What is Digg?120 Comments
- DarKnyht, on 07/08/2008, -4/+104New strategy. No left or right, democrat of republican, just vote all of them out of office and start over again. If the new batch doesn't do what we want, we vote them out again (and never let them back in office). Perhaps having multiple politician's careers ended at terminal velocity enough times will wake them up to the fact they work for us and not corporations.
- rz8472, on 07/09/2008, -1/+67And, of course, there is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists.
But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. That would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America.
- Senator Russ Feingold - facttech, on 07/08/2008, -2/+47It's worse than you think: It's not even a compromise.
- ericjohnson0, on 07/09/2008, -0/+27(reposted from earlier thread- just coming in handy today)
Glenn 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/ ... - pyro12, on 07/08/2008, -2/+27Feel that? That's your government raping you in the ass and insisting you like it.
- vexingmodstwo, on 07/09/2008, -1/+23Reality can be a bitch sometimes, Obamabots. I hope you've learned your lesson.
- inactive, on 07/09/2008, -2/+21Looks like the terrorists did win. The US as we knew it has died.
- borez, on 07/08/2008, -1/+18Good idea, but IMO... Governments, never have and never will work for the people. They're here for one reason and one reason only, to rape you for as much of your money and/or as much of your liberty as they can get away with.
From Republics to Democracies to Communism to Socialism, it's all the same controlling ***** just dressed up in a different set of rules. - trickyt, on 07/09/2008, -0/+16WTF Obama??
- displacednomad, on 07/08/2008, -2/+19Here's what's going on:
Go here http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.630 ... and click on the HR6304EH version of the bill.
Click on Title VII sections 106 and 107. Review the requested changes to the 1978 FISA bill.
Now open a new tab and go here http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/50C36.txt
Use your ctrl+F and search for 1823 and 1824 sections (the parts being amended).
Review the requested changes.
For example:
(e)(1)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, whenever the Attorney General reasonably makes the determination specified in subparagraph (B), the Attorney General may authorize the execution of an emergency physical search if -
(i) a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this
title is informed by the Attorney General or the Attorney
General's designee at the time of such authorization that the
decision has been made to execute an emergency search, and
(ii) an application in accordance with this subchapter is made
to that judge as soon as practicable but not more than 72 hours
after the Attorney General authorizes such search.
becomes:
(e)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the Attorney General may authorize the emergency employment of a physical search if the Attorney General--
(A) reasonably determines that an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of a physical search to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such physical search can with due diligence be obtained;
(B) reasonably determines that the factual basis for issuance of an order under this title to approve such physical search exists;
(C) informs, either personally or through a designee, a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ an emergency physical search; and
(D) makes an application in accordance with this title to a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as soon as practicable, but not more than 7 days after the Attorney General authorizes such physical search.
So do you see what I see? Yes, the part about judges being involved has moved down from I and II to parts C and D. Should this bill pass, the AG will not have to notify a judge right away about the employment of physical searches; in fact, the AG can take up to seven days to do so, after the fact.
Bit by bit, there it all goes, down the toilet hole. America, f*ck yeah! - brownrecluse888, on 07/09/2008, -3/+20I only see one comment here even mentioning Obama!! Hey Obamabots, HE supports this bill!! So maybe he's just like every other politician, and right now his run to the middle is him just doing whatever it takes to become president....if this was clinton doing this we'd see huff posts about it on digg all week long...
- swrostmore, on 07/08/2008, -1/+16Why not learn how your representatives actually voted, and then base your vote on whether their position is in agreement with yours?
- 1gunners4, on 07/09/2008, -0/+15In other news, Congress has hit single digit approval ratings for the first time ever.
- MasterThief117, on 07/09/2008, -6/+20***** this *****. I think it's time for a revolution. No really, I think it is time to completely dismantle our current system and rebuild it. This one is broken. Very broken and give it a little more time, we are going to get ***** so hard by it, we will be walking with a limp until this country falls, just like Rome did.
- stretta, on 07/09/2008, -1/+14Wow. Your lack of comprehension of the issue is impressive and saddening.
The new FISA modification makes domestic warrant-less wiretapping legal, which the 4th amendment of the Constitution expressly forbids.
I'm pro-Constitution, myself. It is interesting that defending the Constitution is now a position held only by radicals, extremists and, in your words, idiots. - cesig, on 07/09/2008, -2/+15Everyone who votes for this bill should be brought up on treason charges. Yes, even Obama.
- MasterThief117, on 07/09/2008, -3/+15If voting ever changed anything, it would have been outlawed.
I think we should just grab out guns and rush the White House and start a new revolution. - stretta, on 07/09/2008, -1/+12The new FISA bill would needlessly expand the government’s ability to spy on Americans and ensure that the country never learns the full extent of President Bush’s unlawful wiretapping. The existing version allows officials to wiretap first and get permission later in moments of crisis, but there is oversight. I don't understand why we need to change this.
Wait. Scratch that. I know why the bill exists. It is to protect President Bush. What I don't understand is why anyone would vote for it. If I were a representative, I'd take one look at it and say "Nice try." I can only conclude that a majority of our elected officials are either incredibly stupid, or corrupt to the core.
Telecom PACs: "Hey there, elected representatives of the people. How would you like to violate your oath to upload the Constitution in exchange for a meager campaign contribution?"
Congress and Senate: "Sure!"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08tue1.h ... - mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -4/+15***** like this makes me want to go and live off the grid. to bad I am a total techno junkie and could never pull it off.
- displacednomad, on 07/08/2008, -3/+14http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h200 ...
NE - Fortenberry, Terry, Smith (R, R, and R) voted for, for, and for.
All three Reps from NE voted out of agreement with me.
And not voting: Ron Paul. I think less of him everyday. - inactive, on 07/08/2008, -1/+11Here in Maryland, Sen Ben Cardin is voting against the FISA treason. Sen Barbara Mikulski is planning to vote FOR the treason. Both claim to be democrats.
- swrostmore, on 07/09/2008, -4/+14This legislation already passed in the House of Representatives.
Ron Paul WAS NOT PRESENT TO CAST A VOTE. - inactive, on 07/09/2008, -1/+11A constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. 311(a).
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government." -- Thomas Jefferson
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- Thomas Jefferson
Our founding fore fathers were wise beyond their years! - skrowl, on 07/09/2008, -1/+11Obamabots are incapable of learning the truth about their candidate. That's what makes them "bots". Duh.
- homah, on 07/09/2008, -0/+9displacednomad:
Blame the system, not Paul. The bill was slipped in with less than 24 hours of notice. Even if you aren't a fan of Paul, surely you must concede that he hasn't been one to dodge a vote because he holds an unpopular position. He has been on many the "wrong" side of a 424-1 vote. - InetRoadkill, on 07/09/2008, -0/+9Surprise! Surprise! After shepherding this sack of ***** bill thru the Senate, Harry Reid has now announced at the last second that he's against it. What a crock of *****, especially since he voted to kill the filibuster on this bill that would have stopped it.
This move was expected. There's going to be more democrats making a public fuss about how terrible this bill is and how they'll vote against it even though they know it's too late to stop it. The real vote came during the cloture vote where only a handful of democrats voted to sustain the filibuster. If your Senator voted for cloture, then he voted to strip you of your rights. Be sure to thank him in November. - rz8472, on 07/09/2008, -0/+9The Full List of Democratic Traitors. Ditto on the Republicans and that worm, Joe Lieberman -
Bayh (D-IN)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Webb (D-VA)*
*maybe being a potential VP pick wasn't a good idea after all - poploserdigg, on 07/09/2008, -0/+9"The Democrats' capitulation is particularly puzzling because, as we've pointed out before, the Democrats' firm stance on FISA this Spring turned out to be a political asset, not a liability. When House Democrats called Pres. Bush's bluff and allowed the Protect America Act to expire in March, it got a wave of positive coverage from the media, which pointed out that the PAA's expiration would have little effect on the government's ability to spy on terrorists. Now that Democratic leaders are switching sides yet again, we've seen the re-emergence of unflattering coverage focusing on the Democrats' weakness on national security issues and lack of party unity. Protecting civil liberties ought to be a matter of principle, but even if Democratic leaders are unmoved by civil liberties concerns, one might have expected them to stand up to the White House based on purely political motivations."
best comment on this issue yet - ashfish, on 07/09/2008, -0/+9"I'm pro-Constitution, myself. It is interesting that defending the Constitution is now a position held only by radicals, extremists and, in your words, idiots."
You so hit the nail on the head with that one. We're called unpatriotic when we question the government's actions now because people are afraid. People are afraid to hold up the Constitution because they don't think it can protect them, when in reality it is the ONLY thing that is going to protect them. Its the only thing in our current government system that was actually written with the people in mind. - johnmearns, on 07/09/2008, -0/+9...all while we claim that our rapist is better than other rapists.
- inactive, on 07/09/2008, -2/+10What I find interesting about your comment is that:
A: you appear to be concerned about some "terrorists" probably living without indoor plumbing, who essentially got about as lucky as you could ever dream of being in regard to 9/11.
B: This whole thing started as a way to monitor international to domestic calls without a warrant. Now it's domestic to international. Next up, we'll get the domestic to domestic, bank on it. From that point, why stop there? Why not just do away with the need to get warrants at all?
Although, why not give the government all the power in the world, all so you can be as just safe as you were 10 or 20 years ago, from having a suicide bomber run into your home. By the way, how many troops are running around shooting terrorists in your neighborhood? Unless, of course, you're writing this comment from Kandahar. - inactive, on 07/09/2008, -1/+9Better to die free than live as a slave!
- Shizcake1337, on 07/09/2008, -1/+9Obama supports it, so that obviously means it's okay... right?
- stretta, on 07/09/2008, -0/+9OK - here is the current state of the Senate vote, reposted from:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/09/ ...
UPDATE II: The Dodd-Feingold amendment to remove telecom immunity from the bill just failed by a vote of 32-66.
I was mistaken about Obama's not showing up to vote (that was the case, as I understood it, when the vote was scheduled for yesterday). He is in the Senate and, as he said he would, just voted (along with Hillary Clinton) in favor of the amendment to remove telecom immunity from the bill.
From listening, these are the Democrats who have voted in favor of removing immunity from the bill: Akaka - Baucus - Biden - Bingaman - Boxer - Brown - Byrd - Cantwell - Cardin - Casey - Clinton - Dorgan - Durbin - Feingold - Harkin - Inyoue - Kerry - Klobuchar - Lautenberg - Leahy - Levin - Mendenez - Murray - Obama - Reed - Reid - Sanders (I) - Schuemer - Stabenow - Tester - Whitehouse - Wyden.
Every Republican (and Lieberman) voted against removing immunity (including Arlen Specter, who spent all day arguing against immunity). Democrats voting against removing immunity: Bayh - Carper - Conrad - Feinstein - Johnson - Kohl - Landrieu - Lincoln - McCaskill - Mikulski - Nelson (FL) - Nelson (Neb.) - Pryor - Rockefeller - Salazar - Webb.
Specter's amendment is next (to ban immunity if the spying was unconstitutional). Then they will vote on the Bingaman amendment (which I wrote about yesterday). They will both fail, and then they will vote on the final bill in its unchanged form.
UPDATE III: Specter's amendment -- merely to require the court to determine the constitutionality of the NSA spying program and condition immunity on a finding of constitutionality -- just failed 37-61. Obama (and Clinton) voted in favor of the amendment, and Specter was the only Republican to do so.
All Republicans (and Lieberman) voted against, and these were the Democrats voting against: Bayh - Carper - Johnson - Landrieu - Lincoln - Mikulski - Nelson (FL) - Nelson (Neb.) - Pryor - Rockefeller - Salazar. [NOTE: I'm recording these roll calls from watching the proceedings, and so it's likely there are some errors and omissions. I will correct them as they are brought to my attention and will link to the official roll call vote once it is available]. The Bingaman amendment is next.
UPDATE IV: The Bingaman amendment -- merely to require that the Senate waits until the IG audit of the NSA program is complete before immunizing the telecoms (and here's an excellent piece documenting how inadequate IG investigations are for real oversight) -- just failed by a vote of 42-56 (60 votes were required for passage, courtesy of an agreement not to force the GOP to do a mount filibuster).
Obama (and Clinton) voted in favor of the Bingaman amendment. Specter was the only Republican to vote in favor. The Democrats voting against: Bayh - Landrieu - Nelson (Neb.) - Pryor - Rockefeller. They are now in recess until the afternoon, after which they will vote to pass the underlying bill. - toekneebullard, on 07/09/2008, -0/+7How are you going to plan a revolution when the government can wiretap you and listen in?
- BTM08, on 07/08/2008, -2/+9Take action against this here: http://accountabilitynowpac.com
- Micaanab, on 07/09/2008, -2/+8Apparently terrorism works. They use fear to take away our freedoms. Bush is playing right into the terrorists plan. They will continue to tear portions of the constitution out until we find ourselves with no rights left to fight for.
- 0nslaught, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6"Madam Speaker, I regret that due to the unexpected last-minute appearance of this measure on the legislative calendar this week, a prior commitment has prevented me from voting on the FISA amendments. I have strongly opposed every previous FISA overhaul attempt and I certainly would have voted against this one as well."
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr06 ... - zip000, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6I support Obama - still - but, I am really disappointed about his decision here.
I understand that not supporting this would get the rabid right wing folks talking about how soft he is on terrorism, but you know what - they are going to say that anyway. Democrats will always receive that label, even if it is wholly untrue.
Very disappointed in Obama. - Corrosionx, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6Let's just individually revoke our consent, and eventually all they will have left is their guns and their willingness to use them against us, then we'll see what this government is really about.
- Morfildor, on 07/09/2008, -2/+8You Obama fanatics need to sober the ***** up. He is a tool, no different than the rest of them.
- Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 07/09/2008, -2/+9You plan is mostly correct, but you must exclude a few such as kucinich, paul and ~20 others in the house who support bush impeachment.
- GrodyChamp, on 07/09/2008, -1/+7Good thing OBAMA is all about this crap.........
- fungistratus, on 07/09/2008, -2/+8This is what the 9-11 terrorists wanted, less freedom for us.
- Corrosionx, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5The real terrorists are in the government. They are the ones taking freedom away.
- noahhoward, on 07/09/2008, -4/+9Yet Paul didn't vote...
- vexingmodstwo, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5Good point.
- Palquito, on 07/09/2008, -3/+7Clinton IS doing it. She's set to vote yes on the bill as well. So much for the populist fiction they've wrapped themselves in.
- dalittle, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5How could anyone dig that comment down? Great quote.
- SchmuckofNI, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5We can talk about this all day and not a damn thing will be done. Its time to stop the talk and start doing. The most practiced freedom in this country is the freedom to do nothing. So start telephoning your senators and representives today! If that doesn't work, organize a petition against this bill. If that doesn't work, organize a match to Washington D.C. We are in a democracy damnit, lets start acting like it!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 120 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is