 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
An Attack on American Civil Liberties
|
Sen. Obama supported one of the worst attacks on civil liberties in recent history, the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, which extended an earlier law granting law enforcement expanded powers to search telephone, e-mail, and financial and medical records, in addition to granting the federal government a host of other powers to combat so-called domestic terrorism. After saying he would oppose it if elected to the U.S. Senate (NOW questionnaire, 9/10/03), in July 2005, Obama voted for it.
But this wasn’t enough. After entering the presidential race and running on a “change” message, Obama vowed in February of 2008 to vote against--and filibuster if necessary--the FISA bill amendment (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) that gave immunities to telecommunications corporations that cooperated with the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program. This eavesdropping program clearly violated the privacy of law-abiding Americans at the behest of the president, and made the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover seem tame by comparison. Those voting in favor of the bill didn’t even first require full disclosure to see how deep the illegal conduct extended and agreed to apply the law retroactively.
Despite his promises to the contrary, and despite the vehement protests of many of his supporters, when the FISA bill came to the Senate for a vote this past July, Sen. Obama voted for it without explaining how this vote fit in with his change message or reconciled with his repeated claims he was going to protect the American people from repeated assaults on civil liberties by President Bush. Here was his chance to lead and make good on his promise, and what did he do?
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called the FISA bill “an unconstitutional domestic spying bill that violates the Fourth Amendment and eliminates any meaningful role for judicial oversight of government surveillance“ (ACLU press release, 7/9/08). Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office called the bill “a Constitutional nightmare” and noted “with one vote, Congress has strengthened the executive branch, weakened the judiciary and rendered itself irrelevant.”
Obama even voted to stop debate on the bill so he could get back to the campaign trail. How ironic is it that he was in a hurry to give more speeches about change and hope but couldn’t find the time or integrity to convert these ideas into action?
On the eve of the vote MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow noted “I’m betting that [Pres. Bush’s] wildest dreams did not include the prospect that Congress -- a Democratic-led Congress -- would help him cover up his crimes. Yet that is exactly what the US Senate is poised to do.” (Countdown with Keith Olbermann, 7/8/08)
Read all of BirchBricker's blogs >>
Not registered? Click here
|
Share this
|
Report this
|
Okay, the election is over and Obama will be our next president. Like him or not try to support the guy until he earns your distrust by doing something as president that is not in the best interest of the United States. Another 4/8 years of president bashing even before the person takes office is something this country can ill afford.
Robert Capp
At lease he's started off on the right foot. He may be better than we first thought. Time will tell.
Hey Bcapp1, he has already earned our distrust by his performance in the Senate! We don't need to wait to see what he does as President for him to earn our distrust when he has a spineless Senate voting record where he has gone against the American people and voted for funding the war and authorizing such things as the patriot act and FISA bill. I think the only good thing Obama did in his entire career in the Senate was casting a vote against the Military Commissions Act of 2006. His anti-progressive history in the Senate is what led me to cast my vote for a real and honest candidate this year. That was Ralph Nader.
Misfit,
Congratulations, you and I both voted for a loser-though not the same one. All I ask is that we give him a chance once he becomes president. That is something that was not done for our current president 8 years ago and has been an albatross around his neck ever since.
Robert Capp
BirchBricker, The FISA act may be a necessity in times like this. Our enemies don't play by the rules, so anything that gives us a chance at stopping terrorism before it is performed should have our approval. The argument of who's right on this point is moot, I would much rather have my government violate my civil rights during a phone conversation or email transmission than to have my civil rights terminated forever by a terrorist. I enjoy being right but not dead right.
Now, like a couple of the previous posters said, let's give the man a chance. Who knows, we may be pleasantly surprised. Oh, and I also voted for a loser.
Loomisresident: I'm sorry but that's cowardice. I disagree that our civil liberties need to be trampled in order to make me "feel" safe. How many charges have stuck in the final judgement using the Patriot Act & FISA? Our government should never enact laws merely in order to allow them to do whatever they want. That's licentiousness. What's to stop them from going farther? This may sound extreme, but Nazi Germany started out slowly & the people also supported the idea of trading civil liberties off for the illusion of safety. Fear mongering is a great way to scare the people into subjection. Do we really want to be as empty, shallow & callous as our enemies?
Birchbricker:
perhaps you missed the memo: 0bama is not a senator anymore
and perhaps you did not realize that the American media got 0bama elected
with a supporting role from money in the middle east and Europe
and a special role by Hamas members in Gaza, seen in videos calling America to get out the vote for their man, 0bama and the German media, especially Reuters, was in the bag for Hitler much as the American media was/is in the tank for 0bama
so I reckon I have to agree with the Nazi-like meme you present about 0bama and the media
cool !
but I do have to disagree about the FISA powers
we need to spy on phone calls to/from overseas
and we can do it legally
intercept the call outside the US territory !
and hey, we're doing that already
so what's the big deal ?
it's not like we're spying on America-America phone calls here without proper authorization
but to bcapp and loomis
I have to disagree with you gents
I think 0bama should be treated as Bush was, and worse
it is time to show the world that
a) we have (hopefully) not been completed taken over by a modern day Hitler/German media
b) we have the same will to destroy the country to "get" the president as the left had
and with the same destructive results
then maybe we can toss out both major parties
and the two party system
Lincoln ran and won in a 4 or 5 way race as far as I recall
we need more and better voices than what we had/have
Mr Loomisresident, Your thinking is scary. The ends do NOT justify the means. Is "winning", or your idea of winning come at any cost? True peace and democracy, the kind that lasts, comes only from a change of heart and then the actions that demonstrate that change. The most primary of any mans basic human needs, must be met first. Dignity of the human being, IS A GOD GIVEN RIGHT. NO MAN has the right to take that away from any other human being, not Fidel Castro, not Dwight Eisenhower, not George Bush and certainly not you or me. Osama Bin Laden must be cracking up in his hideout. He could never have dreamed that his attack on our country would have produced the annialation of not only what is left of our economic solvency but the destruction of our US Constitution!!! Now we have millions of Americans passively handing over every law, every right, given to us by God, fought and died for by hundreds of thousands because we are blind and yes, COWARDS!!!! Unbridled fear is a wonderful weapon and sadly, has most certainly been used by our own government as well as by Osama Bin Laden. It's time for real change (or am I allowed to say that under the Patriot Act??????)
Lomisresident: Your thinking is scary! The dignity of the human being is a God given right, not to be taken away by Castro, Eisenhower, Bush, or you & me. The ends do NOT justify the means. Osama bin Ladin must be laughing in his hideout. Never in his wildest dreams could he have imagined that his attack on our country would have not only destroyed what is left of our economic solvency but even the US Constitution as well. Millions of Americans are passivly handing over rights that hundreds of thousands have died for & that makes us COWARDS!!! Unbridled fear is a powerful weapon & sadly has been used by our own government as well as Osama bin Ladin.
For some reason my 1st comment didn't post so I recapped it & posted it again. It should have posted itself after birchbricker. Weird.
Birch, before you start spewing garbage about cowardice let me tell you that I have lived through three revolutions including the last one that placed Fidel Castro in power. The Batista regime, brutal as it was was forced to play by the rules by the Eisenhower administration, those rules obviously did not apply to the rebel forces. Do I need to mention that they won? Also, by infringing on civil rights they have managed to stay in power a lot longer than the Batista regime did, 49 years to be exact, well 50 years come January 1, 2009. Now, I'm not advocating the total trampling of rights like it is practiced in Cuba but we must be able to gather intelligence to maintain the security of this country.
An analogy are the sobriety checkpoints, I would much rather have my "civil rights" violated for a couple of minutes by a police officer than having them violated forever by a drunk driver, the former may make me a little late, the latter will keep me from ever getting to my destination.
If it takes being empty, shallow and callous as our enemies to beat them, then that's fine by me.
Chivalry is dead, to the winner go the spoils.
I didn't mean that you are a coward. I mean that your idea is cowardly. It was not a personal attack. We can do better that shallow, callous & empty. Chivalry is not dead. If it were, it would surely be a sad day for the world.
"The spoils going to the winner" is a terribly unjust mantra.
Whats to stop lawmakers from enacting more laws that allow them to trample our rights & liberties? If we allow it now, won't we eventually be like Cuba?
Thank you, Observer. Good points.
BB
If a person is not breaking the law, they have nothing to worry about.
richthink: The US Constitution is clear in that our government can not spy on it's own people. Don't let them make our decisions for us! Trading away our liberties is a slippery slope. I do not want my rights trampled. I'm not doing anything wrong either, but that's not the point. Why even have a Constitution or a Bill of Rights if they are ignored?
All, maybe I did not make myself very clear. I'm not advocating the loss of civil rights forever as has happened in Communist countries. What I am saying is that in times of war, and I do believe we are at war albeit an unconventional one, that any means necessary to protect the Country should be allowed.
I get a big kick of people that would rather risk this country and it's citizens than use whatever means are necessary to secure victory over those that not only do not play by the rules but that will resort to whatever it takes to destroy us.
Unfortunately, that is the position that the ACLU takes, that's fine but I certainly have the option to disagree, isn't that one of the rights provided by the Constitution or are we going to be selective.
Observer , I agree that Bin Laden is in his hideout laughing at us but not because of what you believe but because he thinks we are fools by playing by rules he has no intention of following. It's you and the ACLU that are making his job much easier. Let's wait and see how things go in the future, one of us is going to be proven right, in the meantime all the banter is pointless.
BB:
The constitution requires that search and seizure not occur unless there probable cause. Case law has determined the meaning of probable cause. The patriot act allows that determination to be made without jumping through a lot of hoops. Frankly, I am willing to give law enforcement the benefit of the doubt and allow them to make their own conclusion relating to probable cause. I want to be secure in my home and Country. We like in a time where a large group of individuals resemble humans only in form. Desperate times result in careful protectionist measures. I think most people agree with me.
Then most Americans are becoming cowards. I would rather NOT give the government the benefit of the doubt.
Basically what I hear people saying here is - I trust the government not to abuse this power... that's ok, I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway ...as long as I'm not doing anything wrong, I have nothing to worry about. This is a dangerously naïve position to take. Are you of the mistaken belief that relinquishing your civil liberties will only be a temporary measure, to be restored once the threat of terrorism has disappeared (unattainable)? You won't get them back. The Patriot Act and FISA are designed to be permanent.
This is probably the biggest reason I just could not vote for Obama. He voted for both, he will do nothing to change it, and he will do nothing to hold anyone accountable for the violations of civil liberties which have already occurred. I believe he will continue where the Bush Administration left off. There is talk that Obama will appoint Jane Harman, author of HR 1955, to a Homeland Security position. It doesn’t exactly foster hope that we can expect anything different regarding this issue with Obama as President.