What is Digg?167 Comments
- BobbyVan, on 07/09/2008, -5/+57Shamefully, Sen. Barack Obama is giving cover to Democrats on this issue. His craven decision to support FISA (after saying he would support a filibuster that granted telecoms immunity) has killed chances of stopping this bill. We should focus 100% on attacking Obama for his FISA position. If Obama starts to see someone like Nader gaining support, that would pull Obama back to the left, where he belongs. That's the only thing that can save the bill, and our civil liberties.
I can't believe I fell for Obama's crap. I'm sick of allowing myself to be fooled by politicians. - OC73, on 07/09/2008, -5/+51Yes, punish Obama.
- inactive, on 07/08/2008, -11/+50Democrats FOR wiretapping? I thought this was only for republican! Slowly, US is losing its freedom and privacy rights... And yet most of the people do nothing. It's nice to finally see a change.
- jbenson2, on 07/09/2008, -6/+43What? No mention of the Junior Senator from Illinois caving to President Bush?
The media must have made a simple mistake when they overlooked the Messiah. - Stevanoski, on 07/08/2008, -5/+33As they should be.
- InetRoadkill, on 07/09/2008, -7/+31As pointed out in another blog, what's going to happen is that all of the GOP will vote for FISA and a few democrats will vote for it as well insuring passage of the bill. The majority of the democrats will vote against it and claim they were defending the Constitution by doing so and as such claim they shouldn't be held responsible for the bill's passage since they'll be on record as voting against it. *****.
The real test was when the cloture vote was held to sustain the filibuster that would have stopped this bill in its tracks. The vast majority of democrats voted to kill the filibuster, thus insuring the bill's passage and revealing their contempt for the 4th amendment and the rule of law.
Tomorrow's vote is mostly a technicality at this point. The real vote occurred when the cloture vote was held. Look to see who voted for cloture. The ones who did so have no respect for the Constitution. - kjizzle, on 07/09/2008, -3/+24Oooohhh bloggers. They're really in for it now.
- Stevanoski, on 07/09/2008, -3/+23Oh there are plenty of Democrats too, but you don't want to have them removed for their conflict of interest. Shows you are more concerned about politics than freedoms.
- hamobu, on 07/09/2008, -7/+24The only way to punish democrats is to vote for someone else. Democrats need to vote for greens, even if that means higher likelihood of republicans winning. Without credible threat of loosing votes, democrats will slowly drift to the right.
Same is true of republicans, only from the other direction. - relic180, on 07/09/2008, -8/+25It's important to remember that the Dems and Repubs are not really two seperate parties, and when it comes to saving the asses of their big corporate bosses they both have only one thing on their minds. You can bet that it doesn't involve protecting the constitutional rights of their constituents.
- dan.stryker, on 07/09/2008, -6/+20Vote obama down, that traitor!
- thedarkwolf, on 07/09/2008, -2/+15whatever he supports he has still come out in favor of these FISA provisions that authorize warrantless wiretaps and give immunity to telecoms for breaking the law. He can say anything he likes about his reasonable positions, but unless he can act on his words they are meaningless.
- loganro, on 07/09/2008, -6/+19Obama is a horrible, horrible person..I agree with you.
"I can't believe I fell for Obama's crap." That is the problem. Too many people are giving in to every word this disgusting individual says. Maybe, in the near future, people will realize they are making a huge mistake by supporting disgrace to our great country. - ericjohnson0, on 07/09/2008, -3/+15Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com: "In the past 24 hours, specifically beginning with the moment Barack Obama announced that he now supports the Cheney/Rockefeller/Hoyer House bill, there have magically arisen -- in places where one would never have expected to find them -- all sorts of claims about why this FISA "compromise" isn't really so bad after all. People who spent the week railing against Steny Hoyer as an evil, craven enabler of the Bush administration -- or who spent the last several months identically railing against Jay Rockefeller -- suddenly changed their minds completely when Barack Obama announced that he would do the same thing as they did. What had been a vicious assault on our Constitution, and corrupt complicity to conceal Bush lawbreaking, magically and instantaneously transformed into a perfectly understandable position, even a shrewd and commendable decision, that we should not only accept, but be grateful for as undertaken by Obama for our Own Good."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/21/ ... - thegreenspanput, on 07/09/2008, -0/+12people used to have a fit when I said "Obama is one of them".
- yammosk, on 07/09/2008, -0/+12I'm guessing the reason he said that was because of Obama's failure to vote for the filibuster, especially after pledging to do so.
- vexingmodstwo, on 07/09/2008, -1/+13Um... Maybe I'm misreading your comment but are you under the impression that members of Congress are part of the Bush administration?
- Jadinlee, on 07/09/2008, -1/+13While I support Obama in almost every way, I cannot overlook his support of the FISA bill. Unless "I" take a stand on principle, I am no better than what I criticize. Therefore, I will no longer vote for Obama if he supports this bill. In my mind, that one act violates his oath of office. There's no way I'm voting for McCain... but neither can I vote for a candidate who has already proven his inability to defend our constitution.
- BobbyVan, on 07/09/2008, -2/+14This bill allows the President to grab all incoming and outgoing international communications without a warrant.
The ACLU says it represents “an unprecedented extension of governmental surveillance over Americans.”
Obama, sounding on Friday a lot like Bush, said: “Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay.”
Here’s what Bush said the same day as Obama: The bill “allows our intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor the plans of terrorists abroad, while protecting the liberties of Americans here at home.”
But it doesn’t protect our liberties, and Obama ought to know that.
http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx0602408 - OneLife33, on 07/09/2008, -10/+21I just pledged. I believe the title on Digg is incorrect because the website doesn't signle out Dems or Repubs, just "key enablers".
We need more cooperation from so called "right - wingers" and "liberals". When it comes down to it we are all AMERICANS and have a vested interest in protecting our rights and liberties. This FISA issue is just one example where everyone who knows about this needs to join-up - it is so easy to participate now. - Pittance, on 07/09/2008, -10/+21How about we punish ANYONE who supports an unconstitutional bill? Or do republicans get the green light to give the finger to the founding fathers?
- BobbyVan, on 07/09/2008, -0/+10Who decides "reasonable cause"??? Not a judge. That's the problem. There's no check on this authority. Obama is losing me. What makes him any different? I'm becoming convinced that Democrats care more about power than advancing a liberal agenda. They have learned nothing.
- bigsteve, on 07/09/2008, -1/+11We will use our HIGH PROFILE...........bloggers....
*****. - Brownds, on 07/09/2008, -2/+11It's not just Dems bro. The American people need to get out of their comfort zone and vote for change in both parties. As of right now there is no difference between the 2 parties they all work for the same corporation.
- EvilJelloMan, on 07/09/2008, -7/+15Then you should have voted for Mike Gravel, the only dem running who had a long history of telling the corrupt politicians to shove it up their asses. He didn't just talk the talk, he walked the walk too. Which, of course, is exactly why the media marginalized him and made sure he had no chance to have his voice heard.
- fyngyrz, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8Noah; the 4th requires probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, BEFORE a warrant with a description of what is being searched for, or that which is intended to be seized, can be issued, at which point search or seizure may proceed.
FISA provides for wiretapping *FIRST*, not even an application for a warrant, for up to 72 hours. This tosses aside the requirements of probable cause, oath and affirmation and subjects your privacy to nothing but the whim of the wiretapping agent or agency. Which is *exactly* the kind of behavior the 4th amendment was intended to protect the people from.
Also, there are no "exceptions" in the fourth amendment; it says no "unreasonable" search or seizure, and then it tells you what is reasonable by specifying "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It ALSO says that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."
Now, I put it to you and anyone else who supports warrantless wiretapping in any form, FISA or otherwise: How are you supposed to be "secure against unreasonable searches " if the government can listen to you on any whim that strikes their fancy? Under FISA, literally NOTHING stops them from wiretapping you. Now, AFTER they have tapped you, if they want to continue, yes, they need to talk to a judge -- but they've already tapped you. They can't "un-hear" what they've heard, your privacy -- your security against being tapped -- is right out the window.
FISA ignores the 4th amendment. That's why it should be cast aside as unconstitutional legislation. Any congressperson who supports FISA is directly violating their oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and 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." - VitriolAndAngst, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8You say that like pulling bums off the street at random to replace corrupt congressmen is a bad thing.
- Robart, on 07/09/2008, -2/+10Obama doesn't want to vote this down. The power will belong to him after November. Thats change. Right?
- kingp, on 07/09/2008, -0/+7They stopped being "The Party of the People" when they created Superdelegates for their Primary elections.
- fancypantscz, on 07/09/2008, -0/+7Right. So then why do we need to amend FISA legislation? And why don't we let the civil suits against the telecoms proceed unhindered and let the courts decide whether their actions were legal or not.
You sound a little confused. Listen to what Feingold says in this video. It is about as simple as this complex issue can be put. Sorry for the link to rawstory. I couldn't find it easily on the YT so just ignore the raw BS and watch the vid.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/As_FISA_heads_toward ... - DiscoLando, on 07/09/2008, -2/+9It's very encouraging to see people demand justice and liberty without stupidly following party lines.
- an0nymous, on 07/09/2008, -8/+15Good. Regardless of your politics, the constitution must be defended.
- thegreenspanput, on 07/09/2008, -2/+9I hope Obama wins so that I can say "I told you so" in 2 years.
- Brownds, on 07/09/2008, -2/+8If you get fooled by a politician then you are just that, a fool. NEVER take any politician at face value. They all want the same thing, money and power their party is just a tool to get it.
- hamobu, on 07/09/2008, -1/+7Yes! But you have to think of the future beyond next election. If you keep voting for lesser of two evils, than you will always have two evils.
Another analogy: during cold war, the only way to prevent nuclear war was to assure the other guy that you will retaliate if attacked. Sure that would mean the end of humanity, but without this threat the other guy would be more likely to attack. Same thing here. The only way to preserve our freedom is to make democrats know that we are willing to let republicans win if democrats to not do the right thing. - DooM, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6Very true, but I think it would be easier to pull in right wingers and republicans to the venture done the way they're doing it and singling out the lefties and democrats. Maybe not a good PR move but definitely builds momentum faster and we're out of time, frankly.
- JFallon126, on 07/08/2008, -8/+14Isn't kind of ironic that they're using Richard Nixon's resignation date? He was, after all, granted immunity by Ford.
Just sayin. - ISIfunded911, on 07/09/2008, -1/+7Exactly right: Gravel...and Kucinich.
But it is not too late: you can campaign against Obama and vote for Nader.
Just like conservative/libertarians can campaign against McCain and vote for someone else.
It is time to vote for for the right people instead of voting for the lesser of two evils. Time to grow balls gentlemen! - MrErr, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6Individuals and even corporations need to stick to the constitution even if the government asks them otherwise. These companies did not do that and violated our privacy. They should be punished for it. Even though with this bill, from here on there will be more oversight, in reality there will be less oversight because people know that if they break the constitution, they can get away with it. This bill is a case where the debate seems to be in the details while missing the whole forest.
- ploop, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6Or even "Tweedledee" and "Tweedledum".
Look it up before you correct someone. - theNazz, on 07/09/2008, -10/+15Why can't we just show every member of the Bush Administration who took money from the offending corporations and have them removed from the vote for conflicts in interest?
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 07/09/2008, -2/+7You had a chance to vote for the genuine article. You fell for the fabulous sales pitch. Next time.....think Ron Paul.
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5But how would we notice any difference?
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5You thought there were sides? Sure, there are sides. Thems and Not Us.
- noahhoward, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4Actually I voted for Ron Paul.
- brstilson, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5And just how are they going to punish those Democrats? Send them a sternly-worded letter?
- pinchduck, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4As a reminder, Reid crowed about how "The Patriot Act is Dead" weeks before helping to pass legislation to eliminate the sunset clauses on it. The Republicans set the ball on the tee and the Democrats punted it through the goal. Both parties suck. I am glad to see that there is support for punishing those who curtail our rights.
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4You voted for Paul but see no problem in a FISA system? My head is ready to asplode
- Ljay90, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4That's the gamble [assumedly] Obama and other democrats are taking with judicial oversight. With that in play, someone just needs to bring this issue up with the courts, and hope that judicial review shoots this thing to hell where it belongs.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 170 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is