Either way, setting up a drilling operation with what they got, or getting access to the big shiny, you're not going to see much in the way of returns for about 10 years. The problem is now.

He promised to close down Guantanamo "because we're not a nation that locks people up without charging them. We will restore habeas corpus. We are not a nation that undermines our civil liberties. We are not a nation that wiretaps without warrants."

This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. . . . That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

This Administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. There are no short-cuts to protecting America, and that is why the fifth part of my strategy is doing the hard and patient work to secure a more resilient homeland.

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 . .

Hey guys, I'm convinced. Clearly we should vote for McCain!

The more I read about this more disgusted I am becoming.

In November, 2007:



In August of last year, he said:



Last week:

.

Meanwhile, this week, since the stink has risen over this bill passing, some senators, including Dodd, Feingold, Boxer and Wyden have all come forward to voice their lack of support. Harry Reid is not only opposed to the immunity, but to the bill itself.

Where is Obama?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... index.html

I expect him to push for safeguards at a later date from this snapshot and I actually see this resolution as a positive for my stance on Obama.

He didn't change his opinion on how important individual rights are, he merely accepted that there needs to be some compromise to give law enforcement the authority it needs to protect us right now. He didn't want to implement this without the safeguards, but this was a time sensitive issue and he felt the risk was too high to wait for an alternative. I expect him to push for safeguards at a later date from this snapshot and I actually see this resolution as a positive for my stance on Obama.

He didn't change his opinion on how important individual rights are, he merely accepted that there needs to be some compromise to give law enforcement the authority it needs to protect us right now. He didn't want to implement this without the safeguards, but this was a time sensitive issue and he felt the risk was too high to wait for an alternative. I expect him to push for safeguards at a later date from this snapshot and I actually see this resolution as a positive for my stance on Obama.

You see, the new law goes a lot further, basically doing away with warrants altogether in the domestic-to-international context. Under the proposal, the NSA can engage in what David Kris calls "vacuum cleaner surveillance" of phone calls and e-mails entering and leaving the United States through our nation's telecom switches. Provided that the "target" of the surveillance is reasonably believed to be abroad, the NSA can intercept a massive volume of communications, which might, however incidentally, include yours. When authorities want to target purely domestic communications, they still have to apply for a warrant from the FISA court (albeit only after a weeklong grace period of warrantless surveillance). But where communications between the United States and another country are concerned, the secret court is relegated to a vestigial role, consulted on the soundness of the "targeting procedures," but not on the legitimacy of the targets themselves.

Here, then, is the bitter joke of the new legislation: From 2001 to 2007, the NSA engaged in a secret program that was a straightforward violation of America's wiretapping laws. Since the program was revealed, the administration has succeeded in preventing the judiciary from making a definitive declaration that the wiretapping was a crime. Suits against the government get dismissed on state-secrets grounds, because while the program may have been illegal, it was also so highly classified that its legality can never be litigated in open court. And now suits against the telecoms will by dismissed en masse as well. Meanwhile, the new law moves the goal posts, taking illegal things the administration was doing and making them legal.

Whatever Hoyer and Pelosi—and even Obama—say, this amounts to a retroactive blessing of the illegal program, and historically it means that the country will probably be deprived of any rigorous assessment of what precisely the administration did between 2001 and 2007. No judge will have an opportunity to call the president's willful violation of a federal statute a crime, and no landmark ruling by the courts can serve as a warning for future generations about government excesses in dangerous times. What's more, because the proposal so completely plays into the Bush conception of executive power, it renders meaningless any of its own provisions. After all, if the main lesson of the wiretapping scandal is that we need more surveillance power for the government, what is to stop President Bush—or President Obama or President McCain—from one day choosing to set this new law aside, too? "How will we be judged?" Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., asked in a stirring speech deploring the legislation yesterday. "The technical argument obscures the defining question: the rule of law, or the rule of men?"

In re: the wiretapping, I don't care. It probably won't affect me on any level.

This is about protecting americans at large.

That is the worst possible argument against this sort of thing.



Anyone who has swallowed the protection pill hasn't been paying attention for some time now, in my personal opinion.

I agree that's it's a dumb answer, but it's how it is. Generally, Americans don't care about laws and things that don't affect them. Now, I'm not that way across the board, I am a law school student and I do care about the law, but for something like this I can understand the aim of the law. I don't see it as a trouncing of civil liberties/rights. I understand the goal, and what is compromised to reach it. It doesn't forgive the retroactive law breaking, but what will/can be done about it?

Do you take issue with my comment, Joxur?

1) Generally speaking, American's dont care about laws as long as they don't impact them negatively
2) I am a law school student
3) You may want to emphasize that I said also that I'm not that way across the board, and that I understand the goal of the compromise and legislation.

Looks crystal clear! Thanks!

Do you take issue with my comment, Joxur?

1) Generally speaking, American's dont care about laws as long as they don't impact them negatively
2) I am a law school student
3) You may want to emphasize that I said also that I'm not that way across the board, and that I understand the goal of the compromise and legislation.

Looks crystal clear! Thanks!

Can you even articulate what's wrong with FISA to allow for such broad violation of the fourth amendment?

That's why we have courts, right? You may feel it's unjust, but those who create the laws, may interpret that way. Whose to say it's right or wrong, ultimately?

In re: the wiretapping, I don't care. It probably won't affect me on any level. I'm not worried about my spam emails about a huge penis being intercepted. They're used to track people who commit crimes. You think the government doesn't do other illegal shit like killing people and using subservice techniques to get info from people? Hell, spying is illegal but we have a whole branch of the government dedicated to it.

2) I am a law school student

Compromise is great when talking budgets. Not so much for rights.

My civil rights or liberties aren't being violated because if I'm a criminal, I don't have any.

I disagree with the notion that the government has the right to compromise my or any citizens' rights that are constitutionally protected.

Yet, I can't help but think there's something we don't know. Is there a specific intelligence target that's the reason this is being pushed through? We'll probably never know.

Do we trust this government to provide us with security and safety? Are we sure we'll trust the next one, and the one after that, and the one after that to do the same?

Are we willing to trade freedom, liberty, and privacy for the illusion ofsecurity and safety?

In 1948, George Orwell wrote “1984,” a novel about a dystopian, fictional country led by Big Brother. The citizens are under surveillance all hours of the day, and all thoughts, expressions, actions and conversations can give cause for arrest by the Ministry of Love, the governmental department in charge of torturing dissidents.

When published in the late 1940s, this novel was considered science fiction, and the concepts were thought to be far-fetched and unlikely. It was only fiction, right?

Today, however, the world of Big Brother is crossing over into reality with the existence of the Protect America Act. Passed under the guise of protecting Americans from terrorists in 2007, this act allows warrantless wiretapping inside the United States. It received a 15-day extension just three days before it was set to expire.

This act clearly conflicts with the Fourth Amendment, which states “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 …”

The Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that conversations could be “seized,” which meant that wiretapping is considered a search. Therefore, law enforcement is
required to request a warrant to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens. This can only lead to the conclusion that wiretapping phones inside the United States is against a constitutional amendment.

The idea that reading your e-mails or listening to your phone calls is permissible because you are doing no wrong is reprehensible. The fear of terrorists has ruled this nation for too long. Allowing spying without warrants will not necessarily prevent a terrorist attack, but it will set a precedent for ignoring amendments.

With the Fourth Amendment out of the way, will the next target be the First, which allows the freedom of speech, the press, religion, peaceful assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances? After free speech is gone, perhaps they can next ignore the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, or the 19th, which gave women the right to vote.

The president is not above the law, no matter how much he wishes he were. The insistence that as commander-in-chief he has the ability to spy on our own citizens is an erroneous assumption. The United States is not a traditional monarchy – our leaders are answerable to the Constitution and the citizens of this country.

When swearing into office, President George W. Bush uttered the oath, “I do
solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

By diverging from the Constitution, the president has broken his pledge. Congress, in lieu of Bush’s ability to know right from wrong, must let this act lapse.

Ultimately, as Benjamin Franklin once wrote, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

I'm unhappy about this, but still in the "lesser evil" camp as well, I suppose.

Just because it can't be said enough apparently.

So many lines.

So much crying.

Apparently no substance.

In the rain.

That's exactly what Obama is counting on.

How you can say he is a lesser evil when 1) You have no idea what he stands for anymore

How you can say he is a lesser evil when 2) the Democrats have done absolutely nothing in 2 years - is completely beyond me.

What I can't figure out is his motivation for voting for it in the first place. Are there really that many undecided independants / Republican moderates out there that WANTED this bill to pass that it was worth the "yes" vote? I just don't get it, and I'd love to hear him make a straight answer about it.

Regardless, at least he didn't pussy out of it by not voting at all like McCain.

That's a huge hyperbole, and you know it. That said, I know what McCain stands for too, and so do you, and if you would take your emotions out of it for just a few seconds, you would have to agree that Obama's stances are still far far closer to your own stances than McCain. Easy to say he's the "lesser evil." In fact, since this is only one vote on one issue, I'm not even ready to call him "evil."

I don't know why I continue to post. Tarot's post made the same point I just did in one sentence, but it's like talking to a fence post with you sometimes, heh.

In fact, since this is only one vote on one issue, I'm not even ready to call him "evil."

What did you expect? Getting a Democratic congress was only the first step, but there is no way significant progress could be made by that Democratic congress until they have 60 votes, or a President that won't veto anything significant they try to pass.

Hillary lost. Get over it.

I know you don't trouble yourself to be educated or informed on these subjects

And reading this is the point where I decided not to bother replying with a serious answer. Good work. Good luck to you on your McCain/Hillary campaign.

I'm dissappointed. Hell, I could even say I'm angry. There isn't anyone better running for President, however, so I'll simply have to deal.

I agree with what Jox is saying. Obama is more closely resembling GWB than you guys want to admit. Hell, more than I want to admit! GWB was not ready to be President. He was naive. He rode in on the incompetence of the other party. He polarized the country into those that love him and those that hate him. He has weakened the Constitution and continues to attack it (defense of marriage BS!)

We do really need a third party this year.

I think we might be better off with four years of McCain than eight years of Obama. I don't like McCain either, but I think that he would be much better in foriegn affairs than Obama. I think McCain would clean house of the Bush people however he would be willing to look at somethings that worked instead of just doing things completly different (yet the same) as Bush.

I've never called you racist. You chose to take a comment that was obviously facetious and take it seriously. In that same thread I even pointed out immediately after you took it seriously that it was simply hyperbole. Other people didn't take it seriously. You are choosing to be offended, and the fact that you bring it up months later shows... well I don't know what it shows. It's amazing that you bring it up still, after we've had this conversation now three different times.

As for the fencepost, I stand by it. You continue your crusade against Obama *no matter what* and with *no viable alternative* for liberal voters. It doesn't matter what anyone points out to you or says to you, you've decided. There is no changing you on this one-- it's like talking to hard line pro-lifers. Or-- like talking to a fencepost. There's no real reason anymore to try to discuss this with you.

Personally, I still like the man. I still like his stances on the majority of issues there are out there. When I look at the alternative, I see there is no way in hell I could responsibly vote for it, so I stick with Obama. I'm sorry you don't like that. You called yourself independant, but until this election cycle you always came off as remarkably liberal on these boards to me. It's sad to see you reduced to this point of attack attack attack on a guy that shares so many views with you, and then reduced to the point of falsly accusing an Obama supporter like me of calling you racist (repeatedly).

"Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same. It's not clear whether he can return for the vote, but under the Senate rules, the side trying to end a filibuster must produce 60 votes to cut off debate. Whether he is present for the vote for not, Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster"

absolute; unqualified; not subject to conditions or exceptions

I agree with what Jox is saying. Obama is more closely resembling GWB than you guys want to admit.

Hell, more than I want to admit! GWB was not ready to be President. He was naive. He rode in on the incompetence of the other party. He polarized the country into those that love him and those that hate him. He has weakened the Constitution and continues to attack it (defense of marriage BS!)

We do really need a third party this year.

I think we might be better off with four years of McCain than eight years of Obama.

I don't like McCain either, but I think that he would be much better in foriegn affairs than Obama.

I think McCain would clean house of the Bush people however he would be willing to look at somethings that worked instead of just doing things completly different (yet the same) as Bush.

Tarot, Hillary voted no on this, so who does he most closely resemble? Not McCain, he didn't bother to show up, not Hillary whose vote he cancelled, but W? yea, that's closer.

Based on what?