be the most senior official to have accused the administration of war crimes. "The commander in chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture," he wrote.

    ...One of the Iraqis, identified by the pseudonym Laith, was arrested with his family at his Baghdad home in the early morning of Oct. 19, 2003. He was taken to a location where he was beaten, stripped to his underwear and threatened with execution, the report says.

    "Laith" told the examiners he was then taken to a second site, where he was photographed in humiliating positions and given electric shocks to his genitals.

    Finally, he was taken to Abu Ghraib, where he spent the first 35 to 40 days in isolation in a small cage, enduring being suspended in the cage and other "stress positions."

    He was released on June 24, 2004, without charge.]

    So, SJ, what is up with the sexual humiliation and your support of it?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/08/2008 @ 6:51pm

33. Posted by Metteyya at 07/08/2008 @ 6:35pm

    Obamas claim to fame is his ability to communicate. If he cannot communicate the basic fact of the FISA laws, the illegality of Bush's actions, and lack of urgency to "fix" FISA, what good is the blinding oratory?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/08/2008 @ 6:55pm

34. Those of you criticizing Katrina Vanden Heuvel have it all wrong. Her "shocked, shocked" line was clearly a reference to the famous scene in Casablanca where Captain Renault claims he is "shocked, shocked" to learn that gambling is taking place at Rick's, when in fact he not only knew about it but was participating himself. In other words, KVH is saying that OF COURSE Obama was going to move to the center once he got the nomination. I'm not defending Obama here, just pointing out that directing your ire at KVH is silly. Posted by Trapped_in_a_Red_State at 07/08/2008 @ 6:38pm

    Nice catch there.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/08/2008 @ 6:55pm

35. Posted by crabwalk at 07/08/2008 @ 6:55pm

    His communication regarding Bush's abuse of FISA has been clear.

    Do you really think with Obama as president that FISA would be abused as is or with the new bill?

    And even if he loses his bid to become president, do you think there will be a lot more opportunities to reform FISA?

    Some progressives are acting as though this is a one shot deal, and it is not!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/08/2008 @ 7:09pm

36. What's awful, is every time I come here to bash Obama, I have to listen to dipshit conservatives do the same.

    As if Happy and the rest weren't guilty of endorsing, supporting and just plain old loving the monkey currently holding office before the next monkey swears in.

    Everyone here, progressive and conservative alike, would benefit wholly from subjecting their own chosen ones to a little culpability. The hypocrisy from BOTH of you, reek to high heaven.

    "Bush is a fucking idiot, I am not a dittohead"...say it with me!

    If americans would stop concentrating on the immediate effects on their wallets and their various ideologies, we probably wouldn't have a massive deficit. Y'know, one of the many things people like HAPPY can't come to grips with.

    Posted by madlib at 07/08/2008 @ 7:35pm

37. It's pretty much official at this point. Barack Obama has become another sad sellout and the degree to which he's sold out in just one month's time makes a dramatic recovery virtually impossible.

    By the way, "Cccomfo1", here's the original passage I posted in regards to Katrina's Casablanca quote:

    "Katrina vanden Heuvel said on Stephanopoulos (6/29, viewable online), "I'm shocked, …shocked that Obama has turned to the center."

    Really?

    Or is this just a sarcastic remark ala Casablanca? I'm not quite sure, but I'll assume, for her sake, that she really meant it –-after all, a sarcastic remark would be a slap in the face to Nation readers since The Nation endorsed Barack Obama. And if she is indeed shocked, then where is the appropriate anger to go along with it?"

    --So, Cccomfo1, she's damned to some degree no matter how you interpret her remark.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/08/2008 @ 7:54pm

38. "Do you really think with Obama as president that FISA would be abused as is or with the new bill?

    And even if he loses his bid to become president, do you think there will be a lot more opportunities to reform FISA?

    Some progressives are acting as though this is a one shot deal, and it is not!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/08/2008 @ 7:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person "

    One, you're presupposing that he'll have any credibility in pushing to have the law changed as President that he voted for as a senator. Further, the whole point is that we trust in having laws that are on the books and holding the executive accountable for enforcing those laws. We don't keep bad laws on the books and trust in the President's discretion.

    If your argument is that we can give Obama similar powers to what Bush has claimed for himself because he will use them more righteously, then you've abandoned any claim that an Obama victory will be a progressive anything.

    Posted by brunowe at 07/08/2008 @ 7:57pm

39. --So, Cccomfo1, she's damned to some degree no matter how you interpret her remark. Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/08/2008 @ 7:54pm

    Not really. She could be saying she ISN'T schocked because she knew he would have to turn to center in order to win and is in fact not actually planning to stay this way. Most people turn to center during the elections. The people like Nader who stay far to one side never really win.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/08/2008 @ 8:02pm

40. Wait,

    Does everyone here agree that if Obama runs on his REAL beliefs there is absolutely no way in hell that he can win the general election because "the people" disagree with his REAL beliefs?

    Doesn't that tell you something? Why wouldn't people elect him based on what he is REALLY going to do?

    Does everyone here agree that the majority of Americans are stupid, and therefore politicians have an obligation to lie to them to secure an election?

    Replace "Obama" with "McCain" if you like.

    Posted by WallStreet at 07/08/2008 @ 8:12pm

41. Posted by brunowe at 07/08/2008 @ 7:57pm

    You are proposing that he vote against a bill that is going to pass anyway (there are not enough votes to defeat it), and then have that vote used against him in "Obama won't keep America safe" attack ads.

    Standing on principle is great, but you must pick your battles carefully or your principles will have zero chance of becoming law.

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/08/2008 @ 8:25pm

42. "You are proposing that he vote against a bill that is going to pass anyway (there are not enough votes to defeat it), and then have that vote used against him in "Obama won't keep America safe" attack ads."

    Yes.

    If the majority of Americans believe that this bill is going to keep Americans safe, AND Obama does not believe that it is going to keep Americans safe, then he should vote against it and explain his vote to the American people.

    If he cannot do that, he has no place running for president. If he believes that because of this bill, some USA loving blonde haired, 23 year old 3rd grade public school teacher in Kansas is going to be monitored and thrown in jail without access to lawyers or courts for 20 years, then let him say that and the people will still vote for him.

    However, the point is really that it is more likely that some democracy/capitalism hating socialist marxist university club is going to get tapped, and YOU know that most Americans could care less about them, and therefore would vote againt Obama in this case.

    See what honesty does when introduced into the debate. Candidates look less and less like the average American voter. Hence the posturing and the lies and the pissing off of the radical base (Obama and McCain).

    Posted by WallStreet at 07/08/2008 @ 8:50pm

43. Replace "Obama" with "McCain" if you like. Posted by WallStreet at 07/08/2008 @ 8:12pm

    No politician ever runs on their "real" beliefs. Except people like Nader, which is why he is never elected.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/08/2008 @ 8:51pm

44. "No politician ever runs on their "real" beliefs. Except people like Nader, which is why he is never elected."

    Agree, so who cares what either of them say.

    If I were McCain I would run the attack ad anyway, and tell the people that Obama is going to dismantle it as president, so see... Obama hates America anyway, and will endanger you to save the marxist college radical and allow another terrorist attack on America.

    If I were Obama, I would vote "present". And use the 23 y/o blonde girl getting thrown in jail ad, because "there is a chance that your daugheter could be next."

    Either way, it should be entertaining.

    Posted by WallStreet at 07/08/2008 @ 8:56pm

45. Ad Suggestion for McCain:

    "Obama only voted to ensure the safety of Americans because you expect the government to do everything in its power to keep you safe. However, Obama himself, after pressure from radical marxist blogs and lobbying groups stated publically that as President he would dismantle the law that was meant to keep you safe, in order to ensure that those working against America have more rights than you do. The choice is clear, vote for John McCain, he actually believes that Americans should be protected, not the terrorists that want to kill you."

    Posted by WallStreet at 07/08/2008 @ 9:02pm

46. Nearly 15% of the electorate still believe Barack is a Muslim, and the "will keep us safe" issue is where he is polling the WORST, particularly in some key battleground states.

    This IS the political reality that no one is addressing.

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/08/2008 @ 6:35pm

    Do you really think Obama has a prayer of capturing any significant portion of that 15%??????

    Even without the FISA dustup?

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 9:02pm

47. Posted by crabwalk at 07/08/2008 @ 6:48pm

    SJ is no conservative. His interpretation of the Constitution reveals it.

    He is an authoritarian. Plain and simple.

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 9:04pm

48. They commit acts of agression and mass murder and you want to give them full legal protection under our laws?

    You are going overboard with this, Hman23!

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2008 @ 6:28pm

    Who has? Name me a single detainee at Gitmo who has even been tried or found to have committed any acts of agression or mass murder.

    You are putting the cart before the horse, my friend.

    All I advocate for is a HEARING to make a determination - a determination you are perfectly willing to agree is true without a hearing or trial; simply on the assumption that the executive branch says so.

    And who exactly is going overboard here? You think the president has the legal authority to suspend habeas even as to American CITIZENS living in the U.S. for crying out loud. I doubt you would even find someone in the Bush Administration to go THAT far.

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 9:12pm

49. Standing on principle is great, but you must pick your battles carefully or your principles will have zero chance of becoming law.

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/08/2008 @ 8:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Bills like this pass because finger-in-the-wind types like Obama and Clinton vote for them.

    Posted by brunowe at 07/08/2008 @ 9:42pm

50. Posted by brunowe at 07/08/2008 @ 9:42pm

    No, they pass because most of the country has more conservative politics and a less sophisticated electorate than Feingold's Wisconsin!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/08/2008 @ 10:00pm

51. Posted by Metteyya at 07/08/2008 @ 10:00pm

    So how on Earth is Obama going to manage to govern as a progressive like you claim? He is simply going to be able to hoodwink most of the country? Is he only committing to one term?

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 10:17pm

52. There's still time to leave this guy at the alter.

    Posted by wgilwood at 07/08/2008 @ 11:13pm

53. The FISA issue is not simply a political football. The questions are very serious:

    * Is the government allowed to deploy the National Security Administration, domestically, against the American people?

    * Do corporations and in particular their executive management conspiring with the government to commit broad and profound violations of Federal law face any form of accountability whatsoever?

    * Are politicians and officeholders who commit broad and profound violations of Federal law to face any form of accountability whatsoever?

    In essence, the question now in front of us all is whether or not we are a government of laws or a government of men. I personally believe that allowing the criminals who conducted the "warrantless wiretapping" (read as: "vacuum cleaner operation on *all* internet traffic in the US and *all* phone traffic in the US") to go free tells these various nefarious players that they have carte blanche to operate as they please without worry.

    Obama is failing completely to prove to us that he stands for the change we need, in this case, which is a change to accountability for the criminals who commited the "eavesdropping" and in reality directed and facilitated the deployment of the National Security Agency, a military spying apparatus created to wage cold and hot wars against foreign targets, against the American people on domestic soil.

    Obama needs to understand that he must dance with those who brung him. And that's us. He won't lose the nomination as a result of alienating his constituents, but he really doesn't want to take the nomination later this year only to discover that a lot of his core supporters already feel burned, and that, pragmatically, he aspires to be just another Washington politician. It is possible to stand up for the rule of law in the FISA issue, and the rights of the public, and our democracy, and win nonetheless. The people will side with a figure who has the nomination of the Democratic Party for the president and who is arguing that one of the most hated presidents in history, George Walker Bush, has committed yet another unforgiveable offense and that these offenses must not be legislatively pardoned. Obama needs to understand that the rubber of "change" is now hitting the road and that not just America, but the world, is looking to him to see just what amount traction emerges.

    Posted by Zero at 07/09/2008 @ 01:05am

54. Obama is NO DIFFERENT from any of the other win-at-all-cost politicians we have come to despise, except in his ability to temporarily deceive us into thinking he WAS different.

    FISA? Iraq withdrawal? Abortion rights? Gun control? The Death Penalty? Religion inside government? On EACH issue, he is identical to McCain. He just lied more about his real positions, to win the nomination.

    And now he continues to lie, about what his Iraq position was, about the content of a bill we can all read, even about whether he has changed positions or not! What, does he think YouTube doesn't exist??

    I can't believe I was fooled for so long. He manipulated our intense desire for positive change, like no one since... Reagan! Wow... I feel sick.

    Posted by sjduskin at 07/09/2008 @ 01:40am

55. by wgilwood at 07/08/2008 @ 11:13pm...

    Nutter...

    To excoriate Obama's judgment... as he runs for President of the United States... is just plain dumb. To say he's 'selling out' and thumbing his nose at his base... is to spout egotistical knee jerk assertions.

    George Bush is President now... remember?

    'Transformational change' is not even remotely possible unless Obama wins. Nader? Yeah, right. He can tear it down, but only because he doesn't expect to win.

    That 'Progressives' seem predisposed to dissatisfaction... is an understatement, to be sure. It's like their mantra is 'trust no one who could actually get the job'. Don't let the mighty righties cleave the true 'mainstream' this time. Get onboard and stick with it for a change... through thick and thin.

    I have faith in Obama's judgment, and as November approaches, this faith grows stronger. His reasoning is superb, he appreciates the spirit and the letter of constitutional law, and he listens pretty darn well.

    Rove's sardonic smile is our only other real option... and face it... he's a creep.

    God Bless America!

    Posted by ttr at 07/09/2008 @ 01:46am

56. The Muslims will come & get you, seize/destroy your property & suck your life blood, if Obama is president, the same way the Jews did it in Germany & much of the rest of Europe before they were taken care of.

    This "reasoning" has worked with ignorant, bigoted, ill-informed, superstitious populations quite well before, it could certainly work in the US in '08.

    Thanks to our churches, W&Co, Murdoch's News Corp, Viacom, Disney et al, we're ripe.

    And this is what Obama is skillfully accommodating himself to.

    Posted by sloper at 07/09/2008 @ 02:09am

57. For those who are saying that Obama is betraying his 'true' principals to win at all costs, I wonder why we should give him so much credit?

    Maybe these are his true principals. At some point we have to take politicians at their words and not assume they are actually better people than their actions betray.

    If we insist on excusing them when they do the wrong thing, what incentive is there to do the right thing?

    Posted by nameme at 07/09/2008 @ 02:30am

58. "This "reasoning" has worked with ignorant, bigoted, ill-informed, superstitious populations quite well before"

    Exactly, like West Virginia in the Democratic Primary, these were the people that Hillary was depending on to deliver her the nomination.

    The problem is not the ignorant, or the righties, the problem is people like Obama that don't have the stones or the political skill to take a position against tyranny and explain it to the people in a way that they can understand.

    Obama is going to do nothing as president to change the current trajectory of the country.

    Try this reasoning, Obama won't fight to take down the FISA law because HE does not want to be hamstrung by congress when he is president. No presidential contender will ever support any legislation that will limit the power of the executive. Obama is no different.

    Posted by WallStreet at 07/09/2008 @ 02:33am

59. Those that excuse Obama for this set of actions do so because they are "party" idealogues. It has nothing to do with progressivism or principles, it has to do with "we win, they lose," the country be damned.

    Look at each of "The Nation" writers. they are falling in line with the Democratic nominee, regardless of whether they believe in his "principles" or whatever principles they believe he will enact "once in office."

    If you believe in progressivism and are not supporting Nader, you are a FRAUD. If you back the populist Obama or the Rightist McCain, you ARE the problem.

    Posted by WallStreet at 07/09/2008 @ 02:38am

60. by sloper at 07/09/2008 @ 02:09am...

    ...and thanks to you, we now have a much more realistic understanding of the infirmities of the 'modern leftist mind'.

    As you trash and burn the most realistic chance you've had in your lifetime to have ANY of your ideology taken seriously... I wonder what you think you have to gain by doing so.

    You seem to be saying that psychically speaking, this country is something like a 'one horse town'... so... why would you chastise someone for trying to ride that horse to the next town to get help and supplies? Or worse yet, why berate the horse?

    There are no other horses, and it's too far to walk.

    So... as you beat a dead horse with your neigh saying, your 'high horse' is all in your mind... playing point canter point...;^)

    Posted by ttr at 07/09/2008 @ 02:43am

61. by WallStreet at 07/09/2008 @ 02:38am...

    ...and your canterintuitives are galloping circles around a dwindling gold rush town...

    You would have us believe that division makes us stronger... and to that, I say... horse pucky!

    Division is the problem... and those who try to divide us are increasingly obvious.

    Not this time, WallStreet.

    Posted by ttr at 07/09/2008 @ 02:56am

62. If Feingold had run for president, I would have supported him. He didn't, and though I may not agree with every single vote or position of my candidate, he's my candidate.

    Obama '0i

    Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/09/2008 @ 03:42am

63. Ummmmmm...'08 I mean.

    Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/09/2008 @ 03:43am

64. "division makes us stronger" "try to divide us"

    You give away your hand. You have labeled yourself a Democrat FIRST, and a progressive, open minded thoughtful American SECOND. This is the problem, you have no spine. Force your candidate to take the RIGHT positions, not the positions that the racist, backwoods, right-wingers (that are fed up with Bush) can support.

    Spineless, just spineless.

    Why won't your candidate listen to you? And you don't have a problem with that?

    Posted by WallStreet at 07/09/2008 @ 03:44am

65. <i>A sell-out, Obama, so he can be the next ... not >president ... but neo-emperor.

    Posted by sloper at 07/08/2008</i>

    Yep. After all Septimius Severus, Roman Emperor from AD 193 to 211, wa a dark-skinned Berber.

    http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/m/s tatue_septimius_severus.aspx

    Posted by chinpoko at 07/09/2008 @ 04:06am

66. WALLSTREET, do you think that relying on the court system to issue warrants, rather than the president or his lackeys in the justice dept, is Marxist?

    Could you point to someone on this blog who has used maxrism to bolster his/her argument?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/09/2008 @ 07:39am

67. READ: "I am not going to fall for the 'he won't keep us safe trap' being set by the Republicans because I intend to WIN this election in November and roll back ALL of Bush's abuses, including FISA"

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/08/2008 @ 5:00pm

    You are proving yourself to be delusional. Obama is selling out on issues to become president and you think the selling out will stop once he's in office?

    I hate to join in with any type of agreement with Happy, Liverhead, and those folks, but the promises Obama is making to become president won't make him much different than the current one we have or the idiot he is running against.

    If siding with breaking the law, undermining the constitution and turning our nation into a theocracy is what gets people elected, this country is heading for a big big fall because we the people are evidently not smart enough to see that we are selling our rights down the drain to international corporations while we fund their business extortion via our military.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/09/2008 @ 09:32am

68. But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. John Adams US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826)

    Posted by kingcuke at 07/09/2008 @ 09:55am

69. Yeah, FRANKGRITS, like the people that were duped into voting for Bush in 2000 and 2008.

    Posted by chinesebandit at 07/09/2008 @ 10:10am

70. So what makes someone "better" just because they grip a sword? Please explain this to me. I don't see how that makes them "better". That quote sucks.

    Posted by chinesebandit at 07/09/2008 @ 10:12am

71. I've seen a similar pattern on other blogs...and by folks who definitely AREN'T "real progressives"!

    Posted by Maskbeta at 07/09/2008 @ 09:59am

    MASK, I'll vote for Obama because I am mortified as to what McCain would be like as president.

    But unlike Metteyya, I am not so sure that I know where Obama stands. He's to the left of McCain, but that isn't saying much.

    I would vote for Nader or someone else, but that would be basically throwing my vote away, so I'm pretty much stuck with voting for Obama.

    I hope Metteyya is right and that the real Obama will get into office and turn D.C. upside down, but I sure as hell won't hold my breath.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/09/2008 @ 10:25am

72. So what makes someone "better" just because they grip a sword? Please explain this to me. I don't see how that makes them "better". That quote sucks.

    Posted by chinesebandit at 07/09/2008 @ 10:12am

    Much of reality sucks.

    Posted by marybretbrad at 07/09/2008 @ 10:20am

    Killing in the name of God and country are still killing. Killing does not make one a man, it only makes one a killer. You forget MBB, that Iraq didn't attack us nor did Iraq have plans to attack us. As Bugliosi pointed out, that, in and of itself, is enough to possibly prosecute W and Company for murder charges on their behalf.

    Charles Manson, who also didn't commit murder directly, was found to be indirectly responsible for multiple murders and is cooling his heels in the California State Pen. for the rest of his life. Bugliosi is the guy who put him there.

    This goes back to your sword argument. People need to be careful for who and why they would take a sword and kill. Many of our soldiers have come back from Iraq feeling lied to and deceived and have killed people they otherwise wouldn't have.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/09/2008 @ 10:33am

73. What's the problem with the wiretapping program. You get searched in the airport when you fly and nobody is issuing warrants there. I suppose if you have a private plane you aren't searched. So if you want, you could create your own private telecommunications network with the people you want to talk to.

    Posted by abell12ct at 07/09/2008 @ 10:45am

74. (Regarding your quote, one such soldier to return from Iraq feeling lied to was a fellow by the name of Timothy McVeigh....

    MBB, Come on now, you can do better than that. So you would compare Timothy McVeigh to the guys who have served honorably in Iraq and had the audacity to question their commander-in-chief's motives for going into Iraq?

    So much for honoring those who wield the swords.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/09/2008 @ 11:23am

75. I still support Obama, without question. I will vote for him, and do whatever I can to support his candidacy.

    However, I am disappointed in his FISA stance. I also think it is a tactical mistake.

    Things are not black and white - either for him or against him.

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/09/2008 @ 11:24am

76. It further reinforces my point that much of reality sucks.

    Posted by marybretbrad at 07/09/2008 @ 12:13pm

    Damn, we agree on something!!

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/09/2008 @ 12:17pm

77. The Nation readers should read Glenn Greenwald's July 9 entry at Salon.com (who cites Mr. Nichols' column), and watch the YouTube video of Jonathan Turley's comments from MSNBC's Countdown program.

    Senator Obama's defense is indefensible. "Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise." No "surveillance tools" have been lost, and as Professor Turley noted, the current FISA bill is a "cave-in," not a compromise.

    And it's the Democrats in Congress who are giving President Bush a "get out of jail free" card, when they should be drafting articles of impeachment for the string of felonies committed by the Bush administration in violation of the FISA law.

    Can anyone imagine Sam Ervin covering-up Nixon's crimes? Goodbye to the rule of law and the 4th Amendment. Meet the surveillance state, the unitary executive, a two-tiered system of justice, and less respect for the rule of law.

    This will come back to haunt Barack Obama. The United States cannot afford four more years of failure.

    Posted by johnmshaw at 07/09/2008 @ 12:47pm

78. Posted by marybretbrad at 07/09/2008 @ 08:51am

    gotta love the attack on "intellectuals". Like attacks on unions, gays and minorities, it puts you in the group with Authoritarian regimes of the past and present.

    As far as Marxist goes, WALL was writing about "marxist websites such as this" and throwing around the term as if it applies to those here.

    ---------

    Posted by abell12ct at 07/09/2008 @ 10:45am

    non-sequitor.

    Airports are public locations, bombs can bring down airplanes, airplanes can be highjacked.

    telecom communications have been held to a much higher privacy standard than airports and say sidewalks, in the past.

    What is wrong with letting an independent judge review a warrant before Janet Reno executes the warrant?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/09/2008 @ 12:47pm

79. Posted by marybretbrad at 07/09/2008 @ 10:30am

    If it makes you FEEL better, you just keep on believing that Saddam was a "threat" to you and surrounding nations. Judging by the number of Arab and Persian troops joining the "coalition" I have to think that his neighbors disagree with your assesment. Adding in Arab abd Persian reaction to the invasion, I am even more sure your assesment is inaccurate.

    doing something that results in chaos, death and destruction, wasting billions of dollars with no end is sight is not a result.

    I can't imagine living in fear as you do.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/09/2008 @ 12:53pm

80. Faint hope:

    42 Senators voted for Bingaman's amendment to limit telecom immunity. If all 42 voted to sustain a filibuster (against cloture) on the main bill, it would die. That is, of course, assuming they really think it's flawed, and are not just using a single vote on an amendment for political cover... Come to think of it, "faint" is too optimistic...

    Posted by sjduskin at 07/09/2008 @ 1:40pm

81. Obama.com crashed by Anti-FISA activists:

    Obama.com became unavailable to users at 2:10 PM EDT today, as postings on the "Get FISA Right" protest group overwhelmed the site servers. That group is now at 23,000 and still climbing - by FAR the largest group on Obama.com.

    Posted by sjduskin at 07/09/2008 @ 2:20pm

82. >>>So how on Earth is Obama going to manage to govern as a progressive like you claim? He is simply going to be able to hoodwink most of the country? Is he only committing to one term?

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 10:17pm<<<

    This is a transformative and transitional presidency that paves the way for the Feingold's later on.

    Americans have to get used to the idea of a progressive president that is still able to protect America while helping ordinary Americans without the economy collapsing.

    Once America see this, they will not vote for a conservative president again for quite some time.

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/09/2008 @ 2:50pm

83. Posted by Metteyya at 07/09/2008 @ 2:50pm

    Not to get too nitpicky, but you have backed off a little from where you were a few months ago. Before Obama was to govern as a progressive. Now he is just a transitional figure?

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/09/2008 @ 3:19pm

84. Sent too early; meant to add:

    Which is fine by me. That was the most I realistically was hoping from the beginning.

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/09/2008 @ 3:21pm

85. Broken Promise:

    Obama voted AGAINST a filibuster.

    Thanks for the Lie!

    Posted by sjduskin at 07/09/2008 @ 3:26pm

86. All over, byebye Republic. Hello, Emperor Obama.

    Senate Approves Telecom Immunity and New Eavesdropping Rules

    ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: July 9, 2008

    Filed at 3:07 p.m. ET

    WASHINGTON (AP) --The Senate has approved a bill overhauling the rules on secret government eavesdropping and granting immunity to telecom companies that helped listen in on Americans after Sept. 11.

    The Senate passed the bill Wednesday, 69-28. It turned back three amendments that would have watered down, delayed or stripped away the immunity provision demanded by President Bush.

    When the president signs the bill, as expected, it will effectively dismiss some 40 lawsuits filed against telecommunications companies for alleged violations of wiretapping and privacy laws.

    The bill's passage ends almost a year of political wrangling over eavesdropping rules.

    Posted by sloper at 07/09/2008 @ 3:30pm

87. Posted by Hman23 at 07/09/2008 @ 3:19pm

    He will govern as a progressive, but you can't "campaign" as a progressive until Obama shows during his first term that progressive "governance" is good for America.

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/09/2008 @ 3:33pm

88. 'Everybody's bosom friend/ I do whatever pleases/ Jesus! Won't I bleed 'em in the end!' -- Thenardier -- Les Miserables

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 07/09/2008 @ 4:04pm

89. He will govern as a progressive, but you can't "campaign" as a progressive until Obama shows during his first term that progressive "governance" is good for America.

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/09/2008 @ 3:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Except that if he doesn't campaign as a progressive, he'll have no mandate to govern as one.

    Posted by brunowe at 07/09/2008 @ 4:49pm

90. Americans have to get used to the idea of a progressive president that is still able to protect America while helping ordinary Americans without the economy collapsing. Once America see this, they will not vote for a conservative president again for quite some time. Posted by Metteyy

    Just like Jimmy Carter?

    Posted by abell12ct at 07/10/2008 @ 10:11am