OBAMA: Watch the Transformation Unfold Before Your Very Eyes

Obama's support for the FISA "compromise"

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.

Accompanying those claims are a whole array of factually false statements about the bill, deployed in service of defending Obama's indefensible -- and deeply unprincipled -- support for this "compromise." Numerous individuals stepped forward to assure us that there was only one small bad part of this bill -- the part which immunizes lawbreaking telecoms -- and since Obama says that he opposes that part, there is no basis for criticizing him for what he did. Besides, even if Obama decided to support an imperfect bill, it's our duty to refrain from voicing any criticism of him, because the Only Thing That Matters is that Barack Obama be put in the Oval Office, and we must do anything and everything -- including remain silent when he embraces a full-scale assault on the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law -- because every goal is now subordinate to electing Barack Obama our new Leader.

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.

More...

:shk:

History repeats itself.

Shame on the Republicans for ripping the fabric of our Constitution to shreds...and shame on the Democrats for wagging their fingers while salivating at the prospect of getting to play with all of the new shiny Presidential toys.

This country is so had....

All of the lemmings who are jumping after their "change" heroes deserve the end that is surely to come.

Pathetic.

Simply pathetic. :shk:

I agree with alot of what Obama has said and done. But this one really surprised me, I mean, there is no way that it can be spun to make him look good. He voted for this horrendous bill and I just don't understand it. I wonder what's in it for him that he would think this idiotic, unConstitutional bill would be good for the American public.

Does he own stock in AT&T or something?

reply to post by endrun


Look at any one of my previous posts on Mr. Change. I called this from day one. The Obama "concept" ( yes, Jerry Ferraro had that one right ) is proving itself to be just that...a concept.

The reality will look very different. Mark my words.

*sigh*

Is this the link you meant to post?

Obama's support for the FISA "compromise"

The other link requires logging in I think.

I'm not up to speed on all this yet, and it is rather confusing. Doesn't the bill remove the ability for wiretaps, and would be good to support? The compromise I think was to grant immunity for the telecoms, but I also came across this article.

Obama: I'll Fight To Strip Telecom Immunity From FISA

With all the rumors going around, I don't know if I would trust an opinion article before making a judgment.

edit: now the link is working.

[edit on 6/25/2008 by Hal9000]

Originally posted by endrun
Does he own stock in AT&T or something?

Good question. story here
He owns satelitte communications stocks .. among others.

another story Has him buying stock in a bird-flu drug company, and then two weeks later in the senate he decided it was time to get America more involved in fighting bird flu .. with his new company I'm sure.

political wire says his stock deal with the communications companies was questionable.

Time to dig!!



[edit on 6/25/2008 by FlyersFan]

I've been busy and I'm not up on this either. I know I was disappointed when he announced that he would support this new bill. When I have time, I may look into it. But it certainly does sound like he's changed his mind or at the very least is voting to pass this bill to gain the favor of his critics who say he's weak on terrorism.

Obama's January Statement on FISA

No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.

FISA is another act meant to seal off & constrict individual & collective freedom
it works in conjunction with the Patriot Acts
along with the Military Commissions
along with the home-grown terrorists act


Obama and McCain, et al... aren't "transforming".. its more a matter of them shedding their disguises for who/what they really are.

This disclosure in a small way is more like the 'lifting of the veil' -->
or in the language of Revelation=Disclosure=> 'Apocalypse'
i'm not doing hyperbole here folks !

I still don't understand why some of you have a problem with this bill. Is it because of the immunity of the telecoms? This bill reverses the ability for warrantless wiretapping among other violations to the fourth amendment that was granted in the Protect America Act of 2007 which allowed them in the fashion of the Patriot Act. This new FISA Amendments Act of 2008 reverses it and reapplies the original FISA Act of 1978 with modern changes that are needed.

* Require FISA court permission to wiretap Americans who are overseas.
* Prohibit targeting a foreigner to secretly eavesdrop on an American's calls or e-mails without court approval.
* Allow the FISA court 30 days to review existing but expiring surveillance orders before renewing them.
* Allow eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.
* Prohibit the government from invoking war powers or other authorities to supersede surveillance rules in the future.

FISA Amendments Act of 2008

What am I missing? Why didn't Obama support the bill before this?

Originally posted by St Udio
FISA is another act meant to seal off & constrict individual & collective freedom
it works in conjunction with the Patriot Acts
along with the Military Commissions
along with the home-grown terrorists act

Are you sure you are not confusing this with the Protect America Act of 2007, which this bill reverses?

More info on this bill.

This article talks about the compromise with adding immunity for telecoms.

Deal clears way for wiretap-law overhaul

The ACLU is not happy with the bill stating:

"This bill allows for mass and untargeted surveillance of Americans’ communications. The court review is mere window-dressing – all the court would look at is the procedures for the year-long dragnet and not at the who, what and why of the spying. Even this superficial court review has a gaping loophole – ‘exigent’ circumstances can short cut even this perfunctory oversight since any delay in the onset of spying meets the test and by definition going to the court would cause at least a minimal pause. Worse yet, if the court denies an order for any reason, the government is allowed to continue surveillance throughout the appeals process, thereby rendering the role of the judiciary meaningless. In the end, there is no one to answer to; a court review without power is no court review at all."

ACLU Condemns FISA Deal, Declares Surveillance Bill Unconstitutional

But I don't see the difference from what was required with the original 1978 FISA Act. I think the problem here is with the FISA Court who has not rejected any requests, so they believe that it is useless and I would have to agree, but it has been this way even before the warrantless wiretaps, so I don't get it. This bill outlaws any new warrantless wiretaps, which is a good thing.

I see this broken promise as just the first in a long list of promises soon to be broken and rationalized away by his fans and the media. Obama is just a flip-flopper. That isn't racist, is it?

It is obvious he is a puppet, just as McCain is, who will do what the power brokers who chose him as the presumptive Democrat nominee tell him to do. Change? Hope? Where are they now? Gone with the wind...

reply to post by Hal9000


Thank you, Hal. That puts some structure to the thoughts in my head... I don't understand the huge objections either.

Loam (or someone) can you specify what you dislike about the bill?


[edit on 26-6-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

I Rest My Case: (Video Link)

:shk:

Told ya...

Today, Obama just helped trash the Constitution!

Idiots.

:shk:

EDIT: In the interest of this thread's title, I had to add links to these two threads:

Forced Servitude In America?

Obama Embarrassed by single language Americans

Not looking so good, huh?

Once again, we are back to the "impose your ends and excuse your means" form of governance.

Neat trick to have more-of-the-same-but-with-a-different-Party-label-and-calling-that-real-change...don't you agree?



[edit on 9-7-2008 by loam]

Thank you for bringing this up. I was backing Obama as a protection from McCain / Bush. But it does begin to look like he is just playing a different squad of the same team.

So what chance do we have of putting Bob Bar or someone else in office?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by endrun
Does he own stock in AT&T or something?

Good question. story here
He owns satelitte communications stocks .. among others.

another story Has him buying stock in a bird-flu drug company, and then two weeks later in the senate he decided it was time to get America more involved in fighting bird flu .. with his new company I'm sure.

political wire says his stock deal with the communications companies was questionable.

Don't forget Obama is tied to the law firm of McGuireWoods through Mark Brzezinski, who is a partner of MW along with an Obama advisor.

McGuireWoods represents Verizon. Now Obama votes to protect Verizon.

Put 2+2 together and you get 4.

Pardon Lite: Obama's defacto partnership with Bush's War Crimes

And...

Barack Obama: it is no longer essential to kill Osama bin Laden

Barack Obama suggested last night that removing Osama bin Laden from the battlefield was no longer essential and that America's security goals could be achieved merely by keeping al-Qaeda "on the run".

"My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him," he said. "But if we have so tightened the noose that he's in a cave somewhere and can't even communicate with his operatives then we will meet our goal of protecting America."

Contrast with Barack Obama: US must capture or kill Osama bin Laden



And:

Obama: I 'always thought' Bush was a 'good guy'

President-elect Obama must have either an enormous capacity for forgiveness, or a short memory.

On Friday night, he told CNN's John King that he has "always thought" Bush was a "good guy."

What a difference eight months can make.

And, finally:

As challenges mount, ardor for Obama cools abroad



[edit on 18-1-2009 by loam]

Well I hate to say it but, it is fine with me as long as we have a good man running the show. It will get worked over later on as people have more time to focus on details, set proper limits and oversight, but their going in all directions right now so it is smart to do it this way. Not to worry, congress will get to pickin it apart later and I would bet Obama will tighten it up before he leaves office in a way that most of us can live with it for our security. Relax, the drama is draining.

I'm sorry. I just had to...

Obama preserves rendition two days after taking office

reply to post by loam

"History repeats itself.

Shame on the Republicans for ripping the fabric of our Constitution to shreds...and shame on the Democrats for wagging their fingers while salivating at the prospect of getting to play with all of the new shiny Presidential toys.

This country is so had....

All of the lemmings who are jumping after their "change" heroes deserve the end that is surely to come.

Pathetic.

Simply pathetic."

The constitution isnt harmed at all. Schemers who use it as a leveraging tool just havent been reigned in as the tyrants they are. Otherwise the words still apply, just modern treason leads people to follow unjust orders and policy. Because they are not cool.

I think what Obama's conduct since he's taken office tells us is that when the fate of the United States rests upon one's own shoulders, the policies of the Bush administration don't look so bad.

Bush and Cheney didn't want another 9/11 on their hands and you can bet next weeks lunch money that Obama doesn't want one on his hands either.

Let's hope that Obama continues to maintain continuity with the policies that have kept the US safe for all these years.



[edit on 2009/2/1 by GradyPhilpott]

A lot of anti Obama propaganda is being spread people, don't always believe
what is being said about Obama doing this or saying that. Unless you have
solid evidence of it, or you see him saying it yourself, take it with a grain of
salt.