I still trust Obama to be a major force for civil liberties and reversing some of the atrocious behavior by the executive branch...

The next person on this board to provide a concrete reason for such trust will be the first person to do so.

Unchecked power, once acquired by a human being, does not tend to be voluntarily surrendered out of the kindness of said human being's heart. Not even when that human being is Barack Obama.

"Obama is smart politically with this issue: appealing to the still-afraid voter who would sacrifice their civil liberties for the illusion of safety, and pissing off the smarter, more conscious voter who will still vote for him anyway."

And so disappears the heady promise of a new style of politics. So returns triangulation. Hello darkness my old friend.

Oh well. I can speak only for myself, of course, but I can say that anyone who actively facilitates the sh*t-canning of the 4th Amendment I will *not* "still vote for anyway." Not for President. Not for Congress. Not for dogcatcher.

In the larger sense, on the question as to whether or not this was a politically smart move on Obama's part, my gut happens to say no. My gut says that this reversal will cost Obama a not-insignificant portion of his greatest political asset: the energy and enthusiasm of his progressive supporters. I think the number of eager liberals willing to spend untold volunteer hours knocking on doors and dialing their phones for the guy has taken a good-sized hit. Now maybe he doesn't care about that so much at this point. Maybe, for him, it'll be all about media buys and glossy mailers. Fine, I suppose, but that, to me, means the Obama campaign will be proceeding at a sub-optimal level, and will incur an increased potential for defeat in November.

I know *I* ain't traveling to no swing state for door-knocking this autumn (something I *did* do in November of '04).

Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA

Posted at June 26, 2008 12:25 AM in response to Obama On FISA: Telecom Immunity Issue Doesn't Override National Security

"I would say this bill marks the downfall of the American republic. Now emerges the Empire. But I am still voting for Obama. What's the alternative?"

Voting for the candidate who most closely represents your values and beliefs. If it's Obama, vote Obama. If it's someone else, vote someone else.

All voting for candidates who *don't* represent your values and beliefs does is incentivize political candidates to run on a platform of values and beliefs other than yours. And then things like today happen.

When politicians determine that they can betray your interests and still get your vote, they will--as sure as the day is long--betray your interests. And then things like today happen.

Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA

Posted at June 25, 2008 11:58 PM in response to Obama On FISA: Telecom Immunity Issue Doesn't Override National Security

But this legislation is only one small issue on a front of such issues that has concurrent lawsuits, and criminal investigations, and unanswered subpoenas, and so forth, going all over the country.

Here's where you and I disagree: I do not consider this to be "one small issue." This isn't an Amtrak subsidy. It's not the farm bill.

It's the 4th frickin' Amendment. The right to privacy against warrantless snooping by the government.

I'm in the middle of Taylor Branch's super-awesome trilogy about America during the MLK years (1954-'68). Almost every page contains a living cautionary tale on the hazards of granting the Executive Branch the right to eavesdrop on American citizens with impunity. As is now widely known, MLK's telephones were tapped, his hotel rooms were bugged, his meetings infiltrated by federal agents working on behalf of American presidents of both political parties. The purpose of this surveillance was not to acquire evidence with which to build a criminal case against King, nor was the purpose of the surveillance to acquire intelligence with which to defend against any legitimate national threat posed by King. The purpose of the surveillance was to monitor legitimate political activity (and, wherever possible, to obstruct and/or discredit that activity by disseminating gossip acquired via said surveillance.)

And it was all perfectly legal, because our nation, at the time, didn't have the very thing that Obama (et al) are in the midst of gutting: the 1978 FISA law which declared (via broad, bi-partisan mandate in the wake of Watergate) that any electronic surveillance the Executive may wish to conduct must be cleared through the Judiciary, via an individual, separate warrant. The law wasn't about protecting liberals. It wasn't about protecting conservatives. It was about protecting Americans from governmental lawlessness.

Well, when the Senate passes the bill it's almost certainly about to pass, FISA (in the way that we know it) will be dead. Unfettered Executive surveillance of legitimate American political activity without judicial restraint can, for all intents and purposes, begin anew. Just like it did during the MLK years.

Somewhere out there, J. Edgar Hoover is laughing his ass off. Great for him. For the rest of us, it's an American tragedy, and it is NOT "only one small issue."

As for your touching faith that this is an issue that Obama will have the ability and inclination to "remedy later"... I wish you could give me the tiniest reason to expect it from him. He's no saint, we all agree, and saintliness is basically what it would require for an American politician to endeavor to strip himself of power and authority. He's certainly talking nice talk about "accountability" and "watching the watchers," but then he was talking nice talk for the past 10 months about opposing any FISA bill which contains retroactive immunity. We saw what happened there. So then, he was lying to us before with regard to this issue, but I should trust that he's being truthful now with regard to this issue?

Y'know, I guess I'm fresh out of trust on this one.

Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA

Posted at June 25, 2008 11:53 PM in response to Obama On FISA: Telecom Immunity Issue Doesn't Override National Security

"p.s. a bill is a bill. It is not a constitutional ammendment. Why hyperventilate about something that can just as easily be overturned in the next bill, or by the courts?"

Constitutional protections are at their greatest legal strength when backed by affirmative legislation. No one bothers disputing that the Bush Administration's wiretapping program is in violation of federal law and flies in the face of 4th Amendment protections, but the same conduct likely would've passed legal muster in the 1950's or 60's (when the Executive Branch carried out similar wiretapping regimes against political opponents without any warrant or court order). The 4th Amendment, of course, is no different now than in the 1950's. So what is? The presence of affirmative legislation: FISA, passed in 1978, which declares that electronic surveillance may only be conducted against Americans with a specific and individualized warrant, and which, by its very existence, effectively buttresses the 4th Amendment's warrant requirements. It required an amazing series of circumstances to bring such limiting legislation into effect. Notably, it required an American president getting caught wiretapping political opponents and then tape-recording himself as he planned the cover-up, resulting in his resignation from office. We will likely never see such circumstances again in our lifetimes, and thus will likely never be able to replicate the political environment necessary to force our government to pass a law (such as FISA) which so greatly reigns in its own power and authority.

Doubly sad, then, that what Obama (et al) are doing as we type is, in effect, nullifying FISA. This bill they're about to pass allows the Executive to listen in on absolutely any phone transmission or email that crosses a federal border. No warrant. No probable cause. No need to justify it to no one. The Executive can simply tap those transmissions whenever they decide to. Just like it could in the 1950's and 60's before the never-to-be-repeated Watergate scandal which brought down a presidency.

Constitution or no, this piece of bilge that Obama (et al) are in the midst of passing not only eradicates vital affirmative legislation barring warrantless surveillance, it creates affirmative legislation *allowing* warrantless surveillance. As such, this bill sets the 4th Amendment's protections at its lowest ebb, and rolls our civil liberties back 30 years or more. Truly, we'll probably never undo what is currently being done.

So, no, it really isn't much of an exaggeration to declare that this bill, for all intents and purposes, amounts to a revocation of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

If that isn't worth hyperventilating about, what in the world is?

Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA

Posted at June 25, 2008 11:30 PM in response to Obama On FISA: Telecom Immunity Issue Doesn't Override National Security

I don't think it's that black and white. I ain't happy with his position, but I'm yet to find a candidate who's 100% in allignment with all my positions or preferences.

a) When someone tells you that they will do one thing (in this case, oppose any bill which contains retroactive immunity for telecoms which violated federal law by spying on Americans without a warrant) and then that person purposely does the exact opposite (in this case, *supports* a bill which contains retroactive immunity for telecoms which violated federal law by spying on Americans without a warrant), it means that that person lied to you. It's precisely that black and white.

b) I, too, have yet to find a candidate who's 100% in alignment with all my positions or preferences. But I rank some of my preferences higher than others. The 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights (i.e., the assurance that the government won't listen to my phone calls or read my messages without a valid warrant from a judge), I rank that pretty high. Not being lied to when a vote is wanted and then being being betrayed for crass political expediency after the vote is given... I rank that pretty high as well.

But I recognize that we all look for different things in a candidate, so... vive le difference.

Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA

Posted at June 25, 2008 10:41 PM in response to Obama On FISA: Telecom Immunity Issue Doesn't Override National Security

There's more at stake riding here than a temporary and I do mean temporary setback on the legislation before the Senate... Timing is everything in the great battle being fought and we can leave islands of opposition behind us while we seize the prize... Then we go back and tidy up."

I'm sure that's intended to be palliative, but it's very vague. Are you suggesting there's a snowball's chance in hell of President Obama and the next Congress mysteriously and magically opting to repeal the law they're currently about to enact?

Can you name for me some precedents of elected leaders supporting massive roll-backs of their own power and authority? Quite frankly, there's a greater chance of us all waking up in Candy Land tomorrow than there is of an elected politician such as President Obama fighting to scale back the power he voted to vest in the office just a few months prior (to say nothing of the Congress which, of course, just voted 80-12 to close cloture on this bill... what possible reason do we have to believe that they would suddenly, and for no cause, reverse themselves in such a fashion?)

God love your faith in the decency and virtue of this nominee and this Congress. Our founding fathers, similarly, hoped that any elected official to take American office would happen to be wise and virtuous. But they were also smart enough to realize that humans are corruptible, and so they crafted a government of laws, not men. So that we wouldn't have to trust that a human granted unchecked executive power would refrain from abusing said unchecked executive power, and would in fact magnanimously opt to relinquish said unchecked executive power at the first convenient opportunity... despite the fact that that human had voted to grant such unchecked executive power just months earlier. Our founding fathers didn't believe that human beings, vested with power, tend to behave the way that you appear to believe that Barack Obama, vested with power, will behave, and they attempted to construct our republic accordingly. I think they were wise to do so back then, and I think that we, today, are in the process of committing an incalculably foolish act, one that will likely not be undone in our lifetimes. I'll bet you a Coke on that. Make that a Coke with an extra helping of hope and audacity.

Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA

Posted at June 25, 2008 10:31 PM in response to Obama On FISA: Telecom Immunity Issue Doesn't Override National Security

"I think he sees his mission more as a mediator over quarreling opponents trying to help them find common ground rather than just a champion for one side's cause."

This bill does not represent common ground. It represents a complete and total capitulation to the GOP... a practical twin to the bill that Hastert tried, without success, to pass in the previous (Republican-controlled) Congress. If utter surrender to the Republican Party is Barack Obama's notion of mediation, he certainly have said so over the past several months, during the primary season.

Furthermore, his current support for this bill represents an absolute betrayal of his earlier stance with regard to this bill, and for no specifically-articulated reason ("the bill has changed" is not, in and of itself, a specifically-articulated reason). This is not an example of Barack Obama applying "crystal clear logic." This is an example of Barack Obama lying to our faces during the Democratic Primary (when our opinion of him was of import, and the ballots in our respective hands gave us the power to determine his political fate), and completing the switch once the nomination was safely within his grasp. You call that leadership. I call it cowardice and deceit.

"Obama has said this was a close call for him and that he will still work to remove the immunity, but at the same time, there's a tremendous amount of work to be done and we have to identify what's really important and move on."

I think the 4th Amendment is "really important." If you do not, I suggest that you vote for Barack Obama, as that appears to be something about which you and he are in agreement.

Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA

Posted at June 25, 2008 10:19 PM in response to Obama On FISA: Telecom Immunity Issue Doesn't Override National Security

I'm confused, I guess, about how I feel. Should I feel betrayed?

That depends, do you normally feel betrayed when someone lies directly to your face? If yes, then yes.

Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA

Posted at June 25, 2008 10:00 PM in response to Obama On FISA: Telecom Immunity Issue Doesn't Override National Security

I'd not thought about it before, but upon consideration, I'd really have to join you in your doubts.

Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA

Posted at June 25, 2008 9:57 PM in response to Obama On FISA: Telecom Immunity Issue Doesn't Override National Security

Let the 4th Amendment go. Check.

Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA

Posted at June 25, 2008 9:55 PM in response to Obama On FISA: Telecom Immunity Issue Doesn't Override National Security