I’m ashamed
Before I begin, I still do believe without a doubt that Obama will be wayyyyy better than what we have now and his opponent.
BUT, I will say I’m greatly disappointed. I’m disappointed that some bloggers gloss over this pretty FREAKING huge item that Obama is giving in to. While I rail against the Corporate Machine that is eroding our rights for greater dividends I had hoped that what we would get in Obama was someone that would stand steadfast against corporations. Make them accountable for breaking the law.
What some people forget is that Qwest, QWEST with their ITALIAN CEO turned down the government and said they wouldn’t oblige their over reach. That is a little nugget that can’t be ignored. Now, the Telecoms have poured tons of money into DC over the past few months and PRESTO! lookie lookie. It’s shameful. Shitty.
I’m also ashamed that I didn’t keep it real. I had a post on June 20th that expressed my dissapointment. Since then I have been silent. I have turned away mostly b/c I was hurt. Someone that is a regular reader had this to say to a friend that knows I blog here:
rob,
Why do I not see anything on DelawareLiberal about Obama supporting the new FISA bill?
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/online-activist.html
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/netroots-activi.html#previouspost
to say that it got me where it hurt (my keep it real zone) was an understatement. I was called out. WE were called out. That same individual sent me this
The new FISA compromise: it’s worse than you think
And if you read it. It isn’t really worse than you think. It’s as bad as you thought it was but, refused to swallow because the Black Knight is our savior and we turned the other way.
Specifically, the new legislation dramatically expands the government’s ability to wiretap without meaningful judicial oversight, by redefining “oversight” so that the feds can drag their feet on getting authorization almost indefinitely
So it is your worst nightmare really. It’s more than they wanted. The almighty dollar got to them again and much like the Bankruptcy Bill they got their money’s worth.
The legislation establishes a new procedure whereby the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence can sign off on “authorizations” of surveillance programs “targeting people reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.”
Crucially, there appears to be no limit to the breadth of “authorizations” the government might issue. So, for example, a single “authorization” might cover the interception of all international traffic passing through AT&T’s San Francisco facility, with complex software algorithms deciding which communications are retained for the examination of human analysts. Without a list of specific targets, and without a background in computer programming, a judge is unlikely to be able to evaluate whether such software is properly “targeted” at foreigners.
So next time you call a loved one overseas just to say hi, make sure you say hello to the NSA guy listening to your phone sex. It’s pretty disturbing to be honest. All to keep you safer people. And your next president just went along with it.
But the worst part is this part:
retroactive immunity to firms that participated in the president’s warrantless surveillance program. The bar for granting immunity is extremely low: to receive immunity, the firm must merely demonstrate that it had received a letter from the government stating that the program was lawful. Since we already know that the program participants received such letters, there is no practical difference between this standard and blanket immunity.
What we fail to fully accept is that the president broke the law. I mean, why else would that be required? Why? Ask that? Why? Why would they need to be protected if they didn’t…if the PRESIDENT didn’t do anything?
Obama signed up for immunity after he said no the first time. Pretty sickening. To be honest, I really can’t say anymore about this. You have these fucking idiot that are so worried about getting to hold a fucking gun b/c the god damned constitution says so. OH, they can rail about the “RIGHT TO BARE ARMS” but those same fucking people can’t digest
“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, “
So when the government comes to take your ass away b/c you said something they didn’t like b/c they heard it while legally listened to you, make sure to run for your fucking gun and blow your brains out. Because who FUCKING CARES THAT YOU GOT YOUR GODDAMNED GUN WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CAN DO WHATEVER THEY FUCKING WANT TO YOU WITHOUT A FUCKING WARRANT. EVERYONE WANTS TO DEFEND THEIR RIGHTS, BUT GOD FUCKING FORBID YOU TAKE THE TIME TO READ THE REST OF THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION. IT’S EASIER TO HAVE SOMETHING TANGIBLE AND SCREAM like a little freaking kid in walmart that you want your new video game. But when something abstract comes across god forbid you look at the ramifications. We are so wrapped around gas prices at $4.00 a gallon that we don’t have time to freaking think about how powerless we really are. But sure get your fucking gun. Woohooo you can have it at Disneyland now. Wooohooooo. Big Brother is watching morons so now you got your gun. Feel SAFE? How safe do you feel knowing that whenever you pick up the phone that Big Brother is listening, could be listening? How safe do you feel?
spare me, hang on to your guns.
but the pen is mightier than the sword….
end of rant
Carper once again proven himself the disgraceful cocksucker we know him to be. He truly is an embarrassment to Delaware and our country. He is unworthy of the title given him.
Good and justifiable rant. November can’t get here soon enough. I’m sick of this crap, and expect more of it. I hate the FISA bill. What scares me is that I know low-info voters love it. I understand who will decide this election… now that’s scary.
I’m so caught up in the general election that I’m guilty – as well – of letting things slide. I’m just tired of the Dems shooting themselves in the foot.
Rant on, your points are valid.
ACLU has pledged to fight this out in court. Time to cough up a donation.
“But the pen is mightier than the sword…..”
You are entitled to your opinion. Unfortunately history has proven your statement wrong time and time again.
I completely agree with you on 4th Amendment infringements though. The 4th has been gutted pretty well by several administrations and by the courts.
The ACLU is ridiculous. They’ll fight this but they STILL deny existence of the 2nd Amendment and claim it is a “collective” right. You’d think they’d finally accept that the “collective rights” view is wrong now that it’s settled law but they still won’t budge.
Mike: I think those whose 2nd amendment rights have been abrogated have a very strong advocate in the NRA. I don’t always agree with their stances, but they have every right to pursue their agenda, and I even think they do some good work.
The Rutherford Institute protects people in 1st Amendment rights in cases of religious discrimination. I don’t always agree with their stances, but it doesn’t mean I can’t recognize their good work.
So it is with the ACLU — the folks who support it have priorities that usually match the organization’s leadership; if not, the organization won’t be around long. I don’t agree with all their stances (though I do back them on their let-the-skinheads-march position), but it doesn’t prevent me from recognizing the good work they do.
DMABLOGGER
I have brought this subject up during the primaries only to be plummeted by some members of this blog. The 4th amendment is suppose to protect us all. Today by this vote we have weakened it. Jefferson would have fought this outrage tooth and nail. I also pointed out to members of the Senate and on this blog the meaning of Article ONE Section NINE of the constitution. it escapes me how a person can graduate from Harvard law and not be aware of it’s meaning. My candidate voted against FISA today and god bless her. This doesn’t mean that I won’t vote for Obama come November, However it will be with a lot less vigor and vim. I believe that this just gives McCain another subject to beat Obama up on by him going back on his word.
Please don’t throw Hillary into this. Had she won the nomination she would have voted for this crap as well. Just like she voted for the war and the Iran resolution.
And I seriously doubt your vigor and vim.
Kinda pissy about his “yes” vote but it’s certainly not a deal-breaker, given the alternative.
Hope he goes after the “decision-makers” and enablers through the criminal courts in 2009. Then all would be forgiven….but I’m sure by that time people will be mad at him for something else. 😛
Nice rant though, DV. It’s good to get it out once in a while.
Off topic.
It is about a year since this classic Donviti post.
Farewell to St. Hedwig
http://delawareliberal.net//2007/06/08/farewell-st-hedwig/
be nice to your faja 🙂
i just welled up reading that…no lie
you have inspired me
ok, now if you read that again, hopefully things will change….interesting read
Funny, I lived on the 700 block of South Franklin in the eighties. I can’t remember the house number, but it was the first house (end of the block closer to Johnny’s) facing toward the park. Hmmm?
Do we have grounds for impeachment on all those that voted for this travesty of law? Their actions can be questioned as a violation of the oath of office they all took on the first day of the session. From http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/memberfaq.html
“I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
‘Please don’t throw Hillary into this. Had she won the nomination she would have voted for this crap as well. Just like she voted for the war and the Iran resolution.’
Hmm…so, you can forgive Obama for voting in favor of this bill, but you could never get past Hillary voting for the Iraq War Resolution (which was not, as far as I know, a clear violation of the constitution). As far as the Iran resolution (assuming you mean Kyl/Lieberman), at least she had the courage to show up for the vote.
You guys will forgive him anything – kind of like the 20-some percent who still support Bush.
Wrong, Dom. This isn’t about forgiveness. It’s about faux concern and the bogus loss of vim and vigor support. It’s also about politics – which explains HRC’s war vote as well as Obama’s FISA vote. Both were about not looking weak on terrorism. Sad, but true.
To be fair, TT was an HRC supporter who jumped straight over to Team Obama when she dropped out. He/She a hardcore, devoted Dem, so I believe the vim and vigor of casting a vote for the Dem was sincere (even if Obama was not his/her first choice).
IIRC, during the primaries, there was no tone of understanding when it came to HRC’s vote on the war resolution. In fact, I was met with pretty vicious hostility every time I said she had to cast that vote because she needed to look strong on terrorism. I just think it’s kind of amusing that you guys are a bit more forgiving and gentle about Obama’s vote on FISA. In fact, his vote on FISA proves to me that he would likely have voted for the war resolution had he been a senator at the time. Whether you guys are willing to admit it or not, he is clearly not the man of principle that all of you believed him to be.
“Whether you guys are willing to admit it or not, he is clearly not the man of principle that all of you believed him to be.”
Well yeah, Obama has flip-flopped and lied more than any Presidential candidate I can remember.
To disagree with the other David, Tom Carper showed why he is worthy of office. He isn’t afraid to make the call necessary to defend America even when the liberal blogs are railing against him.
It interests me how blind that you are, hot blogger. The American companies were not motivated by money but a desire to stop the slaughter of their citizens. The foreigner was not.
I think the government did overreach, and would not have given it everything unless it had a warrant. Some of its requests were legitimate. I can respect both points of view.
The bottom line is that the government was motivated to protect lives and under a lot of pressure to do so. It used legitimate tools available to it and it saved lives. It is our job to ensure that it doesn’t overreach and keep it in check, but let’s not go overboard on handcuffing it either.
Wrong again, Dom. I always said that HRC’s vote was political, just like I’ve always said that Obama is a politician – be fair, you know it’s true! She took a political risk in voting for the war. Had public opinion not altered it would have been a smart move and Obama’s speech would have been the end of him.
We’ll have to wait and see what effect his FISA vote has. November is a long way off.
I think you guys should be happy. This shift means that Senator Obama is thinking seriously about being able to do his job if he wins. I explained that over here. http://delawarepolitics.net/2008/06/23/i-think-senator-obama-may-now-just-believe-he-can-do-it/
Dom
It appears that I set off a Fire Storm just by stating a fact that HRC voted No on FISA and stood up for the constitution. Unlike Obama who gave his word against this Bill during the primaries and now has broken it.
Look Bush and the Repuks beat Kerry by making him out to be a Flip Flopper and now McCain and company are attempting to do the same to Obama, the problem as i see it is that within the past month he has played into their hands.
P. S Pandora you have no idea of how Hillary would have voted on this bill had she won the nomination.
“It interests me how blind that you are, hot blogger. The American companies were not motivated by money but a desire to stop the slaughter of their citizens. The foreigner was not.”
They were motived entirely by money, since the law specifically forbade what they did. We do not live in a country — correction, we used to not live in a country — in which the law is whatever the president says it is. A true conservative would know that.
The American companies were not motivated by money but a desire to stop the slaughter of their citizens. The foreigner was not.
explain to me then how Qwest turned the offer down and how those same american companies were stopping the program because the government was paying their bills?
They were worried about the 50 lawsuits pending in court right now. If immunity was stripped then they would be screwed. Sheesh.
thanks for playing
DMAB
Yes I see that hear as well as the MSM no one has explained how Quest got it RIGHT.
Do you think that because the CEO is Italian that he knew a Fascias tactic when he saw it
So David (Conservative-apologist one), if those benevolent Telecoms did what they did out of the love of country and not wanting to see possible customers slaughtered, then why did they stop the FBI wiretapping because of non-payment?
Illegal, by definition, cannot be legitimate. And you wouldn’t need immunity from something that’s not illegal, now wouldn’t you?
Apologists for corporations makes me sick, at least you’re an inept one….
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
– John Kenneth Galbraith
“Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.”
– William Gladstone
I don’t believe we need to justify taking care of our needs. It is a basic right. Greed is good– to borrow a phrase.
Why do the telecoms need immunity? They are not seeking criminal immunity. They didn’t break any laws. They are seeking immunity from the blood suckers who want to shake them down without earning it. They shouldn’t be drug into civil court for a legal fishing expedition for doing what they were told.
If the government is wrong, sue them. This is not about justice. It is about people trying to get someone else’s money. It is about extortion under the cloak of civil liberties. The precedent that would be set would be chilling to any government investigation and terrifying to any business or charity. If you obey the government, you get sued, if you don’t, you get persecuted.
That is not a position we should put anyone in. Hold the government accountable not innocent parties.
So Telecoms are soldiers that “just do what they’re told”, huh?
I do agree that they should be in criminal courts and not civil, but it doesn’t mean the civil avenue is not proper – you just think that it’s not just because you’ve been trained to believe that all trial lawyers are scoundrels and the weak corporations need protection from the bad commies that want to suck their life-blood ($$$).
If you punish the Execs, but not the corporation itself, then how is that truly a deterrent from illegal activities, since the Execs can be easily replaced?
BTW, the telecoms are not innocent parties, they knew exactly what they were doing and what the repercussions would have been if they stood up to Bu$hCo. Go ask the former CEO of Quest, those who did not capitulate would not receive consideration for future government contracts, along with other “penalties”, such as “audits” and other trumped-up “violations”.
Simply put, the telecoms placed their economic interests ahead of the Constitution. But you’re not “OK” with an economic penalty for those transgressions, in fact, you’re advocating disregarding the law of the land for self-preservation. Selfishness indeed.
“Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.”
– William Gladstone
Except that Gladstone’s definition of “liberalism” is far different than the current definition that many on this site share. Classical Liberalism is actually much closer to libertarianism than it is to modern-day Liberalism. Contemporary liberalism is socialism.
Mike w – No more than modern conservatism is authoritianism. Oh wait…
And, David. The point is not to shake down the telecoms, it is to get to the responsible parties (in the government) through discovery.
If the will of the people want the government to implement something that may be defined as “socialism” then so be it.
We live in a democracy, not a stock exchange.
BTW – using your logic, Conservatives are Socialists too…given all those subsides and handouts they love to give to oil, ag, faith-based…etc.
Actually Von we live in a Constitutional Republic.