Has the hysterical wing of the party even bothered to READ Obama's statement?

[Political Heretic]

All over the internet I see OMG Obama Supports Telecom Immunity!

So I thought, gosh I'd better go actually read his statement to see what all the massive outrage is about. As an Edwards supporter first, I was all ready to jump all over Obama's butt. Instead what I read is this:

...last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

"After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.

"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."

I'm sorry, but I have no problem with that statement and if that doesn't make me "liberal" enough then so be it.

[crankychatter]

1. a ha - you ARE a heretic

k/r

[Political Heretic]

2. So the headlines should read: Obama opposes telecom immunity but supports FISA compromise

And I agree with his reasoning.


Because I am....evil apparently, reading this nuthouse tonight. :eyes:

[Eurobabe]

6. Concern trolls

are coming out of the woodwork! Yeesh. :eyes:

[Indiana_Dem]

3. Well, thanks. I was getting ready to make some phone calls tomorrow!

I was going to call all of my officials Donnelly, Bayh, Lugar and Obama and tell them what I thought! I trust what Obama says and if that is what he said then I will trust that when he is president he will honor what he has said.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. STILL MAKE THE CALLS

[dailykoff]

4. What he's saying and what's in the bill are two different things.

And if he has to play the terra card you know it's bad.

[Political Heretic]

5. No, they aren't.

[babylonsister]

9. He didn't play any 'terra card'. He acknowledged it's a reality. Sorry,

but it is. What if something happened and he hadn't acknowledged it?
It's our reality, but Obama, unlike McCain, isn't running his campaign on it.

[dailykoff]

13. Here's the reality: the language in this "compromise"

would give the Attorney General power to dismiss eavesdropping lawsuits against telecoms on the basis of "national security" which would mean the govt would a) not be accountable for past crimes including pre-911 warrantless wiretaps and b) have nearly unlimited and basically unchecked powers to spy on ANYBODY which basically means everybody.

If it was legal or necessary, Obama wouldn't feel the need to scare us with terra crap.

[Solon]

15. I could only understand supporting this bill if it restored FISA to pre-Bush levels of oversight...

this is, of course, only with the retroactive immunity thrown out. That means strict rules regarding the scope of investigations, needing to go to a judge for warrants within a reasonable amount of time(in the past that was 48-72 hours or so), etc. If it doesn't do that, then no one in their right mind should support it.

[dailykoff]

17. They'd be better off letting it expire.

Who benefits from spying? Intel outfits and their corporate clients, period. We never needed it and we still don't. That's the truth and I would love to hear somebody in congress say it.

[Solon]

18. Frankly, I believe I agree...

I really don't understand the need for wiretapping someone THEN running to get a warrant for the wiretap. If you have enough evidence to get the warrant in the first place, why not do that before you wiretap someone?

[NorthCarolina]

46. It has a 5 year sunset

so it'll be around for a while.

[chimpymustgo]

49. Why won't our presumptive nominee say it?

[Political Heretic]

19. It does do that, although in its history FISA courts have almost never failed to grant a warrant

So... that's a whole other concern.

[Solon]

23. I know, that's part of the reason why I'm leaning towards it being eliminated entirely....

I think the reasoning allowing FISA courts to exist in the first place was rather weak to begin with.

[dailykoff]

33. Sheila Jackson Lee was quoted on BBC saying it gives sweeping

new wiretapping power to the feds by loosening the warrant requirements basically to the point of nonexistence. She voted against in the House.

[Political Heretic]

36. It was already like that....

"sweeping new?" FISA's approve like 99% of all requests in its history....

[dailykoff]

61. Individual approvals won't even be necessary, just approval of the "methods."

So yeah, it could be worse.

[roseBudd]

41. The reality is the GOP needs an Oct. surprise. MIHOP? They will not go down w/o a fight

they are masters at framing.

[sendero]

42. Exactly..

.... ignoring the threat of terror altogether is as asinine as blowing it all out of proportion.

[villager]

7. So -- meet the new boss same as the old boss? Criticism is now hysteria?

that certainly sounds familiar...

Meanwhile, Obama did come out against retroactive telcom immunity -- tho' let's see what he does in the Senate.

He did not come out against the massive increase/ease in eavesdropping on Americans "going forward," as they say. Since he supports the rest of the "compromise."

[Political Heretic]

20. Sorry, I'm not seeing the "same" there.

[villager]

50. Since you're the not-so-heretical one damning all criticism as hysteria, I'm sure you're not.

n/t

[bridgit]

52. Mm, we need to be more careful than that: Obama 1st since Nixon to accept private funding

Obama's Campaign Defends Decision to Opt Out of Public Financing

'Reporters got the news by E-mail just before they sat down this morning for breakfast with Sen. Barack Obama's communications director, Robert Gibbs, and his lawyer, Robert Bauer: The presumed Democratic nominee had announced in a video to supporters that he would opt out of the 32-year-old public campaign financing system.

As reporters gathered at Washington's St. Regis Hotel were quick to point out, that would make Obama the first presidential candidate since Republican Richard Nixon to raise unlimited private funds for his race. And it represents a 180-degree pivot from his earlier pledge to participate in the public system if his opponent does the same.'

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2008/6/19/obamas-campaign-defends-decision-to-opt-out-of-public-financing.html

[madfloridian]

8. Retroactive immunity...won't that make it impossible to hold Bush admin responsible?

It takes away the power to do that, doesn't it?

[PM7nj]

12. Isn't it just retroactive immunity for the telecoms?

[madfloridian]

14. Won't it involve Bush's "signing statements".

That whatever he says is right is right?

[Political Heretic]

22. its retroactive immunity for telecoms from CIVIL suit.

That's it.

[Political Heretic]

30. Correction - apparently its "unclear" if it is civil but not criminal

John Dean clarified ...its what I was trying to think of, but I had been half asleep when I heard it the first time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x149885

[cliffordu]

10. I was kinda freaked till I actually READ what he said.....

I wouldn't be surprised if this little bill meets an untimely fate at the hands of some committee.

Obama said he'd try to change it. Doesn't that mean it has to go back to some room somewhere for surgery??

[Eric J in MN]

26. It probably means that there will be a vote...

...on an amendment to remove retroactive immunity, and Obama will vote YES, but the amendment will fail.

Then there will be a vote on the whole bill, including retroactive immunity, and Obama will again vote YES.

[Barack_America]

16. But hysteria is so much FUN!

It is the way of the blogosphere.

[Eric J in MN]

21. Obama doesn't say that he'll vote against the final bill if it includes retroactive immunity.

By praising the bill, he seems to be implying that he'll vote for it even if it has retroactive immunity.

We'll find out next week.

[Solon]

25. It would be nice if he was more clear on this, but I think he's playing both sides of the fence...

on this issue.

[FrenchieCat]

28. I think he will provide more clarity as soon as the bill hits the senate.....

till then.

[Radical Activist]

24. Being in Congress means compromise.

I like where he stands and what he would do as President.

[Eric J in MN]

27. What did Bush give up in this compromise? NT

NT

[FrenchieCat]

29. Have you read the actual bill?

"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future.?

[Eric J in MN]

35. I read some of the bill, and the exclusivity clause is bogus.

FISA already says that it's the exclusive means of foreign intelligence eavesdropping. Passing a bill to repeat that doesn't help.


From
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3495209&mesg_id=3495209
===========
Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the most prominent Republican opponent of the compromise bill, issued a statement today calling that exclusivity provision "meaningless because that specific provision is now in 1978 act." Specter said Bush just ignored existing law in starting the warrantless surveillance program.
==========

[JoFerret]

48. How many pages is it?

.

[bowens43]

40. it only means compromise to those without principles.

there is a clear right and wrong way to vote on this bill. it seems as if obama is going to vote the wrong way.

[RoyGBiv]

31. Ya know ...

... and this isn't directed at the original poster, just a general comment inspired by hundreds of comments made about this today.

You can read the text of the bill online. Really. You could read it and then not make really, really silly statements about what it says it does or doesn't do.

Really.

[Skip Intro]

32. A politician speaking the language of politics. If Hillary had said this, she would have been damned

There is no point in willful ignorance of reality.

There is no value in twisting fact into some blind cheerleading defense of a position one would heretofore have slammed as status quo posturing.

Self delusion serves no good purpose.

[Political Heretic]

37. Not by me.

That's for sure.

[bridgit]

53. Yes. A lawyerly lawyer speaking the language of law

[rockymountaindem]

63. Where have you been?

It's not like Obama's getting a free pass either. Plenty of people here are mad about his stance on it.

[melody]

34. Ignore them

They'll find any reason to fly into a rage. God forbid someone consider all the possibilities in a situation.
I'm sure Obama had good reasons.

[Asgaya Dihi]

38. What's he going to say?

We were scared so capitulated? Some of ours are dirty too so we couldn't afford the fight?

Personally I find the insults such as against "hysterical wing of the party" to be worse than any supposed hysteria itself and I've got to wonder how deep the insult slingers have really looked into this. When you get names such as legal scholar and constitutional law http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=msnbc&vid=4d5c616d-831d-473f-b8c5-e74ca080b8d6">Professor Jonathan Turley talking in terms of "collusion" (his words) we're well past the "hysterical wing" of anything and into the same types of slams and slanders used to discredit us, the Generals, and others who came out early against the war and other abuses.

This past primary campaign has been really bad for us and it seems we aren't quite done yet with the slams and slanders of the 'other side' when they suit us. Those are members of your own party with a different set of concerns than you hold and maybe with a different view and sources that they look to so different or even better reasons for those opinions, you might want to offer them more respect even if you don't agree than easy accusations of hysterical. I think it was a horrible deal, a capitulation, and I guarantee there's more law professors and history behind my reasons than emotion of any brand.

We're in this mess for a reason. We didn't hold Nixon accountable, we didn't hold Reagan and his crowd accountable, and we aren't going to hold these people accountable either, not on any of it at upper levels. We don't do accountability for the top anymore and we haven't for decades then we wonder why the top levels of our government are more criminal enterprise and good old boys network than functional. Looks related to me.

[bowens43]

39. Sounds like Obama didn't read the bill.

this is so disappointing

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

43. I think people are outraged by the retroactive immunity clause that protects the telecom

industry and allows them to get away with breaking the law.

[Peacetrain]

44. There are those songbirds of doom, who would rather

jump up and down without looking at the larger picture, because they are biting at the bit of an I TOLD YOU SO..

[shayes51]

45. He;'s playing to the GE audience now.

[Onlooker]

47. Obama's taking a moderate stand

For some reason, a lot of people thought Obama was liberal and Clinton was conservative, when in reality they were both roughly the same. Obama is and has been running as a moderate, but at least he'll be a moderate with a more liberal bent when it comes to Iraq, civil rights, and social welfare programs. On other matters, including Wall Street and defense, he's no liberal.

But, the reason to support Obama is that his campaign people seem to know what they have to do to get him elected. I don't agree that they have to pander as much as Congress does, but I can't deny their success so far. If we trust their gameplan, we even have an outside shot at getting Obama elected with a filibuster proof Senate.

[DevonRex]

51. Thank you so very much for this post. You're someone who

has a very practical view of all of this. You were very practical during the primary season, too. And I, for one, appreciate it. :)

[Bjorn Against]

54. There is no "moderate stand" on this issue...

The bottom line is Bush violated the Constitution and committed criminal acts, that is a fact not an opinion. You either support holding people in power accountable when they break the law, or you support allowing them to circumvent the law and escape accountability. There is no middle position on this.

[ProSense]

55. The key part of his statement is this

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

While the rest of the statement focuses on what he believes is right with the bill, that provision might be too high a hurdle for him to get over to support it.

Given how Obama voted on the previous bill and the statement above, I suspect he will vote no if the bill reaches the floor with that provision intact.

He obviously opposes the measure because it will prohibit "full accountability for past offenses."

[madfloridian]

56. This "hysterical wing" person wants you to read something.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/21/1545/63989/473/539564

Obama:

"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over."

No, it is not over....they just made the whole thing legal...so now they can say it is not illegal.

As Hunter at Kos says...they think we are stupid.

[Major Hogwash]

58. That's a pretty good summation of where we are at. Thanks.

I guess anyone who disagrees with Bush is now part of the "hysterical wing".

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

[BlooInBloo]

57. Doesn't make you not a liberal, it just makes you stupid.

[debbierlus]

59. If we do not hold our leaders to account, we are NO different then the repukes

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Strange_bedfellows_team_up_to_lobby_0620.html

The ACLU says the new deal is "crap" and unconstitutional, comparing it to a lousy bill the Senate passed last year.

"Remember that horrible bill the Senate passed earlier this year? The one that had virtually no Fourth Amendment protections? Ok, now imagine Congressman Hoyer and Senator Bond putting a really pretty, really meaningless bow around it to distract you from what’s actually inside," Amanda Simon writes at the ACLU's blog. "Then they added a giveaway to the phone companies. There. Now you have the current FISA bill."

Don't defend Obama on this - he needs to be pressured to do the right thing, not rationalized in his disappointing stance of this bill. True leader of change? THEN FILIBUSTER THE DAMN THING....

If we do not hold our leadership accountable, we are no different then the repukes we have trashed for the last seven and a half years. This is NOT about Obama, it is about we THE PEOPLE! And, the People must demand true change. If we allow this - it is just the beginning of a very slippery slope.

[ejbr]

60. We have different perspectives

As an Edwards supporter first, I was all ready to jump all over Obama's butt.

I am an Edwards supporter too and I AM STILL ready to jump all over Obama's butt! But, I'm gay. :evilgrin:

[AZBlue]

62. Why read it when you can bitch and moan?

Facts? We don't need no stinkin' facts!

[madfloridian]

64. Read this page at the ACLU website....it is unconstitutional.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/fisa.html

Yet our House Democrats brought it to a vote when they did not have to do so.

And Reid is going to bring it a vote next week, when he does not have to.

They are selling our rights and privacy to look tough.