Obama needs to understand there is no downside in defending Constitution...

[kentuck]

If it was only about politics and nothing else, it would be a winning issue. There is no need to fear any backlash from defending the Constitution.

That is why so many Democrats oppose Senator Obama's proposed support for the FISA bill, which would let the telecoms off the hook for any illegal activities, such as spying on Americans at the request of the White House. Worse still, it would also let the White House off the hook, as well.

But, there is no need to fear any political retribution so long as we stand behind the Constitution. That is the right thing to do. The people, Democrats and Republicans and Independents, will support those politicians that strongly defend our Constitution. Hopefully, Senator Obama will see the political weakness involved in defending the FISA bill. If it does not pass, it will not make us more vulnerable. That is a strawman argument.

[Buzz Clik]

1. Nearly 800 threads started on this topic.

It's not the same level of disruption as the Jeremiah Wright overkill, but it' pretty impressive.

Thank you for contributing.

[Mike Nelson]

2. It's a sign we're going to let the Bush crimes go...

unpunished...

:(

[TBF]

3. Kentuck, I agree with you, but I can see Obama's point of view as well -

He is probably hoping like mad that other senators will stand up against the bill so he can keep his record strong on defense and win the general. He's going to win the general anyway in my view (the price of gas alone ensures that), but I'm pretty sure that's why he's decided to vote against it.

[kentuck]

4. I agree...

That Obama does not want it used against him as a political issue. He does not want to be called "weak on defense". He does not want to be burdened with voting with the minority on this issue. However, the majority is not always right. This is one of those times.

[TBF]

7. Maybe with so many standing up against FISA it will convince him

to do the right thing.

[Bake]

21. Makes me wonder how he would have voted on the IWR

If he had actually had to VOTE on it. Keeping that record "strong on defense" and all.

Bake

[kentuck]

22. It would have depended on whether he had decided to run for the Presidency...

I think all the Democrats that had decided to run for the Office, including John Kerry and John Edwards, voted for the initial Use of Force proclamation passed by Congress? In 2001, I don't think he had decided to run for the Presidency when he first came out against the invasion and the vote to allow the President to use force if he deemed it necessary? Just my opinion...

[Bake]

24. I think you're probably right.

Certainly HRC had designs on the White House at that point.

Bake

[eridani]

40. Undermining the Constitution is "weak on defense"? How, exactly?

The spying started well before 9/11 and was directed towards domestic targets. It did not prevent 9/11--why would it prevent anything else?

[NJmaverick]

5. What YOU need to understand is that Obama is trying to WIN an election

Which would be far more useful than your point.

[kentuck]

8. I understand that.

I am simply saying that it would not be a political liability if he defended the Constitution. As it is, he is playing it safe and voting with the majority.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. He is defending the Constitution.

His support of the bill says "the way Bush did things stops NOW". This bill restores FISA to what it was before Bush got ahold of it.

What you are talking about is retribution, by civil suit, on the telecoms. Which are still liable for criminal, if not civil, litigation.

After the way the government treated Qwest for not going along with the program, it is not surprising that the others complied. If a bank robber holds a gun to the teller's head and demands money, do we charge the teller with theft after he took the money from the drawer?

This bill ends the abuses and promises no further abuses, while declining to allow civil suits that will cripple the telecom industry for past infractions.

Seems a fair compromise to me.

[kentuck]

25. You make a good argument.

:-)

[TBF]

9. You really don't need to shout

Everyone understands what is going on, and everyone does not agree. It doesn't mean we don't support the man. I put my hours of phone-banking and walking door to door for Obama up against anyone's. We're just expressing an opinion on the issue.

[NJmaverick]

11. It's rather silly to work so hard to get the man elected

only to then turn around and undo your work by failing to show solid public support.

[TBF]

12. I don't give anyone blanket immunity - and neither should Obama.

We are not republicans in that we actually think about the issues when they arise.

[NJmaverick]

16. If you think you would realize that everything takes a back seat

to Obama getting elected. With out the Presidency all his ideas, positions and everything else is meaningless.

[TBF]

27. Nobody is saying we shouldn't elect the guy; but it is hardly meaningless

to actually discuss issues. Unless you are a republican - they don't like to discuss issues either.

[merh]

18. Please provide me with the provision from the proposed

legislation that gives anyone any type of immunity, let alone that provides for blanket immunity whether that immunity be civil or criminal.

I don't think you will be able to comply as there is no provision in the bill that does that.

[TBF]

26. Sure - I'm happy to provide the text of the bill for you (I added the bolding)

The source is the bill itself, which you can pull up on the Library of Congress website: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:17:./temp/~c110UPn3jF:e100777:

H.R.6304

TITLE II--PROTECTIONS FOR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS

SEC. 201. PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING STATUTORY DEFENSES UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), as amended by section 101, is further amended by adding at the end the following new title:

TITLE VIII--PROTECTION OF PERSONS ASSISTING THE GOVERNMENT

SEC. 802. PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING STATUTORY DEFENSES.

`(a) Requirement for Certification- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be promptly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that--

`(1) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to an order of the court established under section 103(a) directing such assistance;

`(2) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a certification in writing under section 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) or 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code;

`(3) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a directive under section 102(a)(4), 105B(e), as added by section 2 of the Protect America Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-55), or 702(h) directing such assistance;

`(4) in the case of a covered civil action, the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was--

`(A) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was--

`(i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and

`(ii) designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States; and

`(B) the subject of a written request or directive, or a series of written requests or directives, from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was--

`(i) authorized by the President; and

`(ii) determined to be lawful; or

`(5) the person did not provide the alleged assistance.

[merh]

31. See this

`(ii) determined to be lawful; or

IT HAS TO BE DETERMINED TO BE LAWFUL. How do you determine electronic surveillance is lawful if it violates the 4th amendment rights of a collection of US citizens? Well, you can't and if you certified it was lawful, the court would review the certification upon their own initiative or at the request of the plaintiffs, to determine that the probable cause existed for the entire class of US citizen - plaintiffs - whose electronic communications were monitored. The AG has to prove that the citizens 1st and 4th amendment rights were not violated, along with the other standards as set out in the legislation.

THAT AIN'T IMMUNITY - as the provision is titled "statutory defenses", the defenses can be raised (as can any defense outlined in Rule 12 of the Civili Rules of Procedure, as can the defense of sovereign immunity, as can the defense of "state's secrets") but raising a defense alone does not absolve the telecoms from immunity, anymore than the certification of the AG to those defenses. The certification related to the defenses is subject to review, the court has to determine that the defenses are justified and protect the telecoms, thus the civil litigation lives on. Further, should the case be dismissed that dismissal is subject to further review upon appeal. They can't even hide behind "state's secrets" the court is entitled to all information to make a call and not all of it will be required to be provided in camera.

Like I said, there is NO BLANKET IMMUNITY.

[TBF]

35. Ok, blanket immunity may be an exaggeration - but it does give their defense

lawyers an out to work with, don't you think?

I think this is about 9/11 - BushCo does not want the telecoms to be served with subpoenas for documents that could indicate what they knew PRIOR to 9/11. The telecoms themselves should not be blamed for complicity because they were forced into this by BushCo, but I do believe they may have evidence that could be damaging to this administration.

[merh]

36. Those defenses exist as it is.

Go read up on sovereign immunity - to a degree, the telecoms are alleging they are an arm of the government, what they did was by directive of the government and they were quasi agents - they can claim the defenses but this law requires that the certification provide certainties, specifics and it allows for the review. You can bet your bottom dollar that the certifications will be reviewed.

I believe they have damaging evidence against this admin too, they will use it when the admin is gone and no longer a threat to them. That lawful part will be interesting don't you think?

[TBF]

37. Thank you - and I will read on sovereign immunity. This is why I like

the ability to discuss things. I always learn new things, and can consider all the facts.

[merh]

38. thank you for discussing this with me

it was refreshing to be able to discuss it as we did.

[jgraz]

39. And exactly what constituency wants him to cave on FISA?

How many votes does this win him? How many young people are going to be motivated by this vote? How many independents are going to suddenly realize that Obama is the new and different candidate of CHANGE and HOPE because he votes for this abortion of a bill?

People keep saying he's trying to WIN an election, but I don't really see how shit like this wins him anything. It didn't work for Kerry, it didn't work for Gore or Dukakis and it ultimately failed with Clinton. And on and on and on.

Three out of ten. Three out of ten. That's how many presidential elections we've won in the past 40 years. Still think we should stick with the conventional "run to the center" strategy?

[eridani]

41. You don't win by being a wuss. Independents and apathetics don't respect wusses n/t

[MarjorieG]

6. If this issue didn't come up, another would have to. This party loves discontent and eating its own.

[merh]

10. The FISA law doesn't do that.

Hell, if you followed the discussion in your other thread you might know that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3570855

Since you say it with such conviction I will ask you to provide me the provision that gives immunity to anyone.

Oh, and while you are reading it to find the provision, please take notice how the bill specifically states that no monitoring can be done of any US citizen without full compliance with the 4th amendment, which requires probable cause before the warrant/order is issued.

Also notice how the bill cares so much about the constitutional rights of the citizens of this nation that it specifically says that folks 1st amendment rights shall not be abridged and membership in organizations alone shall not be legitimate grounds for monitoring.

Oh and notice that it says that no defense appplies in civil litigation if the law was broken.


thanks in advance.

[kentuck]

13. But does anyone truly believe there will be prosecutions...

or even investigations after this bill is passed? Does anyone think it will stop Bush from continuing what he has done up to this point until he leaves office? And how far do you think this "civil litigation" will go? I have read the arguments but I don't believe them. We shall see. I will not withhold my vote but I still say, that voting against the FISA would not harm Obama politically.

[merh]

17. There is no bill that can be written that will stop GWB.

The existing FISA law did not allow the monitoring they did, he ignored the FISA courts and ordered it be done because he wanted it done. Then of course there was the PPA and as Obama has stated, the FISA law is far better than allowing the pres to rely on that.

IMHO, what the existing FISA law and the proposed legislation does is provide laws that must be followed when monitoring US citizens under the guise of national security - to prevent or capture or detect spying. Thus, it provides for laws that can be broken which negate the basic defense afforded all governmental agencies (and quasi agents, like the telecoms, working under the direction of the president) that defense being sovereign immunity.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s103.htm
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/sovereign_immunity

In all actions involving governmental actions, government agencies, the defendants will raise the issue of sovereign immunity. That defense will not protect them from the litigation if it is shown that their actions were illegal, if their actions violated the civil rights of others.

I have read where both Greenwald and the ACLU claim no probable cause is required but that is in total conflict to the language of the bill. It requires that the 4th amendment be fully complied with when ordering the monitoring of US citizens at home and abroad. The 4th amendment requires probable cause. They also claim there is no review of the certification that relates to the statutory defenses and that what the AG says goes, not questions asked - that is blatantly false.

Hell, this bill even states that no persons 1st amendment rights be infringed upon, and no one notes that, no one sees how important that provision is. That means that just because a person has exercised his first amendment rights by being a member of some organization or attending peace/anti-war rallies that person is not subject to the monitoring, that the membership alone or exercise of the 1st amendment rights does not equal requisite probable cause. That is one important provision that folks are overlooking.

No United States person may be considered a foreign power, agent of a foreign power, or officer or employee of a foreign power solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Relative to criminal actions - the president doesn't need FISA to pardon all involved.

The only way to hold "them" responsible is to get a dem in office who will conduct the investigations and who will protect our rights. Obama knows the rule of law, respects the rule of law and cherishes the constitution, he has said he will investigate the alleged crimes of this administration. We need to get him in office and hold him to that.

FISA has come up now in an effort to peck away at the perceive weaknesses of all dem candidates, not just Obama. That is that dems are weak on national defense and soft on terrorists. To vote against the "spy law" plays into their hands, that is what they want him to do. Now they have the added bonus of trapping him between a rock and a hard place. Because of the extreme statements related to FISA, that to support it is to be against the constitution, they get to have their cake and eat it too. Posts like your OP proves that. It is a mischaracterization to say that he doesn't care about our constitutional rights simply because he finds this FISA legislation better than nothing.

[Skip Intro]

19. I guess Feingold and Dodd and the ACLU are just confused. It's a beautiful bill!

Maybe we ought to contact those silly gooses and tell 'em to chill out?

[merh]

29. Oh, what's wrong, can no one disagree with dems?

Feingold and Dodd want their amendments passed and well they should, they are better than what is proposed. Being better does not make this bill the violation of civil rights that folks claim it is. Hell, I even disagree with Obama on this one, I don't see the immunity folks claim it provides.

I'm a whacky sort, I tend to think for myself and I like to read the legislation before coming to conclusions about how bad it is. Sure, I could sit on my rear end and share the outrage but I hate being outraged unnecessarily, life is too short for that and the real problems of the world far too big to get caught up in faux outrage. You know, if you actually used some critical thinking, if you actually read it for yourself you might even see that what I have said is true.

[TBF]

30. Rather than insulting fellow dems, why not realize that they may interpret

the language differently? Do you really think you're that much smarter than everyone else here?

[merh]

33. LOL

I can read the bill and don't rely on the words of others to tell me what it says.

I have not alleged I am smarter, maybe more curious and definitely have a bit more experience in the practical aspect of things like this, but hardly smarter.

Oh and that poster was trying to be nasty to me, I just snarked back. You can play net nanny all you like but I don't think that poster needs your help.

[TBF]

32. So we can criticize other dems but not Obama? Just want to make sure

I'm keeping up because I know I'm not nearly as smart as you.

[merh]

34. I did criticize Obama

:rofl:

I said I disagree with him too - if disagreeing with Dodd and Feingold is criticizing them :rofl:

[Occam Bandage]

14. Know what we need on this? More threads. One for every thought that pops into everyone's head,

no matter how inane or unoriginal it is.

Edit: Also, this applies to everyone on DU: Use the term "strawman" more. Even if you don't know what it means. Especially if you don't know what it means.

[IndianaGreen]

15. The Presidential Oath of Office is to defend and protect the Constitution

The current occupant of the White House has done everything to undermine the one document that has kept us free from tyranny for over two centuries.

[NashVegas]

20. That Darn Loony Left

What's their problem, to care about such things as the Bill of Rights?

[TBF]

28. They're obviously "morans" -

We should let GWB off the hook and grant the telecoms their "out clause" because then we'll never be able to sue them, serve discovery, and find out exactly what kind of intelligence was out there PRIOR to 9/11. Because that is unpatriotic and we can't think about 2 things at once.

Whatever.