dagblog - Comments for ""Because What he's Frittering Away is the Rights we all Have as Citizens""

Actually, I seem to recall

oleeb — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 23:52:25 +0000

In reply to "Because What he's Frittering Away is the Rights we all Have as Citizens"

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.

Look, I voted for him too,

oleeb — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 23:35:53 +0000

In reply to "Because What he's Frittering Away is the Rights we all Have as Citizens"

Look, I voted for him too, but that doesn't mean I am obliged to keep quiet when he does something that I believe is wrong, or as in this case, deceitful and dishonest. Those who invent reasons to excuse Obama when he does wrong are not doing the President or their country any favors and there's no tactical advantage to be had from keeping quiet. Quite the opposite. Many people have a major emotional investment in Obama that leads them to be more like sycophants than supporters and more like bling followers instead of citizens. That's not good no matter who the idol is that is being worshipped whether Obama or Bush or Hillary or anyone else. The kool aid and cult metaphors have stuck around for a reason. I didn't invent them. And with respect to this particular issue, we have a glaring example of Obama as hypocritical pol and flip flopper yet some still continue to manufacture elaborate theories that have no relationship to reality in his tactical genius will surprise us all and so forth. It really is an absurd level fo denial that people need to get over as Turley urged people in the interview. I think we're all better off when that behavior is called out. I am not by any means saying that I don't defend Obama when I think he deserves it. I do. But that is very different from the knee jerk refusal to accept that a very bad policy decision is what it actually appears to be.

Obama is a politician. Except for his race and relatively young age, he is a pretty run of the mill, corporate/centrist Democrat. His marketing strategy of himself as "different" and somehow "special" in some historic way was nothing but Axelrod's best work. That is not reality, it is all smoke and mirrors. Obama has lots of talent, lots of brains, and clearly has the same capacity for duplicity and horse trading as other pols of his ilk. I think he's probably better than most of them, but he isn't radically better or better suited for the job than many others that could be pulled off the shelf. Different faces, same results. As such, he should not be evaluated any differently than we would any other professional politician which is what he is except for the fact that he told everyone that he was different and wanted to be evaluated differently. He told the nation and the world he wasn't like the rest, but in fact, he is just like the rest.

I understand your point of view in terms of the long history of the way the US has operated, but that is no excuse for Obama doing the wrong thing in the present in my opinion. Understanding the history can help one understand why it is not terribly surprising that Obama has taken this direction but again, it does not excuse him, particularly when he clearly stated over and over he would not take this road. In fact, with Obama marketing himself as the antidote to the Washington mentality and that sort of thing, he is especially culpable for a collosal betrayal on this sort of thing. Additionally, we can still bear in mind the lengthy string of historical developments leading to Obama's poor choice in this area even if we deal with it in the context of the more immediate past. I don't see it as a one or the other way choice to view the matter. The most immediately relevant context for Obama's actions in all areas is in contrast to the Bush era.

I still don't understand why you feel you've been called a kool aid drinker, because I don't see you having done that.

Zipperupus, I added my reply

Don Key — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 23:09:28 +0000

In reply to "Because What he's Frittering Away is the Rights we all Have as Citizens"

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

Here, again, we are on the same page, but many of us think the way to do this is to try to push Obama in the right direction; to demand that he holds to his promise of transparency and fight for the reversal of this power-grabbing, not cement it by having all cases dismissed with more bogus state-secrets claims.

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.

Not really, Tom. I think that

Don Key — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:53:24 +0000

In reply to "Because What he's Frittering Away is the Rights we all Have as Citizens"

Not really, Tom. I think that is what the debate is about (i.e. where's the change?). Of course, the Obama admin has not had much time, but the actions they have taken seem counter to that "announced intent."

Re: FISA Amendment Bill (and

Don Key — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:43:59 +0000

In reply to "Because What he's Frittering Away is the Rights we all Have as Citizens"

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."

Your opinion is discredited

Zipperupus — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:28:20 +0000

In reply to "Because What he's Frittering Away is the Rights we all Have as Citizens"

Your opinion is discredited in advance... all your thoughts are belong to us.

Great stuff.

Dorn76 — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:27:59 +0000

In reply to "Because What he's Frittering Away is the Rights we all Have as Citizens"

Great stuff.

Correct. While our civil

Zipperupus — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:21:20 +0000

In reply to "Because What he's Frittering Away is the Rights we all Have as Citizens"

Correct. While our civil rights were compromised in the name of GWOT, War on Drugs, Cold War, etc., the federal government and business have created a two-tiered standard for bankers and everyone else that reached its zenith with the repeal of Glass-Steagal which allowed the investment foxes to guard the commercial henhouse.

You've said it very well.

anna am — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:19:55 +0000

In reply to "Because What he's Frittering Away is the Rights we all Have as Citizens"

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.

A good try anyhoo...because

Dorn76 — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:19:50 +0000

In reply to "Because What he's Frittering Away is the Rights we all Have as Citizens"

A good try anyhoo...because despite these facts and cogent analysis, the breathing gets pretty heavy down below...