I knew the time would come when President Obama would disappoint me, and this is it. Up until now, I've been able to sit back and take a wait and see approach. I was one of those who looked at FISA as a vote he needed to make that would be corrected later...looks like THAT'S not going to happen and I'm deeply saddened. I'm hoping for an explanation, because for the life of me, I can't come up with one.

I still have confidence in him and his ability to lead this country, but this has left a very bad taste in my mouth...

I'm not convinced this is resolved yet...

He plays his hand close to the vest. DOJ needs to be cleaned up and other processes securely put in place. Laying the proper foundation to construct a sold structure is his SOP.

I urge all to send respectful messages via the website he's put in place for questions and communications on policies, processes. By stating position and rationale on this issue we can let him know we're paying attention and believe this is very important.

Again, we need to do our part to achieve a positive resolution. If we don't, then we have no right to complain or critique.

On further reflection, however, despite having not read the government's filings, I will say this much.

The government is taking a position on a purely legal question in court filings. The other side is represented by competent counsel and is arguing the other side of the issue competently and vigorously. The decision will then ultimately be made by an Article III judge insulated from political pressure by a lifetime appointment and his decision will almost certainly be reviewed by other judges, similarly insulated.

Equating arguing a position in court with an assault on the rule of law is just foolishness.

What would be an assault on the rule of law would be if the government lost and then simply ignored the court's decision. Bush would have done that. Obama won't.

Based on what little I know now, I would rather see these arguments pressed all the way to a final, legally dispositive, decision one way or another than leave the questions unresolved and subject to further "interpretation" and abuse by some future Republican administration. Just possibly, Holder and Obama feel the same way because, being lawyers, they understand that giving up on these positions in court now would mean there would be be no ruling, which, in turn leaves the question open and the door open to a renewal of abuses by some future Bush.

If the "power grab" you're worried about truly is "illegal," then that means the government will lose and, having lost, future administrations will not have room to contend otherwise.

And if the government wins in these cases, well that rather undercuts the argument re "illegal power grab," doesn't it?

The kool aid still tastes good I see.

They aren't merely going through the motions. They are arguing for a much broader power on behalf of the executive branch. Turley is a very well respected and saavy man. His comments are unambigious. You need to step back from the punch bowl and reassess the ongoing apologia for Obama's deception of his supporters on this issue.

I have reccomended this post, but with reservations. I agree that the Obama DOJ is continuing the legal arguments put forth by the Bush administration. I also agree that it would not only be refreshing but downright revolutionary if the Executive Branch would not so intransigently define national security so broadly as to apply to anything the Executive DOES.

However...

Obama is not merely continuing the legal arguments of the Bush administration. To engage in a Bush versus Obama dichotomy neglects the course of US government since its inception. I am going to call this fallacy "Reductio ad Greenwald," in honor of the columnist who specializes in this dualistic sensationalism.

I will limit the scope of US history to Truman and beyond. Given that Howard Zinn is listed in your favorites, Oleeb, you can follow along because it aligns more or less with his historical POV.

The Truman administration brought us the NSA as well as the Espionage Act... both of which prefigure and set precedent for our current mess. In a sad way they echo the Alien and Sedition Act and thus set a thread that ties Imperial America together. No administration has done fuckall to overturn these expansions of power. The reason is because they buttress the needs of American Empire. Instead, the historigal legal argument is for national security and any activities engaged in are state secrets.

To engage in reductio ad Greenwald is to create an articifial epicentre for the structural damage to representative government... and that epicentre is Bush. Never mind that every President at the very least since Truman has made use of domestic spying and expansive emergency powers. Never mind that we have been in a perpetual state of war since Pearl Harbor.

The problem exists beyond the scope of partisanship. The problem is systemic and impacts every facet of our nation and culture. That problem is that we are an empire that must continually defend itself from the enemies its exploitation creates. Further, the public must be entertained and paranoid. Finally, the public must believe completely in the American narrative that our culture is exceptional and deserves to be inflicted on the world.

And one last thought. The executive is defending the spying because it is datamining. We the people voluntarily give out our demographic information via social networking and the countless contracts we sign for services over the course of our lives. Some of this information can be used to track terrorists, but mostly it allows empire to maintain a virtual awareness of the needs of the masses... a census of desire that can be exploited.

For clarification, will you please give specifics on your statement cited below so that we achieve clear understanding of facts:

".....the ongoing apologia for Obama's deception of his supporters on this issue."

Thanks Oleeb. Appreciate.

Turly sitting where he is sitting on this issue is correct. However, if Turly were the AG he would have to take the governments position as does DOJ. The governments position is usually to defend the law as it stands - in this case FISA. It matters not whether they like it or not.

Next to accuse NCSteve of being a kool-aid drinker for laying out a reasonable argument does you more of a disservice than Steve.

Although you did not cite source case, if you are referring to the 'Jewel' case, as is Ickyma (comment below) I started researching and just posted this another post. This is from source DAILY KOS - an attorney giving his findings of the US DOJ:

'Asserting a defense in a lawsuit does not in any way equate official government policy. Trust me on this one. I’ve had to assert defenses to lawsuits early on in the stages of litigation, as is the case in the FISA lawsuit. And it does NOT mean in any way that it is some sort of policy declaration. It is doing what is necessary to defend my client from the relief sought by the Plaintiff. Plain and simple. And that is especially true at the Motion to Dismiss stage. Indeed, these issues are going to be litigated not only at the trial stage, but at the appellate stage. And believe me, DOJ is going to continue argue immunities, because that’s their job. Not only in this lawsuit but in all future lawsuits. It is their job not to create policy, but to defend their client. They are not simply going to roll over and say, “OK, you win, we’ll pay you a truckload of money.” Not going to happen. And certainly not going to happen at this early stage of the game.

Now, it has been suggested that someone the new assertion of sovereign immunity made via the Patriot Act, FISA, etc. is breathtaking and such, but I just don’t see it the way others do. I look at it from the perspective of the government lawyer, and if there is another argument to be advanced to defend my client on immunity grounds, even if that argument hasn’t been advanced before, I’m going to use it. And I’m reasonably certain that is what the DOJ attorneys are doing…their job to defend their client. It has also been suggested that Congress, in passing the telecom immunity in the FISA revision claimed “Well, you can always sue the individual government actors,” and that somehow, this Motion goes against the grain of that claim. This Motion doesn’t change that one iota. Again, this is a Motion filed on behalf of the United States of America and related government Defendants, in their official capacity. If a Plaintiff finds that Wendy Wiretapper, working for NSA, violated a Plaintiff’s civil rights, that lawsuit can still continue, but still be subject to personal immunities for official acts.

I am still wary of where this is going. Clearly, I’d like some more policy assurances from the Obama administration with respect to the wiretapping issue, and changes in the law.

But you can’t blame the lawyers for defending their client. And you can’t translate what they are doing to defend their client as a policy decision. At least not yet.

UPDATE: Some people have stated that “why doesn’t DOJ simply settle the case” or something to that effect. Just wanted to point out that this is the BEGINNING of the lawsuit, not the END. In fact, should DOJ’s Motion get denied, we have no idea where this lawsuit goes. There may be more incentive to settle at that point. Fact is, we just don’t know at this point. But I would NOT expect them merely to settle the case just off the bat. That is rarely, rarely done.'

Good post. Effective information that can help keep us from devolving into the reductio ad Greenwald and simply delineating similiarities between Bush and Obama without addressing any and all underlying facts which color the conclusion.

"The problem exists beyond the scope of partisanship. The problem is systemic and impacts every facet of our nation and culture."

Well, absolutely, but that's what makes the "change" mantra such a fraud. The problem exists beyond the scope of partisanship because we really have a 1 1/4 party state. When I hear people buying into the "postpartisan" b.s. I just want to cry. Let's all join hands and surrender to life in an increasingly fascist state. Ideology doesn't matter dontcha know. What is, is. Whatever makes the trains run on time. Whatever primes the banks. Whatever keeps the military-industrial lobbies happy. Whatever.

When I see change I will believe in it. But on the other hand when I see it I will not have to "believe"in it.
I feel so betrayed by BHO!!! I was so hoping that he would be a different president. It is not very often that I am conned by someone but I fell for his line of a "new Washington". I fervently (hoped) "wished" for him to be different. But like my mother said "wish in one hand, shit in the other and see which one fills first". I did not vote at all until slick willy came up to bat and I gave him my vote. I will never vote again for anything or anyone. I am so angry that I could rant and rave but it would do me no good as BHO does not give a shit what I think and I have no way to change anything in goverment, not even by voting. I try not to let things like this bother me as again it is pointless & raises my blood pressure by 25 points. So I will just opt out of any form of voting.

Windancer

AuntSam, I'm presently formulating a related blog post. It's still not even in a rough draft form, but should be finished later today or tomorrow. Watch for it.

One aspect of the Obama DOL's legal briefs in preexisting court cases, that side with the Bush DOJ's previous arguments, is that the judges in these cases, have previously shown themselves to be very skeptical of the Executive Branch's claims to exist without the Constitutional limitations placed upon it. Obama's DOJ may be intentionally supporting Bush DOJ decisions in ongoing trials to obtain court decisions that overturn them.

There are very sound reasons why a new President should not be in the business of wholesale reversal of the previous President's legal briefs in the Federal Court system. Just as there are sound reasons; why it isn't the duty of a new president to investigate the previous president's possible acts of criminality on his own initiative alone; this is Congress; duty, not the President's.

I too will look for your post on this. Thanks!

One thing that Lars Thorwald (who works at DoJ) wrote recently was that we should not mistake the administration's claiming of certain privileges for the executive branch as their "policy" but as privileges that if not claimed are forfeited. Thus, on the basis of Lars' comment, I gathered that the administration can "claim" a privilege they might later forfeit, but that unless they claim it first, they cannot choose which course to follow later down the road. (That's what I took away from his argument. And he is someone who has proved truthful in the past, in my view.)

Obama did not flip-flop on his FISA position. He clearly stated his opposition to a telecom immunity with backwards applicability, voted for every amendment that would have stripped it, and even stated his willingness to filibuster the legislation on this reason alone. Every one of those Amendments was defeated with a filibuster breaking majority (See: February 2008, Senate Roll Call votes 11-20). Obama publicly stated on the Senate floor, February 12, 2008, he believed that the FISA Amendments Act was an imperative piece of legislation for America's safety, yet was troubled by the telecom immunity part of the legislation. He did not say he would vote against it, if his position on telecom immunity was soundly defeated by a large majority of Senators.

The most relevant rejected amendment to the FISA Bill, which would have stripped out telecom immunity was the Dodd Amendment, Senate Roll Call Vote 15, February 12, 2008. It was defeated 31-67, and it takes at least 41 to successfully filibuster. Here's the list of Democratic Senators who voted against the Dodd Amendment:

Why not choose an issue you believe in - research - get facts - and then work towards a positive resolution? That's what we all need to do to ensure a better process and society.

Walking away is only enabling the problem, not achieving a viable and positive solution.

Sorry you're so upset. Hope you something happens to make you smile soon.

To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/obama_camp_says_it_hell_support_filibuster_of_any_bill_containing_telecom_immunity.php

He voted for cloture for a bill with retroactive telecom immunity. That's a flip-flop.

This website is a wreck. A lot of silly technical problems that Josh Marshall refuses to fix.

It is highly unlikely the DOJ would pursue a strategy that points in one direction in hopes of getting the opposite result. Why would they when all they would have to do is change the previous course? It's just too convoluted.

Correct!

It is the "udjat", often referred to as The Eye of Horus.

Millions of Americans convinced themselves that electing Obama was the political answer to the question you pose. And they believed that coming together to "be the change" was the spiritual impetus.

Obama never implied that he would instruct the DOJ to implement and expand on principles that democrats were extremely critical of when Bush/Cheney first deployed them. In fact, Obama made some pretty strong statements that implied just the opposite.

Obama needs to stop fucking around and embrace the change he promised.

No, he did not vote for cloture on the FISA Amendment Bill.

He did vote for the bill when it came up for a final vote though.

You need to look at the Judges in the cases. In both this one being referenced and the recent decision allowing a few Bagram detainees access to the Federal Courts for habeas corpus pleas, the sitting trial judge is a conservative, who has been very unfriendly towards Bush Administration;s claims of being without the reach of the Constitution.

So you condemn Obama, who voted against telecom immunity, yet let Feinstein, who voted for telecom immunity, and who applied her smiley face in person down at Guantanamo Bay legitimising it, to slide once again.

Democrats: The Lamer of Two Evils...

Amen!

No, he was supposed to cast a vote, under authority given to him by the people of Illinois who elected him to office, in the fashion he promised to. He didn't. End of story.

Pointing at others (who may or may not have promised to oppose the legislation) is like a kid pointing to someone else's sins when they are caught stealing. "But BOBBY did it too! And he's done OTHER bad stuff! Why don't you yell at Bobby?" A good parent knows what Bobby did doesn't absolve their own child - and punishes them appropriately.

It's always interesting how different people take different things away from the same set of words. It's like that old parable about the elephant and the 6 blind guys.

I was sort of hoping Lars would pop in and give his take as well. On this issue, I'd give his view an awful lot of weight. He's opened my eyes to a bigger perspective several times in the past.

BTW pseudocyants, I must say that I am very impressed with the intellectual integrity of your posts on this, considering that I know from your posting history that you have very strong views on civil liberties issues. It's easy when you're passionate about something to go with the angry agitprop and not get into the messy details, but you're not doing that and I'm impressed.

thanks AA - this needs to be done right, and thoroughly repudiated, not just having one executive say he's not going to do it. The Federal Judiciary seems to have awakened quite a bit in the last few years. Hamdan and Boumediene have much to do with this, as Federal Judges are bound by SCOTUS decisions, and both freed up their hands quite a bit.

I don't have a strong retribution mindset, and have said many times before that Vengeance rightfully belongs in the hands of deities, not humans. Prosecution of Bush Administration officials is way down on my list of priorities. I take comfort knowing that Yoo must get up every morning, knowing that his once fast-track to the Federal Bench and onto being A SCOTUS Justice has now been derailed, and he faces a life-long professorship at Boalt Law School, UCB. An ironic and karmic punishment. This doesn't excuse the equivocators of torture and the thieves of liberty; I will curse time in epitaphs if fortune is kind enough. It's just that criminal trials and and imprisonment are just as likely to create martyrs as it is to set America on the right course again, and that is the real issue here. The past cannot be changed, but the future awaits.

This needs to be done properly, obeying the forms of our Constitutional Government, or nothing has been gained, and the wheel will just turn around at some point in the future.

No administration has done fuckall to overturn these expansions of power.

On the contrary, zipperupus. Almost all past abuses of power of the type you mention have been curtailed through legislation or the courts. That’s what FISA was written to do in the first place. I agree with you that Greenwald has an argumentative style that is purposefully polarizing and sometimes grating. It probably stems from his passion on the subjects he writes about. But it is dialectically dualistic, not Manichean(quite the opposite, in fact). And he is one of the most consistent defenders of civil liberties with facts and honest logical arguments.

His is a rare article that doesn’t contain at least five or six links to the source he is criticizing and other experts that buttress his arguments. Greenwald, an accomplished constitutional lawyer, and Turley, one of the most renowned constitutional scholars, are experts almost always on the same page, and his “reductio” is really a matter of burrowing to the core of an issue.

I really don’t understand the impulse of ardent Obama supporters to reframe blatantly wrong decisions like this (i.e. the defense doesn't mean policy (it does), DOJ is setting itself up to be reversed, waiting for the right time, afraid of diminishing executive privilege, they know more than us, etc.). It will only backfire in the long run.

In case after case, whether regarding illegal torture or illegal spying, whether it’s a lawsuit against the government or a private partner who was acting on the gov’s behalf, the administration has done all it can to have the cases dismissed on state secrets grounds (just as Bush’s DOJ did).

I believe the newest claim that Oleeb was referring to is the "sovereign immunity" claim in the lawsuit brought be EFF (the internet’s ACLU) for illegal spying. It claims, going way beyond any of the unitary executive claims of Bush, that no illegal surveillance suits of any kind can go forward unless the government “intentionally released the illegally obtained information to the public (of course, since everything was secrete, there’s no chance of that).

Please think about what this claim of power means. It is an open invitation for a secret police state. It is basically claiming that the President can do anything in the name of all that is terrorism, if it’s kept secret. I do not believe Obama is going to abuse these powers, but I have no basis to believe anything because, again, there is no transparency. And if you know who the President will be in 4,8,12, 16 or more years and what state of affairs will be you must be psychic. Regardless of the fate of Obama or the Democratic Congress, the rights of citizens and the rule of law must be restored.

Yes I know. I just find their comprehensiveness on intel news to be very useful. I go there when there is something related in the news that interests me and I have rarely been disappointed in finding more depth. As the masthead says for policymakers and serious researchers and real-time information about terrorism cases and policy developments. As always, you can leave the slant/opinions aside. Often the links in their blog posts are more valuable than the posts themselves, and the news feeds are great. It's the reading that they do that they share, more than their opinions.

So. to sum up all the comments. The Bush doctrine was and will continue to be the right path to take for the country. Obama being a smart guy realizes it and will continue it.

He said he would support a filibuster against any FISA bill containing retro telecom immunity and he didn't (se above). He didn't live up to the ACTUAL promise he made, much less the implied promise that he woudn't vote for a bill for telecom immunity.

Granted, I accepted his FISA flip flop in the context of an election with the understanding with a new administration there would be more openness & transparency, less using state secrets doctrine to cover up illegality on the part of the previous administration.

Apparently, Holder is about to reverse the GWB DOJ assertion of state privilege on one case:

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/obama_to_reverse_at_least_one_secret_privilege_invocation.php

I'm guessing the Al-Haramain case since the govt accidentally turned over proof that they had been warantless spying on the chartiy's lawyers, and then demanded the document back. That would be a good start.

What a cogent, rational argument. That must win over everyone exposed to it.

The same strategy probably gets you a lot of dates, too. "Well, eff you! If you don't want to go out with me, you must be a lesbian. No, you must be someone who just hates people and has been waiting for a reson to show it."

There was no filibuster to support. There was never a minority of 41 Senators would voted to strip away telecom immunity. This isn't backing down. There can be no filibusters without 41 Senators would will support it. It get ended in witha cliture vote, before it gets started.

Dijamo, in the two cases I am a bit familiar with of the three mentioned in that Atlantic Article, the same Federal Judge is presiding: Vaughn R. Walker, Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit, and appointed to the bench by GHW Bush. The cases are Jewel v. NSA and Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Obama (formerly Bush). Judge Walker is also the presiding Judge in Hepting v. AT&T, in which four of the five plaintiffs from Jewel filed suit against AT&T instead of the NSA. Judge Walker has not been a friend to State Secrets claims made by the government in the past.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker in San Francisco has resisted Justice Department attempts to claim the state-secrets privilege, making it (al-Haramain) one of the only cases to survive such a government challenge. Over the past eight years, authorities successfully invoked that argument dozens of times to prevent civil liberties groups from winning access to highly classified materials on a range of topics, including secret overseas prisons for terrorism suspects and warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.

Carrie Johnson, "Like Predecessor, New Justice Dept. Claiming Privilege", Washingtoon Post, March 25, 2009

Here is what Obama said as candidate:

"[The FISA bill] also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."

Now, his administration is acting not in accord but directly in opposition to this stated public policy promise. Just how can this be defended? Yet we will hear this 180 degree turn proudly promoted by the Obama-can-do-no-wrong crowd.Count on it.

Quickly forgotten is the Bush White House's announced intent to hold human rights utterly subservient to anti-towelhead actions. Compare to Obama's announced intent to have the opposite policy.

Yes but on retroactive immunity Obama is promising to work to remove this provision. Instead he is working to protect wrongdoing and to continue the practice. If I understand you it is not a flip-flop or a cave-in when you promise one thing and do the opposite. According to you this is called "compromise"; whatever you wish to call it there was a lot of it in Bush-Cheney and now some more in Obama-Biden.

Well, have to say you don't seem like much of a gent either.

Pot call the kettle black much?

See my comment to Don Key below. The same applies, but I will add an example for you:

I believe in public funding of federal campaigns. Private donors generate corruption which has become more and more apparent in the age of television. While Obama has generated unparraleled support in small donations, the big donations from the same interests that haunt both parties persists. Especially when those big interests have more access to government than we the people have.

However:

How can this be achieved? The people can push and generate the force necessary for the legislation to pass public funding. The current court would overturn it because there is precedent for campaign contributions being legally congruent with free speech. So, there would have to a majority court sympathetic to this plight... which can take multiple administrations to occur, and a lot can happen between two administrations.

Apply the same logic to the current DOJ arguments. Ultimately, the highest court in the land would have to be sympathetic to overturning executive privilege and state secrets in order for this information to be released. Yet there is a vast amount of precedent giving the executive the privilege to declare state secrets and define national security. You are asking the executive to declare against precedent as the PLAINTIFF. There is a point that the argument the DOJ is too extreme and strenuous by including a blatant "whistleblower clause" that prevents lawsuits against the administration in case info is accidentally released... but (here is where I am commiting sophistry for the sake of argument) by removing the threat of lawsuit it could actually compel the release of information through the back door and actually allow the public to become more aware and push Congress into action as an investigative power.

I am saying these things because perspective is badly needed. Have you noticed that for every one of these short-sighted outrage fostering posts there are a handful of concern trolls that declare an end to democracy, "giving up" on Obama, and other apathetic crap that actually gives MORE POWER TO THE BIG INTERESTS!

Perhaps the discussion needs to be elevated. That is all I am saying.

Well, what an impressive tantrum.

This is the big problem with the Obama cult. You are so enthralled and caught up in wanting him to be perfect you've lost your ability to appreciate what he is doing well and to recognize where he is not doing well.

I know it is frustrating for you and others who comprise the various segments of the cult of personality Turley referred to in the interview, but the reason they are saying "I told you so" is because they did. They wouldn't be able to say it if it weren't true, but it is true. You and others who seem to want to be sycophants instead of citizens need to face that reality. You and the other folks suffering from the same sort of denial all along the way have reacted in the childish, immature manner you have here. Trying to shout down the truth never works as it has not worked no matter how loud the "Obama right or wrong" crowd yells.

It is most frustrating to face the fact, as Turley pointed out that the President is not committed to privacy and civil liberties as he said he was. We have all been misled by the President and it's something even people like yourself are going to have to come to grips with. The way to deal with is not to tell those who are pointing out the truth "fuck you" and to act like what clearly is happening isn't happening.

The way to deal with it is to let the President know this is not okay. We need to tell him very clearly that we expect him to honor his committment to protect the rights of citizens whether or not there is a "tradition" of power accumulation in the Executive branch or not. We need to make it clear to the President that "bad things" as Turley pointed out are still bad things even if good people do them.

Look up above at Dijamo's posts with links.

That's not correct. The Senate had previously and successfully fillibustered the very same bill. The Congressional Democrats, however, after what they obviously considered effective bullshitting the media and public, suddenly were A-okay with the same piece of crap bill after the telecoms flooded the campaign coffers of Democrats in Washington, DC. That miraculous change in position and the relationship between key players such as Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid, Emmanual and many others was delineated at the time.

Once the Democrats had extracted the cash there was a sudden "urgent" national security reason to pass the law instead of doing the right thing. It was a transparent payoff. What made Obama's flip flop so galling was that he could quite easily have refused to flip flop and the craven DC Democrats would have still gotten their money. But he didn't. Instead, he chose to double cross many of the supporters who had trusted his word and been with him since the beginning or who chose him instead of another candidate based, in part, on his pledge not to go along with another bums rush and let the telecoms get off scot-free for knowingly violating the law.

I note that you have nothing to say regarding what I have written. Instead, you lay a nice blithe insult by dropping "cultist" into the discussion.

In case you haven't noticed, I advocate activism. But I advocate INFORMED activism. And informed activism in this instance is the awareness that any activism is up against an historical tide that will take time and effort to reverse.

To insist upon Bush vs. Obama optics is the comission of historical revisionism. You have done this before, and you have engaged in armchair warrior judgments on the nature and meaning of courage. There is something sinister in the way you approach political problems... a deliberate lack of context.

Every week you bring up an expert and use that expert's value judgments to raise troubling doubts about the current administration. Then you follow up with regular posts about how courageous certain Presidents have been knowing FULL WELL (having read Howard Zinn) how these Presidents in fact expanded executive power and in other ways furthered American empire.

And, in your posts, there is a trickle of random posters who throw their hands in the air and "give up" on Obama and/or politics. Instead of perhaps nudging them towards long-term activism, you focus your needling on kool-aid drinkers and cultists, which is a terrible and dehumanizing insult to people like myself with an invested and longterm love of country and politics.

In other words: HOW DARE YOU

If you quit with the cult crap, you might not be on the receiving end of colorful metaphors.

Kool-aid drinker refers to a mass suicide. To accuse a general population of being brainwashed and potentially suicidial is on par with other dehumanizing insults. It diminishes your credibility because you are dehumanizing an entire segment of the nation's population in order to make yourself look good... like you are so special for avoiding the brainwashing...

Ad hominen is ad hominem no matter how "virtuous" the messenger.

Kool Aid drinkers also refers to the idea of blind loyalty and I think that is the reference point for most people who use it. It certainly is with me and I think in the context of the Obama worship that developed early on in his candidacy and continues to this day it is quite apt.

LMAO!!!

The issue seems to be, "What have you done for me lately?"

I was going to re-read this thread, and comment, but being a "cultist", I figured, why bother?

I identify with the insult because I voted for Obama and have engaged in apologism on his behalf... the reasons are almost always because I believe (and I justify this belief with historical facts) that the government is an empire masquerading as a democracy. Obama's election is the first step to perhaps reclaiming representative government and dialing back our hegemonic aims... there are some good signs, and many bad ones, but we the people are fighting over 200 years of manifest destiny in order to form a more perfect union.

So I take umbrage with posters like yourself (especially you who has used history as a launching pad) who criticize Obama through a selective filter that charts the course of US history from GW Bush forward. I identify with your beliefs, and I have a feeling that your politics and my politics mesh rather well. I simply disagree with your approach because it does harm. I see the trickle of disappointed liberals/progressives who wander into your threads and give up on Obama. Because you limit the discussion to the last 8 years when it suits you, it appears that Obama is indeed continuing Bush's policies and is a milquetoast DINO. This shifts the blame from a lack of activism and grassroots organization to push the country left onto the shoulders of the administration that was voted into a corrupt and mendacious empire.

In other words, setting impossible standards and then blaming the administration for failing to live up to them and THUS taking the onus of responsibility from the people (who actually power this nation) to the administration.

The key insight into what you say is that a judge has never refused a request. That means that FISA was nothing other than a rubber stamp to begin with. The entire domestic wiretapping operation needs to be overhauled and curtailed. Instead, we are acting as if FISA is okay when it is most certainly invasive. This is the peril in limiting the conversation to reductio ad Greenwald.

You've said it very well. Thank you. There should be no reason for this kind of defense. But lately there's been a new rash of you still like Obama = you've got your head up your whatsis stuff. It's quite offensive.

Great stuff.

Re: FISA Amendment Bill (and previous PAA)- why were they needed at all? The only real problem the administration was complaining about (foreign to foreign calls routed through the US) could have been taken care of with a one-paragraph amendment and likely voted for unanimously.

Re: Obama originally claimed he would support a filibuster and the Dems had the numbers to support it. Repubs couldn't invoke cloture until Obama turned around and Dems took their cue from Obama.

Greenwald (6/21/08):
"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."

Zipperupus,

I added my reply to you to what I had already started writing for the thread generally, so I wasn’t referring to you as making advancing those meager defenses in parenthesis.

That aside, you make some excellent points, which I wholeheartedly agree with. The strange thing is that most of those arguments are the same ones Greenwald and others have been making. Greenwald has pointed out the organized, systematic power-grab was sold as the “unitary executive” theory. He argues regularly about government-corporate-media collusion. Greenwald has also successfully argued that popular opinion was strongly in favor of turning back these abuses (and against the Iraq War on becoming aware of the lies and the nature of the occupation). He has constantly corrected the government and media distortions of polls and popular opinion.

I understand what you’re saying about a history of systematic abuses and distortions of the constitution. Yes, the War Powers Act means nothing if Congress doesn’t seize its inherent authority. The same is true of these other unitary executive abuses, not to mention oversight that it is specifically obligated to carry out and does not.

It may be more Cheney than Bush, but it is beyond assertions by any executive that I can think of (sure, even Lincoln and FDR tried, unsuccessfully, to push the envelope, but not to this extreme). The discussion is about Obama reversing Bush because these are abuses of a different kind and order than anything previous and is too dangerous to democracy to be allowed to stand.

We the people need to FIGHT for our RIGHTS

I simply can't agree that the citizenry is somehow holding the government back from restoring the rule of law. "You can fool all of the people some of the time..." The people have always demanded equality under the law and desperately want change and freedom from the corporate-government stranglehold despite the fact that "the revolution is not being televised."

The only way things will change is when it’s all put on the table, investigated and facts released, so that a public debate can take place. Bush turned the federal government into a secret plutocracy detached from and unaccountable to us peasants. I think we agree on this, but with different ideas about how to achieve it.

Actually, I seem to recall reading that out of the many thousands of requests made over the past 30+ years, there have been 2 denials.

I am okay with FISA as it was and even as amended if the law is enforced. Retroactive immunity for telecoms who all knowingly violated the law was and remains totally unacceptable to me for any reason. There simply are some lines that must not be crossed and that was one of them. That's why domestic spying was made illegal and punishable by significant fines. This immunity renders our laws totally useless and ineffective so long as you have enough money and lobbyists to purchase your way out of your criminal behavior after you've done the crime!

The administration is arguing that it has carte blanche to do as it pleases on massive domestic spying even in violation of FISA as long as they don't deliberately and publicly reveal it. That is very different and it is far more than Bush ever claimed.

There is no way they are trying to argue a position so extreme it will get overturned. This is too serious a matter for that kind of a Rube Goldbergian tactic. Besides, that is not the way the courts work. The courts have a long and clear history of siding with the government even when they think the government is wrong if a claim of national security is made.

The administration is arguing unequivocally that citizens cannot sue the government for illegally spying on themm, neither can they sue to find out if they are spying on them. The argument is for unlimited and unfettered prerogative on the part of the executive branch to spy on it's citizens whether or not the law allows it. That is the power of tyranny and no argument nor any amount of dressing it up as something else can disguise it.