Obama: "under this important bill, the Prez' illegal warrantless surveillance program will be over."

[Leopolds Ghost]

Yes, because you'll have just legalized it, goddamn it!!!

"If we make it legal, we can control it and shape it, gradually to our
own ends, and for our own purpose. After all, we are the Wise, and the
power that has arisen in the East shall remember its friends"

This is exactly the reasoning Rockefeller, the original author of the bill used
back in 2006, when he said "legislation is needed to clarify whether what Bush did
was illegal or unconstitutional, and ensure it can be done legally in the future"
or words to that effect.

Obama:

"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool (warrantless collection and storage of all domestic communications) in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future."

In other words, Obama just overturned his promise to end the warrantless
domestic surveillance program which has just been legalized, ensuring that
LEGAL, warrantless domestic surveillance will remain a fixture of American society
under an Obama administration.

Which brings me back to what I was expecting had Hillary won:

http://recreate68.org
http://unconventionalaction.org

(Click on the Links)

[madfloridian]

1. They think we are stupid.

Too stupid to understand they are making stuff up.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Leopolds Ghost]

7. Hey, I didn't say action at the convention need be directed at Obama specifically.

They are all equally culpable now.

Heck, I'm not even advocating action at the convention -- just
reporting that it's probably inevitable because of this and the
war funding and enaction of the oil law supported by Obama and Kerry.

(They attacked Bush for not getting an Iraqi oil law and SOFA
enacted sooner to allow permanent bases to be reclassified as
over-the-horizon, um, leases for security contractors employed
by, um, Iraq, thereby honoring their contradictory promise to
keep some forces behind to protect "essential US interests in the
region" while eliminating permanent bases.)

The notion that the liberal wing of the party
won out on June 4 muddied up the waters a bit, true.
Had war hawk Hillary won the nomination, there would
definitely have been anti-war / pro-civil liberties protests.

Now there definitely will be again.

[johnlal]

3. This was a betrayal.

There was a short magical time between Senator Clinton's concession and today where I allowed myself to idealize our Democratic nominee. It was fun while it lasted. Of course I still support the guy. But this announcement has brought me back down to earth, and I realize it's a race between two politicians. Damn.

[sellitman]

4. Not good sportsfans.

Time to write another long winded letter.

[kentuck]

5. As if Bush would not do it if it were "against the law"?

When has that stopped him before??

[Leopolds Ghost]

10. The idea Rockefeller & Obama are advancing is to legalize it in a fashion that no law is breached.

Thus ensuring Bush can no longer break the law no matter what he does.

"My logic is unassailable. The Three Laws are perfect."

They can lead to only one outcome... Revolution.

But whose?

"That, my friend, is the right question."

[earth mom]

6. I wonder how many Obama supporters want their money back? nt

[TNOE]

9. Not me

He's all we got.

Big time pressure, threats, etc., have been put on. And its an election year - we CAN make things right again.

Baby steps for now until January, 2009.

[Leopolds Ghost]

12. But this is no baby step. This is a giant leap back for mankind

And Obama is pushing to vote for it, just as
Washington insiders predicted the Feb. vote
and the anti-NAFTA rhetoric by the candidates
was all for show, for "base consomption only"
by "otherwise sensible realists" who would be
"unelectable if they actually believed such
nonsense."

[BlueStater]

8. Give me a break

They might as well rip the Constitution up right now and wipe their asses with it because that's all it has been reduced to these past few years.

Fucking pathetic, traitorous, gutless worms. Everyone who voted for this travesty today should no longer be congressmen. In fact, they should no longer be Americans.

[TNOE]

13. Actually - that's already been done

which is why these bastards have to go. If its not corrected under Pres. Obama - well, then we may have bigger problems. But I don't think that will be the case. He is a Constitutional lawyer after all.

I think everybody just needs to take a deep breath here & hold on tight. AFter that - demand Pelosi's resignation, etc.

[Leopolds Ghost]

14. But Obama supports Pelosi.

The Blue Dog wing of the party has glued themselves to Obama
in order to triangulate between his "Reaganesque qualities"
and Pelosi's "my constituents think she's too liberal but
brings home the bacon".

They are trying for Party realignment, a reverse 1968 to
bring home all those Reagan Democrats to the NEW party
of security abroad and Toryism at home.

Doing so might destroy the Republicans by stealing their
old McKeinley/Rockefeller base, true. But only at the
cost of turning the Dems into the new party of Wilson &
McKinley... a center-right Obama administration that is
being infiltrated by Blue Dogs who have every intention
of using warrantless surveillance to further corporate
power, as they did in the Spitzer test case.

[stray cat]

11. Has anyone here actually read the entire bill and know what is really in it?

[tkmorris]

15. Yes

What point are you trying to make?

[leftofthedial]

16. It is them against us

[Ichingcarpenter]

17. Hillary's Statement!

?..................

[Leopolds Ghost]

19. It would be interesting to see Hillary come out to the left of Obama on this one.

What a mind-fuck.

[elehhhhna]

18. legislation is needed to clarify whether what Bush did was...constitutional

How can legislation clarify whether what Bush did was...constitutional?

Is that not a question for the courts?

[Leopolds Ghost]

20. Rockefeller's argument is tautological. Obama's argument is inane.

Rockefeller: "If we pass a law to retroactively legalize Bush's
crimes, it will help clarify whether Bush actually broke the law
and thereby establish that warrantless wiretapping may, in fact,
be constitutional... so long as the court has oversight."

(Hell, so long as they only do it to guys like Spitzer
who really fuck up and don't know who their enemies are.)


Obama: (much simpler) "If we pass a law to legalize bush's crimes,
then the era of Bush doing these things illegally will be over."

[Leopolds Ghost]

24. Besides, the law says we're not allowed to ask the court to review the constitutionality

If the defendant can produce a permission slip from an "intelligence director".

Doesn't that overturn Marbury vs. Madison and replace it with the Enabling Act?

[Leopolds Ghost]

21. I really was hoping most of the protest activity would be in Minneapolis this year.

Less hurt feelings amongst the center right Dems.

[mdohoney]

22. Obama a Corporatist Demo?

Has Barrack finally shown the degree that he is a corporatist politician?

Barrack certainly has shown disrespect for the rule of law by allowing the telecoms escape from meeting their obligations before the bar of justice.

In supporting this legislation, Barrack gives in to the idea that citizens can be spied on without judicial oversight which amounts to a violation of oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. In fact, in supporting this legislation, Barrack and all legislators who vote for it, become domestic enemies of the constitution which is out and out treason.

Just my opinion

[Leopolds Ghost]

23. And yet Dems on this very blog insist anyone protesting in either Mpls. or Denver is treason

Or a GOP spy, because the "choice before us has never been more crystal
clear" between Hindenburg (DLC Dems) and Hitler, and "never before has
there been more demand for discipline on the left to get Obama elected."

[dflprincess]

25. Which makes me wonder what Obama will use as an oath

should he win this November. He sure can't promise to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution when he's already made it clear he won't.

For a while I had hope I was wrong about him and how much a DINO he is, I hadn't expected him to show his true colors so soon. Maybe the delegates to the Denver convention will rebel and nominate a Democrat to run as our candidate (and I do NOT mean Clinton).

[THX1138]

26. His statement was weak

But I'm willing to cut him a LOT more slack over the Democrats who actually voted and advocated for this POS immunity "compromise". I think they should feel the full effect of our displeasure IMO. And there is a special place in hell for the ones who hold safe blue seats.