What is Digg?360 Comments
- lilbugleboy09, on 06/22/2008, -8/+125Someone should fight this, the concept of immunity for violating privacy never ceases to boggle me. What country do I live in again?
- MakiMaki, on 06/22/2008, -15/+127I like Obama, I really do but I honestly think retroactive immunity for telecoms is not the biggest problem here. It's the old frame of mind whereby being "strong" on national security means ignoring the constitution.
He could have taken the opportunity to explain why warrantless surveillance isn't completely necessary to protect Americans from the terrorists. Why its possible to do so without violating 4th Amendment protections. But he didn't.
For a Obama supporter, this is disappointing.
Glenn Greenward has a long and intelligent article on this issue:
http://digg.com/political_opinion/An_Honest_Look_a ...
FTA: "The very first line of Obama's official statement warns us that we face what he calls "grave threats," and that therefore, we must accept that our Leader needs more unlimited power, and the best we can do is trust that he will use it for our Good."
"It is absolutely false that the only unconstitutional and destructive provision of this "compromise" bill is the telecom amnesty part. It's true that most people working to defeat the Cheney/Rockefeller bill viewed opposition to telecom amnesty as the most politically potent way to defeat the bill, but the bill's expansion of warrantless eavesdropping powers vested in the President, and its evisceration of safeguards against abuses of those powers, is at least as long-lasting and destructive as the telecom amnesty provisions.
The bill legalizes many of the warrantless eavesdropping activities George Bush secretly and illegally ordered in 2001. Those warrantless eavesdropping powers violate core Fourth Amendment protections. And Barack Obama now supports all of it, and will vote it into law. Those are just facts." - ileftfark, on 06/22/2008, -11/+83I know this is a big talking point for Digg and other online communities in general, but we're missing the big picture here. Do I think the telecoms should be penalized for violating civil rights? ***** yes. Is doing so going to erase the damage that has been done? No. What's more important here is what FISA as a whole allows. The fact that Obama would pass the legislation at all (telecoms aside) is nothing less than a travesty. There's way too much in FISA to go into great detail, but Wikipedia has a decent analysis:
FISA is codified in 50 U.S.C. §§1801–1811, 1821–29, 1841–46, and 1861–62.[1] The subchapters of FISA provide for:
* Electronic Surveillance
* Physical Searches
* Pen Registers and Trap & Trace Devices for Foreign Intelligence Purposes
* Access to certain Business Records for Foreign Intelligence Purposes
The act created a court which meets in secret, and approves or denies requests for search warrants. Only the number of warrants applied for, issued and denied, is reported. In 1980 (the first full year after its inception), it approved 322 warrants.[2] This number has steadily grown to 2224 warrants[3] in 2006. In the period 1979-2006 a total of 22,990 applications for warrants were made to the Court of which 22,985 were approved (sometimes with modifications; or with the splitting up, or combining together, of warrants for legal purposes), and only 5 were definitively rejected.[4]
The fact that Obama would pass this (again, telecoms aside- that's not even the biggest issue anymore) is ***** scary. - Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 06/22/2008, -9/+72He supports the legislation, just not telecom immunity.
- etherreal, on 06/22/2008, -14/+76But said he would vote for it regardless. Thats a big FAIL in my book.
- GhostyBoy, on 06/22/2008, -87/+148What a ***** sell-out.
No help on impeachment either....at least we no where he stands when it actually matters. - DemonEyesBob, on 06/21/2008, -53/+113Come on people, digg this article in response to http://digg.com/politics/Obama_Supports_FISA_Legis ...
- Carl306, on 06/22/2008, -1/+45"The White House had threatened to veto any surveillance bill that did not also shield the companies."
Figures... - Aikidi, on 06/22/2008, -4/+44since when is defending our civil liberties being "soft on terrorism"?
the fact that any candidate would lose some footing for shooting this bill down (and they would) is ***** terrifying. - ironhide, on 06/22/2008, -36/+72You idiots do realise that FISA has been in effect for longer than half of the diggers have been alive right? Where are the civil rights violations you are screaming about? I'm waiting...........
- bjornski, on 06/22/2008, -13/+49Where's Ron Paul?
He didn't even bother to register a vote. - locojones, on 06/22/2008, -2/+36I'm sorry Obama, but there is no "compromise" when it comes to protecting the civil liberties of American citizens.
- pintomp3, on 06/22/2008, -3/+36he better put those words to action. his expressed support for the bill is outrageous.
- ZenMojo, on 06/22/2008, -9/+38Sell out? The whole argument was over telecom immunity and he said he's fighting it. The House actually imposed stricter regulations on FISA than were in there back in 1978 (for instance, instead of a "secret" FISA court overseeing things, a district court would), and traded it for telecom immunity. Now Obama's pledging to fight the telecom immunity.
People are just whining for the sake of whining. - TheImaginator, on 06/22/2008, -1/+29United States of America Inc/Ltd
- goodnrg, on 06/22/2008, -9/+37For one, the Bush administration violated FISA with its warrantless wiretapping program. Besides violating FISA, this program was a violation of the 4th amendment as well as an overreach of the Executive branch and an attempt to circumvent the separation of powers in the federal government. What they are discussing now is an amendment to FISA as it stands now, that you refer to, from the 70s.
- wreckosaurus, on 06/22/2008, -10/+37well I was gonna vote for him, but some guy on the internet gave me his guarantee
- mrgreg, on 06/22/2008, -16/+42Finally. I hope this helps people open their eyes at what a sham Obama's trying to pull.
I can't believe he says he'll "try" to get rid of the telecom immunity, but if it fails, he'll shrug his shoulders and vote for it anyways. Obama supporters, is this honestly what you believe is "Change?" - punkrawkintrev, on 06/22/2008, -13/+39For all of you that think the telcoms did this to protect America after 9/11 please note that this program was well underway before 9/11 as were the Bush Administration's plans to attack Iraq.
SHAME ON YOU BARACK
Listen to us and kill this thing on the floor of the senate before it kills the 4th amendment - DaDrake, on 06/22/2008, -26/+52This seems like Obama is trying to have his cake and eat it too. If you don't agree with the immunity, don't past the bill or show support for it in any form. Obviously, Obama was going with the party and was unwilling to distinguished himself as an individual.
- ambrosious, on 06/22/2008, -5/+30IT'S "KNOW" GOD DAMN IT
- singletask, on 06/22/2008, -8/+33http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/35731res200 ...
H.R. 6304, THE FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008 (6/19/2008)
The ACLU recommends a no vote on H.R. 6304, which grants sweeping wiretapping authority to the government with little court oversight and ensures the dismissal of all pending cases against the telecommunication companies. Most importantly:
• H.R. 6304 permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing.
• H.R. 6304 permits only minimal court oversight. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what or where will actually be tapped.
• H.R. 6304 contains a general ban on reverse targeting. However, it lacks stronger language that was contained in prior House bills that included clear statutory directives about when the government should return to the FISA court and obtain an individualized order if it wants to continue listening to a US person’s communications.
• H.R.6304 contains an “exigent” circumstance loophole that thwarts the prior judicial review requirement. The bill permits the government to start a spying program and wait to go to court for up to 7 days every time “intelligence important to the national security of the US may be lost or not timely acquired.” By definition, court applications take time and will delay the collection of information. It is highly unlikely there is a situation where this exception doesn’t swallow the rule.
• H.R. 6304 further trivializes court review by explicitly permitting the government to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever it gathered in the meantime.
• H.R. 6304 ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping programs over the last 7 years. The test in the bill is not whether the government certifications were actually legal – only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that they were, all the cases seeking to find out what these companies and the government did with our communications will be killed.
• Members of Congress not on Judiciary or Intelligence Committees are NOT guaranteed access to reports from the Attorney General, Director of National Intelligence, and Inspector General. - MarkJaquith, on 06/22/2008, -14/+38And by "fight" he means "fail at removing it from the bill, and then vote for the bill anyway." Obama supporters: that sinking feeling in your stomach isn't Hope, and it sure isn't Change.
- RedPhalanx, on 06/22/2008, -32/+55Looks like the Obama brigades finally arrived, anti-Obama comments are being dugg down en-mass.
A serious question for Obama supporters- If Obama fails to strip immunity, and votes for it anyway, what message will that send? - Polidave, on 06/22/2008, -7/+29 OK i was pissed at the level of fickleness earlier when people didn't "understand" what was going on after the first article. The diggers were roped into the game very easily, remember even small time bloggers hide the truth, the story was twisted to fit an agenda and some fell for it, then when Obama stands up and responds to people changing their minds on him over ONE issue out of several , he responds then everyone calls him a liar or a "politician". Excuse but is he not running for the highest office in the United States of America, does he have to win over the "majority" of the citizens, does he "understand how the system works, do we "assume" before we understand.
We always blame others before understanding that we the people are to blame, we elect those who choose, we decide how policy is made, we do not understand how our government works, that is why it fails that is why we are angry, to change the world we must make and effort America, so please before you yell and rant, try and understand the full story, its source, the atmosphere, an idea why one would choose to take such an action. We all say that we are tired of the same politics but we fall into the same patterns ourselves, we defect to the other side or to the "third" party in defiance to one wrong move.
Remember that no person is perfect and no person will completely reflect each and every one of your values, please understand that we are all humans and what these people are trying to do is to achieve a goal, now pick one whose goal is similar to yours and lets not be vindictive, in choosing who will represent our country on an international level, lets be rational, please. - sugarazor, on 06/22/2008, -1/+22Not really, arguing politics on Digg is pretty much the equivalent of arguing PS3 vs. Xbox 360.
- Ajajadude, on 06/22/2008, -12/+32No, I think he was against it the entire time: "Last February, when an earlier version of the FISA bill came to a vote, Obama voted for an amendment to strip the telecom immunity provision from the bill."
- Baldar, on 06/22/2008, -5/+25Wow.. way to go out on a limb. Why doesn't he vote against the whole thing, or at least the more offensive elements of it (although the whole bill is offensive). I'm more concerned about the part of it that says the government can listen to seven days of your phone calls in case of an "emergency". Granted, the telco immunity is disgusting too. Just if I had to pick my battles, it would be the seven day warrantless phone taps.
- UltraDavid, on 06/22/2008, -8/+28"Probably we can’t take [telecom immunity] out of the bill, but I’m going to try,” Reid told [doucheface].
Harry Reid: YOU ARE THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER! YOU DECIDE WHAT BILLS LOOK LIKE AND WHETHER THEY GET TO THE FLOOR! DO YOUR JOB, YOU SNIVELING PIECE OF *****! He is a weak, weak man.
Re Barack... this past week has really made me question my support for him. - monkeyrun, on 06/22/2008, -30/+50Oh come on Obamabots, is this the best you could spin this story?
- Pillage, on 06/22/2008, -7/+27Yea..but once he's president he'll like totally be like "ohh just playin' I'm be sending Bush to jail on a unicorn. Oh by the way I discovered unicorns just in case you didn't know." Just watch it'll happen.
- stinkymonkey, on 06/22/2008, -6/+26Everyone who loves Obama better start sending emails/calling etc..and let him know how you feel.
Do not support this bill!!!!!
http://obama.senate.gov/ - inactive, on 06/22/2008, -7/+26But even if he doesn't support IMMUNITY, he's still supports the idea of LEGALIZED GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE. I know it has been going on for decades, but it'd be nice for a politician to ask it to be illegal, but I guess that's just too hard even for Obama :(
- MortVent, on 06/22/2008, -1/+16The government always had the option of surveillance with a court order for wiretaps and digital data surveillance.
FISA just puts more of the checks and balances back into play. - HYPEractive, on 06/22/2008, -1/+15right... those damn democrats and THEIR Bush!!
- mbonzo531, on 06/22/2008, -28/+42I know everyone will jump on me for supporting Obama here but I'm not going to create some comment that everyone will agree upon so I can get dugg up. Just like all of the egofreaks above that are now hating on Obama in order to feel popular on the internet, Obama needs votes as well. There is little to no way to win over some of the independents and swing states without reaching for a few conservative issues. Unlike Ron Paul, Obama can't just speak what he feels because he actually has a chance of winning. No matter how much you want your perfect candidate to win, they won't because there is always someone out to twist what you say. Obama needs votes to make change, if that is truly his agenda. You won't know who you are voting for until they have power.
- banmaster, on 06/22/2008, -0/+13That hes a gutless lying coward for backing it in the 1st place and then saying otherwise to get a few votes?
- bjornski, on 06/22/2008, -1/+14McCain has missed SIXTY ONE percent of his votes?
Holy ***** - inactive, on 06/22/2008, -14/+26So could an obama support please let me know how this is any different than the whole "obama voted for the patriot act" thing? Because I see no difference here, in fact, I see a trend.
- crowbar77, on 06/22/2008, -1/+13So giving some justice to those 3000+ soldiers families is a waste of time?
- inactive, on 06/22/2008, -3/+15If you think Ron Paul was at the Montana GOP convention to raise money for the GOP, you are an ignorant fool.
- gradivus, on 06/22/2008, -5/+17Actually he got oversite provisions added to the patriot act and weakened some of it. If you cant kill a monster you sure as hell can hobble it. Its one of the reasons I am supporting him but the last few days he has been making some royal blunders about who and what his core supporters are and want.
- visviva99, on 06/22/2008, -6/+17My answer: that he is a strong, moderate politician who has what it takes to kick neocon ideologue ass all over Washington.
I sympathize with the outrage over this bill, but there are two things we don't need this year: a) a Democratic candidate who remains chained to his base and loses the center and the election, and b) an ideologue who sticks to his convictions no matter what. We need a leader who can reach across party lines and get things done. Does that mean he ends up being more like Bill Clinton than Dennis Kucinich? Yeah, and that's too bad, but anyone who read his book would have seen this coming a mile away. - michaelzhao, on 06/22/2008, -5/+16Before you Obamatards start bitching about Ron Paul missing votes... reality is a bitch...
Missed Vote Percentage:
Obama - 42.7% (253 votes missed)
McCain - 61.0% (361 votes missed)
Paul - 26.8% (429 votes missed)
'nuff said... - theaceoffire, on 06/22/2008, -2/+12So are republicans, communists, and socialists.
- jreinstedler, on 06/22/2008, -25/+35I don't believe this at all... it seems like Obama is jumping on all the hottest issues and says, "I'll fight it!"... Sorry dude, I don't believe you will. Focus on something and finish it... you're trying too hard and it's gonna bite you like it has every politician before you.
- duddy, on 06/22/2008, -3/+13Oh that's right, I forgot you non-conformist emos.
- inactive, on 06/22/2008, -1/+10Are you kidding? This bill would have the effect of STOPPING lawsuits and forcing both the lawyers who are sueing the telecoms AND the lawyers who are getting paid $$$ to defend them to go find other work. This is anything but good for lawyers, you horrendous moron.
- ironhide, on 06/22/2008, -9/+18yes and the only difference is the immunity for the telcos, which Obama said he would fight. Bush's violation of FISA is a seperate issue.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 363 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is