Skip to main content

Here is a timeline regarding the PAA, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, and statements by the Obama Campaign relating to those matters.  Also, some quotes from those comments that might shed some light on the reversal of Obama's position on the need to amend FISA.

On August 5, 2007 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (aka FISA) was temporarily overridden by the Protect America Act (PAA), which expired on February 7, 2008, restoring FISA as the law of the land.  The PAA allowed the Attorney General to give one-year authorizations to certain warrantless surveillance programs that violate both FISA and the Fourth Amendment.  Those authorizations begin to expire in August.

Senator Obama voted against the PAA.

FISA has been amended many times in the past thirty years, including several times since 9/11/2001.  The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (aka H.R. 6304), now pending before the U.S. Senate, is 114 pages of lobbyist-written deliberately obscure legalese, crafted to:


  • to immunize against lawsuits the president telco accomplices who made billions of dollars selling the government copies of our emails and phone calls.

  • to eviscerate FISA in ways that legalize the continuation of President Bush's FISA-villating surveillance programs whose PAA-authorizations are soon to expire.


H.R. 6304 was submitted to the House of Representatives at 5:35 PM June19, 2008, under rules that permitted no amendments and no more than one hour debate.  It was brought to a vote with unseemly haste at 12:48 PM the next afternoon and passed 293 to 129.  

Senator Obama immediately issued a statement supporting H.R. 6304 and declaring his intention to vote for it in the Senate, but maintained his opposition to telco immunity.

According to Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office:


This bill [H.R. 6304] allows for mass and untargeted surveillance of Americans' communications. The court review is mere window-dressing -- all the court would look at is the procedures for the year-long dragnet and not at the who, what and why of the spying. Even this superficial court review has a gaping loophole -- ``exigent''
circumstances can short cut even this perfunctory oversight since any delay in the onset of spying meets the test and by definition going to the court would cause at least a minimal pause. Worse yet, if the court denies an order for any reason, the government is allowed to continue surveillance throughout the appeals process, thereby rendering the role of the judiciary meaningless. In the end, there is no one to answer to; a court review without power is no court review at all.


So, the FISA court would issue so-called ``blanket warrants,'' thereby violating the Fourth Amendment, which requires that:

... 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.


For perspective, note that FISA has never prohibited surveillance of any foreign target.  But, to surveil a foreign target's communication with people in the U.S. for more than three days, FISA requires the government to apply for a fourth-amendment warrant, of which FISA courts grant thousands per year.

Here is the timeline of FISA statements from the Obama campaign, and some surrounding events:


  • August 3, 2007: PAA passes the Senate with Barak Obama voting against it.

  • August 5, 2007: President Bush signs the PAA into law.

  • October 18, 2007: Obama statement

  • October 24, 2007: Obama statement

  • December 17, 2007: Obama statement

  • January 28, 2008: Obama statement

  • February 17, 2008: the PAA expires

  • June 3, 2008: democratic primaries end with Obama in an insurmountable lead

  • June 4, 2008: Obama hardens his anti-Iran before AIPAC and receives Rahm Emanuel's endorsement.

  • June 7, 2008: Hillary concedes

  • June 18, 2008, 5:12 PM: H.R. 6304 first printed

  • June 19, 2008, 5:35 PM: H.R. 6304 submitted
    to the House of Representatives

  • June 20, 2008, 12:48 PM: H.R. 6304 passes
    the House

  • June 20, 2008, 3:00 PM:  Obama statement
    supporting H.R. 6304

  • June 25, 2008: Obama statement

  • July 3, 2008: Obama statement

  • Juily 8, 2008: Senate take up amendments and final vote

  • August 5, 2008: year-long surveillance programs authorized under
    the PAA beging to expire.

  • February 17, 2009: the last of the year-long surveillance
    programs authorized under the PAA will have expired.


There are relevant excerpts from all but the last statement here. For unknown reasons, between January 28 and June 20, Obama had a nearly complete reversal of his position on FISA itself, while maintaining his opposition to telcom immunity.  The Senator claims that has been no change in his position.

On 6/20/08, immediately after H.R. 6304 passed the House, the Obama campaign issued a statement claiming that:


Under [H.R. 6304] an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over.

So, by amending FISA an otherwise illegal ``important tool'' can continue, and ``the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over,'' presumably because it will have been legalized --- how else could he be so sure?

Obama advisor, Greg Craig was more explicit in a 6/2/2008 phone conversation with Salon journalist Glenn ``Glenzilla'' Greenwald:


After I read him his quote, explained that FISA won't expire, and pointed out that his comment in the NYT therefore made no sense, Craig paused for awhile and then said that he meant that the ``warrants under FISA would expire in August,'' and Obama supported the FISA ``compromise'' to prevent that from happening. When I asked Craig if he was referring to the surveillance orders authorized by the Protect America Act that allow the Government to spy with no individual warrants (which have a one-year duration and do expire in August), Craig said that this is what he meant, and that Obama wanted to avoid having those surveillance orders expire.


Obama himself made much the same admission the following day in his response letter to his current and former supporters:

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer.

So regardless of whom we elect, we'll get a third Bush term as far as the Fourth Amendment is concerned.

Originally posted to wigwam on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:11 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  hyperbole (10+ / 0-)

    So regardless of whom we elect, we'll get a third Bush term as far as the Fourth Amendment is concerned.

    Because there's obviously no difference between Alito and Ginsburg when it comes to rulings on the Fourth Amendment...

    Have you ever voted for a Democratic nominee? Yes? Then you've voted for one more conservative than Obama.

    by Stroszek on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:13:58 AM PDT

  •  Sigh (10+ / 0-)

    So regardless of whom we elect, we'll get a third Bush term as far as the Fourth Amendment is concerned.

    You are clueless.

    Also, there's a lot of other pretty important things at stake. Like health care, and not getting into a war with Iran and fighting global warming and shutting down Guantanamo.

    Not to be corny, but the future of our nation is at stake. Please keep that in perspective.

    We. Just. Need. To. Win. (F*ck Purity Trolls!)

    by jenontheshore on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:14:21 AM PDT

    •  I just changed my signature to this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      snout, MBNYC

      Because I think some folks really forget it!

      Not to be corny but...the future of our nation is at stake. We. Have. To. Win. (F*ck Purity Trolls!)

      by jenontheshore on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:17:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How about "panic trolls"? (7+ / 0-)

        Yeah we do need to win, but if you take a breath, you may realize that in order to win, we need the enthusiasm for the candidate we had pre-FISA.  You can't manufacture enthusiasm.  Obama has gummed up the works on this, and no amount of shouting is going to quiet the inner questions that so many of us have.  Do you remember the candidate who kept his head when the Wright crap was flying?  And came back with the Philly speech on race that pivoted the nega-emerge

        •  last sentences cut off.... (4+ / 0-)

          Should be, "And came back with the Philly speech on race that pivoted the negative to a huge positive.  That is the candidate that needs to re-emerge."

        •  I just want to give you a reality check on this (6+ / 0-)

          Outside a of a few thousand hyperaware politicos on the Internet, NO ONE is going through this experience.

          Most folks are as excited about Obama as ever, and if there is a sense that he is shitfing to the centers, the response is to shrug. After all, Bush ran as a compassionate conservative. Did Bush run the nation that way? No. This is not the first election we've witnessed.

          I went to a gathering for the fourth of July and the main topic was Barack Obama. I live in Boston so this is not unusual. But NO ONE was talking about FISA or anything like that. We were talking about how great it will be when he's president.

          So I engage with folks like you because that's my instinct after many many months of phonebanking and always wanting to "make the sale". But the idea that Obama is having some sort of crisis with his supporters is completely, completely wrong. If you leave Daily Kos you will find that this is true.

          Not to be corny but...the future of our nation is at stake. We. Have. To. Win. (F*ck Purity Trolls!)

          by jenontheshore on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:35:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Talk about hyperbole! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Margot

      "Not to be corny, but the future of our nation is at stake. Please keep that in perspective."  Really?  Gee, nobody here but you knew that!

      The thing is, maybe you don't mind being lied to by the candidate of your choice, but it upsets me because it makes me doubt who he really is.  When I see a Constitutional law lecturer who is about to help pass a law that on its face is unconstitutional, I have to wonder.  When I see a candidate who is triangulating at every position and policy, dancing even faster than Bill and Hill, I have to wonder.  When I see a candidate tacking further to the right every day, I have to wonder.  When I see a man willing to say anything and do anything to get elected, I have to wonder.  When I see a candidate who seems to be making the same mistakes as previous candidates by following whatever his consultants and handlers advise, even when that advise includes to dump his base, I have to wonder.  What I'm wondering is if there is any principle for which this man will stand and be counted or whether all he'll do is compromise whether it is really a good thing, or if it is pseudo-good. A pig wearing lipstick is still a pig, after all.  

      Look, I didn't make an issue of the fact that neither Obama nor Hillary was willing to support a single payer healthcare plan, which is what I think would be best for the most people.  I haven't made an issue of anything else in this campaign that I didn't necessarily like, because I know that honorable people can disagree.  But I don't compromise on the Constitution, and if a candidate wants to compromise on the Constitution, there are legitimate ways to do that.  Passing unconstitutional laws is not one of them.  And I don't like the fact that once again we may have to choose between bad and worse, the lesser of two evils!

  •  Purity troll diary. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    highacidity, bincbom

    So regardless of whom we elect, we'll get a third Bush term as far as the Fourth Amendment is concerned.

    Give me a break.

    "How eager you are to be slaves." - Emperor Tiberius to the Senate of Rome, in response to their offer to pass any legislation he wished.

    by MBNYC on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:18:56 AM PDT

  •  Get over it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    in2mixin

    Obama is voting for FISA now because it's an improvement from the prior bill.  That's a fact you need to recognize.

    And by the way get over it; he's just one of the Senators and is not beholding to any special interests including the lefties.

    I'm an Obamacan and fully support his reasons that national security supersedes civil-lawsuits.  

    Get over it and discuss something new.  American economy is tanking and all you can discuss in the past two weeks is FISA this FISA that.

    •  "Fact?" (4+ / 0-)

      Ok, I'll bite.  HOW is this bill better in any significant, meaningful way from the one Obama promised to filibuster earlier this year?  And if it then why the heck wasn't he able to say how in that long statement he released last week?

      I think you're relying on a bad talking point...but I'm hoping you can actually prove me wrong.

      •  The FISA Court (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ge0rge

        The FISA Court

        •  The FISA Court won't be doing (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theolock, Margot, MichiganGirl, ge0rge, SPD

          anything bc it isn't empowered by the legislation to do anything, including having no power to make reports to Congress about abuses it finds.

          And Congress will not be implementing oversight bc they are going to pretend FISA courts are engaging in oversight, under statutes that don't allow the court take any actions.

          Wigwam has one important point wrong.  The FISA Court will not be issuing the surveillance orders.  Those will be administrative blanket warrants issued by a large assortment of "authorized" persons under the legislation. All the FISC will be able to do is some toothless review annually, based on reports received from liars with no oversight or verification.

          Not only that, but the warrantless administrative mass surveillance, which does not require destruction of the many AMerican records, passwords and confidential information that will be retained (and waiting for hackers and criminals) is now also fair game for use in any kind of criminal lawsuit of any kind.  

          So for all the situations, like a Spitzer or like some other political or ideologic or information source, that anyone in gov with any minimal amount of power wants to surveill in the hopes of patching together a political prosecution or other covert pressure, but where there is absolutely no way they could ever get a criminal wiretap warrant because of no probable cause, there will now be carte blanche.  So all the Regency grads, and the criminally inclined Ivy league grads who gleefully set up torture and kidnap programs, disappearing family members and even very young children who remain unaccounted for - - all those nifty suits are now so embedded in govt that they quite simply cannot be weeded out.

          And their friends and mentors have gone on to become top lawschool professors and Gen. Counsels to some of the largest and most powerful multinational corporations around - corporations that benefit from information.

      •  In fact, he promised to support filibusters ... (7+ / 0-)

        against any bill that contained telco immunity.  But when the cloture vote on filibusters occurred, Obama was a no-show.

    •  You're not paying attention. (6+ / 0-)

      Obama is voting for FISA now because it's an improvement from the prior bill.

      That's the bullshit that Obama keeps pitching.  But the previous bill, the PAA, expired in February, so it's irrelevant.  H.R. 6304 is the FISA Amendments Act.  Unless these amendments improve FISA, they should not be passed regardless of how odious the now expired PAA was.

    •  I continue to be amazed by how this country is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ge0rge, SPD

      governed...

      I actually think your statement here is correct:

      Obama is voting for FISA now because it's an improvement from the prior bill.  That's a fact you need to recognize.

      But that doesn't make it right...even if it is a little bit less unconstitutional, it is still unconstitutional...

      but we are fed a outlandish bill, and somehow the Democratic majority in the House and the Senate think that the most appropriate action is to vote for one just plain horrible, with a hint of outlandishness...

      this is just totally through the looking glass at this point...

      "So this is how liberty dies, to the sound of thunderous applause..." -Senator Padme Amidala - Star Wars Episode III

      by justmy2 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:46:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not ready to "get over" the 4th Amendment. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Baculum King, pascal

      You don't have to be a purity troll to comment disapprovingly about Obama's previous opposition to blanket warrants, telecom immunity and wiretapping lawlessness and his new "triangulated" position approving a bill because it's not as bad as it could be.

      There's lots of things that are "not as bad as it could be."  Bush is not as bad as Stalin or as bad as Pol Pot.  He's not even as bad as Marcos or Chaing Kai-Shek.  Whew!  He's not as bad as he could be!  Go Bush!!

      The problem here is three-fold:

      #1  - Obama explicitly promised to vote against ANY bill containing telecom immunity for reasons and facts which have not changed (note, changing your mind for good reasons is not a problem for me) and now is abandoning that position even though the reasoning behind his original position is still valid.  

      Sista Souljah moment you.

      #2 - Our Constitution and the protections of the entire Bill of Rights (including the 4th Amendment) coupled with an unwavering commitment to Rule of Law defines what I love about America and is exactly why "they" hate us.  This New FISA is a direct attack on both the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure (that's the 4th Amendment) and Rule of Law.  There is no "penumbra" of privacy about the Government vacuuming-up all of your credit card purchases, emails, voice-mails, telephone calls and e-pictures - it's the basic evil the 4th Amendment was enacted to encounter - General Warrants.

      #3 - New FISA does not keep us safe from terrorists but does allow for more Big Brother Government.  When you are searching for a needle in a haystack (i.e. intelligence gathering) it is futile to expand the haystack.  By expanding FISA in a way that does not correspond to increased valuable intelligence, all you do is increase the amount of junk that clogs the system.  Remember, post-911 analysis revealed that the information necessary to identify and derail the threat (expired visas, weird flying students reported, wiretaps, FBI warnings, etc...) was in the system, but just not collected and analyzed.  Adding more irrelevant information (like the GPS tracking data from YOUR cell-phone) is not helpful to this process.  But this information is helpful in identifying the Nixonian enemies list of domestic home-grown critics of the status quo.  Do you think that mountaintop removal in West Virginia should have some .. I mean any .. regulation, well, Son, let me tell you that my review of your information reveals that you deliberately removed a pen from work (misdemeanor), drove DUI, are cheating on your wife, and view porn at work - unless you drop your protest all of this will be used to prosecute you and to embarrass you publicly.  Lest you think that this is a concern troll worry, examine the case of Army Chaplain (and West Point Grad) Capt. Yee.  Arrested on terrorisim charges, shackled, hooded, kept in solitary for 76 days..... convicted of adultery.

      You can support Obama uncritically if you want.  To paraphrase another comment in another diary on this subject (can't find the link), I'll vote for Vlad the Impaler if it results in a change towards competence and Rule of Law.  But, I want more and better Democrats, not just a typographic change from R to D after the President's name.

  •  In this statement you said the telco's (0+ / 0-)

    to immunize against lawsuits the president telco accomplices who made billions of dollars selling the government copies of our emails and phone calls.

    Made billion of dollars selling the copies of our emails and phone calls.  They did?  Really?  I'd love to see more about that.

    I AM NOT TAME Illegitumus non Carborundum Don't let the Bastards get you down!

    by Adept2u on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:20:42 AM PDT

    •  We'd all love to know the details (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichiganGirl

      about how much the Telecoms were paid but with a trial and evidence that is not likely.

      One can look at the contracts that were promised to Qwest until they refused to be a part of Bushs illegal wiretapping and get a sense of a tip of the iceberg of money that is made by the Telecoms.

      President Theodore Roosevelt,"No man can take part in the torture of a human being without having his own moral nature permanently lowered."

      by SmileySam on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:55:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But did Bush quid pro quo buy this data (0+ / 0-)

        I was under the impression they went to the telecoms requested the data and was given it.  I have never aheard that they were actually paid for the data.  Also didn't the guy from Qwest reguse to cooperate with the Bush admin and was punished?  

        Obama people! The other dude is McCain!

        by Adept2u on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:36:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They Paid $1,000 Per Person (0+ / 0-)

          If I remember right...

          The program ended when the Gov't got behind on paying the bills.

          We have no intention of prosecuting Rush Limbaugh because lying through your teeth and being stupid isn't a crime.

          by The Baculum King on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:50:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That was actually the legal wiretapping program (0+ / 0-)

            that was suspended when they forgot to pay the bills... The one where they actually had court approved warrants.

            "It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion." Oscar Wilde, 1891

            by MichiganGirl on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:41:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, quest was punished by not getting (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SmileySam

          the multimillion dollar contracts it was promised in exchange for the warrantless wiretapping and then the CEO that said no to the program was prosecuted by the Justice Department for insider trading and is currently sitting in prison.

          "It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion." Oscar Wilde, 1891

          by MichiganGirl on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:44:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  We've had like 1,000 permutations of this diary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    highacidity, Overseas, Fasaha

    Please, enough.  It's fine to disagree with him on this; I do too, but please, let it go.  We have the most important election of our lives to win.

    It just blows my mind the amount of time reasonable Democrats are spending on this.

    •  Are you aware that the vote on this is tomorrow? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ArcXIX, pascal, MichiganGirl

      This happens to be a TIMELY issue.  The reason those of us who care about the Bill of Rights keep posting these annoying FISA diaries is because the administration and telecom lobbyists keep pushing this turd back into play.  And while the netroots have been successful in preventing it from passing so far we've not been able to kill it.

      This week is crucial.  If Senator Feingold can succeed in getting just one amendment to this bill passed then that will be enough to have it sent back to the House of Representatives.  This should be enough of a time delay to kill it for this session of Congress.

      So buck up.  It will all be over soon enough.  And with any luck, we'll push the issue to 2009.

      Bill had Bimbo eruptions ... Crazy John has Rambo eruptions

      by kbman on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:32:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank You for researching this (10+ / 0-)

    it is detailed and it helps us know where we stand.

    If we show the world that we can keep our candidates feet to the fire, that Democrats don't take bullshit, that we are not afraid, more people will become Democrats. Then we will begin to win more elections with better statesmen.

    •  Uh, No. (5+ / 0-)

      Don't call "saboteur" so cavalierly.  Look at wigwam's posting history:

      http://wigwam.dailykos.com/

      Wigwam has been here for years, posting consistently on the issue of the rule of law in America.

      Wigwam cares about the Constitution of the United States of America.  Not everyone who cares about the Constitution of the United States of America is a "saboteur."

      I am grateful to people like Wigwam who are willing to write about the issues that they care deeply about.

      Irregular Politics are called for in these Irregular Times...

      by theolock on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:29:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, only people (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Stroszek, Adept2u

        choosing to tear down the Dem nominee in advance of a presidential election care about the Constitution.  I guess the rest of us don't.

      •  And anyone who claims that Obama (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Adept2u

        would be in any way shape or form representative of Bush's third term is a sabotaging propagandist, actively utilizing a point which the Dem nominee has accurately made regarding McCain and spreading the meme that the Democratic nominee is in fact the one who represents the continuation of Bushism.

        Sabotage.

        •  But in this regard, HE IS a continuation of Bush (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          weltshmertz

          Barack Obama has promised not only to vote for H.R. 6304, but to utilize the expanded warrantless wiretapping regime when he becomes president.  In this "way shape or form" Barack Obama has newly committed himself to continuing Bush's policies.

          It's not "sabotaging propaganda" to point this out.  It is pointing out a fact.

          Do you remember when we all mocked George W. Bush for disassociating himself from the "reality-based community?"  Let's not do that ourselves.  Let's not be afraid to point out facts.

          Irregular Politics are called for in these Irregular Times...

          by theolock on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:50:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Reality based doesn't mean (0+ / 0-)

            gratuitous attacks on the Dem nominee just for the hell of it.  Would I have liked him to fight the legislation harder?  Sure.  Do I believe I even fully know what's going on?  Nope.

            But despite my disappointment, I'll be damned if I let anyone spew crap about Obama being Bush's third term in any way shape or form because it has zero basis in fact.

            Forget it.  And I've been called a Bushist so many times at this point and in so many variations, I didn't think that I would need to make it explicit that I am immune to this type of manipulation.

            •  Nice Dramatics (3+ / 0-)

              But I'm not manipulating you, I'm talking to you.  I'm pointing out pieces of information, which you aren't.  If -- as you say -- you feel you don't have an idea of what's going on, read the bill.  

              http://irregulartimes.com/...

              Look especially for the sections under text such as "emergency," "physical searches," "appeal," and "notwithstanding."  The "notwithstanding" portions are particularly important, since they supercede other nice-sounding portions of the bill.  The result: 67-day periods in which a presidential administration can spy on anyone, anywhere, for any reason, without a warrant, without any form of approval, then keep the information on the presidential administration's say-so.  It's a return to the days of J. Edgar Hoover.

              Then read the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America:

              "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."

              Finally, note the portion of H.R. 6304 which removes citizens' standing to file suits that challenge the constitutionality of the FISA system.

              None of this is "crap," unless by "crap" you refer to the contents of this very dangerous bill.

              Irregular Politics are called for in these Irregular Times...

              by theolock on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:09:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  This guy claims Obama is the second (0+ / 0-)

                coming of Bush with regards to illegal spying and you accuse me of dramatics?

                I see so clearly why the GOP has been able to hang onto the WH.  This party is just really inept.

        •  Obama supports a bill to legalize what Bush ... (6+ / 0-)

          ... has been doing with regard to warrantless wiretapping.  Per Obama:

          Under [H.R. 6304] an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over.

          Either Obama somehow knows that Bush will suddenly become law abiding, or he wants to legalize and continue what Bush has been doing.  And the first of those alternatives is pure nonsense.

  •  I call Bullshit (4+ / 0-)

    The Fourth Amendment would not be treated like Bush has treated it in an Obama Administration.

    "The Great White Hope" is half Black!!!

    by in2mixin on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:22:55 AM PDT

  •  Vote McCain! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    highacidity, GN1927, Overseas

    That'll show them

  •  Is there IGNORE AUTHOR button anywhere? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    highacidity, GN1927
  •  wigwam is beating a dead horse, get a life (0+ / 0-)
  •  I'm just saying (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theolock, wigwam, Mary2002, weltshmertz

    We have been betrayed/taken for granted by the Democrats for so long and so very thouroughly. Name one bone the Democrats have thrown our way. Go ahead name one.

    •  New GI Bill and increase in minimum wage (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      weltshmertz

      are my favorites.  The others have been blocked by republican senate and the president.

      •  Democrats were not given power in Congress (0+ / 0-)

        to pass a new GI Bill or increase the minimum wage.

        •  Not sure I understand your point (0+ / 0-)
          •  Okay (0+ / 0-)

            I'll give you minimum wage. Wow my hat goes off to you. But the new GI Bill hasn't passed just yet.
            So we entrusted the Democrats to get us out of Iraq and stop GW bush and hold him accountable and the Democrats give us minimum wage.
            See the problem when I talk to people is that they say the Democrats are no better than the Republicans and today proves there point.

            •  Would it be okay for you (0+ / 0-)

              If the congress cut off funding?  They have the authority to do this and this is the only way Congress can stop the war.  But instead of withdrawing the troops, Bush would play chicken with the lives of troops leaving them there with a mission but no means to accomplish it.  No vehicles with no body armour or armoured vehicles.  Probably until a new president took office.  I am in the Army and I would not want to be there under those conditions.  

              The only other option would have been impeachment. Which would have been the best bet, but when Pelosi took that off the table....  Maybe she and Reid can be replaced with the new congress.

  •  If you are voting for a strict constitutionalist (0+ / 0-)

    then no none in the Democrate Party is for you, not even Kucinich.  Everybody in the Democratic Party, same as the rethug party, has voted against the constitution at one point or another, so there are no Democrates righteous enough for all the newly-found constitutionalists on this site.

    If you want a constitutionalist, vote for the crazy Ron Paul.

    "We need an energy bill that encourages consumption." --Trenton, N.J., Sept. 23, 2002-GWB

    by meatwad420 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:06:41 AM PDT

  •  Well researched diary; bizarre frothy commenters (5+ / 0-)
  •  Thank you for this very informative post (4+ / 0-)

    Now is the time to demand Senator Obama fulfill the oath he is currently under. It is also time to demand he fulfill his campaign promises.

    Some things should not be negotiable.. The fourth amendment, an oath, and a campaign promises not to negotiate on the constitution (specifically this legislation) certainly qualifies as non negotiable in my book. Failing to uphold ones oath here places serious questions in my mind about what kind of AG or Judges a president Obama might nominate and or what he might expect of them. And it should seriously concern many more people.

    Do something today.. at least call a bunch of senators before the vote tomorrow.

    As for future support of Obama and or what level of support he might expect from folks like me, that decision hangs in the balance of what happens in the next 24 - 36 hours.

    I certainly did not send in my monthly contribution to the campaign for July. I may very well leave the Democratic party, considering how few Democrats seem to be willing to stand up for the constitution and rule of law.

  •  In fact section 702 has the requirement,,, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    weltshmertz

    that any approved survellance program follows the 4th ammendment...therefore it needs to be specific enough in terms of its targeting and minimization procedures as to not violate the ammendment that you so aptly quoted.

    If it is not then the program should not be approved according to section 702.  So assuming the FISA judges and the congressional oversight committees know how to read we should be fine...

    BTW the current FISA law does not protect US Citizens any better, in fact it is worse...the new FISA law clarifies that these programs are not for US Citizens in the US or anywhere in the world.  In order to do survellance on US Citizens you need a regular warrant from a federal judge...that additional protection is not in the current FISA law which still allows FISA judges to issue warrants for US Citizens...

    Obama/Whoever He Chooses '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

    by dvogel001 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:08:37 PM PDT

    •  Nonsense (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichiganGirl, weltshmertz

      In order to do survellance on US Citizens you need a regular warrant from a federal judge

      Or merely pay off complicit telecom companies at $1,000 a pop to give you the information without involving any pesky Judges. Then get a Congress with no backbone to back up a few years and grant them immunity.

      We have no intention of prosecuting Rush Limbaugh because lying through your teeth and being stupid isn't a crime.

      by The Baculum King on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:26:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are confusing the current FISA... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        weltshmertz

        which does allow survellance on US Citizens without a warrant from a federal judge and the new FISA which specifically prohibits intentional survellance on US Citizens without a warrant...I guess you forgot to read section 702...

        Well here you go...

        This is a copy of sub-section (b) of section 702...let me know when you get through this section

        ‘(b) Limitations- An acquisition authorized under subsection (a)--

        ‘(1) may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States;

        ‘(2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States;

        ‘(3) may not intentionally target a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;

        ‘(4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and

        ‘(5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

        If they cannot target US Citizens under section 702 then how else are they going to do survellance on US Citizens without a warrant...

        Obama/Whoever He Chooses '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

        by dvogel001 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:59:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Way They Did From 2001 Until 2007?? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Margot

          The way they did that Congress, including Saint Barack, is about to grant immunity for??

          If nobody did anything wrong or illegal, what do they need immunity for??

          We have no intention of prosecuting Rush Limbaugh because lying through your teeth and being stupid isn't a crime.

          by The Baculum King on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 02:27:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No from 2001 - 2007... (0+ / 0-)

            GWB basically ignored FISA and did whatever they wanted...that is not what the the original FISA says or the new FISA says...

            Look there is no reason to believe the Republican criminals will be lawful new FISA old FISA and I do see some advantages to the new FISA as well as some drawbacks (civil immunity to Telecoms)

            So I am not going to get in much of a fuss about it...

            Obama/Whoever He Chooses '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

            by dvogel001 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 02:39:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  DiFi and Obama both contend that HR 6304 allows (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Margot

              ... and important "tool" to continue, which means that it would not be lawful under the current version of FISA.

              In addition, Obama and Nancy Soderberg in yesterdays LA Times and many others insist that HR 6304 will prevent the president from continuing to break the law.  Unless Bush is faced with impeachment, he'll continue to do as he please and everyone knows it.  So the only way the HR 6304 can prevent Bush from breaking the law is by legalizing what he wants to do, which IMHO is exactly what it does.

              •  As usual that is twisting the meaning... (0+ / 0-)

                of why HR 6304 will prevent the POTUS from breaking the law because of a combination of different procedures and different oversight...not because it made what was illegal legal....that was the art of compromise where they crafted a bill that provided some flexibility considering that we have a global communications and e-mail infrastructure while providing important limitations that if the GWB administration just went forward as they are today would be illegal...

                Obama/Whoever He Chooses '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

                by dvogel001 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:48:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  FISA (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Margot, wigwam

    WigWam I agree with the fact that Mr Obama has switched his position on the violation of the fourth amendment .... never mind the immunity part this whole bill reeks with disregard for the rule of Law!

  •  Metadiscussion: Wigwam on Wigwam now at FDL (0+ / 0-)

    Over at FDL, Wigwam is currently responding to FDL responses to DKossacks' responses to this diary and his/her other recent diaries on FISA.  

    It's late late nite FDL, so the talk can be pretty freewheeling. Worth the visit, however, cause it's a fascinating window--well, maybe, peephole--onto the differences between blog communities that share members who share concerns and on blogs that are complementary on some subjects and work in common for some candidates and causes, but, from the FDL pov, are miles apart on this one.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site