about Obama and FISA

[SwampG8r]

i come here to get the news
i wont deny i am more to the center than most posters here
i keep seeing FISA posts
folks all upset
today i did reading
i read about FISA
i wanted to know for myself what it was
and what powers it gave and took
pretty scary stuff
i understand the anger
it is almost the anti-constitution

and i understand all the folks outraged that obama can sign on to any part of it

but i also understand that the next POTUS will be the one who decides these issues for a very long time
as he will be able to rescind or pressure an amendment of the act
he will appoint the judges
federal and SCOTUS
who will interpret these laws vis a vis the constitution
so i myself think we need to focus on winning now
so that we can win in the long run too
our short term and long term goals are coinciding

thats a good thing historically

[johnaries]

1. I agree 100%. nt

[BuyingThyme]

2. FISA actually protects the Constitution.

What Obama and others are trying to do is destroy FISA.

[SwampG8r]

5. i must have missed something

please elaborate?

[BuyingThyme]

9. FISA was enacted in 1978 to keep Nixonesque presidents from

wiretapping Americans without judicial oversight, without warrant.

That Act has worked absolutely perfectly, without a hitch.

Now, the aim of Republicans and cowardly Democrats is to change FISA in order to give more power and secrecy to the president. They're trying to destroy FISA.

The only reason they're doing this is because Bush was caught violating FISA. They want to make it legal for him to commit crimes against Americans. And they want to give retroactive civil immunity to the telecoms that conspired with him to commit these crimes.

[crickets]

11. Concise and spot on, but I'd like to add one important clarification.

FISA was enacted in 1978 to keep Nixonesque presidents from wiretapping Americans without judicial oversight, without warrant. (emphasis added)

Thank you. I'd like to add one important clarification regarding another point.

The only reason they're doing this is because Bush was caught violating FISA.

Actually, that's not quite the way it happened. Regardless that Sept 11th is used as pretext for the need, the surveillance started before Sept 11th, 2001. Some of Congress knew fairly early on that was Bush violating FISA, not because they 'caught' him, but because he told them in 2002.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Eight

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/nsa-surveillance-program-may-have-skirted-1991-law-on-congressional-notification-say-democrats-2007-06-05.html

The group-of-eight briefings were about operational details, not the legality of the program...

As though members of Congress familiar with the law and the Constitution needed reminding of the legalities. :eyes:

The text of the Fourth Amendment is quite clear, even to the layman:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

They didn't know from the beginning, but long before it became public, key members of Congress knew about the warrantless wiretapping. They knew it was wrong. They said nothing when they should have and now want to cover their own hides, not just Bush's. Their compliance and complicity is the real reason FISA has supposedly "failed" and needs an "overhaul" - not because it didn't work, but because they didn't do their jobs to uphold the law. This means they are guilty and liable, right along with Bush and the telecoms.

Voting for the "new" FISA is not only voting to give Bush more power than is his right Constitutionally, it is voting to protect the wrongdoers rather than the people.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

3. Certainly I'm to the Left of you, and I agree.

I think my Leftist brothers and sisters are failing to envision the bigger picture here. This is a strategy. Obama knows what's up. I wish we all had more faith in what he's trying to do. I believe that in the end he'll do the right thing. This bill is poorly written, poorly executed, and will not withstand constitutional scrutiny. Obama knows that. He wants to do the politically expedient thing right now in order to appeal to those Indies in swing states. Get him elected, first. In the end, he'll do the right thing and challenge this on constitutional grounds.

Let's please have faith in our nominee. He's a rather smart guy and I'm confident that he knows what he's doing.

[JVS]

13. I've also read that there is a desire to get this over with now so that it isn't an issue this fall

[Tinksrival]

4. i think i agree

this asshole below scares the crap out of me

[madfloridian]

6. I am not going to post about FISA anymore.

We will let the party do whatever they have to do to win.

We must not say anything detrimental.

[SwampG8r]

7. after the election i have plenty to say

and my locals know it
i also hold a lot of stock in Obamas bottom up style
i think he will at least be more open to the changes needed than anyone else

[John Q. Citizen]

17. After the el;ection no one will care what you have to say. That's the nature of the beast.

The FISA revolt is the epitome of bottom up style.

The revolt is being waged by the activists who put blood sweat tears and hours and hours of volunteer time into the Obama primary campaign.

That's one reason we are so passionate about it. We didn't invest all that time and energy to get bush FISA from our guy.

[autorank]

15. The national party is looking like the Florida Party

Are you quiet about that?

[Occam Bandage]

8. thanks, e.e.

[Runcible Spoon]

10. Rosy O'Donnell, is that you?

:rofl:

[YankeyMCC]

12. I agree

[autorank]

14. To focus on winning, you align with the people who oppose FISA

You go out to your "center", which is among the 73% who disapprove of Bush, and ask around.
Who likes FISA?

Who thinks their next president should "move to the center," which is away from the people, to
prop up Bush's fascism?

What do they think if this type of cave in?

This isn't about a vote to win the election. It will hurt him on the particular issue and in his
quest to make himself different from the others.

The public strongly opposes unrestrained power for the president.

[crickets]

16. Common sense.

This isn't about a vote to win the election...

The public strongly opposes unrestrained power for the president.

There you have it, and rightly so. Thank you.

[autorank]

20. You're right and it has been a major issue since Nixon

That's what Watergate was about.

To give the president FISA is to say "we trust you" which is a sentiment more akin to a monarchy.

[merh]

18. excuse me but how the hell does the proposed legislation provide

for the "unrestrained power of the president" - someone please explain that to me because I have read the bill and I don't see it in that bill, I don't share the concerns of those who oppose it so vehemently. Is it perfect? No, but no legislation is - does it do what all the chicken littles say it does, no, not in my opinion.

[crickets]

19. "unrestrained"

as in "not requiring proper legal oversight." There's a half baked after-the-fact reporting requirement that might as well not be there.

My concern for Constitutional rights does not make me a "chicken little." Could you kindly disagree without calling people names? You say you've read the bill and "don't share the concerns" of the people who object. Fine. Read the Fourth Amendment. It's much shorter and easier to understand.

The point is, you have a right to your privacy. We all do. The point is that you are innocent until proven guilty of a crime. We all are. If law enforcement of any kind, federal or otherwise, needs to search anyone in any way, they must have probable cause beforehand and accordingly must have a warrant signed by a judge beforehand.

The new FISA does not take this into account, and allows the government to take part in not only invading your privacy at a whim but everyone's privacy at once as a matter of course. It's pervasive and perpetual database mining, on the equivalent of dragnet fishing.

It's data rape.



Hope that helps.

[merh]

23. LOL - you reference the 4th amendment but refuse to acknowledge

that this bill specifically does too - it provides that no surveillance can infringe upon US citizens' 4th amendment rights - that the law or the certification to conduct surveillance can violate the 4th amendment.

[autorank]

21. Let's say that the president or someone in DoD wants to tap your phone.

Your phone, not a generic phone, you cell or email, they can without so much as blinking an eye.

The other thing this does is allow a presidential pardon, congressional pardon and pardon to the phone
companies who damn well paid for it. Nobody faces any consequences for illegal wire tapping.

Of note, the NYT had this story well before the 2004 election. They held it back for 13 months. Why? To not interfere with the Bush re-election.

We know that the Bush administration and the New York Times editor, William Keller, communicated about a very sensitive matter before the 2004 election. New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau had discovered that the Bush administration had been illegally wiretapping citizens since Sept. 11, 2001. "Internal discussions about drafts of the article had been 'dragging on for weeks' before the Nov. 2 election, Mr. Keller acknowledged," according to an article by Times public editor Byron Calme Instead of publishing the story, Times editor Keller killed and barred the story from public release until December 16, 2006, 13 months after the 2004 election.

Was this a coincidence? Not at all. Bush requested the story be killed for "national security" reasons. Forgetting the paper's shining moment when it released the Pentagon Papers, Keller willingly complied. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0806/S00332.htm

This was conceived in secret, kept a secret by the leading news paper, and is now openly displayed
as an approved policy absolving the wrong doers. It stinks.

That's unrestrained power, across the board - commit a crime, get a law passed to absolve yourself of
the crime.

All but one Republican voted for the FISA bill. That's
all we neeed to know about them.
128 Democrats in the House voted against it.
94 Democratic Reps changed their votes from
a previous NO to YES.

Democrats who changed their votes after getting PAC
money from ATT, Sprint & Verizon.

Voting in favor of pardoning the phone companies and Bush


& the rest of them

[merh]

22. No they cannot.

Provide me the section of this law that states that they can.

And there is no pardon or blanket immunity.

If you can back it up with, then again, provide me the section of this proposed law that creates it.

[autorank]

24. You need to read closer. It's right there

Here you go. Just call it an emergency authorization and the deal is done. How many FISA court
requests are turned down: 5 of 29,000 plus, that we know of. Even without the emergency provision,
you can be assured that whatever the executive wishes, the court will grant. And also be assured that
whenever a president wants to violate any of our civil liberties, he/she will think back to this bill
and say, 'Well, I can always get retroactive dispensation from Congress. They did it for
Bush-Cheney. They'll do it for anybody.'

You read the bill and this material and answer your question for yourself.

Read this too:

Five Myths About the New Wiretapping LawWhy it's a lot worse than you think.
http://www.slate.com/id/2194254/

By Patrick Radden Keefe
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008, at 3:12 PM ET
Steney Hoyer. Click image to expandRep. Steny Hoyer

Sometime today, the Senate is likely to approve the most comprehensive overhaul of American
surveillance law since the Watergate era. Unless you're a government lawyer, a legal scholar, a
masochist, or an insomniac, chances are you haven't read the 114-page bill. Don't beat yourself up:
Neither have most of the 293 House members who voted for it last week. Ditto the mainstream press, who
seem to have relied chiefly on summaries provided by the same lawmakers who hadn't read it.

Wednesday June 25, 2008 05:19 EDT
Chris Dodd's speech and a glimmer of hope for stopping the FISA bill
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/25/dodd/index.html

Glen Greenwald

Back in December, Harry Reid's plan was to have the Senate quickly pass the Cheney/Rockefeller FISA
bill before the Senate recessed for Christmas. But Chris Dodd's relentless delaying tactics -- his
filibuster and holds and other procedural tactics designed to block quick enactment of the bill,
supported at every step by Russ Feingold -- forced Reid to pull the bill from the floor and prevented
the Senate from considering the bill until the following February.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, Speech
http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/4476

His response: The president has "the authority to defend the country."

"And in one swoop, the Attorney General conceded to the president nearly unlimited power,
just as long as he finds a lawyer willing to stuff his actions into the boundless rubric of
"defending the country." Unlimited power to defend the country, to protect us as one man sees fit,
even if that means listening to our phone calls without a warrant, even if that means holding some of
us indefinitely."

110TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION H. R. ____________
To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish
a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence,
and for other purposes.
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM104_080619_fisapromise.htm

"(d) EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATION.
"(1) AUTHORITY FOR EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATION -
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if the Attorney General reasonably determines that--
"(A) an emergency situation exists with respect to the acquisition of foreign intelligence
information for which an order may be obtained under subsection (c) before an order authorizing such acquisition can with due diligence be obtained, and
"(B) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subsection to approve such ac question exists, the Attorney General may authorize such acquisition if a judge having jurisdiction under subsection
(a) (1) is informed by the Attorney General, or a designee of the Attorney General, at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to conduct such acquisition and if an application in accordance with this section is made to a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as soon as practicable, but not more than 7 days after the Attorney General authorizes such acquisition.
"(2) MINIMIZATION PROCEDURES.--If the Attorney General authorizes an acquisition under paragraph
(1), the Attorney General shall require that the minimization procedures referred to in sub section (c) (1) (C) for the issuance of a judicial order be followed.

June 18, 2008 (5:12 p.m.)
F:\PKB\INT\FISA2007\FISAINTRO_001.XML
f:\V10\061808\061808.253.xml (408385|1)

[merh]

25. Read again

"(d) EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATION.
"(1) AUTHORITY FOR EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATION -
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if the Attorney General reasonably determines that--
"(A) an emergency situation exists with respect to the acquisition of foreign intelligence
information for which an order may be obtained under subsection (c) before an order authorizing such acquisition can with due diligence be obtained, and
"(B) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subsection to approve such ac question exists, the Attorney General may authorize such acquisition if a judge having jurisdiction under subsection
(a) (1) is informed by the Attorney General, or a designee of the Attorney General, at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to conduct such acquisition and if an application in accordance with this section is made to a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as soon as practicable, but not more than 7 days after the Attorney General authorizes such acquisition.
"(2) MINIMIZATION PROCEDURES.--If the Attorney General authorizes an acquisition under paragraph
(1), the Attorney General shall require that the minimization procedures referred to in sub section (c) (1) (C) for the issuance of a judicial order be followed.

Oh, looky, still requires JUDICIAL REVIEW - mandates that a judicial order be issued.

And looky that damned 4th amendment gets in the way again.

‘(3) ORDERS-

‘(A) APPROVAL- If the Court finds that a certification submitted in accordance with subsection (g) contains all the required elements and that the targeting and minimization procedures adopted in accordance with subsections (d) and (e) u]are consistent with the requirements of those subsections and with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Court shall enter an order approving the certification and the use, or continued use in the case of an acquisition authorized pursuant to a determination under subsection (c)(2), of the procedures for the acquisition.

[dailykoff]

26. Thanks autorank..

You're not going to make any progress in this particular exchange, but your links and analysis are 100% right on.

:thumbsup:

[autorank]

27. Well, I've got a happy customer and that's all the progress I need

I've seen this movie before;) on elections issues.

There's a new threat with Kieth Olberman analysis from tonight. It's totally rokken.
There was some back and forth he had with Greenwald, you know, honest debate among sincere
people. Kieth roars back with great analysis. A lot of this is working through the dilemmas
of a decrepit system in a time of rapid decline. Time to fix it.

:hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x153144

[dailykoff]

28. Thanks, I gave it a rec

I'll check it out too.. it sounds good!