Quote :

"He is supposed to convince us he is going to be the leader on security and he can't even bring himself to take a stand now and show that he is willing to stand up to democrats when it's needed."

you are right and wrong. yes McCain is the security candidate and has to look tough on turrists to maintain his conservative fan base. Perhaps though he was not outspoken to the dems because even he realized that perhaps this bill is very unamerican and anti-freedom. he had to vote for the bill but perhaps he thought their were better battles to fight especially when he wants to be able to carry the indie and libertarian vote away from a possible obama nomination. had he voiced up during this he would have pissed a lot of these swing voters off.

It is just politics dude

2/16/2008 12:53:50 PM

^ yes McCain is just a politician. That was my point. All talk and no action where action is needed and not self-beneficial.

Quote :

"spöokyjon What part of "No ex post facto law shall be passed." does Bush not understand?"

But, isn't this about preventing future lawsuits ?

2/17/2008 12:58:01 AM

Court turns away FISA challenge

Quote :

"The Supreme Court yesterday refused to review a legal challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union to President Bush's domestic terrorist surveillance program but did not rule on several key issues, including whether the government could intercept international phone calls and e-mails."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articleAID=/20080220/NATION/879689447/1002/NATION

Ha-ha. ACLU FTL.

2/21/2008 1:21:31 AM

Frankly, it is the responsibility of companies with our private information to obey the law. Lawbreakers in the government asking for it does not take them off the hook, even if it is sanctioned by the President himself. It is not hard to get a court order, provided the rationale is remotely legitimate.

2/21/2008 5:10:29 AM

Quote :

"Ha-ha. ACLU FTL."

do you give a shit at all about the underlying principle of what they were trying to accomplish, or do you just want to make sure that the evil ACLU fails at everything they do?

2/21/2008 7:51:59 AM

Quote :

" Ha-ha. ACLU FTL."

Yes indeed. Your civil liberties FTL.

2/21/2008 8:37:56 AM

guys hooksaw already said he is accepting of a more totalitarian form of government and would gladly sacrifice civil liberties in the name of "national security" so his comment above shouldn't surprise anyone.

2/21/2008 9:37:46 AM

The 4th Amendment is a biggie, gang.

It's what seperates a big part of gov't control from the people. It's about our right, as humans, to be left the hell alone.

Politicians have used FISA to steadily chip away at this important amendment. We've actually come full circle. Before the revolution, British soldiers could write their own search warrants to rifle through colonists houses ..checking for the King's stamp on all documents.

We fought a revolution in part to deep-six that tactic. But today, ...once again..FBI agents can write their own search warrants, go through your stuff - without you knowledge, and if someone informs you that they did..they go to jail.

And Bush didn't want agents to even bother getting a warrant post-facto from a "secret" FISA judge..cause all that paperwork takes too long.

Everyone should just take their copies of the Bill of Rights and white out the fourth one.

2/21/2008 10:43:02 AM

Quote :

"And Bush didn't want agents to even bother getting a warrant post-facto from a "secret" FISA judge..cause all that paperwork takes too long."

yeah, that's what infuriates me about all the politicking about how if this bill isn't passed immediately, as-is, we're all in more danger.

As I understand the original wire-tapping laws, if the FBI or NSA or whatever has a compelling and urgent reason, they still can tap phones without a warrant, as long as a warrant is applied for within a certain amount of time (3 days?) after the fact. This alone completely obliterates the argument that the process of obtaining a warrant is time that can't be wasted in an emergency situation (which, of course, are much more rare than the gov't (and hollywood) would have us believe anyway. there is rarely if ever a "ticking time bomb" situation where we need to listen RIGHT NOW or use torture to get information or any of that).

2/21/2008 11:39:29 AM

It may do everyone good to read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act

Seems like there are a lot of misconceptions floating around.

2/21/2008 12:18:15 PM

One thing I've realized is there is fearmongering going on, but it is coming more from people who are against the act.

The Protect America Act provides that warrantless wiretapping only be allowed on people outside of the US. At worst, it is open to loose interpretation by federal agents, which could possibly result in seizure of computers and cellphones of a US citizen who is found to have links with a foreign threat.

Claims of Consititution-shredding and slippery-slope arguments are just fearmongering.

2/21/2008 1:03:46 PM

If GWB thought FISA was so important, why did he insist his administration didn't need to follow it?

2/21/2008 1:15:22 PM

^^ Thank you.

2/21/2008 4:52:53 PM

Quote :

"It's what seperates a big part of gov't control from the people. It's about our right, as humans, to be left the hell alone."

but EarthDogg didn't 9/11 change everything?? i mean we need to sacrifice our civil rights in order for Big Brother to protect us from the terrorists.... [/sarcasm]


^ no hooksaw its all about stepping stones. I do not support universal health care; but the GOP used the stepping stone rationale to vote against the children's health care bill because it was the first step into eliminating universal health care. Why then can those who care about our civil liberties not use the same logic to oppose the FISA bill which is a stepping stone for the increase in executive power with any oversight of the checks and balances system.

I respect your political positions but even if you are right where this really does solely pertain to foreign phone calls what is the problem with people looking out and questioning the motives of our government regardless of what party is in control.

2/21/2008 5:17:50 PM

^

Quote :

"I respect your political positions. . . ."

I want to believe you. But I'll truly believe that when I see more sentences like the latter and fewer like "DEY TUK YER JOBS!" or some such ridiculousness.

Quote :

". . .what is the problem with people looking out and questioning the motives of our government regardless of what party is in control."

No problem at all--in fact, that is precisely what should happen. But reasoned questioning should be based on an understanding of the facts and not one's hatred of Bush or Republicans or a blame-America-first approach.

2/22/2008 1:34:19 AM

I don't hate republicans just the fear and war mongering GOP politicians like Bush & Co.

2/22/2008 9:52:46 AM

Quote :

"The Protect America Act provides that warrantless wiretapping only be allowed on people outside of the US."

This is wrong.

The Protect America Act opens the door for the gov't to surveil any and every call a person IN THE U.S. makes to anyone overseas... or in the vague language of the bill anyone ..."reasonably believed to be located outside the United States."

The amendment also doesn't qualify any purpose for a warrantless surveilance. Qualifications for who can be surveiled and for what purposes were never clarified in the amendment.

The FISA act basically removed the independent judge that stands between the gov't and its target citizens...and the "Protect America Act" goes further to even remove the services of the star-chambered FISA judge.

The amount of power this act grants to the fed. government, as well as the high potential for mass trashing of the 4th Amendment should worry every liberty-minded citizen.

2/22/2008 10:31:31 AM

Quote :

" Qualifications for who can be surveiled and for what purposes were never clarified in the amendment. "

From the wiki article:

"a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information"

This is not North Korea. Its not like they want to know the whereabouts and activities of every single person making international calls to see if they are planning a coup or wanting to defect.

Obviously, its to expedite the process of tracking terrorists. If they have to wait 3 hours to go through the court, thats plenty of time to lose track of someone.

Looks, its good to keep an eye on what the government is doing. They are on the knife edge of being within the Constitution, but they have to be to keep up with today's technologies. There's no need for this alarmist talk. Now, what they're doing in Gitmo is another story...

[Edited on February 22, 2008 at 12:01 PM. Reason : .]

2/22/2008 11:54:17 AM

Some also don't seem to realize that the current approach is to identify patterns of communication. Does anyone remember how intelligence agencies were harshly criticized for not connecting the dots leading up to 9-11? Now that these agencies are working hard to connect the dots, they're still being harshly criticized--and is that any big surprise?

2/22/2008 12:02:33 PM

Quote :

"Obviously, its to expedite the process of tracking terrorists. If they have to wait 3 hours to go through the court, thats plenty of time to lose track of someone."

No they don't. They are allowed to seek approval with the FISA court after the fact, that has been VERY lenient granting any request that is remotely legitimate.

2/22/2008 12:12:48 PM

Quote :

"This is not North Korea. Its not like they want to know the whereabouts and activities of every single person making international calls to see if they are planning a coup or wanting to defect. "

the roman republic did not magically become the roman empire overnight. Anyone who thinks that US is immune from the same kind of political processes that have throughout history morphed an otherwise democratic civil liberty protecting gov't into a more authoritarian one is only fooling themselves.

I am gonna get some flame but for our TWW nerds perhaps you should rewatch star wars episodes I through III and analyze how palpatine used fear and war to slowly transition the galactic republican into the empire. It may be fiction but George Lucas based as an allegory of world history.

[Edited on February 22, 2008 at 12:30 PM. Reason : aa]

2/22/2008 12:22:08 PM

Quote :

"its to expedite the process of tracking terrorists."

They're also expediating the process of leaving nothing but a shell of a republic for the terrorists to attack. Can liberty and security go hand in hand?

Quote :

"that the current approach is to identify patterns of communication. Does anyone remember how intelligence agencies were harshly criticized for not connecting the dots leading up to 9-11?"

With only secret oversight, we really don't know what the heck they're doing, do we?

And, Hook my old friend, all they had to do to connect the dots was pay more attention to the FBI field reports on the Arab aliens who were taking flight school-with no wish to learn to take off or land. Preventing 911 would not have required shredding the 4th Amendment.

2/22/2008 6:26:31 PM

the democrats aren't standing up to the bush administration because, while they see him as using these things to create fear, THEIR biggest fear is that when in power they may have to use these same tools

2/23/2008 11:26:37 AM

Quote :

"that the current approach is to identify patterns of communication. Does anyone remember how intelligence agencies were harshly criticized for not connecting the dots leading up to 9-11?""

hindsight is 20/20. People say the same shit about pearl harbor in 1941.

2/23/2008 4:23:16 PM

bttt on request

7/5/2008 8:51:06 PM

on request of hooksaw?

7/5/2008 8:54:11 PM

i never posted here earlier cause i couldnt care less about this shit



but i just posted about fisa in another thread so i guess i'll quote it...i was speaking in regards to obamas position on fisa

Quote :

"FISA- doesnt affect me so i could care less what position he supports"

7/5/2008 8:56:07 PM

You do realize that the thread you just created is about Obama's support of a FISA compromise, right?

Did you even read the article you linked?

[Edited on July 5, 2008 at 9:05 PM. Reason : 2]

7/5/2008 9:03:39 PM

you do realize the title of my thread is "obamas ability to compromise"



which i'm guessing over the next few months can be used for multiple things



but thanks for trying

7/5/2008 9:05:29 PM

Can we get a reason on why dnl is allowed to post freely in this section? He asked to bttt a thread that was over 4 months dead just to tell us he doesn't give a shit about FISA? Really?

[Edited on July 6, 2008 at 12:12 AM. Reason : a]

7/6/2008 12:12:09 AM

^ Just FYI: I requested the BTTT of this thread because the Obama flip-flop on FISA is topical and because Bush was so vilified here and elsewhere concerning FISA. I just want to see if the left-wing moonbats here will be consistent in their condemnation as it relates to Obama--I think the answer is self-evident, though.

But I couldn't agree more about drunkntarded. He should be strongly encouraged not to post in this section.

7/6/2008 12:27:04 AM

What exactly is the "compromise"? That whole NYT article just talked about all the people who were angered and not one mention on what the "compromise" legislation is.

7/6/2008 1:57:29 PM

^^^lol, suspend

7/6/2008 1:58:30 PM

This is not chit chat you downy. Stop with the god damn posts that don't address the damn topic.

Like

Quote :

"FISA- doesnt affect me so i could care less what position he supports"

You think we really give a shit when you decide to not have any position on your civil liberties or your security?

When my last post has a question about the compromise legislation, I don't want to come to TSB and see a new reply has come to this thread only to waste my time clicking on it to read some bullshit you just posted you fucking irresponsible prick. Stay the fuck out with that mess.

[Edited on July 6, 2008 at 2:03 PM. Reason : a]

7/6/2008 2:02:28 PM

suspend

7/6/2008 2:03:02 PM

I read the salon article. For the most part, I haven't jumped into this race yet, not sure if I'll go with more of the same or a fresh face, but up to this point, all the knocks on Obama (outside basic Democrat issues) weren't deal breakers for me. But doing an about facing and caving in a big way on this one could really be that deal breaker. How can a Democrat by definition not oppose this legislation?

[Edited on July 6, 2008 at 5:39 PM. Reason : a]

7/6/2008 5:38:09 PM

^ Glad I voted "no preference" in the primary...

Disregarding the 4th amendment is an unequivocal assault on the U.S. Constitution.

Quote :

"EarthDogg: Everyone should just take their copies of the Bill of Rights and white out the fourth one."

Pretty much.

7/6/2008 9:01:15 PM

Quote :

"I think his My feelings are hurt because it paints his my party in a bad light."

BobbyDigital

Quote :

"What part of 'No ex post facto law shall be passed.' does Bush Obama not understand?"

spöokyjon

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=514471&page=1

All fixed.

Quote :

"the democrats aren't standing up to the bush administration because, while they see him as using these things to create fear, THEIR biggest fear is that when in power they may have to use these same tools"

Cherokee

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=514471&page=2

The prophet profits.

7/7/2008 2:58:37 AM

here's a more in-depth look at the FISA bill
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/fisa-compromise.ars

Quote :

"Specifically, the new legislation dramatically expands the government's ability to wiretap without meaningful judicial oversight, by redefining "oversight" so that the feds can drag their feet on getting authorization almost indefinitely. It also gives the feds unprecedented new latitude in selecting eavesdropping targets, latitude that could be used to collect information on non-terrorist-related activities like P2P copyright infringement and online gambling. In short, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 opens up loopholes so large that the feds could drive a truck loaded down with purloined civil liberties through it. So the telecom immunity stuff is just the smoke; let's take a look at the fire. "

7/8/2008 9:16:05 AM

Senate passes telecom immunity, eavesdropping regs

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate approved and sent to the White House a bill overhauling controversial rules on secret government eavesdropping Wednesday, bowing to President Bush's demand to protect telecommunications companies from lawsuits complaining they helped the U.S. spy on Americans. The relatively one-sided vote, 69-28, came only after a lengthy and bitter debate that pitted privacy and civil liberties concerns against the desire to prevent terrorist attacks. It ended almost a year of wrangling over surveillance rules and the president's warrantless wiretapping program that was initiated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJKgeE0Z-SivATjok-utYBdh9wDwD91QHLB80

7/9/2008 7:21:42 PM

7/9/2008 7:55:22 PM

The god damn right wingers have instilled so much fear in everyone regarding the T word that they've managed to cave the Dems on basic rights to privacy who don't want to look weak on T.

7/9/2008 8:11:59 PM

am i the only one that is not affected by this thing or what?

7/9/2008 8:19:43 PM

Quote :

"The god damn right wingers have instilled so much fear in everyone regarding the T word that they've managed to cave the Dems on basic rights to privacy who don't want to look weak on T."

Look, I think the Republicans are acting like thugs on this one too, but could you just, you know, maybe admit that the Democrats - at least those who caved, including Obama, may have their own responsibility in the matter?

You know, instead of it all being "the right wingers' fault." Kind of like the PATRIOT ACT, which last I recall, passed in the Senate 98-1.

[Edited on July 9, 2008 at 9:08 PM. Reason : .]

7/9/2008 8:53:03 PM

What I'm saying is the Dems, who swept into majorities in both places still fear the "weak on terror" moniker that they keep getting slapped with. I'm blaming them for caving, but the political environment is so charged and the GOP is just that much better at it than them, that I'm not all that surprised.

7/9/2008 9:59:02 PM

Here's the thing - not every Democrat has succumbed to that, and some have even run against that. See, for example, Sen. John Tester (D-MT), who unseated an incumbent (Conrad Burns) who ran ads specifically attacking him for opposing the the PATRIOT Act. Tester ran with it, and carried away the election.

The whole "Republicans are capitalizing on terrorism!" meme worked until about 2004. Now it's just an excuse for folding like lawnchairs.

The reason this scare tactic works is because Democrats are more worried about getting re-elected than in doing what's right. Despite the fact that doing what's right can actually get them elected in the first place.

[Edited on July 9, 2008 at 10:24 PM. Reason : .]

7/9/2008 10:22:08 PM

Barack Obama lost any hope I'd vote for him with his behavior on this.



Lick sack you two-faced, made-for-TV douchebag.

Fearmongering comes in many shades and parties.

7/10/2008 1:46:41 AM

^ Well, welcome to the party, pal--and I don't mean any political party. It seems you've finally come to the realization that Obama is flip-flopping like a flounder out of water.

There's always Nader.

[Edited on July 10, 2008 at 1:57 AM. Reason : .]

7/10/2008 1:56:00 AM

^ Uh...to be fair, I probably wasn't going to vote for him anyway. I certainly didn't vote for him in the primaries. (Nor Hilary, don't get your panties in a wad.)

The State of NC seems insistent that I select from a wet noodle on TORTURE or a wet noodle on SPYING ON ME. Sure, there's always Nader, but I'd honestly rather smear my own feces on the ballot than vote for somebody I don't think is up to the task. So, rather than accept my counterproposal--voting for someone who satisfies my conscience--North Carolina would rather disenfranchise this lifelong resident by tossing out his ENTIRE FUCKING BALLOT.

Oh, and...



[Edited on July 10, 2008 at 5:08 AM. Reason : FUCK YEAH]

7/10/2008 4:58:42 AM

I don't mind Obama pandering to the right to sniff up votes... but don't do it by voting away my privacy rights....

Jeeez!

7/10/2008 10:53:56 AM