A few words on FISA and Obama's missed opportunity.

[Skip Intro]

Yes, the FISA bill trespasses on the rights of Americans (you and me) - the right to privacy, the right to be free of unwarranted intrusion from our government. And yes, it therefore has a chilling effect on the right to free expression. There's no question now that what we say is being monitored. Couple that with the government's recently required ability to pick up/detain anyone, hold them indefinitely, without any stated reason, deny the right to an attorney, deny contact with anyone, and it doesn't exactly foster free speech. The FISA bill indeed is an affront to freedom and democracy and the constitution, from those who were sworn to uphold and protect it. The government's noose around our freedoms grew a little tighter because of this bill.

And to all the senators who voted for it - I have a problem with your vote - no matter who you are. But in Obama's case, I keep hearing that he had to vote for the final bill in order to insulate himself politically from attacks from the right. Well, I got a problem with that line of thinking too. Obama is nothing if not a great orator. I cannot believe for a second that it would have been beyond his abilities to have just voted no and then explained whenever that vote was attacked that he stood up for freedom and the constitution and was not cowered into acting in a manner that put political well-being above conviction and doing what is right. I think he missed a great opportunity to use the virtual bully pulpit he now has to take a stand for our rights, and further the ideals of freedom, and the supreme rights of the people, while at the same time showing "change" in action. Instead he decided to play a cog in the wheel of what has become a machine that serves not the people, but it's own wellbeing.

Of course, in reality, the wellbeing of our constitution and our rights far outweigh the political wellbeing of any politician. And no, I'm not advocating anyone vote for anyone else - mccain would be a disaster as prez - but I am advocating an honest assessment of reality rather than self delusion or some mindset in which handing our rights to someone on the promise they'll give them back makes sense.

[babylonsister]

1. I wish that 'let it sink' still applied. nt

[merh]

11. You should read the threads I linked to in post 9

:hi:

[anonymous171]

2. This FISA thing is as right as I can go.

And, hopefully, is a right as Obama can go as well.

[slinkerwink]

3. Damn FDR! He violated the 4th amendment rights of Japanese-Americans!

We shouldn't have voted for him! No Social Security! No Medicare!

[Skip Intro]

5. are you kidding?

[slinkerwink]

6. No. He put them in internment camps.

[Skip Intro]

14. Is your argument that effective social programs must be accompanied by a continual assault on our

constitution and freedoms protected therein - fought for and may once again be fight for?

Outside of that context, your comparison of FDR and the violation of the constitution with regards to the internment and Obama and his vote for FISA makes no sense.

Shouldn't be an either/or choice.

on edit: spelling correction

[Egnever]

16. If there was an Olympic sport for twisting like a top to try to distort others statements

You would be pure gold.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skip Intro]

8. I'm a little concerned about the fate of my rights and my powerhungry government.

You should be too.

[slinkerwink]

10. I'm more concerned about my friends in Iraq. About health care. About the economy.

[Egnever]

15. Nuff Said

Not that I buy into the bullshit framing of the FISA bill to begin with.

[Skip Intro]

22. Why should it be either/or?

[Political Heretic]

7. The sky is falling!!

[merh]

9. No it doesn't.

Here, read these threads, myths are debunked and facts can be found and perspectives you've never considered are presented.

Think outside the box, I double dog dare ya.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6483380

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6473419

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3586356

[babylonsister]

12. merh, you are HOT! Love the links, and the

sentiment. Let's all be real. You have never been anything but, and I love you for that. :pals:

[merh]

17. aww

you're making me blush :blush:

thanks :hug:

[Egnever]

13. I dont think skip has bothered with educating his/herself on anything yet this season

But you know I love your efforts to inform just the same.

[merh]

19. even with the double dog dare?

:shrug:

;)

[Skip Intro]

20. I tend to take the word of the patriots who fought this bill, both in congress, the ACLU, and

elswhere, over a few obscure arguments that are hailed as the true truth on some discussion board.

I've read article after article about this bill and what it can be argued to sanction. Pardon my relutctance to embrace weak spin with self delusion.

You know, tho, this is a discussion board. I had and shared an opinion. It is possible to say, "well, you're entitled to your opinion" rather than argue that my opinion, shared by many, is based on some lack of knowledge.

[merh]

23. LOL - translation: "I haven't read the bill and I like parrots"

You are entitled to an opinion and I am entitled to disagree and challenge it. I base the challenge on my practical experiences, my knowledge of the legal system, my ability to read the written word and understand it, my ability to understand how bills are structured and their meaning.

Your first sentence proves you haven't read the bill because the law does not do what you claim it does.

Read the op/ed piece found at the second link I provided to you. It truly is a perspective you have not considered.

[pscot]

18. Obama's FISA vote answers a question I had

about the strength of his convictions. Unfortunately it was the wrong answer. I'll be voting for him in November, but I think less of him, based on this vote.

[babylonsister]

24. Baloney. Obama is set on winning this thing. What's not to like about

that? Feingold and Boxer have already said this situation might change after 09 Jan; let's win.

[pscot]

29. Defending the Constitution isn't Baloney

The FISA vote was not only an unnecessary capitulation, it was contemptable. I like Obama, but dammit, he has to show some backbone.

[LaPera]

21. Just remeber Bush's domestic spying started at least 5 month's before 9/11 - On Dems and

liberals in Congress no doubt! BushCo must of come up with some great skeletons in the closet cuz everyone has something to hide. Reid, Pelosi and the hundreds of others in congress, slimy financial dealings, sexual infidelities, drugs & family secrets, gay affairs, sex with goats, who knows and who gives a fuck?

The sick diabolical republicans do. And they will absolute leak anything if you don't play ball with them, in a heartbeat!

Most people talk very intimately on the telephone when they know their conversations are private, however, now we know better....we know Bush, the telecoms & the republicans illegal eavesdropping started in February of 2001 these neocons got started right away with their blackmail hopes right after Bush was appointed prez, by the right-wing Supreme Court...and Bush took office a couple of month's later in January 2001.

Are you surprised the corporate media now always fails & neglects mentioning this fact when the spying actually started when talking about their bullshit FISA stories? They pretend the spying started because of and after 9/11!

And the Dems go right along with it...you think a couple of them are afraid of what the republicans told them they know about them?

[merh]

25. Actually, it doesn't bother me that they didn't mention it.

I see it as that all important loophole to that "immunity" in the FISA bill. If it began before 9/11 the statutory defenses don't apply.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skip Intro]

28. No, an opinion from a longtime DUer.

[Buck Rabbit]

27. I respectfully disagree.

FISA was established to provide addition safeguards and protections from what was the existing rule of law in 1978 and in fact the rules that would apply now if it were not for the FISA legislation.

The centuries old and many times affirmed doctrine of the Border Search Exemption allows Customs (Homeland Security) to search at random without warrant or suspicion any person or thing, including communication even mail that crosses the National border. Were it not for the statutory protections of FISA specifically dealing with phone calls, then any call crossing the border could be monitored at the governments sole descretion, as was the case prior to 1978 and is the case today in almost every country in the world. Yes when you make a call to virtually any country in the world, the government of that country can legally listen in to your call if they choose to.

So how does a law like FISA which is specifically designed to give some statutory safeguards and oversight beyond what the existing interpretations of the 4th Amendment and the Border Search Exemption constitute an attack on the constitution?

[Zodiak]

30. And if ALL calls, foreign and domestic are routed overseas?

Is that a centuries old tradition?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3579620&mesg_id=3580206

As Russ Feingold said, what we are being told about this program and what he has actually seen are two very different things. There is evidence that each and every communication is being routed and recorded...all of it.

Until this information comes to light, there is no need to expand the powers in the FISA bill. We are amending a program that we know nothing about...talk about a shot in the dark!

And the bill makes the FISA court only symbolic, since even if the FISA court says "no", the wiretap can proceed anyways for months while the appellate process gets underway.

Not to mention the conflict of interest in putting the oversight role within the executive branch (Inspector General of the Justice Department).

I do not think this bill is the small issue you make it out to be.

[Buck Rabbit]

31. And how would this not be a seperate issue if it were true?

If purely domestic calls are being routed overseas, which is extremely unlikely, simply address that issue. Heck even if it isn't being done now, craft legislation that forbids that from happening in the future. Domestic calls should receive the full protection of the 4th Amendment and very few Blue Dogs or Republicans would disagree with that.

I'll contact my very liberal congress critters, Earl Blumenauer and Senator Wyden with a suggestion that they draft a bill addressing just such a concern. Congressman love cakewalk bills that allow them to claim championship of civil liberties and the constitution with no political risk or taxpayer cost involved.

But going back to the original point the overwhelmingly body of law exempts 4th amendment protections when the border is crossed. Get rid of FISA, the result would be Homeland Security would legally have the right to tape and record all international calls at their discretion with no oversight. FISA and FISA type statutes are extensions of our rights beyond the well established case law interpretation of the 4th Amendment and the Border Search Exception doctrine.

[Zodiak]

34. Then you are not well-read on the subject

There is evidence that all calls are being routed overseas and all data streams are running into a little room in San Francisco. Read the whistle-blower's accounts in the link provided.

"What is the significance and why is it important to bring these facts to light?

Based on my understanding of the connections and equipment at issue, it appears the NSA is capable of conducting what amounts to vacuum-cleaner surveillance of all the data crossing the internet -- whether that be peoples' e-mail, web surfing or any other data.

Given the public debate about the constitutionality of the Bush administration's spying on U.S. citizens without obtaining a FISA warrant, I think it is critical that this information be brought out into the open, and that the American people be told the truth about the extent of the administration's warrantless surveillance practices, particularly as it relates to the internet.

Despite what we are hearing, and considering the public track record of this administration, I simply do not believe their claims that the NSA's spying program is really limited to foreign communications or is otherwise consistent with the NSA's charter or with FISA. And unlike the controversy over targeted wiretaps of individuals' phone calls, this potential spying appears to be applied wholesale to all sorts of internet communications of countless citizens."



And why aren't the politicians doing anything about it? Dunno...they refused to even let the whistle-blower testify, despite the fact that he had documents to prove his assertions.

70% of our Senators did not know what program they were voting for. They were not briefed.

By the way, FISA has vary very little challenge in the courts, but what challenges it did endure have not gone well when it comes to Constitutionality.

"There have been very few cases involving the constitutionality of FISA. In two lower court decisions, the courts found FISA constitutional. In the United States v. Duggan, the defendants were members of the Irish Republican Army. 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir., 1984). They were convicted for various violations regarding the shipment of explosives and firearms. The court held that their compelling considerations of national security in the distinction between the treatment of U.S. citizens and non-resident aliens."

So the original FISA court is not all that healthy Constitution-wise, and this new bill is a flaming piece of crap. Russ Feingold is right.

[Buck Rabbit]

35. Actually, I read your links, and acknowledge the possibility,

though unlikely, that this re-routing of domestic calls is true. That issue needs to be addressed directly and separately as the case law for 4th Amendment Protection and the assumption of privacy is so firmly established on domestic phone calls. If you attack violations of privacy of purely domestic calls you have little opposition in enacting protections. If you throw international calls and national security into this mix the opposition both in case law and politically becomes an obstacle to fix this problem of rerouting whether it has occured in the past or to protect it from happening in the future.

As you point out FISA is on shaky grounds but in the opposite way most here think. Not that it violates the 4th Amendment but that it conflicts with the Border Search Exemption. Frankly, everyone should make an international call on the assumption that your call may be monitored because even if the US government isn't monitoring there are few countries you could call that don't allow their governments unfettered discretion to monitor international calls into their borders.

One final note here. My position is not as much in defense of this particular amendment to FISA. It is that so many people here are confused. They think that FISA is an attack on rights they had before it was inacted in 1978 when that is the exact opposite of the truth. Throw away FISA completely and you are back to the 4th Amendment as modified in practice by the Border Search Exclusion doctrine.

[slipslidingaway]

32. Thanks #5 n/t

[rudy23]

33. I couldn't agree more. This is what I've been trying to say.

I can't believe it's so shocking that Obama would draw criticism for his inaction on such a fundamentally important bill.