January 2008:
"I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill. Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend. No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed. That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd's amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient. A grassroots movement of Americans has pushed this issue to the forefront. You have come together across this country. You have called upon our leaders to adhere to the Constitution. You have sent a message to the halls of power that the American people will not permit the abuse of power – and demanded that we reclaim our core values by restoring the rule of law. It's time for Washington to hear your voices, and to act. I share your commitment to this cause, and will stand with you in the fights to come. And when I am President, the American people will once again be able to trust that their government will stand for justice, and will defend the liberties that we hold so dear as vigorously as we defend our security."
"I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill.
Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.
The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.
No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.
That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd's amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.
A grassroots movement of Americans has pushed this issue to the forefront. You have come together across this country. You have called upon our leaders to adhere to the Constitution. You have sent a message to the halls of power that the American people will not permit the abuse of power – and demanded that we reclaim our core values by restoring the rule of law.
It's time for Washington to hear your voices, and to act. I share your commitment to this cause, and will stand with you in the fights to come. And when I am President, the American people will once again be able to trust that their government will stand for justice, and will defend the liberties that we hold so dear as vigorously as we defend our security."
...you really are showing your ignorance. "When" you registered here means nothing. In fact, using "you just registered today" is actually a very UN-democratic thing to do. A true citizen of the democracy realizes that every voice is equally important, regardless of "when they registered." In fact, if some of these attitudes translated into the political process, you'd be turned away because you "didn't register Democrat" long enough ago. Some of us who are mad right now have been Dems for 20, 30, 40 years. We were voting for Democrats when you were in diapers (or before). Some of us voted for the first Clinton... the FIRST time. Some even voted for JFK (who Obama once resembled).
So please, by all means, point out that new registrants are some of the maddest (ignoring those who registered here months ago, well before FISA, who have also expressed their sense of betrayal). Continue to dismiss the comments of posters here because they aven't been registered "long enough." In short, feel free to engage in tactics often employed by Republicans who wish to try and silence dissenting voices. The bottom line is that you'll lose.
Some of us have been Dems for so long that your registration date on the site is a flash in the pan. We welcomed you to the prty and didn't really make much of a fuss when you got suckered in by Obama's pretty rhetoric. We rolled our eyes, but certainly didn't dismiss you when you failed to heed our admonitions regarding "experience" and "proven voting record." We even went so far as to say "I hope you're right. I really do."
In short, your comments about when we registered are of such little consequence that I almost feel silly writing this. On the other hand, you need to realize that this is not YOUR party, or even YOUR candidate. It (he) is OURS. And whether you like it or not, we will say what we want, when we want, HOW we want. In that sense, your registration date here is worth about as much as the paper it was printed-- oh wait, it wasn't even on paper, was it...?
'nuff said.
In addition to posting here, call Campaign HQ and let them know how you feel (good or bad). Please try to be civil, but do communicate your message.
(866) 675-2008, option 4 or 6
Open until 9pm CST
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEjklgQeVtc
An excellent take on the FISA bill. This was before Obama voted, so no Obama-bashing for those of you with sensitive ears.
First off, all Bush has to do is issue a signing statement saying he doesn't agree with the warrantless wire-tapping (which he most certainly will do) and he can keep tap-tap-tapping. Second, here's what Obama voted for (I'll use CBS' explanation since it's on-target):
"The new bill extends [tapping timeframe from 72 hours] to a week, allows the surveillance to continue during appeals, and permits the government to use any of the information it collects even if the FISA court eventually rules that the tap is unlawful."
Now, what would you do if the police illegally searched your home but were able to use the evidence anyway? You'd scream bloddy murder all the way to jail. Maybe you were guilty, but you certainly weren't given your Constitutional rights...
"the bill gives wholesale approval to bulk monitoring of electronic communications (primarily email and phone calls)."
Please note this does not require a warrant and do not require probable cause or reasonable suspicion. From this day on, any e-mail you send is now monitored by the NSA, no matter what. The next time you send your signicifcant other an e-mail, the NSA can read it as well.
CBS puts it well here:
"The oversight on this stuff is inherently weak. After all, no court can seriously evaluate algorithms like this and neither can Congress. They don't have the technical chops. Do the algorithms use ethnic background as one of their parameters? Membership in suspect organizations? Associations with foreigners? Residence in specific neighborhoods? Nobody knows, and no layman can know, because these things most likely emerge from other parameters rather than being used as direct inputs to the algorithm.For all practical purposes, then, the decision about which U.S. citizens to spy on is being vested in a small group of technicians operating in secret and creating criteria that virtually no one else understands."
Those of us who are screaming about FISA are doing it partly because of the telecos but more because of the 4th Amdt rights we just lost. Please feel free to respond with facts. your opinion about FISA is less interesting. If you can refute the facts, go for it...
(Quotes from CBS article: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/22/politics/animal/main4200909.shtml)
PS *Wanda*, do not cut & paste the response you've added to every one else's blog just so you can get points. I will delete it. If you want to type a "personal" comment, I'm happy to read it.
Doesn't a "yes" vote effectively sustain the status quo? Wouldn't a "no" vote have actually given us a better chance to change an unconstitutional Busy policy in 2009? I'm asking this in a very serious way. I honestly can't see how Obama's yes vote signals any change.
(And please don't say "we need to be secure" or whatever variation is floating around right now.)
