Last week I sent a letter to every Democratic senator that included a copy of an affidavit dated 4/13/2005. It attested to the unwarranted surveillance I and my family endured in 2002/2003. http://www.danburisch.info/b2/legal/leg_255.htm
It admitted to the use of federal agencies to spy on and harrass citizens who receive classified information.
We're only a few that got caught up in the paranoia of an illegitimate administration, and we need a mechanism for legal redress for what we have endured. That's really what's at stake; there's little likelihood a future White House will use the "criminal" loophole that's been discussed.
While Obama made a "pragmatic" decision to vote for a compromise bill, if the onerous "immunity" clause isn't stripped he'll lose the moral and financial support from those who "pragmatically" will decide to keep their dollars for more "pragmatic" purposes. This year, we need a firm and decisive voice for the basic tenets of the Constitution. Even without Obama's vote the bill will probably pass, but if he has any sense of balance between "pragmatism" and "principle", he'll vote against the final bill if the "immunity" clause isn't stripped from it, showing that when it comes to the Constitution, he stands firmly on principle. It will send a clear message that NO-ONE is above the law, and that there is the right of legal redress for those that have been unfairly targeted by those who break it.
Obama Tries and Fails to Put Out the FISA Fire in His Own House
In an unprecedented attempt to put out a fire in his own house, Senator Barack Obama yesterday issued a response to supporters who had been protesting his position on government surveillance. The release was followed by an 90 minute interchange on MyBarackObama.com between campaign officials and supporters (though as far as I could tell, the campaign officials made no comments themselves but just read the comments being made, leaving it unclear who was actually reading and for how long)..
Unfortunately, there was nothing in Obama's response that addressed the harsh criticism some of his supporters have voiced. I could go into detail on why the statement stinks, but since this is the Internet I don't have to, since I can instead direct you to the excellent point-by-point analysis offered by Glenn Greenwald. My focus here will be the novel political dynamic unleashed by the Obama campaign's social networking site, MyBarackObama.com.
These are uncharted waters we are dealing with here. Yesterday I asked the question whether 18,000 people protesting on the campaign's own web site (out of hundreds of thousands) were a lot or a little. Apparently they were enough to get the attention of the campaign and the candidate.
The comments were a mix of people who were star-struck that Obama had noticed them and written a reply, people who felt any criticism on the site was inappropriate, people who just spouted typical Internet invective at each other, but then an awful lot of extremely informed and thoughtful people who did not back down an inch.
Some defending Obama's position questioned whether the protestors were really from the Obama camp or were Republicans who had logged on to wreak havoc. However, since MyBarackObama.com is a full-fledged social networking site, one can check the profile of each commenter, see how long they have been active on the site, what action groups they are part of, and so on. It appeared that many angry critics were people who had put a lot of time and money into the campaign.
The whole episode raised more questions than it answered. Certainly what is going on here is something new. There are going to be many more controversial issues. A presidential candidate can't always be having to log on to the Internet to defend himself from his own supporters. I am reminded The Obama campaign promised to give its supporters new Internet tools to empower them to make the campaign their own. Now that it as done so, the leadership has to be wondering if it was a good idea. of the musicians who have figured out how to make modest livelihoods marketing their music directly to fans over MySpace, only to discover that doing requires spending hours every day maintaining the sort of direct relationship fans on social networking sites expect.
On the other hand, overall this has to be considered a victory for, and an extension of, democracy. This is a clear-cut case of a candidate promising one thing and doing another. Turns out that in the age of the online campaign there will be a higher price for this time-honored activity.
The folks at Obama HQ better tighten their saddle. They have let the horse out of the barn, and it might be a bumpy ride.
* Some sample comments:
Frankly, I'm disappointed. No, Senator Barack, it's not a "deal breaker". But even using these words is almost like taunting your position in our face. Almost like you are taking our votes for granted because you know we have not choice but to vote for you. No, I don't want McCain, but I can say with clarity that my personal enthusiasm, and many of others who I talk to, have certainly diminished by a huge margin.
At the end of the day, the question is, do you want your supporters to vote for you because you are the lesser of the two evils, because they have "no choice" when comparing the alternative (as you say yourself) or do you want people to vote for you because they are proud of what you stand for?- Christine
Christine, I, too, did not like that "deal breaker" line. I felt like it was dismissive, especially when he has been trying soo hard to get the gun advocates, the evangelicals, the death penalty advocates...It's like, ok, get lost. I got plenty more voters and money!! What has happened to him???
- JonnieRae
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Contact Barack Obama AND your legislators. Urge them to vote "NO" on H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act.
The bill is a rubber stamp of approval for unchecked domestic spying and creates loopholes for the current President and his successors.
The bill also gives blanket immunity to telecom companies rather than determining whether they broke the law.
The Act merely gives the appearance of calling companies who handed over millions of phone conversations and emails to the government into account.
The FISA Amendment Act is a sham! It gives blanket immunity to the telecoms and the government.
I urge you to reject it. Why?
1. Lawsuits are either sent to a district court (cf. Sen. Hoyer) the FISA court (cf. Sen. Bond).
2. When at court, Congress directs: IF a telecom company produces documentation that the government gave assurances that it was legal to participate in the warrantless spying program, that company is "off the hook" whether or not they actually broke any laws.
3. Because the White House DID give telecom companies assurances that their behavior was legal, according to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the judge MUST dismiss the lawsuit.
Read for yourself: http://action.aclu.org/doddfeingold
Courts need to determine whether the telecoms actually broke the law - whether or not they were given a "free pass" from the White House. If illegal behavior has no consequences, telecom companies and any White House will have no incentive to follow any laws passed by Congress.
Please sign and distribute this petition from Senator Feingold to stop the FISA immunity bill now in the senate. It will be voted on Tuesday. We need your help now! http://www.democracyforamerica.com/activities/92-senate-petition-to-stop-telecom-immunity
Many times innocent people are jailed wrongly. Often retroactively they are found innocent .Yet they wait for months while their papers make it through the bureaucracybefore release.Rarely are they reimbursed in any way for decades of lost life and opportunities.
Yet B.O plans to support a law that lets wealthy corporations suffer NO
consequences for breaking laws everyone involved knew were on the books.
Breaking these laws brought them financial gains as compared to their competitors who
decide against breakng the law. So In effect B.O supports REWARDING lawbreakers!
B.O. states he he may seek redress for crimes committed by this administration but not if it's going to be a "partisian witchhunt" Who gets to define witchhunt? Those will be the first words out of BushCo's mouth the minute an examination of events is even hinted at. B.O supporters touted him as above all , valuing compromise . But at what point does compromise for one become injustice against another ( even a whole citizenry)?
It is exactly this kind of "deals" that have led us to the position of compromised ethics our country is now in.
I overlooked the Jim Johnson ans Jason Furman actions but when the FISA news broke, I stopped any thoughts of further contributions. His response following his position statement, especially the inaction during the house activity leading to the bill passage made me glad that I did.
I contibuted twice to Obama, my first times ever in 37 years of voting. I felt it meant something this time around.
Don't get me wrong, I did not contribute a ton of money but I did contribute to the "change" candidate.
The change candidate has changed in my opinion.
I will still vote for him considering the choices available.
I am an Obama delegate to the national convention in Denver. i have worked hard for him since Feb 2007. i have donated the max for the primary ($2300), traveled to 5 states besides my own, and spent my winter "vacation" campaigning for him in SC. I was happy to do all of it, and so happy when he won the nomination.
But now I feel like I need to paraphrase Obama on Jeremiah Wright: "This isn't the man I've known for the past 20 months." Barack keeps moving closer to the sort of person that never would have inspired me to do anything. And his flip response is that this may be a deal broker for some, "and that's ok."
The great news is that there is no law that requires that I continue giving my time and money. For the moment I continue to give some of the former -- though not as generously as before -- and none of the latter. When Obama becomes the man I knew, I will open my checkbook again. If he fails to do so, well that's $2300 I can put to better use. If he moves further to the right, those are more weekends and evenings I can spend with my friends and family or just doing something fun for myself.
Get it together, Senator. Otherwise, you are looking at a single term. As GWB famously said "Fool me once..... can't get fooled again."
Let Senator Obama know what you think about his pivot on the FISA bill. Vote is on Tuesday. Act now.
Obama, Barack- (D - IL) Class III
713 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2854
Web Form: obama.senate.gov/contact/
whatchamean QUOTE: "Let Senator Obama know what you think about his pivot on the FISA bill."
Thank You... I did...
I informed him as one who had consciously put their Life on the Line for the Constitutional Principals of this Nation, that any vote for this FISA/Immunity was contempt for that conscious choice... (As I have also informed my Senator Murray) And, that he would never get my Vote... That to violate his Oath to defend/uphold the Constitution, means any oath as a President, would also be meaninless...
Michale, Obama's response, continued:
Obama: "¦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." VERDICT: FALSE
Besides the fact that the new law gives much broader spying capabilities to the government, it sets the threshold for achieving a warrant extremely low. The FISA judge only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court MAY NOT KNOW WHO, WHAT, OR WHERE THE WIRETAPPING TOOK PLACE. How is that any form of acceptable oversight? Additionally, the government can appeal any cease and desist ruling from the FISA judge and continue the spying for perhaps MONTHS waiting for an appeal ruling. Meanwhile, they can keep the information they have gathered during that time. Oversight? The ways this new power can be abused is innumerable. We"ve seen how Bush used the "terror watch list" to harass peace activists, right? This egregious law can be used, quite easily, for political purposes in a variety of ways. Need I list them?
Got a Response From Michale32086
Were In, The Spying Started Before September 11th...Thats the Whole Point.
For those of you who might be interested.....
You might be surprized about his Comments.
In addition they can eavesdrop and get the warrants retroactively, which basically means they can spy on everyone and only get the retroactive warrants for those they have some goods on.
In reading about innocent Afghani's , now in Gitmo,turned in to U.S, forces for rewards- I can't help but wonder if this will be the newest income stream for some Americans.
Wheres Michale32086 ?.....Can You Hear Me ?.....Can You Hear Me ?.....Shucks,,,,Another TeleCom Dropped Call.....Must be AT&T or Verizon.....
Thank You Syllepsis !
But Im still waiting to Hear What Michale32086 have to say "Exactly",,,,,what was WRONG with the Original FISA Bill.....
He keeps telling US everything that is right (According to Him),,,,with The New Proposed FISA Bill.....
So ?......Michale32086......Once Again,,,,,Can you tell me,,,,,What was WRONG with the Original FISA Bill ????
Attn : Michale32086
One Question for You ?......
Could You tell Me,,,,What was WRONG With the Original FISA Bill ?....
I have read most of your Postings in Favor for the New FISA Bill.....But,,,,Tell me exactly,,,,what was WRONG with the Previous Bill ?....
Im Curious to hear your Response.....
Good luck to both of you regarding Michale -- engaging him is like trying to fight a grease fire with water: it's a bad idea and certain only to spread the fire of his bombastic certitude. If, however, you want to continue beating your heads against the wall, he's presently holding forth at "The Spying Started BEFORE September 11 - That's The Whole POINT". Happy Sunday!
Why is a phone company employee's opinion interesting?
I am giving you my own statement of what was 'wrong' with original FISA.
It required warrants (retroactive if necessary) to spy on Americans, from the Court itself, a Judicial Branch institution.
This is inconvenient if your goal is to concentrate as much power in the Executive Branch as possible.
And the more power is centralized, the less obstruction there is to violations of the Fourth Amendment.
History shows, that even with FISA, there have been, and will be, abuses.
Without FISA, in its original form, no one will be able to catalog the abuses, because no one, not even the secret FISA court, will see them.
We need 'more' FISA oversight, not less. Because abuses are so numerous right now that the Republic is standing on its head.
Me too...
Michale, now to answer your question about Obama's dishonest statement in defense of his new FISA position:
Obama: "I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise." VERDICT: MISLEADING
On what planet is this a "compromise"? A single GOP "no" vote in the House? Less than half the Democratic members of the house voting "yea"? The White House doing cartwheels in joy? GOP representatives gloating? I have news for Obama, when one side of an issue gets "more than they even asked for," it"s a capitulation, not a "compromise."
Obama: "The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court." VERDICT: FALSE
The current FISA law, still in effect, was ALREADY the legal authority on eavesdropping. This was reaffirmed in a court ruling only a few days ago! Obama"s insistence that the new law somehow closes an exclusivity loophole is flat-out FALSE. Bush IGNORED the fact that FISA was already the legal authority on eavesdropping. The new bill does nothing to stop him, or anyone else, from ignoring the NEW FISA bill.
More to come on this topic...
The honeymoon is over. That's all. Barack Obama, in the end, is just another candidate running for President. He happens to be the most articulate democrat to run in years & he'll be as good a president as we can get. For those whining about staying home, etc. Please get a reality check. We have to defeat McCain. Obama is not going to be a superhero. But he's all we've got. The rest is up to us. We have to do more than cast our vote, we have to organize and agitate and keep at this for years to come. But let's start with Obama in office, not McCain. My god, is it too much to ask that our president be literate?
"...is it too much to ask that our president be literate?"
Actually, bbrecht, that got my attention. I'm not sure the joy of having an articulate president is quite as great as having a president who keeps his word (it would have been nice to have both), but I can't deny it won't be a major plus.
Other reasons to vote for Obama despite last week's disappointments:
1. The Supreme Court
2. A four-year haven during which we can nuture down ticket candidates, some of whom might actually vote in defense of the Constitution and on behalf of the American people.
If you vote for the lesser of two evils isn't it still a vote for evil?
I'm done voting for the lesser of the evils.
If Senator Obama votes "yes" on the Telecom Immunity Bill, I will be voting "present" in November. I have survived 8 years of George Bush - I can survive anything.
He's not "moving to the center" ... he's becoming more of a fascist.
And he's flip-flopping on the war now. I'm starting to agree with the WSJ that Obama is really running for Bush's 3rd term.
He said he supported the filibuster of spying on U.S. citizens, and now that he is the nominee, he is for spying on U.S. citizens. He failed the "Integrity Test", he ditched the young, new, Internet-savvy Democrats and sucked up to the DLC. He's lost my vote. It's either McCain or Barr now (I can't decide which).
You hit the nail on the head. Only in our Orwellian nightmare world can we call these new positions "centrist."
The current FISA bill is a power play by "bluedog" Democrats (most of whom supported Hillary), and Obama, trying to keep the Party together for the election, is doing the best he can with them. We need to keep our eyes on the prize - Hillary partisans, Republicans and the media are going to be laying traps like this the next four months. We should be grateful Obama maintains his cool in the face of such challenges.
johnwinner.... We need to keep our eyes on the prize - Hillary partisans
lmao..... Funny how many of us warned the Obama's supporters that trashing the Clinton supporters made NO sense at all (NOT implying you were one of them)... That eventually, if Obama won the Nomination, the nearly other half of the Party would be important, but the trashing went on anyway...
So, I for one don't even like to see an appeal now to Hillary supporters... It's as though an abusers wants something now and says to the spouse "c'mon honey... I didn't mean it... I was just upset......... you know I was just trying to win the argument..... etc"
john, I don't mean to be pedantic, but technically "Blue Dog Democrats" are house members not senators; for the record, all but six of them voted in favor of sending this resolution to the Senator (those dissenting six were: Foster - Illinois, Hill - Indiana, Israel - New York, Michaud - Maine, Sanchez - California, Thompson - California). I think you'll find a good number of these Blue Dogs support Obama. And in the Senate, of the conservative senators who stand behind the FISA bill, you'll find Obama's great champion, Claire McKaskill. In this regard, don't think Hillary has anything to do with it. And, sadly, you'll find the most vocal anti-FISA people on this site are disappointed Obama supporters -- personally, I'm just plain ole' anti-Patriot Act, anti Protect America Act no matter who happens to be beating the drum.
It is incredible that an Obama supporter would attempt to blame Obama's stand on this bill on Ms. Clinton. It is so typical of the dishonesty and distotion common to postings by Obama's supporters. Either he is responsible for his own thinking or he is not, don;t try to blame this on anyone but Obama.
Posted July 5, 2008 | 01:27 AM (EST)