Barack Obama needs to oppose the FISA "compromise" to be considered a legitimate agent of "change" as President.
RationalLiberty said 06/25, 08:37 PM
Barack Obama says consistently he stands for "change"; change in our political process, and change in our political dialogue. By voting against the Fourth Amendment, authorising the Executive Branch to have increased datamining powers, he is not only legitimising the Bush administration's illegal surveillance activities, he is supporting an increase in power for the same Executive Branch he wishes to serve under.
This is not "changing the way politics works" in Washington, this is supporting the increased powers of the Bush Administration. As a democrat planning on leading America to a different role than what she has seen for the past seven years, this is not a good start. Indeed, one could even say this was "four more years of Bush" if one were voting on the basis of restoring fundemental checks and balances and the rule of law.
By giving in to political expediency, Obama is undermining the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, undermining the rule of law by granting retroactive immunity to telecoms, and giving a "get out of jail free card" for politicians and lobbyists in Washington-this is not "change", this is elite Washington reciprocity at its finest.
GenialFascist said 06/28, 07:43 PM
First - I am not an Obama supporter - 100%/180 out. Having said that - I support any vote that continues FISA to include an "enhanced" FISA. I am encouraged that purporting to be an agent of change doesn't include eliminating prudent safeguards that the government has to help ensure our safety. In your reply please include a list of all persons you know who have been "rounded up" by the government based on eavesdropping of their personal telephone conversations. Hello - FISA was enacted to counter the illegal eavesdropping conducted by the Nixon administration. FISA is a court. The government must obtain a warrant to conduct surveillance. Sorry to disappoint but the target of a FISA surveillance cannot be an American Citizen. The FISA compromise grants immunity to Telecom companies for conducting the activity but they already had that in that the government would have to have issued the order. No one is spying on you. I'm certain that any of the 3,000 who died on 9/11 would have been glad to authorize the govenment to listen in on any and all conversations conducted by the terrorists. We have been, are, and will be targets. The government needs the tools to combat the threat.
RationalLiberty said 06/30, 06:25 AM
The new FISA legislation gives telecoms virtual immunity from lawsuits. This means that we will not ever know the people that were eavesdropped and why. So I cannot give you list of names, but that should not matter. Our privacy rights should be respected- by all branches of government.
FISA was enacted to counter illegal searches and eavesdropping by Nixon, and it was what we had in place. Enhancing an already legal program to the point of illegality is not useful, it only serves to open up the power to abuse.
Actually though you bring up a good point: "nobody is spying on you". How could I know? Under the new system, there are no oversight protections that was once in the FISA. I live overseas, and though I am an american citizen, I could be branded as an enemy combatant, a foreign target, or they could find some loophole, and wiretap me regardless. I call the states frequently, contact people around the world, and only one side needs to be "foreign" or a "terrorist" in order to snoop on both sides information. So Americans CAN be targeted, they HAVE been targeted illegally before, and they WILL be targeted so long as we have no oversight or accountability.
GenialFascist said 06/30, 08:50 PM
Are you living in Syria or Iran or Afghanistan? Are you regularly phoning persons who are on a government ???watch list??? of persons suspected of terrorist ties? If the answer to both of those questions is yes ??? sure, you might be a target for NSA eavesdropping. As you should be. Assuming that the answer to both of those questions is no ??? it???s a pretty safe bet that no one is listening in on your conversations.
The whole compromise issue is empty to begin with. The compromise requires that a federal court (i.e. "oversight")approve or disapprove the immunity request -- with approval granted if the Telecom company in question can prove that it received a written request from the government asking for cooperation in the eavesdropping. The fact that the government requested the action would have protected the Telecoms anyway. Now we???re avoiding frivolous lawsuits.
Any compromise between the left and right which permits a continuation of a program as vital as FISA should be applauded and endorsed. The NSA eavesdropping program is a necessary tool in the hunt for terrorists who mean to do us harm.
RationalLiberty said 07/02, 06:35 PM
"The compromise requires that a federal court... approve or disprove the immunity request"-it is still not good enough. It is effective immunity, because they ALL recieved the written request from Bush. It takes away these people legitimate claims in court, and nullifies ALL possible illegal acts that could have happened.
And these are not frivolous lawsuits. They are incredible important. If the actions by the telecoms violated 4th amendment rights they need to know. These arent junk cases; these plaintiffs want to know their rights were not violated, and in a constitutional republic, we must at least have our citizens know that.
To correct something above, I dont know if FISA authorises "warrantless" surveillance exactly, but if this passes it will allow datamining of information and increased executive powers at the least.
To counter your last paragraph, FISA was good as it was. It allowed us to hunt terrorists within the bounds of the law. The new FISA actually endangers us more. In addition to harming civil liberties, datamining clouds our information pool, and leads us to a large bureacracy that makes it harder to find actual terrorists. This addition isnt needed.
GenialFascist said 07/02, 10:01 PM
The FOREIGN Intelligence Surveillance Act is a vital tool that our intelligence agencies have at their disposal to help protect us from bad people who want to hurt us.
The program is overseen and regulated by a federal court that sanctions the actions of the government. The "compromise" helps to protect the Telecom companies from prosecution after cooperating with the gov't. This will help facilitate legal sureillance of foreign communication. As I see it this boils-down to a belief, or not, that the Gov't is acting in our best interests when exercising their eavesdropping powers. Powers that exist - period. FISA exposes those powers to scrutiny.
In our left-charged media environment had their been a case where a "normal" American had been targeted and acted on for listening in routine communication - we'd know about it.
Back to the original argument - I applaud BO's support of the compromise. "Change" doesn't have to mean a wholesale departure from every program, successful or not, that the Gov't has. Talk about the attack we had after 9/11. Oh, that's right -- we haven't had one...
Comments
Add Your Comment
dont look at me, I think its rather odd too, but I didnt spam it or anything...
RationalLiberty | 07/04/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
Israeli Soldiers Sweep Into Gaza
IDF tanks and infantry launch a ground offensive in the Palestinian enclave
(Uriel Sinai / Getty)
The Science of Snowflakes
Caltech physics professor Kenneth G. Libbrecht has turned his passion for the study of ice crystals into an art form. In his books and website, Snowcrystals.com, he breaks down some of the basics behind these miniature miracles of nature
(Kenneth G. Libbrecht)
... hmmm... 12 votes in about a two hour period this morning and nary a single comment... me thinks something doth stink... tks, tsk little one :(
GenialFascist | 07/03/08
Report Offensive Comment