Fri, 04 Jul 2008 18:00:04 -0400
As always, some great commentary by Joe Galloway.
The Al-Haramain ruling and the current Congress
A Bush-41-appointed Federal District Judge yesterday became the third judge -- out of three who have ruled on the issue -- to reject the Bush administration's claim that Article II entitles the President to override or ignore the provisions of FISA. Yesterday's decision by Judge Vaughn Walker of the Northern District of California also guts the central claims for telecom immunity and gives the lie to the excuses coming from Congress as to why the new FISA bill is some sort of important "concession." More than anything else, this decision is but the most recent demonstration that, with this new FISA bill, our political establishment is doing what it now habitually does: namely, ensuring that the political and corporate elite who break our laws on purpose are immune from consequences.
~ snip ~
The Bush administration argued that the plaintiffs could not prove their case because, to do so, they would have to rely on documents and information that the President deemed to be "state secrets" (i.e., the Government's eavesdropping activities) and which are, therefore, unusable in court. That is the argument the court rejected -- holding instead that Congress, when it enacted FISA, established a procedure that allows even classified information to be considered by a court, and the President's Article II powers cannot override the FISA statute. As the Court pointed out, Congress' core purpose in enacting FISA in 1978 was to bar the President from exercising untrammeled, unchallenged power in the area of eavesdropping. Thus, presidential assertions of secrecy do not override the law.
There are several vital points to note from this decision that directly relate to Congress' plan next week to enact a new FISA statute, vest new warrantless eavesdropping powers in the President, and immunize lawbreaking telecoms:
~ snip ~
For procedural reasons, the court yesterday ruled that plaintiffs -- in order to obtain a ruling as to whether the Bush administration broke the law -- must be able to show that they were subject to warrantless surveillance without using the accidentally produced transcripts, something that will be very difficult to do. Congress has refused to pass legislation to fix this Kafkaesque, Catch-22 trap -- whereby the President illegally spies in total secrecy, with no oversight, thus preventing anyone from being able to prove they were subjected to the illegal spying and thus preventing anyone from having "standing" to challenge the legality of the spying in court.
Thus, we have extremely strong indications from multiple courts that the President deliberately broke the law for years -- a law that provides that violations of its provisions are felonies punishable with 5 years in prison for each offense. And yet our political establishment, with Democrats at the helm, are about to ensure that there are never any consequences for that lawbreaking and no accountability whatsoever in a court of law.
A typical line in Barack Obama's stump speech throughout the primary season was that "the era of Scooter Libby justice . . . will finally be over." But this new FISA bill -- and the immunity it bequeaths -- is the very essence of "Lewis Libby justice": ensuring that our highest political officials and other well-connected elites can break our laws with total impunity. Courts keep ruling that the President and his allies have no excuses for having broken our laws, while our political establishment acts to ensure that they are protected from the consequences.
~ snip ~
This history of the telecoms -- faring no better in court than the President has -- gives the lie to Fred Hiatt's deeply (and typically) dishonest Washington Post Editorial today -- by way of praising Obama's FISA stance -- that telecom immunity is a good idea because "The likelihood of prevailing -- or even getting very far -- with such lawsuits is low." The exact opposite is true: it's precisely because the telecoms know they are in severe danger of losing in court -- because they broke multiple laws -- that they and the White House are so desperate for amnesty.
The excuses offered by our political establishment for this rampant lawbreaking have been systematically rejected by the institution the Founders intended to adjudicate these legal issues -- our courts -- and it's for exactly that reason that our establishment is now conspiring to take away from the courts the responsibility they were assigned to hold lawbreakers accountable.
~ snip ~
[Decision at 23, 25]. The next time you hear Steny Hoyer, Obama surrogates and their various apologists tell you how important the new FISA bill is because it contains an "exclusivity" provision and thus ensures that the FISA court is brought back into Government eavesdropping, just go read what Judge Walker said about the current FISA framework to realize how misleading that claim is. They're presenting as a "gift" something you already have, and telling you that you should give up critical protections in exchange for receiving something that you already have -- namely, a requirement that the President comply with eavesdropping laws. What they're doing is tantamount to someone who steals your wallet, takes all the money out, gives the empty wallet back to you, and then tells you that you should be grateful to them because you have your wallet.
~ snip ~
UPDATE IV: McClatchy's military affairs columnist, Joe Galloway, has the perfect July 4 column, [linked by rhj right above] condemning what he calls "a gutting of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution" that is "yet another stain on the gutless and seemingly powerless Democratic majority in both houses of Congress." He adds: "That a majority on both sides of the aisle -- not least of them the presumptive nominees for president of both political parties -- intend to vote for such a violation of Americans' right to privacy and of the sanctity of their personal communications is a stunning surrender to those who want us to live in fear forever."
~ snip ~
Leave aside the substantive reasons why Obama's position is so wrong (as some of his defenders are so eager to do, such as the author of today's leading Obama-defending diary at Daily Kos who spouts the consummate mentality of the standard Bush follower by proclaiming that he doesn't care about warrantless government spying because it's only used against other people (The Bad People presumably) and thus "WILL NOT affect my life AT ALL." That exact justification applies to, and has been used to justify, torture and attacks on other countries, too). Substance aside, it's impossible to understand why the Obama campaign thinks it's good politics to change core positions so flagrantly and rapidly, thus engendering damaging (though accurate) Editorials of this kind from the otherwise very sympathetic NYT Editorial Page.
(Sorry this is so long, but there's much more I left out and it's worth your time to read.)
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Or not?
From Alexander Mooney
CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- One week after Sen. Hillary Clinton made a public show of unity with Sen. Barack Obama, a new survey suggests supporters of the New York senator are increasingly less likely to follow her lead.
Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama appear at a unity rally in Unity, New Hampshire, in June.
A growing number of Clinton supporters polled say they may stay home in November instead of casting their ballot for Obama, an indication the party has yet to coalesce around the Illinois senator four weeks after the most prolonged and at times divisive primary race in modern American history came to a close.
According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Friday, the number of Clinton supporters who plan to defect to Republican Sen. John McCain's camp is down from one month ago, but -- in what could be an ominous sign for Obama as he seeks to unify the party -- the number of them who say they plan to vote for Obama is also down, and a growing number say they may not vote at all.
In a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey completed in early June before the New York senator ended her White House bid, 60 percent of Clinton backers polled said they planned on voting for Obama. In the latest poll, that number has dropped to 54 percent.
In early June, 22 percent of Clinton supporters polled said they would not vote at all if Obama were the party's nominee, now close to a third say they will stay home.
In another sign the wounds of the heated primary race have yet to heal, 43 percent of registered Democrats polled still say they would prefer Clinton to be the party's presidential nominee.
That number is significantly higher than it was in early June, when 35 percent of Democrats polled said they preferred Clinton to lead the party's presidential ticket.
Obama won 59 percent of support from registered Democrats polled in June; now he garners 54 percent...."
More "analysis" by bill schneider at:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/04/clinton.poll/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends.
Japanese Proverb
with his latest moves to triangulate. His position on FISA, woman's right to choose, government involvement with faith based programs and his changing his mind about Iraq and troop withdrawl are all designed to make him identical to John McCain, so why would traditional Democrats want to vote? Obama is pandering to Republicans.
I really want to see the end of the imperial presidency. His plans for having a crowd of 75,000 in a sports stadium for his acceptance speech is creepy. There, I said it.
Why I should support this guy?
"I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother," Obama said. "I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions."
Obama's verbatim remarks from an interview, published yesterday in Relevant Magazine.
Obama has not demonstrated very impressive leadership so far, especially with his ham-handed handling of the media's manufactured attack on Gen Clark.
But Obama is a politician--Rev Wright is correct--and he will do what it takes to get elected. The upside is he can obviously be pressured, as it's clear his online supporters were outraged by his treatment of General Clark and he responded to the pressure by offering a half-assed defense ("inartful, but not swiftboating").
Obama: Sounding Like Thomas and Scalia?
July 04, 2008 12:34 PMThe Supreme Court fired a shot last week that ricocheted into the political campaign when it struck down a Washington DC law that banned people from owning handguns. For the first time in history, the justices said the Constitution's 2nd Amendment protected an individual's right to keep and bear arms.
The decision was 5-4 and, as we've seen on contentious social issues, divided the justices along ideological lines. In this case, the conservatives opposing the gun ban carried the day. Liberals ended up in bitter dissent.
But here's the curious thing: both presidential candidates — Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama — praised the conservatives' position. The same thing happened the day before in another sharply divided 5-4 case over whether states can execute people who rape, but do not kill, children. This time, conservatives lost, but again McCain and Obama were on the same side, blasting the liberals' decision striking down laws that allowed the death penalty for child rape.
You'd expect McCain to take those positions. He has, after all, promised to nominate justices like Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas. But on two of the biggest social controversies to reach the Court this year, Obama, too, sided with conservatives -- rejecting opinions by the liberal justices who, presumably, are of the kind he would appoint if elected President.
But that's nothing compared to Obama's most recent comments about the most controversial social issue of them all: abortion.
In a recent interview, Obama appears to back away from his long-stated positions on abortion (and a proposed federal abortion rights law he had co-sponsored), repudiate 35 years of accepted Supreme Court rulings on the issue and embrace a view on abortion restrictions that has been expressed on the Court only by Justices Thomas and Scalia.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/legalities/2008/07/obama-sounding.html
And BO's better on Supreme Court picks, how??
(wish I could credit the writer) essentially explaining how Obama came to pretty much match all of Hillary Clinton's policy positions in the Democratic primary, thereby rendering the voters a decision based on personalities. It was close, but he prevailed.
I see the same thing going on here. He's slowly merging until there appears to be little difference between his positions and McCain's, and I believe he would like to make this a contest of personalities rather than policiees.
That doesn't change my initial conclusion: he's a politician to the core. But I don't believe for a second he won't go back to his political roots once he's elected. George W. Bush did the same dance in 2000. And yes, I realize a comparison with George W Bush is not a favorable comparison.
No. He incorporated many of her policies as they were best sellers. (By the way, she won the popular vote, so let's not rewrite history here on the General's site.)
but the end result is the same.
...borrowed, appropriated, copied, stole....
...with respect to popular vote, I didn't address that. He prevailed in the sense that he's the presumptive nominee.
He's a politician, doing what politicians do.
...Obama came to pretty much match all of Hillary Clinton's policy positions in the Democratic
primary...
In other words, he took her positions, rather than espousing his own.
...go back to his political roots once he's elected.
The question remains, what are his political roots?
He's changed his position on so many issues, ie NAFTA, FISA, gun control, death penalty, public campaign financing, abortion, Iraq(?).
So, what is his position on these issues?
BTW, you can count on Hillary to support women's reproductive rights, reform of NAFTA, restoration of our Constitutional rights that w has tried to abolish.
SuperDelegates need to wake up and smell the flipflops.
but in all fairness, he will be painted as an unpatriotic radical black Muslim who neglects to wear a flag on his lapel and turns his back on the flag during the pledge of allegiance. Or, an effete latte sipping liberal who doesn't relate to common people. Or some strange combination of both.
But the truth is, Obama is a political animal, and he knows he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell in November if gets tagged with either one of those narratives. So he's doing what politicians do... what Michael Dukakis did when he climbed in that tank.... what Bush did when he bought a ranch in Texas so he could have photo ops chopping wood.... what McCain did when he started kissing up to evangelicals... he's trying to change his image to get some votes, plain and simple.
Nobody has to "paint" Obama as anything. What
he is proving, to one and all, is that he has
NO core convictions. That he is the flim-flam
man, a charlatan, in this for no other reason
than he wants the power and the glory and the
financial gains. In short, just exactly what
his opponents have said all along. And
dangerous, extremely, because of that.
...none of them went as far as throwing the basic tenets of their respective parties under the bus in order to get elected.
Via mcjoan, Senator Frank Church:
Personal privacy is protected because it is essential to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our Constitution checks the power of Government for purposes of protecting the rights of individuals, in order that all our citizens may live in a free and decent society. . . . When government infringes those right instead of nurturing and protecting them, the injury spreads far beyond the particular citizens targeted to untold numbers of other Americans who may be intimidated...The natural tendency of government is toward abuse of power. Men entrusted with power, even those aware of its dangers, tend, particularly when pressured, to slight liberty. Our constitutional system guards against this tendency. It establishes many different checks upon power. It is those wise restraints which keep men free. In the field of intelligence those restraints have too often been ignored....
The United States must not adopt the tactics of the enemy. Means are important, as ends. Crisis makes it tempting to ignore the wise restraints that make men free. But each time we do so, each time the means we use are wrong, our inner strength, the strength which makes us free, is lessened.
Senator Barack Obama:
I . . . believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. . . . In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. . . .Frank Church chose to protect our civil liberties and the Constitution in the face of Executive Branch abuse. Barack Obama has chosen to capitulate in the face of Executive Branch abuse.
Obama's actions can not be excused on this matter. He has failed miserably.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/7/4/223925/3567
“No self respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her self.” - Susan B. Anthony, 1872
to change the stripes on a skunk.
When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends.
Japanese Proverb
When he campaigned with Hillary, he would agree with her policies, always stating, I agree with Hillary on this issue (as the pundits always asked the tough questions to Hillary first)! Wonder when McCain and BO debate if they will do the same!
Now he is doing the same,in his campaign with McCain and fiquring that his youth and speaking ability will prevail.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me!!! I won't be fooled again!!! The DNC stinks!
...especially as Obama is willing to participate in the gutting of the 4th Amendment, agrees with those same justices that the death penalty should not be limited to murder cases, and is likewise back-pedaling on support for some parts of Roe v. Wade. He's looking more and more like Bush-lite every day.
There is zero evidence that he would choose liberal judges. Zero. None. Nada. Except his "word" which has already morphed into mush.
(Maybe you've been on a camping vacation in the woods the past two weeks and didn't know about these flip-flops.)
I think he's pulling a Dubya. Bush tried to muddy the differences between himself and Al Gore, using the likes of Colin Powell to get elected before sullying Powell's reputation and pushing him out the door on his way to the wacky right. But I'm pretty sure Obama will pull hard left (there's no evidence in his record to suspect otherwise), or at least as far left as he thinks he can get without killing his poll numbers after election.
"Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007"
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
Yes, his record is fairly thin, but do you have anything contradictory?
...was the issue.
Record of that?
Never in my decades of voting have I ever faced such lousy choices. I cry for my country. And with that thought in mind, I will try to get some sleep,
He's taking the positions he thinks he has to to get elected--one position in the primaires, another in the general. But a voting record is more reliable than words.
Remember the Bush dance I referenced earlier? He's just dancing in the opposite direction.
"Progressive Punch ranked Obama the 42nd most progressive member of the Senate. If I'm counting right, there are 49 Democrats and one socialist and, of course Lieberman as an “Independent” in the Democratic Caucus. And Obama ranks 42nd out of those 51.
( I hope this won't be a controversial post...)
First, read more here about the National Journal's selective data. Those figures are primarily cranked out as right wing talking points every time they need to place a democrat somewhere in the fringe zones. Media Matters has a good expalantion here:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200806270010
As for evidence against his being labelled a liberal? Oh there is so much. Where to start?
** How about with his endorsement by Sam Zell's Tribune in which they stated they would not normally endorse a Dem, being a "conservative paper" but they chose Obama because he plays nice with Republicans...
--------------------
This endorsement is a paradox. We're urging votes for a candidate whose political views we often disagree with. A Tribune profile last May labeled his eight years in Springfield as "a study in complexity, caution and calculation. In the minority party for all but his final two years in the Statehouse, he tempered a progressive agenda with a cold dash of realism, often forging consensus with conservative Republicans when other liberals wanted to crusade." (ms notes- just what we need! Gotta stop those dangerous 'liberal crusaders' from running wild!)
[...] As a result, many Republicans in Illinois have warm words for Barack Obama.
--------------------
** Then there's Murdoch's endorsement of Obama over Hillary in his New York Post and London Times, and the ensuing Murdoch daughter's lavish highroller Obama fundraiser.
** Obama was set to vote for Justice Roberts for SCOTUS until a last minute turnaround, even chastised Dems who advocated against Roberts
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/26/AR2007082601446.html?nav=hcmodule
** Voted to close off filibuster of Alito
** Um... FISA??
** Voted Yes to the Patriot Act Reauthorization Bill
** Co-authored legislation to extend Duncan Hunter's lovely and effective 700 mile border fence
** Expansion of the Bush Faith Based programs
** Announces the need to "fix" social security
** Almost kinda sorta but not really totally Universal Health Care
** LOOK at his advisory list and get out your fingers and toes to count the republicans, centrists, and the obvious nonprogressives, including Scooter Libby's buddy and legal defense fund member, DINO Dennis Ross.
** His (former? Think he's under that bus now) Sr. economic advisor Austan Goolsbee, teaches at the Univ of Chicago (cough), and is widely lauded by George Will... (cough again)
** His praise of the oh so "transformative" Ronald Reagan.
** Joe Lieberman as his Senatorial mentor whom he stumps for over Lamont in the primaries. Michelle then hires Lieberman's 10 year executive assisstant to be her Chief of Staff when the campaign begins in earnest.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/03/sweet_column_michelle_obama_st.html#more%22
** Lists of possible cabinet appointees include Hagel (R), Lugar (R), Schwartzenegger (R) Snowcroft, Powell, etc.
** FP advisory list with former George W Bush voters and even Bush-Cheney campaign chairs.
** Voted to confirm Condi Rice
** Voted to confirm Bush appointee "Iraq is all good!" General Casey
** The courting of evangelicals and chastising of fellow Democrats for not doing so
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=news.display_article&mode=S&NewsID=5465
** Inviting several known openly anti-gay bigots to campaign with him
http://gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18956221&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=568864&rfi=6
** Campaign scrubbing of the internet - lack of transparency
** "Obama's campaign, to date, has received more corporate CEO dollars than any campaign in U.S. history. This includes, as Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) often noted, substantial cash from big oil executives." http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/07/03/the-worlds-2nd-oldest-profession/
** Obama's PAC, Hope Fund, donations- majority going to DLC candidates
** Hires former and current lobbyists with right wing ties as campaign advisors
______________________________________
I could go on. :)
And to anyone saying "But but but .. Hillary--" Yeah, I know. But she was not the running on the mantle of being New Changey No More Washington DC Insider Politics No More Scooter Libby Justice. He is.
Everytime I hear the faux meme on Corp press about O being such a Liberal I sigh... "If only... How I wish!"
This ship is listing more and more rightward at an ever perilous trajectory...
He won't do what it takes to get elected. Getting elected takes balls. And he has none. He's a typical Democrat. And since Karl Rove came along, a typical Democrat cannot get elected. Going to the center USED to work. It no longer does. But Obama is too stupid to know that and too arrogant to listen when people try to tell him that. So he'll do what Democrats have always done when they get caught in a political mess, he'll eat his own.
He can't win. It's time we invested our efforts elsewhere. The Presidency is lost.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
Obama has shown skill in doing what it takes to be SELECTED, however, being ELECTED is another matter. The general election doesn't run off a caucus system, nor is there a rules committee to award votes he didn't get. Also, ALL 50 states get to be counted this time. Finally, there is no bullshit 'proportional' allocation this time, so his weakness in larger states will be exposed this time nor will his 'strength' in GOP-dominated states help him this time.
Whatever you do, you need courage. Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you that you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising that tempt you to believe your critics are right. To map out a course of action and follow it to an end requires some of the same courage that a soldier needs. Peace has its victories, but it takes brave men and women to win them.
http://utdocuments.blogspot.com/2008/07/obamas-new-statement-on-fisa.html
An excerpt.
"
This is the most misleading part of Obama's statement. The "certain surveillance orders [which] will begin to expire later this summer" -- that Obama claims we must maintain -- are warrantless eavesdropping orders that were authorized by the PAA, which Obama voted against last August. As I asked the other day:
Had Obama had his way, there never would have been any PAA in the first place, and therefore, there never would have been any PAA orders possible. Having voted against the PAA last August, how can Obama now claim that he considers it important that the PAA orders not expire? How can he be eager to avoid the expiration of surveillance orders which he opposed authorizing in the first place?
Moreover, the Government already has "the ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States" under the current FISA law. Citing the need for such monitoring in order to justify this new FISA bill is just pure fear-mongering ("you better let us eliminate FISA protections if you want us to keep you safe from the Terrorists"). Obama has always said in the past that "the FISA court works." When did he change his mind and why?
I do so with the firm intention -- once I'm sworn in as president -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.
This expression of Obama's "intention" has so many equivocations and vague claims as to be worthless. In a society that lives under the rule of law, government officials and corporations which break our laws are held accountable by courts of law, not by vague promises from politicians of some future "review" and "recommendation" process grounded in claims that we can trust the Leader to do the right thing, whatever he decides in his sole discretion and infinite wisdom that might be. That is no consolation for blocking courts from adjudicating whether laws were broken here, which is what the bill that Obama supports will do."
The Byrds at the Monterey Pop Festival in 1967.
YouTube
h/t Jeralyn