i gotta agree with you, jesse.  i love me some obama, but this is some seriously bad politicking (or good politicking, depending on your POV) on the big man’s part…

Time to send more letters to my senators.

word, jesse.

He only did it to lose the bad press over the campaign financing un-pledge! Let’s make it three in a row Obama!

Though I have to say, the fact that he even felt compelled to put out a press release is a good sign that he was taking some heat and realized he’d have to address the issue. 

Time to send more e-mails, polite phone calls, and faxes to Sen. Obama’s office (and to both of your state’s senators) while they hammer out the details between the House and Senate versions and see if we can put so much heat on them that they take the immunity provision out.

Oh hell.  I should’ve expected it, but for some reason I didn’t.

I somehow get the feeling that if we want our country back, we’re going to have to buy it back, piece-by-stolen-piece.

Still, remember: Democrats are not Republicans. Republicans will fuck you over because that’s just who they are. Democrats follow the money and the votes, and that means that giving Obama hell over this makes him less likely to pull this shit in the future on some other issue. So let’s all keep this up.

MikeEss, it was a joke. To put it in plain progressive terms, I am unhappy that he was naive enough to pledge public financing and then break that pledge, and I am now unhappy that he is supporting a weak compromise. OF COURSE he’s still the best choice for president, but I don’t think I’m alone in being a little disappointed that some of the shine is rubbing off. I don’t expect a saint, but I expected something… different. Time will tell.

Hey Jesse, don’t you have to give a few million dollars to his colleagues first?

What is your problem, people? Just as I am starting to like Obama a little bit, you start calling him a sell-out.  I don’t see what is so awful about the legislation that Obama signed off on. I mean, who was going to go after the telephone companies, anyhow? Do you think we would ever actually find out whose phones were tapped during that period? Nope. It’s like 9-11 and Osama bin Laden: a perpetual mystery.

So quit carping or I will change my mind and vote McCain. Of course Obama is a compromising flip-flopping fiend in some ways; the man is pushing 50, what do you expect?

That’s “scot free,” laddie. Not “scott free.”

MikeEss, please don’t hate the country—it’s not the country that did it.  It’s not the citizenry either, most of whom haven’t the time or resources to follow what’s been going on in enough detail to put the blame where it belongs.  (Though they do know something is very, very wrong.)
It’s the power structure in general, and a whole buncha corrupt individuals in particular—politicians (including far too many of “ours”), lobbyists, lawyers, corporate executives and shareholders, and a whole lot of media sellouts and slime—who did.  Hate them—they deserve it for what they’ve done—and work against them when and where possible.
But we’ll never get our country back without loving it—nor will we deserve to.

It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.

He has further said that he will filibuster it in the senate if it includes retroactive immunity.

Wow, bitter pill to swallow. I’m disappointed in this decision of Obama’s. I’m hoping he really is as smart as he seems, and that there’s something I’m missing in all of this. Its like the very last door to actually nailing the Bush Administration for their crimes has been closed.

What is your problem, people? Just as I am starting to like Obama a little bit, you start calling him a sell-out.

Because, for some reason, we try to find some reason to sell everyone who might have half a chance at helping us down the river at the first opportunity.

People, you can’t win a war with your guns pointing at your own troops, okay?  Let’s quit trying to find reasons to hate Obama and start trying to find way to fix what’s wrong, before we end up getting someone elected who will make things even MORE wrong.

I mean, who was going to go after the telephone companies, anyhow?

Well Foucalt, there is the matter of the 40 or so pending law suits that are currently active and going through discovery right now in San Francisco.  Those law suits against ATT and their “switching room” where all the calls in the left coast end of the country were routed.

“Well Foucalt, there is the matter of the 40 or so pending law suits that are currently active and going through discovery right now in San Francisco.  Those law suits against ATT and their “switching room” where all the calls in the left coast end of the country were routed.”

I am confused. Does anyone actually know *who* was illegally wiretapped? Are these the people who are initiating the law suits? That would make sense, but somehow I am not sure. I don’t recall an announcement being made about who this top secret program targeted. And if you don’t know for sure that you were a target, how can you sue?

I am a cynic, but I find it hard to believe that the Bush Admin is going to leave office without securing a bunch of loose ends. If Obama didn’t vote on this issue as they wanted him to vote, he would be “soft on terrorism,” and since we already know he’s a secret Muslim with a wife who hates America, he’d really be fucked.

People, you can’t win a war with your guns pointing at your own troops, okay?

Which is exactly why we’re upset at Obama and Steny Hoyer and their ilk for turning their guns on us, American people who don’t want to be spied on by our own government for having done nothing whatsoever. Beautifully put, thank you.

“American people who don’t want to be spied on by our own government for having done nothing whatsoever”

OMG… if you didn’t want to be “spied on” by your government, you wouldn’t blog, do Internet banking, own a computer, or use the phone in your home. You wouldn’t walk the streets because there are cameras freaking everywhere. You wouldn’t travel or apply for documents. You wouldn’t do jack shit except maybe live out in the woods in a hut somewhere, voting in your mind for Kucinich.

Blogs and streets are public places. Anyone can be in them and anyone can be observing them.  Private emails, phone calls, and documents are just that: private. At the moment, it’s illegal to seize them without a warrant, which is exactly what the people this bill exonerates did.

Once again, it’s illegal. Saying that if we didn’t want to be spied on we would cut off all contact with civilization is missing the point. Our government shouldn’t be spying on us in the first place and it certainly shouldn’t be able to break whatever laws it wants to.

I think most people here are just expressing frustration with about this whole thing rather than trying to damn Obama solely over it. He’s still our best option, there’s a decent amount of evidence to suggest this is an attempt politically manoeuver the bill into failing, and I at least won’t be changing my vote. As other people have said, it’s just a little dissappointing.

Which is exactly why we’re upset at Obama…for turning their guns on us

Not really. As AoT noted, he wants to get rid of the retroactive immunity. Hopefully, that will be dealt with.

Actually, e-mail is not private. It is only “private” if you opt to encrypt it, and most people don’t bother to encrypt all (or even most) of their e-mail. There are programs that you can download for free that will allow you to do this, but I bet that most of you do not encrypt your everyday email.

Phone calls are not “private” either. If you go missing, your phone calls suddenly become police evidence and public fodder, even if you have “done nothing wrong.” Your “private” online life is very quickly made public if, for example, you happen to be murdered while moonlighting as an Internet “porn star.”

I agree that the government shouldn’t spy on people illegally. However, I don’t know what you were expecting from Obama. He’s just like Hillary Clinton, except not as experienced. And he’s a secret Muslim.  And he’s a secret gay serial killer. And he wants to talk to Tehran…

If elected, you can be sure that he will become every bit as expedient as she is, if he isn’t already.

Obama knows how to chose his battles. And that battle is a loser for the time being because nobody cares, so skrew it.

So Obama is awesome not despite of this, but because of this.

“Obama knows how to chose his battles. And that battle is a loser for the time being because nobody cares, so skrew it.”

A dumbfuck who can’t even spell the words “screw” or “choose” correctly. Please enlighten us further shit-for-brains. Most Americans oppose retroactive immunity for telecoms. But let’s not let facts get in the way of our idiotic rambings. It’s a loser because…a pathetic loser says it’s a loser, based on nothing. Brilliant.

“I am unhappy that he was naive enough to pledge public financing and then break that pledge…”

Obama never pledged to accept public financing. He’s done plenty of stupid things, but can we not make shit up?

“I am confused. Does anyone actually know *who* was illegally wiretapped? Are these the people who are initiating the law suits? That would make sense, but somehow I am not sure.”

You are not sure because you are an ignorant idiot who is apparently incapable of using “google.”

“And if you don’t know for sure that you were a target, how can you sue?”

So you are not only ignorant about the specifics of various lawsuits, you also don’t know shit about the law in general. Awesome. Please post more. There is nothing better than know-nothing morons posting repeatedly.

Maybe the next time you are confused and clueless you should consider doing 10 minutes of basic research. Just a thought champ.

This is exactly the kind of douchebaggery I was afraid that Obama could easily commit and why I supported other candidates early on in the primaries.

Fuck.

Oh, and the same goes double for Hoyer and Pelosi.  They’ve been tremendous fuckups since day one (actually, Pelosi started eating shit in tremendous quantities before even taking the office, remember “impeachment is off the table”).

We’ve got some dems to rid folks.  No big deal.  All it takes is time and money but it can be done.

Hey Margalis,

Go fuck yourself. If you can’t respond to people without throwing a tantrum and acting like you’re a crackhead, then who gives a fuck what you say. How do you know that most Americans oppose retroactive immunity for the telecoms? Let’s see some research to prove your idiot beliefs.

When it comes down to it, Americans will accept this recent legislation. That’s because most people are not fuckheads who think that the gov’t is spying on them willy nilly. The reason why *you* shouldn’t be concerned that the gov’t is spying on *you* is because you’re not important enough. But overall, I am willing to let the gov’t spy on people if it means there will be less terrorism. Spy away.

The only ones with their panties tied up in knots about it are the ACLU and so-called left wing bloggers. But the ACLU goes after anything that moves, so no one takes them seriously. And the left-wing blogosphere is well, someone at the White House said it best when they told Scott McClellan that he was beginning to sound like a left-wing blogger.

Shorter: This is a non-issue in the grand scheme of things.

One more thing, Margalis,

I clicked on your name to see what kind of a fucktard I am dealing with, and noticed you have a blog that no one reads. Why do you keep writing? I am just curious?

As a total aside, what is up with all these losers who whine about being spied on but then want to subject the public to their dim-witted, boring thoughts? You would think you’d embrace some governmental attention since at least you would have readers then!

MikeEss,

Like I said before, I don’t think the gov’t should be allowed to eavesdrop on peoples’ conversations without getting the requisite court approvals. I am very unhappy with the violations committed by the Bush Administration in the name of the “war on terror.”

That said, however, unless someone can prove that they were spied on and suffered unwarranted damages as a result, I frankly don’t care. My husband suggests that the DNC might have been spied upon during the last election. Why anyone would want to spy on creepy Kerry and Edwards is beyond me, but if this happened then someone should prove it and we would have something to go to court over.

Being targeted because you’re an American receiving suspicious calls from overseas that may be related to terrorism is a whole different ballgame, as f.ar as I am concerned.

Your Orwellian scenarios are a little ridiculous, but not *so* ridiculous that I should like to point out that most Americans gladly help to “spy” on themselves and to collect sensitive information about themselves. Do you have a Facebook ******* or MySpace *******? Do you have a GPS system in your car? Do you have a library card? Do you have a movie rental membership somewhere? Do you use credit cards?

If so, then *someone* is privy to your habits. Maybe it’s not the gov’t, but you are certainly making a history for yourself that could one day be accessed by people who want to use this information to profile you.  Most workplaces do have cameras installed all over the place. I know that NYU has cameras in the elevators of most major buildings, as well as security guards who require you to provide a picture ID each time you want to enter a building. So *you* are the one living in a fool’s paradise if you think this legislation matters one iota.

And to get mad at Obama for it is really what is incredible to me…

Actually, e-mail is not private. It is only “private” if you opt to encrypt it, and most people don’t bother to encrypt all (or even most) of their e-mail.

Sorry, had to jump in: What exactly about e-mail doesn’t make it private? Because it traverses private networks? So, if I send a package via FedEx it’s not private—I can expect the government to be able to open it on a whim, without a warrant or cause? Or because it’s transmitted in clear text? - so I should build an enigma machine for all my written correspondence I plan to post?  There is nothing unique about e-mail which suggests that the government should have unfettered access to open it. Issues of electronic information privacy are going to define our civil rights for decades to come. You simply cannot dismiss the 4th amendment because Jefferson didn’t have a Facebook account—though I’m sure Scalia would.

I am, frankly, very upset about Obama’s flip-flop on this issue—and while I’ll still support him , it will be less enthusiastically and my donations may go to the ACLU instead of his campaign.

Clearly you are very naive about your e-mail correspondences:
http://www.castlecops.com/a1259-E_Mail_Encryption_Isnt_Everyone_Doing_It.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5227744

Morning Edition, February 22, 2006 · Many Americans have expressed concern over the Bush administration’s eavesdropping program. But there’s a simple solution for anyone concerned with prying eyes, at least when it comes to e-mail: encryption.

Well, I empathize with you, Mike Ess. I have a Facebook *******, but I refuse all applications and groups, and the only information I provide to my friends is my e-mail. I figure that my friends should already know the rest of the stuff about me, or they really don’t need to know. I basically use it as a way to keep in casual contact with people. I don’t have MySpace and I don’t have a cellphone. I don’t have a Debit card and I don’t give my bank ******* to anyone except me. So I am a very private person and I would be outraged if the gov’t went snooping through my records.

But I don’t think that Obama can just waltz into the White House and start making radical changes. That is not how “progressive” change works, because if you start acting radical, you will never get a chance to accomplish what you might otherwise accomplish. People like you and my husband and the Panadagon folks (idealists? naive former hippies? educators? whatever you are) need to understand this point.

Your disenchantment with Obama is disturbing to me because I was told by all you Obama yahoos that *I* would be the one selling out Obama for McCain, but it looks like it is more likely that *you* people will be the ones to sell him out and end up with McCain in power. You’d better figure out that your righteousness will only lead to the thing you fear the most: making Bush President for Life.

Clearly you are very naive about your e-mail correspondences

Frankly, I’m not sure how to respond to this.. I am familiar with e-mail encryption—I was slightly involved in the cryoto/cypher-punk wars of the 90’s—additionally, I am pretty familiar with e-mail, having worked on some of the original conversions from UUCP on BitNet and having contributed to some of the SMTP rfcs over the years.

Your argument seems to be 1) If you make anything public, all your documents correspondence, and errata become public. 2) The privacy of your paper’s, correspondence, and errata from government intrusion are not protected by law but by your own actions to secure them. Following the logic of either of these idea quickly lead one to absurdity: I publish an op-ed—so now the government has access to my medical records, or to search my home?  The only thing preventing the government from searching my home on a whim is the size of the lock on my door?

“If you make anything public, all your documents correspondence, and errata become public”

My basic argument is that if you run around plotting attacks on the government or other targets, and sharing your plans by means of non-encrypted e-mails or blogs, then you will eventually make yourself a target and your whole lifework will be open to scrutiny.

Steve Kurtz of the Critical Art Ensemble is a case in point.

But I don’t think that Obama can just waltz into the White House and start making radical changes.

It’s a “radical change” for the executive branch to go back to obeying the law instead of breaking it whenever they please?

As I think other people have mentioned, I don’t think there’s any way in hell that telecom immunity is constitutional. The executive branch doesn’t get to decide what is and is not illegal, so any assurances that they made to the telecom companies that it was okay for them to break the law were completely bogus and not based in US law.  When the police need a warrant, they don’t get it directly from the district attorney—the DA has to go to a judge and make the case that a warrant should be issued.  Yet the Administration is trying to claim that they don’t have to consult a judge when they want a warrant as long as they pretend it’s not really a warrant.

The Bush Administration is trying to argue that they are the ones who determine whether or not a law is constitutional despite the fact that it was decided in 1803  that the judicial branch has that specific power.  So it’s “radical” for us to expect Obama to obey 200 years of legal precedent?

I see—so the Quakers in Florida, the Vegan holding a potluck, and the millions of other Americans who have been surveilled were all plotting to attack America?

By nature those in power will use that power to silence or marginalize opponents—it’s not paranoia it’s simple human nature.

A few years back, I worked on a cyber defense exercise with DHS. It was somewhat useful, and very enlightening. The scenario involved a an Internet based terrorist attack targeting financial institutions and SCADA systems. The ersatz foe launching the attack was not Islamic extremists, or a foriegn power, but was a series of Environmental groups. Many in the government have already defined an enemy—and it may not be who you think it is….

But, remember, Mike…if you’re not “plotting” then you should WELCOME our Dear Leader’s spies.

“I would be outraged if the gov’t went snooping through my records.”

well be outraged, Foucault, because they probably have. I don’t know what makes you think you’re so fucking special that they wouldn’t. You post here…as far as they’re concerned you’re a DFH like the rest of us.

Seriously. People *still* think the warrantless wiretapping was about Terra-ism? Where have they been living for the past 7 years??

I clicked on your name to see what kind of a fucktard I am dealing with, and noticed you have a blog that no one reads. Why do you keep writing? I am just curious?

Foucault - Great job on the ad hominem attack front. You really burned Margalis with your wit and intellect and deep understanding of politics.

MikeEss - Don’t bother with the troll in the corner, you are giving her exactly what she wants.

You mean Obama is not a Magical Unity Pony after all, but just another triangulating, centrist politician like .... {shudder} Hillary Clinton???

Who’da thunk it? Wow, nobody saw that coming!!!

Hmmm, Occam’s razor always comes in handy at a time like this (cuts wrists, sticks hands in basin of warm water).

“They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it’s not one-half so bad as a lot of ignorance.”—Terry Pratchett

You mean Obama is not a Magical Unity Pony after all, but just another triangulating, centrist politician like .... {shudder} Hillary Clinton???

Well, duh.  The only people who are under the impression that Obama is some kind of crazy leftist who will implement a socialist agenda are Republicans.  Most of us who voted for him are well aware that he’s further to the right than we’d like, but we didn’t want the DLC fucking things up anymore like they have for the past decade.  You do know that Hillary Clinton is one of the DLC’s board members, right?

I’m guessing that if the founders of this country had that kind of attitude, we’d still be a British colony

Actually, we’d probably be Canada.

Which, sad to say, looks like a better option at the moment.

Mnemosyne,

What’s the huge meaningful difference between the DLC and non-DLC “centrists” like Barack Obama? 

I have no doubt that Obama is the lesser evil compared to McCain. I even felt he was the slightly lesser evil compared to Hillary Clinton.

But his nomination reaffirms the DLC’s “New Democrat” revolution of the early 1990s, as this vote illustrates.

Opposing something and opposing something in a telephone poll are two different things. Like I said, Obama has way more important battles so sKrew this. This method of spying is ineffective anyway. This isn’t even a purity test for a Obama, it’s a silly distraction.

OBAMA FTW!

“well be outraged, Foucault, because they probably have. I don’t know what makes you think you’re so fucking special that they wouldn’t. You post here…as far as they’re concerned you’re a DFH like the rest of us”

If they are spying on Pandagon, then are doing it because of Amanda. She’s the Edwards commie.

As for me, they probably think I am a poor, conflicted soul who can’t choose between the left and the right. I also have trouble with traffic lights: I always cross the light that is red, after looking at the one that is green. Does that happen to anyone else?

unless someone can prove that they were spied on and suffered unwarranted damages as a result,

You’re just kind of stupid and bad at thinking, aren’t you?

“unless someone can prove that they were spied on and suffered unwarranted damages as a result,

You’re just kind of stupid and bad at thinking, aren’t you?”

Uh no, you are the idjet. If you think you can go to court without a party who has been wronged, then you are sadly mistaken. At least in the Nixon case, there was a plaintiff. Here, you have the ACLU crying out of their bozo party hat that rights have been violated when no one knows whose phone calls and e-mails were intercepted.

Even if this legislation about immunity had not been signed, do you actually believe that the telecom companies could be held *******able for infringing on the rights of the invisible man? No.

This method of spying is ineffective anyway. This isn’t even a purity test for a Obama, it’s a silly distraction.

These are two entirely different issues. First, you are right—mass collections of data are very inefficient. So 1) they distract from important real investigations of potential threats to our nation; 2) In order to process all this data it must be stored for years and years, and processed by third party private contractors, who will have little regard for personal privacy. Essentially you are building an intelligence state, not unlike East Germany or the Soviet Union.

Secondly, Obama—much to his credit—stood with Chris Dodd and opposed telecom immunity in the past. For him to now accept it is a betrayal of a previously stated belief.  There is no nuance here - this is an outright capitulation to the unitary executive and the telecom giants.

As I have expressed previously, you don’t impeach the president simply to punish the president; you don’t hold criminal investigations simply to punish those involved. You do these things to maintain the law—not just for the current president, and the current situation, but for the next president who believes he can spy on Americans outside of the law; who feels that his or her presidentcy is not bound by the constitution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/06/AR2007070600779.html

Lawsuit Against Wiretaps Rejected
Case’s Plaintiffs Have No Standing, Appeals Court Rules

Just to help you understand how the law works.

“If you think you can go to court without a party who has been wronged, then you are sadly mistaken.”

Holy God. There are reams and reams of publicly available information you could use to educate yourself on this, but instead you feel compelled to repeatedly vomit up nonsense that you clearly know nothing about.

If you don’t know anything at all about the topic at hand, and refuse to do even the most basic research, consider not talking.

Some lawsuits have been dismissed due to lack of standing. Many have not. If no plaintiffs in the country have standing then why exactly do telecoms needs immunity from lawsuits that will never go anywhere? Riddle me this.

Some of the lawsuits have been brought by people who have documents that put their names specifically on the list of people spied upon. Some lawsuits have been brought by people with insider knowledge and documents from telecoms. Some lawsuits have been filed on the basis of the chilling effect on speech. A quick google could tell you that.

There is no excuse for being willfully ignorant. And there is even less excuse for trying to dominate a conversation from that position of ignorance.

“You really burned Margalis with your wit and intellect and deep understanding of politics. “

Hee hee, I had to go cry in my milk for 12 hours after that.

There is no nuance here - this is an outright capitulation to the unitary executive and the telecom giants.

In a prefect world perhaps.

I just don’t see why he should waste his time with something that the average American just doesn’t care about, what with the price of gas and the economy in the toilet. And I don’t like the exagerations I’ve heard about this being the exact same thing as Hillary’s Iraq vote. Sorry, whole different universe.

Obama and the Democrats can fix this when they totally control congress and the White House. Worse case scenario, they use it to spy on Sean Hannity. Ooooh, that’s would very naughty! X-)

Once again, I totally agree with Sirkowski. Get your heads out of the DFH toilet that you cling to, and ask average Americans if they care that the Bush Administration is intercepting phone calls. The average American is too busy posting their amateur sex tapes online or telling the world how they were raped on Youtube to give a damn if their phone is tapped. When you create and willingly participate in a culture of self-surveillance, you really can’t be surprised to learn that the gov’t is watching you, too.

To be clear, I’m not saying the concern isn’t valid. Just the wrong fight at the wrong time.

Hey look, it’s the old “I speak for all Americans” canard.

“To be clear, I’m not saying the concern isn’t valid. Just the wrong fight at the wrong time. “

Obama has already lost money over this while generating negative buzz. The time he would waste is the time it takes a staffer to write up a press release - oh noes! In fact, he already had a staffer write up a press release, the only problem is that the press release was pathetic.

Should Obama stop campaigning and go back to Washington so he can chat one on one with each Senator and convince them to drop support for the bill? Probably not. Should he put out a strong statement condemning it? Yes, and it would take virtually no effort.

The time and energy argument is a non-starter. The money he lost over this already dwarfs the money he’d have to pay a staffer to write up something similar to what Russ Feingold wrote up.

“Obama has already lost money over this while generating negative buzz. The time he would waste is the time it takes a staffer to write up a press release - oh noes! In fact, he already had a staffer write up a press release, the only problem is that the press release was pathetic.”

Like you have the brain cells to estimate money lost. I am sure most of you don’t contribute anything to any campaign aside from your blogosphere hot air. The left at this level doesn’t have the money. What Obama loses from douchebags like you, he will make up for in money from moderate voters who don’t want four more years of Bush, but who don’t want to take chances on national security.

Save your financial threats for the people who matter in your life, like your mother and the landlord.

“The two lawsuits pending before the 9th Circuit include Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc. v. Bush, in which the plaintiffs, an Oregon branch of a Saudi charity that has been investigated for alleged terrorist ties and others, contend that they have a document proving they were a direct target of NSA surveillance.”

It’s heartening to learn that Islamic charities under investigation for their ties to terrorism have the chutzpah to sue the government for violating their privacy! I guess the issue of whether this charity does in fact have plausible ties to terrorism will be relevant to the case. In short, it sounds like there was a understandable reason why these folks were targeted.

As for the other lawsuit, it again comes down to proof. If they have proof, then bring it to court.

I am not being dismissive of these violations. I just think there has to be some solid evidence of how one was harmed by the spying. And if you are engaging in terrorism, you really can’t have a beef with this law. It’s like people who engage in suspicious behavior suing the police for following them until they commit a crime.

Margalis, MikeEss - Foucault is just trying to bait people. Don’t let her do it! If we ignore her, she’ll go away because her real agenda is to get attention and not enter into a reasoned and principled dialogue.

If I had a blog, at least people would read it, unlike most of you. Anyhow, save you boo hoo hoos about Obama’s lack of principles for when he sells out teh gayz.

I forgot that Foucault was one of the resident dunces. I’m bad with names.

Obama has already lost money over this while generating negative buzz.

How much?

Obama and the Democrats can fix this when they totally control congress and the White House.

This not something you can “fix” later on. What are you going to do? Pass a law saying the president can’t break the law more then once? and when the next president, or the one after that, says “I wasn’t doing anything more then GW Bush did he was president” or “Congress sanctioned this behavior for past presidents - so it must be legal”. In the legal world it’s known as stare decisis —meaning to stand by that which is decided.

I understand the the need for political compromise; but this is not compromising on some policy issue which good people may disagree. This is the post-facto sanctioning of illegal behavior. It is allowing the office of the president to operate outside of the law. It is, in fact, and extraordinarily dangerous precedent.

Well then I can’t see what you expect Obama to fix then if the damage’s already done.

How about putting together a coalition in the Senate to stop the bill? Or working to filibuster the bill until immunity is removed? Or attaching a poison pill to the bill? Or adding an amendment which requires an independent consul to review all the evidence prior to immunity?

Funny, with a minority, the Republicans seem capable of stopping any bill they please.

I forgot that Margalis blogs as a form of masturbation…

Ad hominem: attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.

For those who might not know, an ad hominem attack is not a very compelling or intellectual form of rhetoric. In fact, it’s often the tool of those who have nothing valuable to say, or who cannot muster a cogent argument based on facts or logic.

Hello Peter:

“A dumbfuck who can’t even spell the words “screw” or “choose” correctly. Please enlighten us further shit-for-brains. Most Americans oppose retroactive immunity for telecoms. But let’s not let facts get in the way of our idiotic rambings. It’s a loser because…a pathetic loser says it’s a loser, based on nothing. Brilliant.”

Yes, and for an example of Margalis’ mode of argumentation, check out his initial post (this section was not directed at me, but it still shows what an absolute loser he is).

As for me, my compelling argument is that I believe the cases where people actually have *proof* that they were spied on are warranted. If you look at the court papers pertaining to Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc. v. Bush, you will see that the Islamic “charity” is not contesting their terrorist status. They are simply saying their were spied upon illegally, which may be true, but absolutely beside the point now that the World Court has banned their charitable networks.

So say what you will, but this legislation may do some good (although I doubt it).

Foucault, if you think you could have a successful blog, please do the rest of us a favor and go spew your nonsense there instead of polluting perfectly reasonable discussions.  I know you think it’s fun to take outrageous positions just to piss off the progressives (oh, such a rebel *eye roll*), but it’s actually damn annoying.

Mine is not an outrageous position.  I am simply trying to help you see the light: that now is not the time to balk against legislation that many voters will ultimately accept and even welcome. Maybe not *you*, but most voters across America will finally say, “Fine.” Like I said, read the pending court case of the Oregon Islamic charity versus the Bush administration and tell me that voters will be upset that these questionable folks were spied upon. People would be pissed if they weren’t intercepted!

And for someone like Obama, who already has right wing and left wing people questioning his allegiance and his religion, it is safer to pass the legislation now and work to reverse it later.

See, the thing about trolls is that if you ignore them, if you don’t respond to them with even the slightest of reactions: they go away.

Really and truly they do.

Stevek:

It’s definitely important to call your Senators and let them know how you feel. I have also called Obama’s campaign office to tell them about my disappointment and that I will vote for him in the general election, but won’t be donating to his campaign like I’d planned. I think it’s probably worth contacting the Democratic Party to let them know how you feel about the so-called “leadership” that is currently in place.

Make sure you get friends & family to look up and see how their Representatives voted on the FISA bill. If their Reps voted “yes” urge people to contact their Reps. Congress is like a spoiled child and will try to get everything they can until the “no” is forceful enough. If your Rep voted no, make sure you contact them and thank them.

Educate yourself and others about the issues and what is at stake. Right now it looks pretty doubtful that the Senate will do the right thing, but if we stop trying, then there is NO chance of change.

“I think it’s probably worth contacting the Democratic Party to let them know how you feel about the so-called “leadership” that is currently in place.”

Oh right, they’ll get right on this and replace Obama with Kucinich for you! Or maybe you would prefer to retroactively nominate Hillary, who is at least a *seasoned* flip-flopper whereas Obama still feels like he has to explain himself.

What’s the huge meaningful difference between the DLC and non-DLC “centrists” like Barack Obama?

When it comes to actual policy?  Not a huge amount.  Let’s face it, the country is so far to the right at this point that there’s no way in hell an actual liberal could be elected President.  Not gonna happen.

The difference is the 50%+1 political strategy vs. the 50-state political strategy.  It’s having Mark Penn running your campaign vs. David Plouffe.  It’s recognizing that we need to get to the point where we have an actual majority before we can get legislation passed, because the Republicans will do anything they can to block any movement away from their failed policies—it’s what they do best.

Strategically, I understand why Obama made this decision:  he doesn’t want to have the Republicans able to run around talking about how he’s endangering America by not letting us spy on our enemies even though most of the “enemies” being spied on have nothing to do with terrorism.  He wants to have it all tied up by August so Congress can recess without all of this hanging over their heads.  There were many practical reasons to do this, but they were all wrong reasons, frankly.

Strategically, I understand why Obama made this decision:  he doesn’t want to have the Republicans able to run around talking about how he’s endangering America by not letting us spy on our enemies even though most of the “enemies” being spied on have nothing to do with terrorism.

The problem with the strategy of selling out today to protect tomorrow is that tomorrow is always a day away. There’s never an end.

We saw this with the Republicans, who pushed policy detrimental to the US in order to ensure a permanent Republican majority—because Democratic rule would be detrimental to the US.

At some point you have to stop worrying about tomorrow and do what’s right today. Personally I’ve seen little evidence that people who employ that sort of calculus are able to ever turn it off.

If wrote about this on my apparently suck-ass blog in October of last year:

http://margalis.blogspot.com/2007/11/useless-democrats-explained.html

Democrats shouldn’t do anything about the Iraq War or FISA because that would endanger the Presidency. The President shoudn’t do anything about them either, as that would endanger the second term. During the second term the President shouldn’t do anything, as that would endanger congressional seats…blah blah blah.

The end result is that this Democratic Congress has been no better than the Republican one.

Let’s face it, the country is so far to the right at this point that there’s no way in hell an actual liberal could be elected President.  Not gonna happen.

Certainly not when “actual liberal” voters’ first move is to ignore actual liberal candidates like Dennis Kucinich and flock to “centrists” like Obama.  Look at the history of modern conservatism.  The rise of the right began when conservative activists and voters refused to back the moderate-to-liberal Republican establishment. The result was the Goldwater capture of the Republican Party…and a crushing defeat. But conservatives would never have succeeded in moving the country rightward over the next four decades had they said in ‘64 “well, the country will never elect a conservative, so we better get behind Nelson Rockefeller!”  (I should add that I think that Kucinich was a lousy candidate for any number of reasons, but he was the best—the only—liberal candidate running for the Democratic nomination this year.  Just as the story of 1964 begins long before—with conservative activists identifying and recruiting Goldwater as a likely presidential standard-bearer—progressives ought to be thinking four-to-eight years down the line and working toward finding a candidate on the left who might, unlike Kucinich, plausibly have a national impact in the future.)

The difference is the 50%+1 political strategy vs. the 50-state political strategy.  It’s having Mark Penn running your campaign vs. David Plouffe.  It’s recognizing that we need to get to the point where we have an actual majority before we can get legislation passed, because the Republicans will do anything they can to block any movement away from their failed policies—it’s what they do best.

I think you’ve put your finger on the difference between the DLC and Obama: it’s a question of strategy. And in this narrow, strategic debate, Obama wins hands down. The mistake here is to see Obama as working for a “we” to which progressives belong.  The victory Obama is winning is for the same set of neoliberal and militarist policies that the DLC was working for in the late 1980s and early 1990s.  Progressives won’t get legislation we want passed because the majority Obama is working to create will not be progressive.

We don’t need a more successful DLC (though, as I always hasten to add, that would be less bad than four more years of Bush).

“I wrote about this on my apparently suck-ass blog in October of last year:

http://margalis.blogspot.com/2007/11/useless-democrats-explained.html”

Hey cool—your blog sucked ass last year, too.

Just kidding… I think blogging is a useful endeavor and there is always an audience for something.

On the topic of this legislation, Obama says he will try to strip the immunity clause next week:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/21/politics/horserace/entry4200105.shtml

“Great—Foucault, your trolling has really made me realize that my life philosophy is empty and my political choices suck ass too.”

I am glad I could be of help. Hope you will keep this conversation in mind when you cast your ballot in the fall.

I was in favor of Hillary Clinton precisely because of this. It seemed like America was ready to nominate Barack Obama for priesthood this Winter and Spring. Everything he does now, things most politicians do, will subtract from his position as the “candidate of change.” I’d much rather have a candidate who knows the system and can work it to make positive change than a candidate who can’t work the system for fear of being a sell-out.