Documents confirm U.S. hid detainees from Red Cross

Glenn Greenwald writes well...


Why Obama's Support For FISA Cave-In Is Such A Downer

By Greg Sargent - June 20, 2008, 4:32PM
Here's what's so dispiriting about it. One of the riveting things about Barack Obama's candidacy is that since the outset of the campaign he's seemed absolutely dead serious about changing the way foreign policy is discussed and argued about in this country.

Time and again, in his debates with Hillary, and now with John McCain, his whole debate posture on national security issues was centered on the idea that he could challenge and change what it means to talk "tough." His candidacy has long seemed to embody a conviction that Democrats can win arguments with Republicans about national security -- that if Dems stick to a set of core principles, and forcefully argue for them without blinking, they can and will persuade people that, simply put, they are right and Republicans are wrong.

Obama has done this already in this general election -- repeatedly. And no doubt he will do it again and again and again in the months ahead.

To be clear, I'm not even talking about whether opposing this would or wouldn't have carried political peril. It really doesn't matter. Because if there were ever anything that would have tested his operating premise throughout this campaign -- that you can win arguments with Republicans about national security -- it was this legislation. If ever there were anything that deserved to test this premise, it was this legislation.

And this time, he abandoned that premise.


Late Update: Glenn Greenwald, a leading critic of Obama on this, sends me his skeptical take on why he thinks Obama's promise to work on the bill in the Senate doesn't change anything:

"I think we do a grave disservice if we try to convince people that Obama is really going to work to get amnesty out of the bill. Reid is already saying it's just theater -- they know it's going to fail -- it's just a way, Reid said, to let people "express themselves." It's all designed to let Obama say, once he votes for this bill: "Well, I tried to get amnesty out." He's going to vote for amnesty -- and his statement today seals the fate of this bill. Why sugar coat that?"

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/why_obamas_support_for_fisa_ca.php


I was all for Obama blowing off public funding, but there's a limit to how many "principals" I'm willing to abandon. I think this is pretty outrageous on his part. It would be better if he had said nothing, in my opinion.



Impeach Bush.

 

Well. Thanks Obama for crushing my faint little hope of not thinking all politicians spineless douchebags totally out of touch with what this country is supposed to stand for.

Bob Dylan should have never abandoned his cynicism. I know I'll not make the mistake again.

F_ck.

 

MoveOn calls for Obama to keep his word and filibuster telecom immunity --

---------------------

Dear MoveOn member,

On Friday, House Democrats caved to the Bush administration and passed a bill giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to phone companies that helped Bush illegally spy on innocent Americans.

This Monday, the fight moves to the Senate. Senator Russ Feingold says the "deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation." Barack Obama announced his partial support for the bill, but said, "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."

Last year, after phone calls from MoveOn members and others, Obama went so far as to vow to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." We need him to honor that promise.

Can you call Senator Obama today and tell him you're counting on him to keep his word? Ask him to block any compromise that includes immunity for phone companies that helped Bush break the law.

Obama's presidential campaign: (866) 675-2008

Then, help us track our progress by clicking here:

http://pol.moveon.org/call?cp_id=758&tg=479

These companies helped the Bush Administration illegally spy on the emails and phone calls of innocent Americans. By giving "immunity" to these companies, all lawsuits brought against them by civil liberties groups would be thrown out of court. That means we may never find out how far Bush went in breaking the law. And once it's done, it can't be undone. That's why we need Obama to promise to block any bill that has immunity.

http://pol.moveon.org/immunity/080621obama.html

It will be interesting to see what he does.

 

do these people want obama to win?

 

I believe they do pgabs, but they want him to win with integrity. This is sort of a test for Obama and I’m not sure how it’s going to play out. Obama has always said the he would do what he considered right for America and not right for just Democrats. I have to give him the benefit of the doubt here. But I am dismayed at his decision to support this bill. In a weird way I guess this puts the lie to the “messiah” image people are portraying him with and people are not walking in lock-step with everything he says or supports.

Again, I'll be very interested in how Obama handles himself with this.

 

There is no reason for anyone to support this bill. The bill is horrible, and strips the average citizen of a part of their protection.

 

For the first time ever, I was ready to monetarily donate to a political cause.

Now I may not vote.


You can call it overreacting, but I'll call it standing by my convictions.

 

link


At this point we have to engage in a bit of guesswork since the details of the NSA program are classified, but the basic problem is the same as it's always been: NSA's program isn't targeted at particular people or even particular organizations. Nor is it targeted solely at foreign-to-foreign communications since modern communications technology makes it very difficult to be sure where a particular message originates or terminates. Rather, it's based on complex computer algorithms, something that's genuinely uncharted territory.

To repeat something I said a couple of years ago, the nice thing about probable cause and reasonable suspicion and other similar phrases is that they have a long history behind them. There are hundreds of years of statutory definition and case law that define what they mean, and human judges interpret them in ways that most of us understand, even if we disagree about whch standard ought to be used for issuing different kinds of wiretap warrants.

I think this expresses some of the bigger problems, I just don't want the dems to come off as vindictive, going after telecom companies who were all caught up in the 9-11 pressure to do what's good for the country isn't a good use of time. enforce laws going forward.

but this guy brings up a good point, there are no standards as to whom would be monitored, which brings up two problems, anyone can be monitored, and if they are relying on computers, that's the same stupidity that puts highly decorated law enforcement officials on terror watch lists

 

i think you underestimate yourself, you do have hope. otherwise you'd drop the cynicism and straight out start taking advantage of people.

 

True.

 

As I've said before for all of those Obama supporters who had bought into Obama's change mantra be prepared to be dissapointed. Obama's position on this doesn't surprise me at all and this is why Obama's campaign stuck to being vague and downplayed specifics. This is why Obama's most ardent supporters spoke about how his message was more important than the positions because the message was so nebulous it became a cypher that different people could project different views in it. This is also why I talked about why judgement is great but judgement in the abstract is one thing and judgement when it matters, like getting legislation passed is when it matters.

I don't blame Obama at all for his position. It is the position he needs. He can't afford a vote that may cause him to be hammered by McCain for being soft on terrorism yet still point out that he is very unhappy and do what he can to alter the final legislation.

 

hey shishir, with supporters like you, obama doesn't need enemies. seriously dude, we get it, you're going to support him but you don't think he's jesus and that's why you supported hillary

 

Sometimes the best supporter is one who doesn't buy the hype.

 

you just don't have to say it every thread. furthermore I disagree that it applies to this one. as a matter of fact, this is a rather strong compromise by the parties on this issue.

 

Its D & D people supposed to get snarky.

I will admit I possibly have a mild case of Obama derangement syndrome. I just got annoyed when Obama supporters were continuously trumpeting how different Obama was and how he was change you could believe in blah blah blah..

 

You make it sound like "delusional" when it should be "hopeful".

There is a considerable distinction.

 

Based on stuff I have heard about Obama both here and elsewhere I question which side of that distinction some Obama supporters sit.

 

Quoted for truth.

 

Well, I was hopeful.

 

i can neither relate to sishir or rhad's position. i have no problem w/ obama's decisions over FISA, the muslim "snub" or public finance. he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. his messianic star has dimmed and that, IMO, is a good thing. he has already inspired this nation to sit up and pay attention. now he just needs kick some ass by any means necessary.